Pat Buchanan defending Ron Paul

[TrybalRage]

All voting for a guy like Paul will do is embolden the radical elements in the region.

Maybe temporarily, or maybe there would be an awakening once they have no one to blame for their problems.

 

[budney]

I would likely support intervention by outside powers if the US government turns into a mass grave generating socialist hell hole like Saddam's Iraq.

You'd be in favor of seeing many more people die than our dictator killed, along with less food, less electricity, and an even more oppressive police state? You'd rather trade bad for worse? Strange.

--Len.

 

[eric_t12]

I also know this, as my opinion, at least.

We shouldn't have invaded iraq. HOWEVER, now that we are there, we have to stay until their government can support itself.

As far as international policy goes, that should be it, for a while. We need to fix the innumerable(sp?) problems our own country has... We have it better than most countries, but we have some fundamental issues that need fixing before we should be setting up 'great democracies.'

my .02

 

[antarti]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antari
What if Panama had that referendum, would you be investing in lead and scrambling down there? Because that's what we're talking about here, something that happened to them not us.

Your empathy is a one way street. What if I'm a Panamanian and need some help getting my country back from a brutal dictator? You want George Washington without Von Steubon or La Fayette.

Of course I would empathise with the Panamanians. I wouldn't leave my family to go fight for them, would you? Would you send me (or my boy) to do it because you like the idea? You want me to pay for you and your friends to do it? That's what it sounds like you want... please clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antari

However I miss your point on the Iranians. If they elected a Socialist, don't you think they knew that he would likely be a Socialist?

yes and no, after he nationalized oil he went on a downward spiral of breaking the constitution and unpopularity by the clerics and tudeh.

Irrelevant. Bush touted a "more humble foreign policy" and an end to nation-building, smaller government, etc. and did a 180. Should Iran invade us to help us out here at home?

Politicians lie, cheat, swindle, and consolidate power. If that's your benchmark, we could start right here at home before looking beyond our borders. If that's unappealing to you, or "too easy" for you, we could always find somebody in Africa or Asia 100x worse in this respect and go after them too. Where do you suggest we start, I hear Cuba's only 90 miles away right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by antari

So, in order to help them, we remove him and give them the Shah, which eventually leads to Khomeni, and a war (helped/fueled along by us again) with Iraq.

the shah was not invented, he was there the whole time, it was a real constitutional monarchy in substance, not just the queen on their money etc. The Shah in power was a return to normalcy, he had about 20 years of sound reforms then turned into a autocratic czar in the 70's. Khomeini is not like Mossadegh. The Iran-Iraq war was not started by the US, they got in there later helping Iraq to prevent Iran from winning. Saddam was not put into power by the US, that is a total myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sa...Iraq_1973-1990

Wow, you answered everything except what I actually asked/said, then posted a link to wikipedia to back it up!

I never said we "invented" the Shah, only that we helped remove Mosadeq and then install the Shah in his place.

Would foreign intelligence agencies re-installing Bill Clinton as our Pres be a "return to normalcy" after Bush? Is that how we would see it, as a favor?

I never said we started the war, but that we aided Sadam against Iran.

I never said we put Sadam in power.

How come you can read wikipedia but not what I write?

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

And this family was not found on Judeo-Christian values as the majority of the Founding Fathers were neither Christian or Jewish.

Cmon Tecumsah, thats a little dishonest. The truth lies in the middle. People usually refer to them as 'deitist'. A better term might be 'generic Christian' but it was varied. Those who believe they were hardcore Christians ("This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values" being their favorite saying) are wrong, just as those like yourself who imply they were Atheists are also wrong.

 

[samtechlan]

I'm 100% with Ron Paul on a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think about Vietnam, we lost 58,000 to keep that country from becoming communist while at the same time cozying up to other equally communist countries like Yugoslavia, Romania and, of course, China. (Remember Nixon going to China and our rewarding the dictator Tito of Yugoslavia with increased trade since he was somewhat independent of Moscow)

All of the critics at the time who argued that even a communist Vietnam wouldn't simply be a puppet of the Soviet Union turned out be absolutely correct.

For those of you out there so terrified of Muslim fundamentalists keep in mind that it is this administration that is relying on a Shi'ite fundamentalis govt to try to keep order in Iraq. With friens like those...

 

[antarti]

If you're really making a fair comparison I would likely support intervention by outside powers if the US government turns into a mass grave generating socialist hell hole like Saddam's Iraq.

I agree 100%...

...right up to the point the foreign government "helping me out" starts making the previous number of American dead by our own "bad govt" look small by comparison, in far less time.

The fact that they build bases around our oil infrastructure makes me start wondering too: Just whose interests do they have in mind?

Then they pull a "de-Republicanization policy", which (since I was a party member in the past) means I lose my job, with no chance of being re-hired, along with 1,000,000s of teachers, doctors, power-linemen, and other average joe's. Our only "sin" is having been party members only because it was the only way to make a living wage and feed the kids, not because I agreed to the policy or with the dictator.

Every career LEO and military man loses their job too and is unemployable afterwards. They decide to become an "insurgency" over this. I just might look the other way when they wax somebody too. Maybe I decide to feed them, or load ammo for them, or give them intel because my morning walk now takes me past a police station or base.

Maybe I see the new police and Army, which I once welcomed, as traitors in league with the outsiders.

Maybe the whole thing has me yearning for the days of "American Sadam".

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

To be completely fair, otomik, I would bet if we had an "American Saddam" both of us would be fighting that "American Saddam" in the beginning.

But when our Chinese "liberators" did everything antarti talks about, you think you'd still want to kill me? At that point am I a terrorist, or a freedom fighter?

What I know is that I'd eat antarti's food, and grab a couple mags from him before I went off to shoot up a Chinese armoured column.

It's obvious, the Iraqis don't want Saddam back, antarti, but that doesn't mean they want us there, or that they like their own people taking them away in the middle of the night for "enhanced" interrogation.

I bet if we pull out of Iraq, there would be democracy. Democracy in three different countries, but democracy nonetheless. But, other than the new "Kurdistan" that would form, I would bet both the Shi'a, and Sunni countries' relations with us would be extremely cold. And it would be courtesy of this democracy that Bush keeps saying is so great.

I'm not throwing support behind the insurgents, or saying they are great guys. They are not. And, I am solidly behind American troops. But being that way means I have to be against their current commander and chief, and against anyone that wishes to put them in harms way in a place we have no business in. In a war that encourages reprisal.

 

[TEDDY]

WE HAD ISOLATION IN BETWEEN WW1 AND 2.REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS IT DID NOT WORK.BUT WE SHORE WERE DISARMED.was the Shar as bad as that not acourding to an iranian I knew he freed the women built schools/roads and improved education.just dont try to over throw him.we helped Iran to fight of Irag by supplying Isreal with war supplys which they gave to Iran.the arab states fought the allies in ww1/ andww2.as to Vietnam the NV generals admitted that they were on the ropes when we left.remember congress cut of military aid to SV when we left letting them dangle.we might not have had Vietnam if we had not backed France in returning to their colony.(France backed Saddam by the way)
I am for Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney now there is a full house.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

I am for Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney now there is a full house.

Then I hope you like AWB's, because Mitt supports them. So much for a 'full house'.

 

[SoCalShooter]

He isn't Presidential material.

Why? he has not even been president yet. I am sure we have had a few presidents who were not great TV speakers or great public speakers at all for that matter but they won based on merits and the willingness of the populace to try a new path. Overall most Republicans (excused hardcore and hard headed) are tired with the parties politics and I think the Democrats on the other side are also. I have talked to several friends who are Dems and they are not at all pleased with having to choose between Osama or Hillary. Perhaps it is a time for some extreme change.

 

[GoRon]

Perhaps it is a time for some extreme change

The country isn't going to vote for Dr.No (Dr.Paul).

I like Ron Paul.

I don't agree with him on everything but a large percentage of stuff I do, hell, I voted for him in '88 in the presidential election.

The President often is a distillation of where the country is at at that time in history.

Some have the ability to lead and change the direction the nation is heading ie. Reagan, even if it is temporary or the change is incomplete.

Others like Clinton aren't presidential but they don't rock the boat ie. the money still flows.

Ron exhibits NO presidential leadership qualities and wants to change course.

Nobody will follow him except the same numbers that voted for him in '88, about a half million.

Not enough to become President.

 

[TrybalRage]

I bet if we pull out of Iraq, there would be democracy. Democracy in three different countries, but democracy nonetheless.

You mean, *gasp* the way it was before europe carved it up?

 

[antarti]

WE HAD ISOLATION IN BETWEEN WW1 AND 2.REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS IT DID NOT WORK.BUT WE SHORE WERE DISARMED

Who attacked us between WWI (which we chose to enter) and WWII (where we chose to antagonize the Japs)?

We were never declared war on by Germany, until after and because we declared war on the Japanese. We also had planes in China fighting the Japanese before Pearl Harbor (Flying Tigers ring a bell?) - hardly a non-interventionist policy.

.was the Shar as bad as that not acourding to an iranian I knew he freed the women built schools/roads and improved education.just dont try to over throw him.

Sounds to me like you are describing Sadam.

 

[Flyboy]

We could quote Machievelli if you object to Caligula.

I'd just as soon you didn't. The Prince--which is what I'm guessing you'll want to quote--was about how to run a short-term, rule-by-brutality dictatorship. Now, if you'd like to quote from the Discourses ("...no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated." Book III, Chapter XIX), we can talk. The Discourses were his serious political thoughts; The Prince was nothing more than a hasty attempt to curry favor with the Medicis, who had just gained control.

Ron Paul said:

"But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace."

So much for that vaunted understanding of the Constitution. Maybe he glossed over Article II, Section 2? The above quote is so wrong on so many fundamental levels that it is quite comical.

And you must've missed Article I, Section 8: only the Congress has the power to declare war. Dr. Paul said "no single person" should have all the power, and that is fully consistent with the Constitution.

 

[Warren]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Great cartoon!

 

[xd9fan]

He isn't Presidential material.

neither where Clinton and Bush.....

WE HAD ISOLATION IN BETWEEN WW1 AND 2.REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS IT DID NOT WORK

where do I start with the inaccuracy of this statement.....

 

[otomik]

Who attacked us between WWI (which we chose to enter) and WWII (where we chose to antagonize the Japs)?

We were never declared war on by Germany, until after and because we declared war on the Japanese. We also had planes in China fighting the Japanese before Pearl Harbor (Flying Tigers ring a bell?) - hardly a non-interventionist policy.

why did we declare war on the japanese? they bombed pearl harbor
when did the flying tigers become active? after pearl harbor (yes I like the John Wayne movie too but the fact is it's inaccurate)
we were negotiating with them till the minute they attacked and they used negotiations for time until their attack.
why did they attack? we didn't want to trade with them and support their war so they have to seize resources off european pacific colonies and didn't think america would be cool with that.

were we wrong to refuse to trade with a belligerent power? or were we wrong in that we sent the message that we would not be pleased with further japanese wars of conquest thereby forcing them to destroy our navy?

 

[antarti]

when did the flying tigers become active? after pearl harbor (yes I like the John Wayne movie too but the fact is it's inaccurate) we were negotiating with them till the minute they attacked and they used negotiations for time until their attack.
why did they attack? we didn't want to trade with them and support their war so they have to seize resources off european pacific colonies and didn't think america would be cool with that.

Nice try at semantics.

If you DO buy the kool-aid that they we 100+ aircraft, with ground crews and pilots waiting to go just 2 weeks after Pearl, and we got them ready (including building them an airport) halfway around the world in that time, then we must have known the Japs were coming? No?

Truth is we (the USA) financed them (through the Cinese) long before. The planes were ordered, delivered, a base built and secured with a command structure, and then American pilots were "allowed by the military to step down" and head to China for this purpose (protecting parts of China/Burma from the Japanese via armed combat).

You compare apples to oranges when you state they were "active" after Pearl, because that refers to a formal military state as active duty troops only. All they had to do to become "active" was put on dog tags before their next mission.

Same with saying "they didn't fly in active combat" until after Pearl. They were there, long beforehand, being paid as "mercenaries" through a thin veil of American money going through China, and they were flying American aircraft in the theatre against the Japanese in a "defensive" role.

If we and the Japanese were negotiating, and we were sending money, aircraft, and pilots up against them, who were the ones negotiating in bad faith?

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Office of the Secretary
Washington

CONFIDENTIAL February 1, 1941

SUBJECT: Procurement of Personnel for China

1. Mr. Pawley and Colonel Chennault called today and informed me that an agreement had been reached between Curtiss, Inter-Continent and the Chinese for the servicing of 100 P-40's for China. It is also agreed that Inter-Continent will handle the procurement of American personnel.

2. Personnel requirements are:

100 pilots
150 enlisted ground crew.

They emphasized the need for experienced personnel and the only feasible solution appears to be Reserve officers and enlisted men. They are ready to send [their?] people, Pawley, Leighton and Chennault, at once to the Air Stations, both Army and Navy, to find volunteers. They realize the necessity for keeping things quiet and will take due precautions.

3. The followign will be required:

(a) Approval by War and Navy Departments of resignations of Reserve personnel without detriment to their future status in the service, in order to accept employment with the Central Aircraft Corporation.

Note: BuNav is ready to do this, but it will have to be taken up with the Army, and I understand that General Arnold has not yet been informed by Secretary Stimson. I suggest that you personally take this up with Secretary Stimson, and also with Admiral Towers, who is not very enthusiastic about the idea, I believe.

(b) Deferment of draft through Mr. [illegible], inasmuch as these people will all be subject to draft as soon as released from Reserve status.

(c) Passports to be cleared by State Department, the applicants requesting passports to China for employment with Central Aircraft Corporation.

Note: I have taken this up with the State Department and they are willing to issue the passports to individuals as bona fide employees of Central Aircraft.

(d) Pawley, Leighton and Chennault should have letters from someone in the War and Navy Departments, either the Secretarys or Chiefs of Personnel, authorizing them to visit the various Air Stations.

(e) It was pointed out to me that this considerable organization would hardly be worth sounding out and estabishing unless there were an excellent prospect for further rlease of planes to carry on the work. They will have to start more or less from scratch in [illegible] and work their way in against probable opposition.

August 4, 1941

MEMORANDUM FOR Captain James M. Shoemaker, USN, Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Air Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

1. This letter introduces Lt. C. B. Adair, who has the permission of the Navy Department to visit your station. He will explain the purpose of his visit.

2. It has been the policy of our Government for some time to facilitate the hiring by the Chinese Government of pilots and mechanics from our Services. The above-mentioned officer is a representative of the Intercontinent Company, which company is doing the hiring for the Chinese Government. The cooperation of the Commanding Officer is requested in permitting this representativde to interview pilots on your Station, to see if they are interested in being hired by the Intercontinent Company for service in China.

FRANK K. BEATTY
Captain, U.S. Navy
Aide to the Secretary
(By direction)

In May, 1941:

STATEMENT OF MR. BRUCE LEIGHTON CONCERN-
ING THE CENTRAL AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Following a long history of growing interest in U.S. Government aid to China, the Chinee Government sent a special mission to Washington early this year [1941] to arrange for loans and other assistance to build up their depleted air force.

Arrangements were made for $100,000,000 loan and for the immediate release to China by the British of 100 Curtiss P-40 pursuit planes from then current British allocations, and numerous representations took place between U.S. Government and Chinese representatives as to the facilities available in China to assure that aircraft supplied would be effectively operated.

The history of Chinese air activities had made it plain that the Chinese air force is not at present adequately trained or organized or equipped to maintain and effectively operate modern high-performance aircraft. Means must be provided for the Chinese to obtain the services of American pilots and key ground personnel with experience in military operations to act as a nucleus tactical organization upon which to progressively build a modern air force in China by (a) later additions to American personnel and (b) accelerated training of native Chinese personnel.

Because practically all experienced men of necessary qualifications in this country have been called into active military or naval service, the only immediate source of supply is from the active military services, but for obvious reasons individuals engaged in operations of this nature contemplated in China must have no connection with the U.S. Government services while so engaged. They must act as individuals and on their own responsibility. Experience in previous attempts to form operating and maintenance groups of American personnel in China in various activities has clearly shown that direct employment of such groups of individuals by Chinese government agencies does not bring effective results. Successful results have been obtained only where the personnel are employed and paid by some responsible American concern having long experience in China.

The Intercontinent Corporation is such a concern. It had for years been engaged in aircraft activities in China, and through a subsidiary, the Central Aircraft Manufacturing Company, had maintained aircraft manufacturing activities for more than five years in China, and had been particularly active in the training of Chinese mechanics and establishment of repair and maintenance facilities in many parts of China since the beginning of hostilities in Shaighai in 1937. It maintains offices in New York, Chungking, Rangoon, and HongKong, and now operates a factory and assembly and repair base in China adjacent to the Burma route [at Loiwing], which is the only facility at present available for the assembly of aircraft shipped into China via that route.

CAM Co's president, Mr. W. D. Pawley, and its vice-presidnet, Mr. B. G. Leighton, (a former naval officer with 12 years of active service in the U.S. Naval Air Forces, and now a Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve, on inactive duty), are well known in military and naval circles in this country and intimately familiar with conditions in China, and personally acquainted with many responsible Chinese government officials.

Called into consultation by the Secretary [of the Navy] and the Chinese Embassy, they volunteered the services of their organization for the recruiting and employement of the pilots and ground personnel, and organization of repair facilities in China, the understanding being that men so recruited would be employed under contract, ostensibly as civilian employees in the same status as technical personnel whome they [CAMCO] had been regularly employing for their normal manufacturing activities for years past. These services are being rendered without compensation, other than reimbursement to CAM Co by the Chinese government for direct out-of-pocket expenses. The financial conditions are set forth in the attached copy of formal agreement between Chinese Embassy and CAM Co.

To put the project into effect many complicated details have had to be arranged with U.S. Government offices. All arrangements have been handled orally with no file record of any nature. The procedure is as follows:

(1). CAM Co's representatives have been given letters of introduction by SecNav's office and by Office of Chief of Air Corps to Commanding Officers of naval and military units, to whom CAM Co representatives orally explained the nature of their visit and the interest of the U.S. Government departments, suggesting that the Commanding Officers obtain any required oral confirmation from Washington.

(2). After clearing with the Commanding Officer of the station, CAM Co representative contacts individual Reserve officers and enlisted men attached to the station, and receives written employment applications from those interested. Pursuant to oral advices given CAM Co by the Army and Navy Washington offices concern, (U.S. Air Corps Personnel Division and BuNav), applicants are orally informed that:

(a) Resignations or discharges will be approved to accept employement with CAM Co. (Standard forms for resignation and discharge requests have been supplied by Washington offices concerned.).

(b) Although they completely sever their official connections with the United States military service, it is the intent of the War and Navy Departments that upon completion of their employment with CAM Co, and to the extent permitted by the broad discretionary powers of the Secretaries of War and Navy in relation to Reserve personnel, that they will be accepted for re-commission or re-enlistment in the active Reserve in such rank or grade and under such conditions as will give them the same seniority and other benefits, including disability benefits, as they would have enjoyed had they remained on active duty in the Army or Navy Reserve.

(3). Successful applicants are processed as follows: CAM Co representative visits station and:

(a) Executes employment contract (Standard form attached)

(b) Receives applicant's signed resignation or request for discharge.

(c) Assists applicant to fill out passport application.

(d) Proceeds to Washington with (b) and (c), clears (b) with Army or Navy personnel office concerned, clears (a) with Passport Division of State Department and obtains passport, obtains required visas from British and Chinese Embassies.

(e) Arranges transportation to China, including necessary arrangements for forwarding by CAM Co. offices in the Orient to final destination.

(f) Notifies applicant when all is cleared, and instructs him where and when to report.

(4). Weekely summary reports of progress are submitted to SecNav. and to Special Chinese Affairs desk in State Department.

(5). If interested, offices and desks in Washington are consulted and kept constantly informed of progress through frequent personal visits of CAM Co personnel in Washington.

The original program called for the shipment to China of 100 Curtiss P-40's. Subsequently arrangements have been made under Lend-Lease Act for the supply to China of substantial additional numbers of aircraft and extension of the original project, and further plans are at present under consideration for the supply of bomber type planes, as soon as personnel and facilities are available to handle.

Those bombers were only a couple weeks from arriving when Pearl was hit. Why were we sending long-range bombers (to be crewed by Americans, for use against Japam) if we were caught by surprise, while negotiating in good faith?

 

[Chui]

"It was the Constitutional thing to do and has proven effective in the past. Instead, Bush went to the UN for "permission" on a number of things, got an "authorization for use of force" instead of an outright declaration of war, and has a completely asinine ROE for our troops. Don't even get me started on his abdicating the Commander in Chief position to a "war Czar".

Odd how some scoff at the presumed authority of the UN when our own leader licks their boots for "permission".

I agree with Ron on this one. Have a formal Declaration of War -- just like during WW I and WW II.

 

[Boats]

Ron Paul said:

"But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace."

So much for that vaunted understanding of the Constitution. Maybe he glossed over Article II, Section 2? The above quote is so wrong on so many fundamental levels that it is quite comical.

And you must've missed Article I, Section 8: only the Congress has the power to declare war. Dr. Paul said "no single person" should have all the power, and that is fully consistent with the Constitution.

The part of Ron Paul's statement that is bolded is grossly incorrect. You show me the pertinent part of the Constitution that grants Congress a say in current operations outside of budgetary concerns and I'll be happy to retract.

 

[PaladinX13]

Back to logic class Boats. It's the "AND" that makes his statement true. As we've already responded to your ridiculous statement. It is NOT wrong for the President to exercise his Authority over the military. It is wrong for him to have that power AND simultaneously be capable of determining when and where and what the scope of that authority is by single-handedly defining wars.

But if you want to grab a single fragment out of a list of statements meant to be taken together with an "AND" you do so at the peril of your own argument.

 

[Art Eatman]

Drifted off into the Great Beyond...