Congressman Ron Paul

  • Thread starter Sage
  • 370 comments
  • 17,393 views
Solid Lifters
Any of you see this? Video interview available.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970818&page=1
Click to expand...

Wow,

He really should be running as a libertarian. He's really not a republican. The foreign policy interview there is still scary. He wouldn't protect Taiwan, wouldn't protect South Korea, wouldn't have protected Kuwait. That kind of isolationist policy doesn't engender allies of any kind, an ensures that in other matters the country with the biggest gun will win.
 
Danoff
Wow,

He really should be running as a libertarian. He's really not a republican. The foreign policy interview there is still scary. He wouldn't protect Taiwan, wouldn't protect South Korea, wouldn't have protected Kuwait. That kind of isolationist policy doesn't engender allies of any kind, an ensures that in other matters the country with the biggest gun will win.
Click to expand...

He will and would have if Congress declares war.

I wouldn't go to war with China over Taiwan, though. They're our banker.
 
Omnis
He will and would have if Congress declares war.

I wouldn't go to war with China over Taiwan, though. They're our banker.
Click to expand...

Yes, China could hurt us financially, but to do so would be utter and complete ruin for them. I don't think they'd do it. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't have to go to war with them over Taiwan if they believe we'll go to war with them over Taiwan. If Ron Paul is President and says "I won't go to war with you over Taiwan" and they believe it, they'll invade immediately.
 
Danoff
Yes, China could hurt us financially, but to do so would be utter and complete ruin for them. I don't think they'd do it. But that's not the point. The point is that we don't have to go to war with them over Taiwan if they believe we'll go to war with them over Taiwan. If Ron Paul is President and says "I won't go to war with you over Taiwan" and they believe it, they'll invade immediately.
Click to expand...

What President should say that if they are not usurping war powers that belong to Congress? That is the point he makes. He, as President, is not in the business of preemptive war unless it is a first strike against an imminent danger to the nation. China invading Taiwan is not the President's concern unless Congress declares so.
 
Omnis
What President should say that if they are not usurping war powers that belong to Congress? That is the point he makes. He, as President, is not in the business of preemptive war unless it is a first strike against an imminent danger to the nation. China invading Taiwan is not the President's concern unless Congress declares so.
Click to expand...

If he had said that I wouldn't have taken issue.
 
Danoff
If he had said that I wouldn't have taken issue.
Click to expand...

Well, to understand his positions and the roles of each branch of government makes that the implication.
 
Omnis
What President should say that if they are not usurping war powers that belong to Congress? That is the point he makes. He, as President, is not in the business of preemptive war unless it is a first strike against an imminent danger to the nation. China invading Taiwan is not the President's concern unless Congress declares so.
Click to expand...

That's my problem. Is he the commander in chief or isn't he? He doesn't NEED congress to declare anything to move the armed forces wherever he wants. Granted, it smart to get congressional support. But it's not needed.

Why do you thing the Iranian's gave up the hostages as soon as Reagan got into office? Because they knew he wouldn't wait for congress to make up it's mind.
 
Swift
That's my problem. Is he the commander in chief or isn't he? He doesn't NEED congress to declare anything to move the armed forces wherever he wants. Granted, it smart to get congressional support. But it's not needed.

Why do you thing the Iranian's gave up the hostages as soon as Reagan got into office? Because they knew he wouldn't wait for congress to make up it's mind.
Click to expand...

Sure he can move the armed forces wherever. However, to use the military in an act of war requires a congressional declaration of war as mandated by the constitution.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges with the Iran hostage situation. Incursions into embassies or on diplomats can be considered an act of war by the offending party. The President could then act to rescue the American victims, etc. Now if the hostiles are associated with a country and that country has declared war, obviously Congress could declare war as well. If it's a group with no national association, Congress can grant letters of marque and reprisal on the hostiles with or without US military involvement. Ross Perot, with Colonel Simons, for example, took care of his EDS men who were held hostage in the very same crisis.

Taiwan and China are completely different. The President is commander-in-chief of the US Military, not World Police Chief.
 
Omnis
What President should say that if they are not usurping war powers that belong to Congress? That is the point he makes. He, as President, is not in the business of preemptive war unless it is a first strike against an imminent danger to the nation. China invading Taiwan is not the President's concern unless Congress declares so.
Click to expand...

Quite right; It should not necessarily be the President who makes the decision to go to war. You would think that both Congress and the citizens of the United States would have figured this out after Vietnam, but it certainly was not the case.

Taiwan isn't worth a war. Neither is Korea. Well, Korea makes more sense, but the UN and OSCE would need to step in first. We need to make our decisions based on what is an immediate threat to US policy, but democracy comes first. I understand that this is a dramatic departure from previous stances of my own on US Foreign policy, but I'm just so sick of having to spend money on people who can't take care of themselves.

Which reminds me; We should pull Europe's defense budget while we're at it...
 
Does the Constitution say Ron Paul gets a blimp?

2007_1207_ronpaulblimp.jpg
 
Correct me if I'm wrong; But isn't that one privately paid for and not officially supported by the Ron Paul camp?
 
Solid Fro
Does the Constitution say Ron Paul gets a blimp?

2007_1207_ronpaulblimp.jpg
Click to expand...

:D ronpaulblimp.com It's going to fly across the eastern seaboard and will end up at the boston tea party celebration for the Dec. 16th donation day. 100% grassroots just like the rest of 90% of the campaign.
 
Omnis
Sure he can move the armed forces wherever. However, to use the military in an act of war requires a congressional declaration of war as mandated by the constitution.

Anyway, you're comparing apples and oranges with the Iran hostage situation. Incursions into embassies or on diplomats can be considered an act of war by the offending party. The President could then act to rescue the American victims, etc. Now if the hostiles are associated with a country and that country has declared war, obviously Congress could declare war as well. If it's a group with no national association, Congress can grant letters of marque and reprisal on the hostiles with or without US military involvement. Ross Perot, with Colonel Simons, for example, took care of his EDS men who were held hostage in the very same crisis.

Taiwan and China are completely different. The President is commander-in-chief of the US Military, not World Police Chief.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not say that the President has to wait for congress before a shot is fired or a bomb is dropped. And I'll say it again, the president DID get congressional consent for the Iraq war. I know that's a big thing for RP, but the fact of the matter is it was as legal as it could be. Just because the word "war" wasn't in the bill doesn't mean it was unconstitutional.

I know the Iranian hostage situation was a bit different. but my point was they KNEW Reagan wasn't going to take any crap! That's what I'm talking about. The presence of the president on other nations. Sure, intervention can be a policy that gets us in trouble sometimes. But in the world the way it is NOW, isolationism isn't going to work.
 
Swift
The constitution does not say that the President has to wait for congress before a shot is fired or a bomb is dropped. And I'll say it again, the president DID get congressional consent for the Iraq war. I know that's a big thing for RP, but the fact of the matter is it was as legal as it could be. Just because the word "war" wasn't in the bill doesn't mean it was unconstitutional.

I know the Iranian hostage situation was a bit different. but my point was they KNEW Reagan wasn't going to take any crap! That's what I'm talking about. The presence of the president on other nations. Sure, intervention can be a policy that gets us in trouble sometimes. But in the world the way it is NOW, isolationism isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

It was legal for the President to invade, but it is unconstitutional [illegal] for Congress to cede that power to the executive branch without a declaration of war.

Of course isolationism isn't going to work; that's why RP is a non-interventionist. Just because he's going to bring the troops home from all around the world doesn't mean that America is not going to be a big player on the international stage. We can be diplomatic and solve a lot of problems.

Diplomacy is very difficult to hold with an ever encroaching military behind the conditions, however. It's almost as if any kind of deal we have is constantly "accept or we will attack." That kind of bullying is not what we need. We can be stronger by being a more humble nation.
 
Omnis
It's almost as if any kind of deal we have is constantly "accept or we will attack."
Click to expand...

Really?? I mean, I know that's what we eventually did with Iraq, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of any of the rest of US foreign policy during the Bush admin.
 
Danoff
Really?? I mean, I know that's what we eventually did with Iraq, but I don't think that's a fair characterization of any of the rest of US foreign policy during the Bush admin.
Click to expand...

That's the message it sends when you can see a country's navy from your coast.
 
Omnis
That's the message it sends when you can see a country's navy from your coast.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. Being able to see a country's navy can send multiple messages.

Your final answer to this:

Danoff
That kind of isolationist policy doesn't engender allies of any kind, an[d] ensures that in [foreign affairs] the country with the biggest gun will win.
Click to expand...

was insufficient. I don't want to hear about procedural issues, I want you to acknowledge that this is fact, and that it's important to US interests.
 
Twice this morning I heard an advertisement on the radio for Ron Paul. Needless to say, I was rather excited! I keep forgetting that the Michigan GOP primary is just a few weeks after New Hampshire, and I think Ron Paul has some pretty solid support here at some of the local colleges.

...Get the word out, he can do very well. I hear he finished third in another straw poll in Iowa...

Uh oh! Looks like the media can't stop Ron Paul!
 
Danoff
Your final answer to this was insufficient. I don't want to hear about procedural issues, I want you to acknowledge that this is fact, and that it's important to US interests.
Click to expand...

Oh-- yeah. Originally I thought you wrote endanger, not engender.

Anyway, non-intervention is not supposed to create the entangling alliances that cause us so much trouble in, for example, the middle east. There's no reason we can't make friends without the entanglements though.

I can't see a reason to get the US military involved with a China-Taiwan dispute. The Congress of that time might, however; if a threat to the US does exist then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I think we can help facilitate talks with China and Taiwan to try and quell the conflict. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with people here organizing a mercenary force to help Taiwan or having Taiwan buy into our military industrial complex. If Ron Paul follows the same line of thinking, I don't see how he could disagree. Therefore, the country with the biggest gun won't always win. Our resources are always available via commerce so that the defender has access to adequate defense without our government having to intervene.
 
Omnis
Our resources are always available via commerce so that the defender has access to adequate defense without our government having to intervene.
Click to expand...

Uh... WHAT???!?!?!?!!?!?

You're saying our military is for hire to the highest bidding country?
 
Danoff
Uh... WHAT???!?!?!?!!?!?

You're saying our military is for hire to the highest bidding country?
Click to expand...

No, but security organizations like Blackwater and people who want to go and help Taiwan of their own free will should be able to.
 
Extremely unlikely but so be it. Unless, of course, the government blocks their transaction or something.
 
Omnis
Extremely unlikely but so be it. Unless, of course, the government blocks their transaction or something.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's a proper role of government? Preventing private citizens from fighting for another country's cause? Whether it be the Taiwanese cause of the Chinese.
 
Danoff
Do you think that's a proper role of government? Preventing private citizens from fighting for another country's cause? Whether it be the Taiwanese cause of the Chinese.
Click to expand...

If it affects national security, yes.
 
Well then you have the government, and the people of the US, intervening in foreign affairs that aren't necessarily any of their business. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that you're saying is causing problems?
 

Latest Posts

Back