Jump to content

I'm A Liberal, But I'd Vote For Ron Paul


UkJenT
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've just seen some of Ron Paul's stuff on youtube. He's just awesome. I've never said that about any republican. I love how he says our US foreign policy has to take some blame for causing 9/11. Funny how all the Republicans talk about how we have a moral obligation to intervene. But I love how Ron Paul answered that. He basically said, "How do we decide where to intervene? We allowed many conflicts where thousands have people have been killed and we have done nothing." I also enjoyed how he refuted that Fox host on the issue of the Gulf War. Moron at Fox basically said that it was our moral obligation to intervene in Iraq as Saddam killed thousands of innocent people. Ron Paul's response, "Well, who do you think gave Saddam all those weapons and gas? We, the US. So, to solve this problem in the Gulf, we place sanctions on Iraq, which leads to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqies." haha.. that was so awesome.

 

Ron Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So you find it morally acceptable to let genocide occur because...we've let it happen before? What kind of .ed up logic is that?

 

Our police don't solve every homicide. So should we just tell them not to bother trying to solve any of them anymore? Maybe make murder legal too? It'd sure cut down on a lot of paperwork...

 

 

 

I actually like most of Ron Paul's positions except his foreign policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic seems to be messed up. Why let other conflicts rage on and only focus on a few? How can we have that kind of logic? How do we decide which conflicts to intervene in? Answer me this question, Camaro. Why do we intervene militarily in Iraq and not in Darfur? Why do we give the impression that our US foreign policy is there to promote democracy and yet we support dictators and even help overthrow democratically-elected governments and then place a dictator to run the country.

 

 

The fact that you tie it into to police investigations makes no sense. You can't compare an unsolved case to foreign conflicts. It's just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic seems to be messed up. Why let other conflicts rage on and only focus on a few? How can we have that kind of logic? How messed up is that logic? Answer me this question, Camaro. Why do we intervene militarily in Iraq and not in Darfur?

 

 

The fact that you tie it into to police investigations makes no sense. You can't compare an unsolved case to foreign conflicts. It's just stupid.

It's called logistics. We can't fight every battle. But I hardly think that means we should fight none.

Let me ask you this...since it appears you have a problem with US military intervention, do you have a problem with other means of intervention? Such as all the food aid we pour into other countries? Obviously, we're not handing out food in every country that needs it, so should we stop those programs all together?

 

And homicide vs genocide makes perfect sense. It's only a matter of scale.

 

I'm not going to get into Iraq and Darfur here. That was taken care of in the other thread already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sure, ignore what I've said then. I never said military intervention was bad. When did I say that? I'm ask you how do we decide which conflicts to involve ourselves in. You say we can't fight every battle, so then how do we decide which battles to engage in? Is it only when our national interests are in danger? I guess that makes perfect sense since we as a nation don't have much to lose in Darfur. So, it's not so much a moral obligation, but an obligation to protect our national interests.

 

Also, how did this thing with stopping the distribution of aid get into the argument? You're deviating from the issue at hand. We are talking about military intervention, not humanitarian aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, sure, ignore what I've said then. I never said military intervention was bad. When did I say that? I'm ask you how do we decide which conflicts to involve ourselves in. You say we can't fight every battle, so then how do we decide which battles to engage in? Is it only when our national interests are in danger? I guess that makes perfect sense since we as a nation don't have much to lose in Darfur. So, it's not so much a moral obligation, but an obligation to protect our national interests.
Your general attitude led me to believe that you have a problem with military intervention. If this isn't the case, I'm sorry.

 

How to decide -- how about something similar to medical triage? Who's bleeding the most? If you'd read the other thread where this was discussed already, you'd see that I said we should be in Darfur. But I'm also not the one calling the shots. My belief that military intervention may be necessary in conflicts doesn't necessarily line up with what our governments actually do. I'm not going to debate Iraq again. Read the other thread please.

 

As for cases where we intervene in a conflict when the motives aren't necessarily pure (ie protect national interests) and the side effect is helping people...is that worse than doing nothing? I take some comfort in knowing that, despite the fact that we aren't necessarily intervening in the most needy place, at least we're helping somewhere. Like I said, I don't get to call the shots.

 

Also, how did this thing with stopping the distribution of aid get into the argument? You're deviating from the issue at hand. We are talking about military intervention, not humanitarian aid.
Military intervention in a genocide is humanitarian aid. How can we justify one without justifying the other? Shouldn't they both be about helping those in need?

 

 

Edit:

If you don't have a problem with military intervention, what is your solution to deciding where to intervene?

Edited by 94Camaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that makes perfect sense since we as a nation don't have much to lose in Darfur. So, it's not so much a moral obligation, but an obligation to protect our national interests.

 

That's pretty much the only real reason to intervene anywhere internationally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's actually Democrats who intervene on moral grounds and Republicans who intervene for national interests. However, I can see why you'd think that because as of late, Republicans have been masking their intentions as something more noble to make it more palatable for the public. It's understandable why they would need to do this, as it builds up support for their actions, though to be honest, I couldn't care less about what it looks like as long as it ends up benefiting us in some way.

 

Hence why I oppose the Iraq War, we haven't benefited from it in any tangible way other than providing a foothold in the region, and since we have military bases in Turkey, a country neighboring Iraq, I don't see why we needed them in Iraq. If we were going there for oil, I sure as heck haven't felt the benefit of that endeavor and as such can conclude it surely wasn't for oil, or for any other national interest other than Dubya wanting to punish Saddam for making daddy look like a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to boil this down to where it always ends up and where it's pretty much already arrived anyways. You're either pro-Iraq war or you're pro-genocide. That's it people. Pick a side. Either support the Iraq war 100% or you're a blood-thirsty genocide-loving demon. Choose carefully.

 

You can't ask for a clearer plan. You can't question the true motives of our actions. You can't wonder if maybe the harm we're doing, the thousands of lost lives, and the boatloads of tax-payer dollars might not equal out the benefits. You can't envision a better way. You take it the way it is or you're a genocide lover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...