President Ron Paul At War

[Aloysius]

I think it's interesting to note: as president, Ron Paul would enforce any war which is declared by the congress by a declaration of war. So if you agree with everything else Ron Paul says but think that there should still be a war carried out in Iraq, here's my suggestion: vote for Ron Paul as president then support your local warhawk congressman. Call up your congressman and tell him to put to a vote a Declaration of War against Iraqui Insurgency Groups. If congress declares war on those groups, Ron Paul would enforce that war.

I've recently begun taking a much more anti-iraq-war stance than I have in the past, finding myself in newfound agreement with non-interventionalism as defined traditionally by conservative republicans... and I must say, it feels kind of cool when your deep republican-conservative convictions put you in agreement with the Pope on that issue ...but I started supporting Ron Paul more for his other positions than for this position, so I'd offer this out there to the conservatives who might notice that Ron Paul, when he had the same positions as he does now, was lauded by Ronald Reagan for defending liberty; and thus begin to see that Ron Paul is the only candidate offering policies in continuity with the Republican Tradition, but might think we need to stay longer in Iraq: this is the solution. If you think our national security necessitates fighting against the Iraqui Insurgency, believe in the Constitutional Process which would pit our military against that insurgency.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's reasonable to say we shouldn't have gone to war because no declaration of war. but, to say we should pull out because of it, is unreasonable. it might be good policy to pull out, but not because of the constituion.
we can't ignore that we broke the constituion to begin with. be reasonable. like ron paul is not for imply we should pull out becaus eof that. though, he did say we should because of policy but.
[url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=l__njUeOI9o"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=l__njUeOI9o[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

wow, he even says we shouldn't have the department of homeland security, or helping hurricane disasters. in that video.

he even rationalizes that homeland is ineffective...
saying we're just as safe iwhtout it. i think he's lost touch with reality, to a degree.
i wonder if the CIA or FBI are mentioned in the constituion expressly enough to him.

Edited December 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIohGmkC_tU&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIohGmkC_tU&NR=1[/url]

he does oppose FBI and CIA and got laughed at for it...


i also think that "liberty and not intrusion" for antiFBI wiretapping is often going too far. it's nice and rhetorical, but not very practical.
when franklin or who it was said that anynoe who's willing to sacrafice liberty deserves not liberty, i think he was being very PC and such but you have to balance it with realism.

sure, congress could pass an amendment, but what if 13 states oppose it? if you can find it within the const, then let it go and be realistic. don't be a legalist. (though you could say those who "infer" things into the const at being legalists but)
but he's acting like the reason they're bad is because of they smell of elderberries, not unconst. (though it might be that unconst ultimately)

Edited December 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E...feature=related[/url]

ron paul did better in this debate. though both make somewhat compelling arguments.

but, it's not keep the surge or kill it all completely. there's prob a happy medium.

[dairygirl4u2c]

besides my ice example, that link you provided specifically is interesting in this specifically.

[quote]At the Aspen FACE site, effects of the greenhouse gases become obvious immediately upon stepping into the different rings. The forest patches receiving extra carbon dioxide have large, tall trees and a dense leaf canopy, under which a few scattered grasses compete for the little light that trickles through to the ground. Step next into a circle with elevated ozone, and the trees are shorter, with smaller trunks and a lower, lacier canopy. The ring is bright and sunny and the ground is hidden beneath thick understory growth two or more feet high.[/quote]

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430684' date='Dec 7 2007, 08:43 PM']I think it's interesting to note: as president, Ron Paul would enforce any war which is declared by the congress by a declaration of war. So if you agree with everything else Ron Paul says but think that there should still be a war carried out in Iraq, here's my suggestion: vote for Ron Paul as president then support your local warhawk congressman. Call up your congressman and tell him to put to a vote a Declaration of War against Iraqui Insurgency Groups. If congress declares war on those groups, Ron Paul would enforce that war.

I've recently begun taking a much more anti-iraq-war stance than I have in the past, finding myself in newfound agreement with non-interventionalism as defined traditionally by conservative republicans... and I must say, it feels kind of cool when your deep republican-conservative convictions put you in agreement with the Pope on that issue ...but I started supporting Ron Paul more for his other positions than for this position, so I'd offer this out there to the conservatives who might notice that Ron Paul, when he had the same positions as he does now, was lauded by Ronald Reagan for defending liberty; and thus begin to see that Ron Paul is the only candidate offering policies in continuity with the Republican Tradition, but might think we need to stay longer in Iraq: this is the solution. If you think our national security necessitates fighting against the Iraqui Insurgency, believe in the Constitutional Process which would pit our military against that insurgency.[/quote]
Why wouldn't Ron Paul enforce the declaration of war against Iraq that Congress made before we went into Iraq in 2003?

As for "the Republican Tradition", Ron Paul and the isolationists neither are traditional Republicans, or traditional in the sense that they follow the Founding Fathers. Any serious student of American foreign policy knows that the idea that America was built on isolationism is a lie, unless of course you've never studied our foreign policy history outside of relations with Europe. The Republicans first President was Abraham Lincoln, who sent troops into Mexico when France decided to take it over during the Civil War. Hardly any isolationist ideals in the founding of the Republican party either.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Justin86

[Justin86]

One more thing, its also completely useless to vote for Ron Paul as he has no chance of winning.

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist.

Congress did not declare war, it gave the power to the president to use force. Ron Paul introduced, to be voted upon, a Declaration of War against Iraq. They refused to vote on it. Might sound like a terminological difference, but it really isn't: when Congress declares war, that's Congress's war. It sets the goals for the war, it makes every congressman directly responsible for that war. It is clearly defined by the Constitution that a Declaration of War must be made. Ron Paul offered one to Congress to be voted upon, it was ignored.

Why does Congress refuse to Declare War? It's an interesting questtion. The last time Congress declared war was against Imperial Japan/Nazi Germany.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist, he simply does not believe in sending our military all around the world to solve all the world's problems, or sending it to enforce UN resolutions. He will send the military to deal with problems when authorized to do so by congress (he voted to authorize sending the military to go fight Al Quaida), and he will execute a war against a Sovereign Nation if the Congress of the United States declares war upon that nation.

not a semantical difference. a very important difference, it sets clear goals to be met.

a non-interventionist beleives in not interfering in the interior affairs of another nation, and doesn't believe in getting into intangling alliances; but we can send our military to go protect our national secuirity or even to help another nation in trouble (but we do not then go and build that nation up according to our own ideas for their interior affairs) but we only do this when Congress declares war.

it is those who label Paul an isolationist who are historically confused.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1430920' date='Dec 7 2007, 10:09 PM']One more thing, its also completely useless to vote for Ron Paul as he has no chance of winning.[/quote]
he is at the same point in the polls now that John Kerry was in at this time in the Democratic Primaries four years ago.

anyway, it is exactly this thought process which DESTROYS our democracy, who the candidates are becomes decided by who is most likely to win, not who is the best candidate.

Ron Paul will surprise people. Maybe he won't win, but not trying on the basis of him not being plausible is pure and utter defeatism; and I will not participate in such a process. When you use your vote in that way, your vote affects nothing, it simply reflects existing polls. You would be better off not voting, and it won't make a darned difference.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Im not voting for him because...I dunno.
He doesnt seem as strong as Romney to me...I dont think Ron Paul can win the Republican spot.

How many threads have you made about Ron Paul anyways?
I feel like you are shoving this all down our throats...he isnt the ONLY good candidate in my opinion.
You are kinda turning me off from Ron Paul...
[/size]

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430927' date='Dec 8 2007, 12:17 PM']he is at the same point in the polls now that John Kerry was in at this time in the Democratic Primaries four years ago.[/quote]
John Kerry was only supported by 2% of the American people at this time last primary? Why do I doubt this....

[quote]Ron Paul will surprise people.[/quote]
He'll fade away from our memories like Ralph Nader.

As for nation building that's what we've been doing ever since the Spanish-American War with the Philippines, Germany, Japan, et all. Get over it. We do it, and with alot of success.

[Justin86]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1430949' date='Dec 8 2007, 12:34 PM'][size=1]Im not voting for him because...I dunno.
He doesnt seem as strong as Romney to me...I dont think Ron Paul can win the Republican spot.

How many threads have you made about Ron Paul anyways?
I feel like you are shoving this all down our throats...he isnt the ONLY good candidate in my opinion.
You are kinda turning me off from Ron Paul...
[/size][/quote]
Ron Paul is the only candidate worth considering. Resurrect the Republic, Ron Paul '08! All of your country are belong to us.

[Aloysius]

I think I've started around 3 Ron Paul topics... other ron paul topics have been started by others and I've participated in them.

shoving him down your throats? oh come on. I'm simply offering interesting topics of conversation. I do believe he is the only good candidate, [url="http://defendlife.blogspot.com/2007/11/evaluation-of-presidential-candidates.html"]when judged against the Bishop's recent document[/url] he far surpasses every other candidate, and I don't trust Romney to do anything about abortion. The only two candidates who will do anything about abortion are Huckabee and Paul, and I feel Huckabee's plan for a constitutional ammendment is a lot less feasible, direct, and effective than Paul's Sanctity of Life act would be.

but this thread is about the war.

I don't know how I'm coming accross to you, but the reasoning that you don't like some supporter of some candidate disqualifying him is just as bad or worse (yeah, actually much worse) than the reasoning of voting for the one the polls tell you is the most likely.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430964' date='Dec 8 2007, 12:42 PM']I think I've started around 3 Ron Paul topics... other ron paul topics have been started by others and I've participated in them.

shoving him down your throats? oh come on. I'm simply offering interesting topics of conversation. I do believe he is the only good candidate, when judged against the Bishop's recent document he far surpasses every other candidate, and I don't trust Romney to do anything about abortion. The only two candidates who will do anything about abortion are Huckabee and Paul, and I feel Huckabee's plan for a constitutional ammendment is a lot less feasible, direct, and effective than Paul's Sanctity of Life act would be.

but this thread is about the war.

I don't know how I'm coming accross to you, but the reasoning that you don't like some supporter of some candidate disqualifying him is just as bad or worse (yeah, actually much worse) than the reasoning of voting for the one the polls tell you is the most likely.[/quote]
The type of devotion being paid to Paul by his supporters is the same that was paid to Nader. It just smells like uselessness.