Republicans trying to ban Ron Paul from future debates
According to this article on mlive.com, the Chairman of the Republican Party, fascist Saul Anuzis, is trying to have Ron Paul banned from future debates. The Republicans are quite clearly shaking in their boots -- if Ron Paul is no threat, why do they need to ban him? It's because he connects with real traditional conservatives, and those who might be re-evaluating the US' war against Iraq. At the moment, he also connects much more with the American populace, at large, than pro-war fascists like Giuliani.
In Germany, politicians like Giuliani, McCain, and Hillary Clinton might be banned for being too neo-Nazi, if the ban on Nazi's was taken seriously (that is, interpretted in policy, not merely name).
Comments (58)
The Chair of the GOP in Michigan to be clear. The censorship of Dr. Paul has not started on the national level yet.
Published: May 16, 2007 7:55 PM
The replacement guy on the Michael Savage radio show said (quoting from memory),
"The people from DailyKos and George Soros [sic] must have blisters on their fingers from dialing in to vote for Ron Paul."
In the neo-con universe, ANYONE who disagrees with them is a "leftist".
Published: May 16, 2007 8:30 PM
Michael Savage claims to love America, but no one (at least on radio) hates more Americans than he.
Published: May 16, 2007 9:13 PM
They are afraid and it shows.
When Giuliani demanded that Dr. Paul retract his (entirely truthful) statements about U.S. foreign policy, my blood was boiling. In Dr. Paul's position, I would have reacted angrily. But Paul kept his cool, stood his ground and made a great impression.
Did you see Dr. Paul on CNN with Wolf Blitzer? It was probably his best short interview yet and was made possible by his courageous foreign policy stand at the debate. Check it out here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/16/ron-paul-demands-giuliani-read-the-9-11-report-apologise/
As for the accusations of poll spamming, are we really to believe that none of the other candidates' supporters are either willing or capable of engaging in the same alleged activities? If anything, the "top-tier" candidates -- being far better financed than Dr. Paul -- could easily arrange for such "cheating" if it were possible.
Make no mistake, the establishment feels VERY threatened by Dr. Paul. They are past ignoring him and are now on the attack. It's already getting ugly but, with any luck, this will backfire. A smear campaign won't change the minds of those who already support Paul and know what the establishment is up to. And Paul, who truly deserves the title "honorable," is such a gentleman that his attackers always end up looking like the scoundrels they are.
God bless Ron Paul!
Published: May 16, 2007 9:14 PM
Ron Paul is such a gem, a rarity. His understanding of the economy as a market process and his adherence to principle makes him unparalleled in the history of politics. America would be able to fulfill its destiny much quicker if Ron Paul was able to make the changes necessary for justice and liberty. Be valiant, our friend Ron Paul!
Published: May 16, 2007 10:00 PM
I'm not for banning, but maybe the reason they are trying is that he is crazy: he did in the second debate try to blame the US and the first Iraq war for the reason why 9/11 happened. The man is a nut.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:09 PM
Many thanks to the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com for their coverage of Ron Paul's campaign. They are educating thousands of people to the symbiotic relationship between corporate media a/k/a the "free press" and the US government. Never let up on this, friends.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:15 PM
Garth,
There is absolutely nothing "nutty" about Dr. Paul's conclusion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a liberal secular society goes meddling in non-liberal, anti-secular lands, there is no question that elements of the latter will attack the former. The liberal society's own charters prohibit discrimination against entry by non-liberal elements.
For that matter, Iraq is the detritus of World War One. The Balkans are the detritus of both world wars. There will be detritus to the first and second Gulf Wars. Thus are the sins of the fathers visited on the sons. Apologize to your children's children's children and tell them to be ready.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:23 PM
Funny, the Republican machinery wants Liberterian oriented voters but not their ideals and especially successful members of their own party that have these ideals.
The truth hurts. The war is a mess. The power and scope of the federal government has never been greater. And it is growing faster than the rest of the country. ONLY Ron Paul points the futility in the current leadership's (Dems and Reps) insistence on being Team America World Cops.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:29 PM
Garth,
What do you know about the history of the Middle East? Did you know that our own CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 and installed the hated Shah? This led to the emergence of Khomeini and the Islamic Republic, a regime that supports and finances radical Shiite factions in Iraq and Lebanon. Even a hard core neocon would have to admit that this is not exactly the most positive outcome.
Or how about our supporting the Mujahideen in their struggle with the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s? We helped to arm these people, and they used these very weapons against American soldiers years later.
Why did we have permanent military bases in the Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia? Bin Laden specifically mentioned this as part of his rationale for the 9/11 attacks.
We also armed our buddy, Saddam Hussein, in his war with Iran - including biological weapons. The only WMDs of any substance he ever possessed were those our government gave him. And when the Cold War ended and the empire-lovers frantically searched for the next bogeyman to slay, three successive administrations made him the next Hitler.
So after 10 brutal years of sanctions and the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, we invaded and now occupy their country under martial law. 9/11, the terrorist attacks in England, Spain, Bali and countless other places is a direct result of these and other policies over the last 60 years.
One does not have to agree with suicide bombings and the barbaric methods used by terrorists to understand why our foreign policy is making Americans and their allays targets. Stop watching "American Idol" and "24" long enough to crack open a book or two about our interventions overseas. You might learn something.
This is what Dr. Paul was referring to in last night's debate. If this is considered the thinking of a crazy man, I guess I'm crazy too.
Published: May 16, 2007 10:54 PM
The GOP is the party of empire. They want Ron Paul out of there as fast as possible. The quickest way out is to ban him from the debates. Then he won't be able to speak the truth and cause Guliani to throw a conniption fit.
I love that Ron Paul is smashing the neoconservatives with his Old-Right brand of conservatism. The neo-cons think they have a lock on conservatives in America. They're finding out just how wrong they are.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:01 PM
Ron Paul and his ideas are a threat to the neo-con establishment and I'll do all I can on my end to get Ron Paul elected and knock down the neo-cons. They are a clear and present danger to our country, or for all the neo-cons out there, our empire.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:27 PM
I'm not for banning, but maybe the reason they are trying is that he is crazy: he did in the second debate try to blame the US and the first Iraq war for the reason why 9/11 happened. The man is a nut.
The first Iraq war was largely fought from bases in Arabia, and the southern no-fly zone was enforced from the same bases. The same US forces also served to prevent any internal or external belligerents from toppling the House of Saud and taking over the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula. Al Qaeda hates the Saudi royal family, hates having American troops in Arabia, and hates seeing the US enforce sanctions on an Arab country which cause humiliation and starvation of their religious brothers. These are some of the major reasons for 9/11.
I hope that's not too nutty for you.
Published: May 16, 2007 11:29 PM
In fact, Osama Bin Laden's war dates from a meeting he had with the Saudi King after Kuwait was invaded;
Bin Laden asked the King not to invite the U.S. army into the kingdom but rather to have Bin Laden prepare a insurgency against Iraq's occupation.
The King rejected his offer, and Osama Bin Laden decided that the King must go.
Now, this does not in any way excuse the attacks on 9/11. That was a particularly heinous episode of mass-murder. However, Ron Paul was correct in that Al Queda has published many papers explaining why they are attacking Americans, and a significant portion of their grievances are in fact the result of U.S. interventionism.
Many Americans have little to no clue what the U.S. government does overseas. This makes it very easy to manipulate their emotions. Most people's impression of the history of U.S. foreign policy would be that the U.S. tries to help everyone, everywhere, and every decade or so, inexplicably, some nation commits suicide by attacking the U.S..
When one digs into the history, one finds a sad tale of politicians fomenting war and interventions in order to either bolster their saggin popularity, or to assist some friend by mercantilist interventions.
The truth does not feel good, but it is still the truth, and only dishonest men pretend otherwise, and only the insane cannot comprehend it.
Published: May 17, 2007 12:09 AM
And what about Dr. Paul's main point: Why do Americans want their government meddling in Middle Eastern politics, especially given that politics in the Middle East is crazy and bloody? Why would we want our government to be a political player in that game?
The neo-cons answer that 'we' must, because it is in 'our' national interest. They say this, but are never challenged... they need to be challenged on this basis, because they can not win an actual debate using this line of reasoning. Too many Americans correctly believe that argument is a bunch of BS.
Published: May 17, 2007 1:23 AM
Here are some reasons to NOT vote for Ron Paul-
A) He is a politician, having been around a long time, so he could be in someone's pocket. If we keep voting it will only encourage all of them.
B) If he doesn't get in, you will feel as though your vote was wasted.
C) If he does get in, no human being could live up to all the hoopla and hype, so you will end up feeling disappointed. (Is that all there is?)
D) If HE is elected, and somehow manages to live up to everyone's expectations, nobody else could ever replace HIM, so you will end up forsaking democracy for all time!
Is one man/deva/god worth all that?
Published: May 17, 2007 1:47 AM
How can Republican "leaders" think a Bush clone has any chance of winning an election in 2008? It's pretty clear the majority of Americans are fed up with the war and the lies and corruption of the Bush administration. Yet McCain/Romney/Giuliani are falling over each other to establish who wants to give America "four more years" of the war on everything/everyone.
Published: May 17, 2007 2:10 AM
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi
I think we are somewhere between the THEY RIDICULE YOU and THEY FIGHT YOU... so it's good because after that RON PAUL will WIN!
Published: May 17, 2007 3:36 AM
If you mix up fascist and Nazi in just an akward way, the words just lose their power and it starts to be ridiculous.
Published: May 17, 2007 3:40 AM
It's interesting how these debates show these people to be what they really are. Hopefully more Americans see the system for what it really is.
Published: May 17, 2007 4:06 AM
I think Dr. Paul's problem is that he's making a sophisticated intellectual argument about the reasons for the war to a population that isn't really interested in hearing it, through media that don't allow for such lengthy arguments to be made, with opponents that understand this.
Anybody whose taken a history class will tell you that the real reason for WWII was the Treaty of Versailles, but if you try to argue that the Germans were innocent and that the French were at fault, most people will think you're crazy. Trying to do the same thing with anything happening in the Middle East today will typically get the same sort of reaction.
Dr. Paul's position might be logical, but it isn't very smart politics for Republican primaries. Of course maybe that's one of the reasons so many libertarians like him.
Published: May 17, 2007 6:54 AM
nick,
I have similar feelings. I very much support Ron's positions, but I doubt he would be effective as a president, other than possibly vetoing every bill that comes across his desk he thinks exceeds the constitution.
However, what I think would be the biggest issue up front would be the the defining of the yearly federal budget.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Legistlative branch impeached him over it.
Sadly, I don't think there would be enough public support, short of civil war, that would keep that in check. A large number of Americans have lived all of their lives under an all encompassing government, and expect it to perform functions that aren't constitutionally allowed, by any conservative interpretation.
Ron faces an increasing uphill battle in his campaign, but if he wins, he'll have to scale a steep cliff.
He has the force of principle to do this, but ultimately will we allow him is the question.
Published: May 17, 2007 7:41 AM
I think that Ron Paul is so far to the Right that most of the GOP doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. If Barry Goldwater were running today, little alone Bob Taft, they would be dismissed as left-wing kooks and barred from the debates. Hell, even a 1976 or 1980 CANDIDATE Reagan would have been dismissed as an extremist.
At the end of his life, Russell Kirk was an anti-semitic lunatic for opposing the Gulf War.
It's quite sad to see what conservatism has degenerated into.
Published: May 17, 2007 7:43 AM
Liars don't like to hear the truth, because it hurt them, but honest people like or they are even delighted when they hear the truth, and Ron Paul delivered the truth. Americans are mostly honest people and only few of them are liars, so I think Ron Paul just has to say the truth, and Americans will recognize the true values. Ronald Reagan did this also and he was able to win. Anyway, even if Ron Paul won’t be able to win the primaries, it is a tremendous opportunity for liberty and truth to be on air as long as it can, some influences could be done if not to D.C. politics, then at least to politics at local level, and everything need to start first on a local level. But I think this campaign will be something never experienced in human history, I think Ron Paul will ignite an extraordinary grassroots “revolution” and We the People will devastate the policy which is against the People. The problem with modern time politicians is that they heavily underestimate the influence the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have on the life of the American people, and that will bring their tyrannical endeavor to end, very soon. An important thing to understand is that Constitution doesn’t made Americans, but Americans made the Constitution, the ideas of the Declaration and the Constitution was deeply rooted in the American people, and the past 200+ years amplified that… with time Americans and the ideas in the Constitution becomes one. It is unbelievable how current politicians are extremely out of touch with the American people. (I’m starting to believe they are aliens from some other planet. )
An interesting story from the past:
In 1842, Judge Mellen Chamberlain interviewed ninety-one-year-old Captain Preston, a veteran of the Battle of Concord in 1775, to understand why Preston fought against the British.
Judge Chamberlain: Did you take up arms against intolerable oppressions?
Captain Preston replied that he had never felt any oppressions.
Judge Chamberlain: Was it the Stamp Act?
Captain Preston: No, I never saw one of those stamps.
Judge Chamberlain: Was it the tea tax?
Captain Preston said no again.
Judge Chamberlain: Were you reading John Locke and other theorists of liberty?
Captain Preston: Never heard of 'em. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, Watts' Psalms and Hymns, and the Almanac.
Judge Chamberlain: Why, then, did you fight?
Captain Preston: Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should.
Imagine that today we have a situation where the British from this story can be replaced with “manipulated media and a government which don’t listen to any report, opinion, fact or common sense” and the story is up to date. Thanks God, the Constitution empowers the People to change that establishment peacefully. Underestimating the values America is built on is the biggest mistake one can make under the sun, and fortunately they are making that mistake, but the People won’t make mistake, hopefully not this time.
Published: May 17, 2007 7:44 AM
I don't believe Ron Paul has a chance either, but the longer he is able to speak truth to power, the better, as the American people are so steeped in denial, delusion, and dependency that unless someone gives it to them straight, the US will go the way of the Roman Empire rather than the British:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt277.html
Published: May 17, 2007 7:53 AM
Anybody whose taken a history class will tell you that the real reason for WWII was the Treaty of Versailles, but if you try to argue that the Germans were innocent and that the French were at fault, most people will think you're crazy. Trying to do the same thing with anything happening in the Middle East today will typically get the same sort of reaction.
Yes, because there is a line between unintended consequences and malice aforethought. We can look back and say the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, but it didn't obviate the need to destroy the Nazis. FDR's deal with Stalin created the Cold War, but it didn't mean the US should have let the Soviets dominate the world. Ron Paul got in trouble because he wasn't clear. There are jihadist enemies of civilization, who seek a global caliphate, but they were not in Iraq (they are now), and the lack of democracy is not what makes them hate America. But they do exist, and they can either be contained or killed.
Published: May 17, 2007 8:03 AM
Keith is correct- Paul is making an intellectually correct argument about the causes of American conflicts in the Middle East, but such arguments are not welcomed and/or understood by more than a small fraction of Americans.
Published: May 17, 2007 8:51 AM
Does it really take high intelligence to realize that it is morally wrong to militarily and politically intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations? To my thinking, it only involves recognizing basic right and wrong, or more formally the right of self-determination for all nations and individuals.
Furthermore, I believe that it only involves basic common sense to realize that, as a practical matter, dislike and even hatred towards the U.S. will be the result of an interventionist and imperialistic foreign policy.
I hate to use a cliché, but all this is not rocket science. To echo Lord Acton, I am afraid that the ethics of many Americans has been corrupted by the economic and military power that this country has achieved.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:20 AM
If Ludwig Von Mises was alive (and I remind you all that the name of this site is named after Ludwig Von Mises not Murry Rothbard) he might explain to you that (for all their faults) men like R.G. or Senator McCain are not "neoNazis". But most likely he would not bother.
As for the Shah - he was the ruler of Iran (and Ron Paul was talking about Iraq) and did not come to power in 1953 (the date a pro Soviet Prime Minister was removed) - he came in 1941 (when Britain and the Soviet Union removed his father because they considered him pro Nazi).
On the point about America being to blame for 9/11
The argument seemed to be that saving Kuwait from Saddam Hussain in 1991, and putting troops (at the request of the local government and hundreds of miles from the holy places in Mecca) in Saudi Arabia to portect this country from both Iraq and Iran was somehow wrong - and justifed 9/11.
This reminds me of the idea that the attack upon the United States by Japan in 1941 was justified by the economic sanctions imposed on Japan after its invasion of China (the rape of Nanking and so on).
The only purpose all of this stuff (which includes defences of the southern slave empire that was defeated in the early 1860's and defences of Imperial Germany's efforts to take over Europe and dominate the world in the early 20th century - and even defences of the Soviet Union, Red China and so on in the Cold War) serves is to prove that the "America is always wrong" crowd are not confined to the left.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:23 AM
By the way the people who will really want Congressman Paul to stay in the debates are the Giuliani campaign.
For better or worse what Congressman Paul has done is to help the Giuliani campaign. And the people who want Ron Paul out are not concerned that he will "convince the people", they are concerned that he will help Giuliani at the expense of the candidates they favour.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:29 AM
Paul Marks,
As Lew pointed out in this morning's column, Ron Paul NEVER said that we invited the attacks. That was an assertion by Wendell Goler and picked up on by Giuliani.
In reference to Japan, nobody is stating that the Japanese were justified in Bombing Pearl Harbor because of the sanctions. Most historians and lay people do, however, accept sanctions as the motive for the attack. The same goes for 9/11.
People commit acts for a reason, although they may not be right or justified in doing so. There is a fundamental difference.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:32 AM
I think the interchange between Benito and Ron was mutually beneficial; Ron Paul gets some national media coverage, while Giuliani gets a nice applause line and fawning praise from his employer, FOX News.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:42 AM
You also seemed to miss the point of Paul's reference to 1953 Iran, Paul Marks. He was, in fact, referring to Iran (not Iraq), and he was, in fact, referring to CIA intervention there in 1953.
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179
The rest of your argument doesn't make sense. Can you show us, using Ron's words (and not your summary), where he said either that (a) America was to blame for 9/11 or (b) the 9/11 attacks were justified, given our previous intervention? Thanks.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:56 AM
Additionally, Paul Marks, could you also -- if you don't mind -- defend your accusation that Ron Paul is a part of the "America is always wrong" crowd?
In the debate itself, in his followup interviews, and consistently in his writings Paul defends many historical American foreign policies. In fact, his campaign is built around the notion that he can uphold a great (but now lost) tradition of Republican and conservative anti-war, non-interventionist ideology. It sounds to me like Ron Paul is ready to praise American policy and American leaders when it / they do what is right.
Aside from having a rhetoical effect, what do you intend to mean when you say that he's part of the "America is always wrong" crowd?
Published: May 17, 2007 10:02 AM
The only thing Ron Paul is really talked about here is the Constitution. I believe the first thing the US President do when they get the office is that he swear that he would protect the Constitution. Well if he really does, then all this intervention etc. would be impossible to happen. Ron Paul does not say here that we should do this or that, or that we shouldn't do this or that, he just said that what the US government does is actually illegal, and even unconstitutional. The governments generaly have one obligation: to follow the law. The other thing which the government should do is to seize a moment (an opportunity), but not against the law and certainly not against the Constitution (this is what we call legislation). Government can’t do anything until a proper law is enacted, when it is, than it MUST follow the law. One example is when Thomas Jefferson seized a moment (there was a great opportunity) and made the Louisiana Purchase. He initiated a legislative process for this and a law was made for the Louisiana Purchase, because he believed that the enlargement of American territory will be good for America, but he did not violate the rights of France, and he don't acquired the territory by war, he acquired the territory by non-coercive agreement (he made a mutually beneficial free trade with the owner (France)). Was that Constitutional? Well I think it was, because he isn't violated anybody’s right, the only questionable thing is it Constitutional to do that from taxpayers money?
Ron Paul knows we don’t live in a vacuum. He knows that there are real dangers in the World, he is not a lunatic. He also knows that the World is one dangerous place, but he knows that we shouldn’t make it even more dangerous by destroying the very fundamentals of the United States of America, the Constitution, and the rule of law. The Founding Fathers made the US in a World somewhat different than today’s World is, but very similar of our World in a political sense, they wanted to be friends with everyone who isn’t violate the law and the principles of liberty, they wanted to have commerce with all those nations on a very equal base, they did not wanted the rule of force, they wanted the rule of justice and law. And they did that by establishing some solid foundations in the Constitution and other writings, we should improve that model, improve it to suit our World, we shouldn’t destroy that model. America should lead by example, not by force, not by coercion and not by emitting fear. The World is not stupid, they can recognize true values and follow, but they won’t follow force. They would follow liberty, and they will eventually (everyone on his own soil) establish the rule of justice and law. It takes time for sure, it is hard, but it is the only way. You can’t make freedom by force; power is the natural enemy of freedom.
Let me quote a German author:
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
America is in a unique position because actually it was the first country in human history established on the principles of liberty, but people around the World also understand liberty, and trust me they understand force and power even more, and when they see force and power… they don’t like it, this is why they don’t like the US right now. Restore the Republic, the Constitution, the rule of law… and they will love the US once again more than ever before. If America is a mess, the whole World will be even a bigger mess, if America is OK, the World will be more OK also, Ron Paul suggesting here that the US should improve the state of affairs in this World be improving himself, and not be interfering to other nations affair, even if we don’t like those affairs.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:30 AM
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Burke
I don't want an American empire, but have any of you seen what is going on with Estonia and Russia? There is a reason Eastern European nations have supported the US these past years, because they fear Russia and cannot trust the Europeans to defend them.
Just reading a lot of the posts, it reminds me of the bystanders watching the 91-year old man getting repeatedly punched during that car jacking but doing nothing.
In Ron Paul's response he said we should get Bin Laden. That involves interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan. So is he a neo-con too?
Published: May 17, 2007 10:41 AM
When you have a fire in the house, it isn't easy to save the furniture intact, so there is a transitional period (when even Ron Paul would have to do some things he doesn't support), getting Osama can involve such things, but you shouldn't make another fire along. I think Pakistan would find Osama next day if they saw that the US policy is not a policy of force and power anymore. So interfering with Pakistan's affair won't be necessary at all. Of course that’s only my subjective opinion :)
Published: May 17, 2007 11:09 AM
There is a huge difference between saying that the US's previous inclinations in Iraq etc caused 9/11, and saying that the US's previous inclinations caused even more people to hate the US .
I believe the latter is probably true. But the former is ridiculous. Al Quada is an extremist organization whose motives are cultural, religious, and fundamentalist and nature... to the point that 9/11 would have happened (though perhaps later) with or without the prodding of the US.
Their main purpose is to establish a major Islamic State and throught Democracies and 'heathens' around the world. It would be very egocentric to believe that they made plans to attack the US just because we 'invaded' their soil. They were going to attack us sooner or later. The whole idea that the US was 'asking for it' due to its past policies, while I'm sure it didn't help, is extremely black-and-white thinking.
Please note, I oppose this war as well, so I'm thinking about this as objectively as I can. Some of you are thinking about this obviously with a Ron Paul agenda in mind.
Published: May 17, 2007 1:04 PM
freemaverick,
The Government of Pakistan has no authority in the Northwest Frontier Province, particularly Waziristan, where bin Laden is probably hiding.
Perhaps the best way to catch bin Laden is to cease military operations and await for him to emerge from the shadows, then nab him.
Alternatively, an independent state of Pashtunistan, if it ever materializes, would be able to root out bin Laden.
Much of the problem with Pakistan is that it is an artificial state that should have never come into existence. The Pashtuns in the West and the Balochis in the South have nothing in common with "Pakistanis" and both have thriving independence movements.
Once the Pakistani state dissolves and these areas have full independence, they will expel their "guests".
Published: May 17, 2007 1:30 PM
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
.... I certainly hope so.
Published: May 17, 2007 2:12 PM
"Bin Laden asked the King not to invite the U.S. army into the kingdom but rather to have Bin Laden prepare a insurgency against Iraq's occupation. The King rejected his offer..."
Wouldn't that have been something! Had the US _not_ intervened in Kuwait, then Osama/Al-Queda (basically the self-appointed transnational 'police' of the middle east) would have fought Saddam/Iraq themselves, and for who knows how long. But instead the US intervened in Kuwait (the one _seemly_ just cause in the entire debacle) and these two would be (and I would say 'natural') enemies found a common enemy in the US, and the US has to fight both of them.
And the US talks about spreading democracy... but Iran had a democracy in 1953! And the US/CIA deposed it and installed a friendly dictator!
As for Pearl Harbor: look up the "McCollum memo": "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better." It's _far_ _far_ worse than anything like Japan being 'justified'... FDR actually _wanted_ Japan to attack because he needed an excuse to enter a war he didn't have public support for.
You know the whole "intervention begets intervention" thing... I can't help but wonder if the real reason for the endless, poorly thought-out military interventions is nothing more than to create the need for more military interventions (thereby securing power domestically for those who 'like' military intervention).
Published: May 17, 2007 8:24 PM
Has anyone else noticed how one person is in two places at once? I would not be surprised to learn that Paul Marks and Ron Paul are one person- Ron Paul Marks!!!
Published: May 17, 2007 8:47 PM
Two main charges are made against me above - one of which I think I am not guilty, but the other (on reflection) I think I am guilty of.
On the impression that Ron Paul gave in the debate, not guilty:
I watched the whole debate and the post debate interviews and that was the impression that Ron Paul gave me. He was given a chance to retract - and just went on and on. Nor did the Fox news people speak before R.G. butted in (he just went straight at Ron Paul, he did not need to be prompted by the evil Fox News people)
However, the second charge I am guilty of.
This charge is that I put Ron Paul in the "America is always wrong crowd".
In my defence I have been reading Ludwig Von Mises Institue stuff for years (a lot of years - I go back to the old "Free Market" as a few bits of paper that came in the mail), and I have got used to the America is always wrong line concerning every war over the last two centuries (there was a bit of this stuff above, but I must have read hundreds of pages of it over the years).
So when I heard the 9/11 stuff, I was reminded of the United States was in the wrong in ........ (every war of the last couple of centuries).
But Ron Paul DID NOT SAY THAT.
He just said America was in the wrong concerning the Middle East.
He did not say American was in the wrong in the Cold War, or in the Second World War, or in the First Eorld War, or in the Civil War (and so on).
So I do not apologise for attacking Ron Paul over 9/11 (or over his claim that the United States "gave them the gas" that was used to kill the Kurds)or over all the rest of his Middle East stuff.
But I do apologize for implying that this was his line about all other conflicts the United States has been involved in (i.e. that America is always wrong and her enemies are always right).
Ron Paul DID NOT SAY THAT - and I IMPLIED THAT HE DID.
For this I apologize. I must not confuse Ron Paul with some other people round here.
Published: May 17, 2007 9:06 PM
Secessionniste, how about petitioning this site to call its' philosophy something like 'Pansecessionism'? In practice, anarcho-capitalism is about free markets and land ownership, but pansecessionism gets to the nub of the matter, that every land-owner should have the right to rule their own lands as they like, independent of outside authorities.
Published: May 17, 2007 10:20 PM
Paul Marks,
I do not know if you were answering my objections above with your last post, but in any case I think a few things still went unanswered.
You were trying to make some point about Ron Paul being confused about which country and Shah (Iran / Iraq; 1941 / 1953 etc.) I was merely pointing out that there *was* a CIA-led revolt in 1953, and that is what Rep. Paul was referring to. I think that you were trying to make Ron Paul sound either confused or wrong, but I don't think you accomplished either.
Additionally, you seem to be saying that you won't apologize for your summary of Ron Paul's remarks in the debate regarding the build-up to 9/11. That's fine, I never asked for an apology.
However, you should at least recognize that you are putting words in Ron Paul's mouth. Primarily, you accuse Ron Paul of saying that the various government action in the 90's "justifed 9/11," which couldn't be further from what Ron Paul said. (See other comments following yours in this thread).
Ron Paul believes that the government intervention in the Middle East was and is morally wrong and a mistake. You say that he didn't retract but went "on and on" about it as if that's a flaw of his; I don't see how that is so. He's just consistent. Why would he retract something that he never said -- i.e. that Americans are to blame for the 9/11 attacks?
So what I gather from your posts is that you disagree with Ron's take on U.S. action in the Middle East. OK, that's fine.
However, the nonsense about 9/11 justification, Ron referencing the wrong Shah, and (as you said) being an "America is always wrong" advocate are all rhetoric or misguided.
Published: May 18, 2007 10:47 AM
Ron Paul's statements were the same as the 9/11 report.
"American foreign policy is part of the message. America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy
regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."
-9/11 Commission Report, page 376
"He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."
- 9/11 Commission Report, page 48-49
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
The 9/11 report should be banned using the neocon logic.
Published: May 18, 2007 11:41 PM
Ron Paul said "we gave them the gas" - claiming the United States gave Saddam the gas he used on the Kurds
This is not true.
Ron Paul is a good man, he is not making things up out of his own head. He is being fed stuff by the left (who, with a few honouable exceptions, have decided, on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" grounds to make common cause with the worst elements in both Sunni and Shia Islam because these elements wish to destroy the United States and Western Civilization generally - which is also their objective).
We have been here before. Remember "left and right join hands" in the late 1960's and early 1970's?
When libertarians (with the best of intentions) make alliances with the left (or believe anything they say) we end up getting used.
As for the 9/11 stuff - this was not even in the post debate interview (which was when the gassing stuff was said) it was in the debate itself.
No one had said "we went into Iraq because of 9/11" in the debate - no one had even mentioned 9/11 (as far as I remember) before Ron Paul brought it up.
It was vile, but I am not saying it was from his own mind.
It is horrible that a great man (and Ron Paul is a great man) has been reduced to sounding like the lady who is the leaving "The View" on A.B.C.
As for the Constitution of the United States - the only consitutional point that Ron Paul made was that there had not been a formal declaration of war in relation to Iraq.
Quite true - the motion that the Senate and the House voted on did not contain the words "declaration of war". The wording should have been different (but the meaning was clear to everyone at the time).
But where was Ron Paul's attack on the entitlement programs? Where was his defence of the view that most of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional?
"There was no chance to say these things".
Yes there was, Congressman Tancredo had no problem finding time to say them.
But instead Congressman Paul decided to a lot of 9/11 stuff.
And, no, America is not to blame for 9/11 ("Ron Paul did not say she was" - sure fine, but that was the impression his remarks gave). Those people who accept the interpretation of Islam that O.B.L. does would hate the United States whatever its policy was.
The United States is the leading nonIslamic power - it is the existance of the United States (as much as any policy) that they object to.
Just allowing the to take over the Middle East will not mean that Americans (or other Westerners) will be left alone.
Thomas Jefferson understood this (hence sending American forces to North Africa to attack forces who had a violent interpretation of Islam - and who had raided as far north as Iceland). Was he an "imperialist" as well?
Of course none of the above means that going into Iraq in 2003 was the correct judgement (I held that it was not - and got called a "racist" for doubting the wisdom of the policy).
It may even be correct policy to leave right now (today), as the consequences of staying may be even worse than the consequences of leaving.
But this requires a very different style and content of argument from what I watched from Dr Paul in the debate.
Something along the lines of "the enemy could be better be countered if we left Iraq and ....."
Not the enemy are only the enemy because the United States has done bad things.
The United States (and the West generally) are, however imperfect, not the bad guys. The head hackers and suicide bombers are the bad guys.
Published: May 19, 2007 4:24 PM
Americans in general accept the rationalizations and justifications our government provides for interventions overseas, but surely they should be able to see that just because we have decided bombing someone or overthrowing their government is necessary, the people it happens to would disagree and resent it?
Published: May 20, 2007 8:54 AM
MIKEF
If what you say is true, why did the people of Iraq not elect a government that asked the Americans, Australians, British (etc) to leave?
They have had several chances to do so.
For all his many faults (Medicare extention, "no child left behind" and so on) a very happy man on hearing the words "we do not need overseas troops any more, we can stand on our own feet now" would be George Walker Bush.
"The people it happens to".
And I have been accused of confusing governments and peoples.
A war against Saddam (and now against terrorists the vast majority of whose victims are Muslim civilians) is now been dressed up as a war against "the people".
The judgement to go into Iraq in 2003 may have been unwise (I held it to be an unwise and was called a "racist" for this view), but the intention was NOBLE.
Anyone who feels himself getting angry when I use the word "noble" should ask himself whether he is really following "the Austrian school of economics" (i.e. the school of Carl Menger and Ludwig Von Mises) or (in reality) following the line of the mainstream media and the establishment (i.e. the real, left, establishment) that controls academia.
Murry Rothbard judgement to ally with the radical left in the 1960's was a mistake, and the judgement to ally with them now is a mistake.
By all means say that the Iraq were was an error, indeed argue that the West should pull out now (present your tactical case and I will listen with respect and will be open to being convinced). Also when American troops (or British troops) commit crimes punish them.
But do not blame Uncle Sam for crimes (in Iraq or elsewhere) that are, in fact, committed by the enemy.
Nor fall into the trap of thinking "if only we had not gone into Iraq there would now would be peace".
There would not - neither in Iraq (where Saddam and co would still be fighting to hold on to power, or between the West and that interpretation of Islam that is represented as regards the Sunni by O.B.L. and company, or as regards the Shia by the government of Iran and its allies.
Even if no American soldiers had even gone to Saudi Arabia in 1991 (if it had been given to Saddam) there would still have been conflicts and America would have been involved (however unwillingly - as Jefferson found).
Published: May 20, 2007 6:56 PM
Even if no American soldiers had even gone to Saudi Arabia in 1991 (if it had been given to Saddam) there would still have been conflicts and America would have been involved (however unwillingly - as Jefferson found).
All other things being as they are, perhaps so. However, sans the interventionist policies that have been the cornerstones of American foreign policy for well on a century and a half, why the U.S. and not, say, St. Kitt's & Nevis or, playing fairer and graduating onwards to greater conglomerates, not Mongolia or Ecuador or Finland?
Mr. Marks, the limits of your imagination wouldn't extend to the boundaries of my loo.
The judgement to go into Iraq in 2003 may have been unwise (I held it to be an unwise and was called a "racist" for this view), but the intention was NOBLE.
Whoopla! I've been called many things in my time as well. So some individual some distant point in the past labeled you a "racist", big deal, why are you constantly reminding us of it? Who bloody cares?
And on whose information were you forced to the conclusion that the intentions of the American government's Iraq intervention were noble given the wealth of information suggesting otherwise and at the disposal of the invaders that suggested the results of such an invasion would end up anything but?
Published: May 20, 2007 7:18 PM
Paul states......"Even if no American soldiers had even gone to Saudi Arabia in 1991 (if it had been given to Saddam) there would still have been conflicts and America would have been involved (however unwillingly - as Jefferson found)."
It seems highly unlikely that Saddams forces could have 'taken' Saudi Arabia at all. Thats alot of desert to hold (and a lot of soldiers to feed) especially since the Iraqi forces were in the midst of occupying Kuwait.
And if this is true........"Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration’s estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday’s Susan Sachs called Iraq the “phantom enemy”: “The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn’t be found.” http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=120
Well...securing Kuwait alone would be difficult with an uncooperative population remaining and supply vessels deciding not to enter Kuwaits ports due to the unrest there.
Certainly, Kuwait wasnt a military force but has to hope that a middle eastern solution would have likely been reached.
Published: May 20, 2007 10:02 PM
My point is that the US could have very easily stayed out of the whole mess.
And this is what Ron Paul is saying from what I see on the internet. However, I havent watched any televised debates.
Published: May 20, 2007 10:12 PM
Paul Marks,
Still, I don't find your explanations satisfactory. You write: No one had said "we went into Iraq because of 9/11" in the debate - no one had even mentioned 9/11 (as far as I remember) before Ron Paul brought it up.
As far as I know, Paul's remarks were against intervention in general. The moderator then asked Ron Paul if that policy should have changed post-9/11. When Paul emphasized that the interventionist policy may have motivated the 9/11 attacks, it was siezed by both the moderator and Giuliani as Mr. Paul insinuating that America invited the attacks or were responsible for them.
You've already said that the "impression" Ron Paul's remarks gave you were similar to the far-left position that America is culpable. I'm sorry that this is what you took from his words, but it is not what Ron Paul actually said (nor, if you pay attention to his numerous interviews and articles, is it what he intended). It's simply a bad interpretation of what was said, Fox News' coverage notwithstanding.
You write further: Quite true - the motion that the Senate and the House voted on did not contain the words "declaration of war". The wording should have been different (but the meaning was clear to everyone at the time).
Congress was being purposefully ambiguous as a political move. It was NOT clear to everyone at the time that the document was a declaration of war. In fact, Ron Paul introduced a bill that was a declaration of war, saying that he wouldn't vote for it but that if congress wanted a war they should do it in a proper, constitutional manner. They didn't take him up on the offer, surprisingly.
Finally, you write: But where was Ron Paul's attack on the entitlement programs? Where was his defence of the view that most of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional?
I personally think you should give up your attacks on Ron Paul. I've met your criticisms with answers and you shift to different subjects, this being still another criticism.
I guess all I can say to this is that Ron Paul was neglected quite a bit in the debates -- compare the questions Paul was asked to McCain, Romney, et. al. So he only had a few chances to say something. Still, he talked about eliminating the departments, and listed the Department of Education first (I think). He also made more than one reference to spending and regulating at home.
Also, check out the first debate, when Paul talked more about domestic problems. Look at his website or his speeches. Look at his articles. The man is shying away from no position of fiscal conservatism.
This critique is really another red herring -- to harp on emphasis after going after the man himself (and then backing down) tells me that the original complaints weren't all that acute.
Published: May 21, 2007 2:51 PM
Dan Coleman first.
Why should I give up saying it is disgusting to say things like "we gave them the gas" (in relation to the gassing of the Kurds).
In fact I have NOT said it was "disgusting" before, but as you clearly have not got the message (and said that I should give my "attacks"), perhaps things need to be put more bluntly.
When a man's country is at war with an enemy of the sort we now face (an enemy which is, although you do not seem to understand it, utterly evil) all people (including people who are not of military age) have certain minimum moral duties.
Of course they should be free to say anything they like - but being free to say something does not mean it is a good thing to say it.
As for the 9/11 stuff - I watched the debate, do not tell me what "really" happened, I watched the whole thing (and the interviews afterwards).
Dr Paul was given chances to retract his remarks - and he just went on and on.
So much for your "objections".
Dr Paul could have said "trying to free the people of Iraq was a noble idea, but one beyond our abilities and thus was bound to lead to more harm than good - so we should not have tried it, and should come out now", but he said nothing of the sort - he gave the standard moveon.org George Soros/Peter Lewis it is a war against the people line. He even went on about 9/11.
As for "why should America do" such and such (which someone else asked).
Because no one else can.
Of course that does not mean that it is always wise to try (I still hold that in the case of Iraq it was unwise).
But to be accused of "aggression" and other such is false and disgusting.
It is the head hackers and suicide bombers who are the aggressors. And if the people of Iraq want British and American troops to leave they can elect a government that asks them to leave (such parties already exist in the Parliament).
I repeat that I do not believe that the line I heard in the debate came from Ron Paul's own mind - he is being used.
Published: May 21, 2007 4:20 PM
Paul Marks,
You write: When a man's country is at war with an enemy of the sort we now face
Well, we aren't at war. You can't wage a war on an idea, so we're not at war with "terror." Congress did not declare war against any sovereign nation, so there's no war there.
We are conducting military operations against a wide range of people, some of whom are terrorists. I'm guessing that's what you are referring to.
(an enemy which is, although you do not seem to understand it, utterly evil) all people (including people who are not of military age) have certain minimum moral duties.
In other words, you are saying the the US government has a right to infringe on people's liberty when it deems itself sufficiently "at war."
Of course they should be free to say anything they like - but being free to say something does not mean it is a good thing to say it.
Meaning that it is a judgment call. You disagree with Ron Paul's statements and think they are harmful -- I've never questioned this.
As for the 9/11 stuff - I watched the debate, do not tell me what "really" happened, I watched the whole thing (and the interviews afterwards).
The only reason that I have told you what "really" happened is that you put words in Ron Paul's mouth and then defend it by saying that was the "impression" that it gave you. It would be far better to work with the words that the man actually used, because (frankly) I had the opposite "impression" that you did, and without some standard to which we can compare our impressions, with this conversation will go nowhere.
Dr Paul was given chances to retract his remarks - and he just went on and on.
And I'm telling you that Dr. Paul had nothing to retract. Well, nothing aside from the "impression" that he gave you, but there's only so much he can control the way people perceive him.
So much for your "objections".
If you say so. My entire project of participating in this thread can be summed up as:
* Wanting to correct factual errors, namely the confusion regarding the CIA's overthrow of a government and installment of a Shah in 1953.
* Making it clear that Ron Paul never said, regardless of how people received his words, that America either (a) deserved, invited, etc. the 9/11 attacks OR (b) that the 9/11 attackers were justified in attacking based on our previous intervention.
* Questioning and critiquing the assertion that Ron Paul is a part of the "America is always wrong" crowd.
Published: May 22, 2007 7:49 AM
When have I ever said "war on terror" or "war on an idea"? The enemy are evil men, they have evil ideas - but it is not the "ideas" who suicide bomb, or head hack, it is the evil individuals.
"You put words in Ron Paul's mouth".
I did not put the words "we gave them the gas" in his mouth (post debate interview).
I did not put the stuff about "we have been bombing Iraq for ten years" in his mouth (as if attacking anti aircraft systems is......) nor claim that this was something to do with 9/11. By the way - the "no fly zones" (enforced by Western aircraft) were there to stop Saddam killing more civilians in the north and south (on top of the vast number he had alread killed) MUSLIM civilians.
No one else in the debate had even mentioned "9/11" before Dr Paul brought it up (at least I did not hear them).
You fail to see that there is a basic difference between saying "going into Iraq in 2003, although noble in intention, was an error" or "the consequences of staying in Iraq now will be even worse than the consequences of leaving".
And playing the moveon.org game.
The moreon.org game is to try and make out that the West in general and the United States in particular has no real enemies - that there are just people who have been provoked by our evil actions.
You fail to see that I was quite open to Dr Paul saying that going into Iraq in 2003 was an error (especially as that is what I think myself). I was even open to being convinced that Western troops should get out right now (if his arguments were good).
So as even I was disgusted by what he said........
But you do not see it. You HONESTLY do not see it - that is why my writing, on this subject, here is a waste of time.
Lastly, I say again that I regard Ron Paul as a good man. And I regard his struggle against unconsitutional government spending and regulation over the last several decades as a noble struggle.
That it is why I regard him being used like this (and he is being used - he has no bad intentions himself) as so horrible.
Published: May 22, 2007 1:45 PM
Paul Marks, I think you have misunderstood me on most points. (I don't doubt that you'll disagree with that assessment, though).
I only commented on the US being at war because you brought it up as fact, when in actuality no war has been declared by congress. Therefore, the United States is not at war. (Bush's fiat declarations -- and it is he that has declared war on an idea -- aside).
You write: I did not put the words "we gave them the gas" in his mouth (post debate interview).
That may be the case, but you put other words in his mouth before that, and correctly paraphrasing him later doesn't cover over the previous misattribution. Your answer here was obviously rhetorical in nature; I never accused you of doing nothing but misquote or misattribute beliefs to Ron Paul.
No one else in the debate had even mentioned "9/11" before Dr Paul brought it up (at least I did not hear them).
Once again, Ron Paul was not the first person to mention 9/11 in the debates, as a moderator brought it up in a question to Mayor Giuliani. In fact, Paul's first mention of it is in criticism of domestic spending and people's general perception of what the role of government is -- a passing reference only.
The main Ron Paul / 9/11 controversy came when Paul was talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy in general. The moderator then asked him specifically whether 9/11 changed the need for such a policy, followed by Ron Paul's response and Giuliani's famous pouncing after that.
A lot of the rest of your post isn't really aimed at what I was discussing. You definitely seem to have a bone to pick with someone around here, but I can tell that I'm definitely not your man for that.
You did say: Lastly, I say again that I regard Ron Paul as a good man. And I regard his struggle against unconsitutional government spending and regulation over the last several decades as a noble struggle.
That it is why I regard him being used like this (and he is being used - he has no bad intentions himself) as so horrible.
I'm glad that you are proud and supportive of Ron's history, but your assertion that he's being used -- whatever his intentions may be -- is unfounded. Paul is a good example of principle being brought up against the mainstream. However his message is received, the message itself has been (in my opinion) above reproach.
You can put your criticisms of my blindness below. It's a wonderful metaphor.
You write: You fail to see that I was quite open to Dr Paul saying that going into Iraq in 2003 was an error (especially as that is what I think myself). I was even open to being convinced that Western troops should get out right now (if his arguments were good).
I'm OK with that, and (by the way) you are reading far too much into my contributions here. Remember that my entire aim in participating in this thread can be summed up as:
* Wanting to correct factual errors, namely the confusion regarding the CIA's overthrow of a government and installment of a Shah in 1953.
* Making it clear that Ron Paul never said that America either (a) invited OR (b) deserved the 9/11 attacks (or that the attackers were justified).
* Questioning and critiquing the assertion you made above that Ron Paul is a part of the "America is always wrong" crowd.
Published: May 22, 2007 3:32 PM
When Guliani demanded a retraction I was very impressed with Ron Paul keeping his cool. We have to remember that the truth that Ron Paul is delivering sounds like a fringe crank in the ears of the other perverted candidates and he isn't cooperating by slamming his fists and yelling with veins bulging out on his neck. If he sticks to the calm, cool, and honest delivery of his message he has a real shot. We have to remember that after the corruption of the Nixon years that Jimmy Carter came from outside the beltway and against the proposed odds he became President. The Carter comparison is actually scary because it is a historical precedent showing that a Ron Paul presidency would be thwarted at every turn my congress. Those in Power will resist the ideas Ron Paul has because he would be out to take power away from them. Neither party will tolerate any reduction in their power.
Published: May 23, 2007 11:07 PM