Posted on 06/06/2007 3:51:56 AM PDT by animusliberti
Despite a limited format with CNN, last night, Rep Ron Paul MD [R-TX] continues to stand out from that crowd.
Particularly, the focus brought to a Christian "Just War" and how he alone declared the immorality of discussing PreEmptive Nuclear Attacks upon a Nation that has not harmed us, namely Iran. Also, his points that the Operation Enduring Freedom is serving a Policeman's role hits us with the impossibilities we have pitted our Brave Forces against.
We need the courage of a Ron Paul!!!!
Ron can go back where he came from. Isolationism is insane in the modern world. We cannot ignore our enemies in the Middle East. They won’t go away if we leave.
Cut-and-Run Ron gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
Go (away) Ron Go (away)!
RuPaul = this year’s McCain for the lefties.
Ron who?
Germany never harmed us.
Simply put, there are people out there who want us all dead, and they will do their best to bring trouble to us. We have to stop them at all costs, before they can kill as many of our people as possible.
While the Iraq War may have been mismanaged, it is still true that Saddam was linked to terrorists and was keeping his WMD program in stasis until he could bribe the UN to lift the sanctions against his regime. Had we not stopped Saddam, we would now have 2 nuclear-armed middle east rogue nations instead of one.
We're currently taking Ron Paul's approach to Iran by waiting for them to turn one of our cities into a crater before we go to disarm them. We do not need more of this head-in-the-sand mentality in our leadership. Ron Paul may be a great libertarian when it comes to domestic issues, but foreign policy is much more complex than he thinks it is.
Ron Paul has some great values, but i cannot agree with defeatism in Iraq.. so one more candidate down the tubes.
“but foreign policy is much more complex than he thinks it is.”
And way beyond his level of skill and abilities.
How many nations would you suggest we disarm? What about North Korea? China? Pakistan?
He “stands out” alright, just a little to whacked for me.
Before he was poisoned by Putin's KGB/FSB Alexandr Litvinenko asserted without hesitation that these al-Qaeda and many other terrorists are trained and directed by the KGB/FSB. Terrorism is the favorite tactic of the KGB/FSB
I have a problem with someone who wants us nuked before we nuke someone else.
“And way beyond his level of skill and abilities.”
Someone else’s judgement, or your own? What are your qualifications, or their’s, to so judge?
Like a sore thumb.
Well, he certainly stood apart from the crowd, I’ll give him that. Just not in a particularly good way...
He stands out from the crowd like a toilet seat in a rose garden. Rave Ron Rave!
Contrary to the impression left by the term, America has and never will be a hermit Republic. It's the scorn word of Interventionism, hurled at those whom question their policies.
The more accurate word is Unilaterism. Unilaterism never means that the Unites States should, or for that matter could, sequester itself or pursue an ostrich-like policy toward all foreign countries. The message of George Washington's Farewell Address was to avoid permanent and entangling alliances to remain neutral in the World's Wars except when our Liberty was at risk.
These words do not isolate America from the world, they keep us Independent of the World. Washington admonished his contemporaries for trying to drag America into the Wars of the World. Interventionist policies are a great threat to Liberty, and America is about nothing if not the Preservation of Liberty.
Lastly, the term Isolationism suggests that, until modern preemptive policies have taken hold, America was void of Foreign Policy. This is a gross characterisation of the most successful Foreign Policy which America (while in the cross-hairs of Empires) grew from Thirteen Agrarian States on the Atlantic into a continent-wide nation that dominated the Hemisphere.
Luckily, at least one man on that stage knows this : )
The poor man and his supporters do not even realize most of the civilized world think he is insane.
He came off whiny and hysterical.
Tell him there is an opening on the view and to stop making a fool of himself at these debates
I honestly don’t know how anyone who calls themselve conservative could even think about supporting anyone but the good Dr. Paul. Especially after last night. The republican party is finished and I could care less. Let them have their nation builders and pro national ID creeps. I honestly can’t believe how far this party has strayed from from doing what is right and sane.
His vote.
Just Cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong (A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations"). Surely Saddam fell into the "aggression or massive violation" category. Does Iran? I'm sure there are human rights abuses constantly, but those don't justify nuclear war. However, Iran's continued rhetoric about destruction of Israel along with their clear intention to build a nuclear weapons program can easily be viewed as aggression on the part of the Iranian nation.
Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other; When you're talking about a nation that is seeking to annihilate Israel with nuclear weapons, it would seem justifiable to me to use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran's ability to destroy Israel. In other words - the injustice that could be suffered by Israel (complete destruction) far outweighs what Iran would suffer (destruction of nuclear weapons facilities). Interestingly, many Just War theorists omit this point because they acknowledge that "bellicose nations" can exploit this point.
Legitimate Authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war; Unless one thiks that the United Nations is a legitimate world authority, then the President of the United States and the Congress are the proper people to be making this decision, as the "duly constituted" leaders of this nation.
Right Intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. Is the protection of Israel and the elimination of the threat of a rogue nation handing nuclear weapons to the terrorists it sponsors a "just cause"? I think it is.
Probability of Success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; This is a no-brainer. We'd clearly be able to achieve our mission - to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.
Last Resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. Tell that to the Japs before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Tell it to Germany before the tanks rolled into France. Tell it to Osama before his planes hit the World Trade Center. Diplomacy is a good thing, but when a threat is building, leaders must know when to stop talking and take action. There is no clear point in time in most situations when it is obvious that all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. Saddam could have kept up his games with us and the UN for 20 years if he'd been allowed to. Iran could do the same, all the while building a deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons that they would be able to unleash on Israel. The role of our leader is to know when the diplomacy is no longer productive - not to just keep talking for the sake of talking.
I believe that this theory does not disallow a pre-emptive war, when that pre-emptive act is undertaken to stop a great evil from occurring. If we launched nuclear weapons with the intention of completely destroying Iran, that would be wrong, but if we targeted their nuclear facilities with the goal of eliminating their ability to make nuclear weapons, then we'd be justified because of the great harm that would occur if they were allowed to obtain these weapons.
“how he alone declared the immorality of discussing PreEmptive Nuclear Attacks upon a Nation that has not harmed us, namely Iran.”
Those roadside IEDs never hurt no one. (sarc)
Thanks for posting this.
Ron Paul did no such thing. Ron Paul was pathetic.
Like a turd in a punchbowl.
Listening to that guy talk made my brain hurt. What a wacko.
My mom got an email a while back from a Ron Paul supporter who goes to our church. She responded to him with a reasoned argument as to why she doesn't support Paul (she isn't sure who she's supporting yet, only that it won't be Paul or Giuliani). His answer back to her was a bit sarcastic. Yesterday, she forwarded him an email I had sent her telling her that Fred Thompson was going to be on Hannity & Colmes after the debate. She didn't push Fred Thompson in any way because she's not sure she likes him - the email reminded everyone that there was a Republican debate at 7 PM and then mentioned that there was another candidate that it would be good to get to know, and that he would be on H&C right after the debate. This is his response to her:
I think that Fred Thompson has a real chance at the Republican nomination due to one and only one fact, the New World Order Globalist controlled propaganda media is pushing for the man........ and Republicans as well as most Americans can't think past what CNN or FOX tells them.
That said....... you can take me off your political email list.....I am done with the political thing...... America as we knew it is finished and America will get what it deserves.
This tells me all I need to know about Ron Paul and his followers. They must drink kool-aid every chance they get.
Medication may help you, or not...
As many as it takes to get the job done. Iran’s citizens have a choice to make - either continue to support their terrorist-loving regime and take a chance that they could be killed in such a pre-emptive strike, or take action to change their nation’s leadership. It is inevitable that some civilians will be killed, but I’m not sure how many of them will be “innocent”. Those who support the I’mADenofJihad regime and its desire to destroy Israel are certainly not.
Good point. We're going to be very busy if we're going to go around the world eliminating every potential threat to us.
Nuclear Pakistan comes to mind.
I suppose that in your view, sponsoring terrorist attacks against Americans and taking innocent American civilians hostage, as has occurred in recent months, doesn't constitute "harming" us.
Is that because his face resembles 10 miles of bad road? ;-)
There must be a balance between isolationism and free markets which have antifreeze from China coming into our borders. It is a brave new world, but one which everyone must grow accustomed to.
And “nation building” (as much as I hate that phrase) is sometimes necessary in a post 9/11 world.
Ron Paul has an outdated political view of the world. He has no chance of getting the nomination. Honestly, I thought he would have dropped out after the first debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
