Ron Paul: This is Why We Fight

Ron Paul, still a congressman until January, reminds many of his supporters why he'll be missed, talking about war talk regarding Syria on the floor of Congress.

"Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up a new regime sets up a serious constitutional question. From where does the president get such authority?…Sadly the people don't object. Once again we are about to engage in military action and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia…Would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S/Mexican border?….

"It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy seeking peace, trade and friendship….it's time to bring our troops home and establish a non-interventionist foreign policy which is the only road to peace and prosperity….This week I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the administration absent a declaration of war by Congress from supporting directly or indirectly any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort."

My new book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Comments

[Rich]

From where does the president get such authority?

"But, there I go again."

[Gojira]

Would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S/Mexican border?

Irrelevant comparison. We are Good. They are Bad. Therefore, we are Allowed, but they are Not.

[sage]

I guess might makes right. We have 11+ aircraft carriers and China has almost one. This one could turn into some purty shit.

[Res Publica Americana]

To be fair, the Russian federal government is the full-blown AIDS to our early-stage HIV. There's really no comparison between the two, especially, again, between the respective governments.

But that's irrelevant to why non-interventionism is the right way. I'm just hating (rightfully) on the Russian government.

[Cytotoxic]

Thank you for that point and awesome metaphor. Rights-respecting governments like America and Mexico have the unlimited right to meddle in unfree nations so long as they become freer/is necessary for security. Ron Paul's foreign policy is morally 1-dimensional, and that's being generous.

[NotSure]

As opposed to your zero dimensional morals ?

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

USA! USA! USA! USA!

[The Hammer]

Goddammit. He's gonna be replaced by a run-of-the-mill socon.

[Aresen]

Unfortunately, Rep. Paul's resolution will only inspire ridicule from "serious people".

[Sheldon J. Plankton]

I was thinking the same thing. His aversion to moar wahr has been source of much mirth from the neocon knuckledraggers. More hilarity will undoubtedly ensue.

[Pro Libertate]

We don't fight for our security, that's for damned sure. We're not much less secure from terrorist attack than we've ever been, except to the extent that plane passengers likely won't sit quietly during a hijacking attempt.

As for security from other nations, well, we're more powerful militarily than the next ten countries combined. Isn't that enough?

[Res Publica Americana]

And that's a huge understatement. Fearing any other country in the world at this point is pretty pointless.

Also, you can maintain a large, cutting-edge military without policing the world. But I guess that hasn't occurred to Cunts Incorporated in DC.

[Episiarch]

"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

[Res Publica Americana]

I don't know who invented it, but that term you often use, "war boners", is pretty accurate. They just can't resist wasting resources and sending Americans to die and kill for what ultimately amounts to no reason at all.

[JD]

And yet after ten years our military has still not finished winning a war against some backward, poor nation. No one ever wonders why it should take us this long to beat another country?

[Pagan Priestess]

Because they can't. Superior technology can win battles, but it's fuck all useless for forcing people to do things they don't want to do. Until every last person in the countries the US government is attacking is dead, they cannot win.

[Cytotoxic]

We did win in Iraq. It costs too much, but it can be done.

[Pagan Priestess]

No the American government didn't.

[Cytotoxic]

We're not much less secure from terrorist attack than we've ever been,

You're right. We're much more secure in large part thanks to that steady drumbeat of the drone wars killing the enemies of freedom. Nothing brightens my day like news of another clutch of baddies terminated by flying terminators. All at a relatively low cost.

[NotSure]

If that is what brightens your day, then you really need serious help.

[el esc?ptico]

That cytotoxicity seems to be mostly destroying brain cells in your case. Your lack of convincing arguments or biting sarcasm betrays the fact that you are either a brain dead troll or a flag waving republican or both.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

I think all about us tonight
and why, oh why we fight
And it's times like these I
can only remember the bad
about what we had

Well it's my way or the highway
Ignore everything that I say
You were always right and so we fight

You call but I never seem to be around
but you, you hunt me down
Because it's times like these I
can only remember the bad
about what we had

[sage]

He needs some Viagra for his war boner.

[James Anderson Merritt]

We really have to repeal the AUMF. Seriously.

[Mr Whipple]

O/T

Koch Brothers, Cato Institute Ending Dispute

Shareholder agreement to be dissolved. Crane to retire.

http://www.nationaljournal.com.....e-20120619

[heller]

Sounds like good news to me. It doesn't say when Crane is supposed to retire, just that he may be able to choose his successor.

[Mr Whipple]

It said that they are not going to disclose any details until Monday so that the staff can be properly informed beforehand.

[darius404]

Darn, you beat me to it.

[darius404]

Didn't see your post, I was so excited about the news.

[The Derider]

Mitt Romney wants to massively increase defense spending.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org.....g-promise/

For those of you who have a hard time making a distinction between him and Obama-- there it is.

[heller]

Obama increased defense spending by $100 billion. That's more a difference in degrees than a distinction.

[Episiarch]

Just wait as this scrambling by both TEAMs to show how their respective candidate isn't a carbon copy of the other TEAM's candidate ramps up. I'm actually sort of looking forward to seeing what complete stupid bullshit they're going to pull out of their asses.

[Gojira]

There's already a concerted effort on this very blog to convince us that hey, at least ROMNIAC isn't a full-blown socialist, so we should totally vote for him! We can change the GOP from within, if only we give in and vote for their candidates!

[Episiarch]

"Come on, dudes, vote for Romney, and if he wins you'll be ignored or shit on by the GOP and if he loses you'll be blamed and shit on by the GOP. Why wouldn't you do this? Don't you understand how important this is?!?"

[General Butt Naked]

Not only that, but when Romney institutes some doomed-to-fail big government/crony bullshit libertarians will be seen as the masterminds.

Hell, looked what happened when the economy tanked. It wasn't republicans, or big government that got the blame. No, it was Laissez Faire capitalism and libertarian philosophy that fucked everything up. Har, har.

[Cytotoxic]

They will think that anyway. Look at the solution presented by most of the punditocracy after almost 4 years of Obama: increase taxes on the rich.

[Cytotoxic]

I'm actually sort of looking forward to seeing what complete stupid bullshit they're going to pull out of their asses.

Why Oh God why?!?!

[The Derider]

Actually, it's a difference of 100 billion in 2013 and nearly a trillion in 2022.

That's a distinction, if you have the courage to face it.

[heller]

"Wow look at the size of Giant Douche, I'm voting for Turd Sandwich!"

[Sevo]

The Derider|6.19.12 @ 7:29PM|#
"For those of you who have a hard time making a distinction between him and Obama-- there it is."

Yeah, dipshit, Obama has been sooooo good about not spending money on defense, hasn't he?

[The Derider]

Compared to Romney, yes.

Remember, Romney rejected pulling out of Iraq in 2007.

[A Serious Man]

And Obama said he would end the war in Iraq, and yet he ended up not only waiting till the last possible moment under Bush's timetable, he also tried to extend it.

[heller]

But Romney strapped his dog to the roof!

[BoscoH]

In the past, Ron Paul sounded downright loony to me when he spoke of a non-interventionist foreign policy, even though I totally agreed with him. Now, he sounds downright statesmanlike. We are starting to turn the corner.

[Res Publica Americana]

Statesmanship is for losers. Being a politician is where it's at, bitches -- robbing the populace and doing immoral shit for a living! Ain't it grand?

[darius404]

OT: Kochs and Cato settle out of court.

"Looks like we've come to an accommodation with the Koch brothers, Cato founder and president Ed Crane said Tuesday in a email to employees.
Staffers will be briefed Monday on the settlement by Cato Chairman Bob Levy and John Allison, a prominent libertarian and former BBT chief executive office, who mediated the negotiations, Crane said. "It will be great to get all this unpleasantness behind us," he wrote.
In a follow up email to staff, Crane cautioned that negotiations are ongoing.
The deal will settle a lawsuit the Koch brothers filed in February over shares that determine control of Cato. . . .
The settlement involves dissolving the shareholder agreement. In addition, Crane is expected to retire under an agreement that allows him to select his successor, though the Koch brothers could veto the hiring.

Link courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy, which is where I saw the news.

[Killazontherun]

John Allison, a prominent libertarian and former BBT chief executive office

That catches the eye. If you have never heard him talk about the regulators who created the crises of '08, prepare to have your bones chilled before you do. Interview him about it Reason TV. People need to hear it.

[Underzog]

Dr. Paul is correct that we should not intervene in this on, but he is wrong as always to believe that diplomacy and/or irradication of the Libertarian's despised... zionist entity would be good for the Middle East or the world.

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

[heller]

So Paul wanting to leave the entire Middle East to its own business = "diplomacy and/or irradication [sic]" of Israel?

[heller]

Take your meds, meshuggeneh

[Brian D]

"This week I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the administration absent a declaration of war by Congress from supporting directly or indirectly any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort."

What the over/under on supporting votes? 30? 50?

[juris imprudent]

5

[R C Dean]

Optimist.

[BigT]

Except for the nonsense about oil, Paul correctly calls out the neocons on their warmongering.

[DantoRang]

These guys know exactly what is going on. WOw.

http://www.Anon-Browser.tk

[Alex the wolf]

I dont get the analogy with Mexico. What does it have to do? Is america providing the cartels with helicopters?

[Fluffy]

The analogy is pretty clear.

If China said, "People are dying in Mexico, so we are going to lead an intervention to remove the Mexican government and install one of our choosing. So that, you know, people won't be dying any more," we would not be down with that.

[David Gaw]

This much is certainly true... but so what? Our government represents our interests. China's government represents China's interests. We wouldn't want China on our doorstep because their interests are opposed to ours. That doesn't mean that, for example, we shouldn't seek to be on their doorstep if that serves our goals.

These "how would we like it if our adversaries did this to us" analogies always strike me as limp, as they ignore, one suspects deliberately, the nature of conflict.

One might just as easily say, "We shouldn't try and win this war against Equatorial Kundu, because how would we like it if Equatorial Kundu won a war against us!?" Of course we wouldn't like it. We want to win wars, not lose them. Winning is good. Losing is bad. (And negotiated outcomes can be either good or bad, but they are not always an option.)

[David Gaw]

"Would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S/Mexican border?...."

A poor analogy, as the violence in Mexico is a product of criminal activity the government is (with US assistance) trying to stop, while the violence in Syria is being committed by the government itself.

Here's a better analogy: "If the Mexican government were shelling and executing civilians on the US/Mexico border, would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution?"

And the answer is: it's unlikely Russia would have time to make such demands, because we would beat them to it. If for some reason we didn't, Russia would be entirely in the right to make such demands, whether we chose to "tolerate" them or not. And in reality, it's far more likely Russia would be helping finance the violence than trying to stop it.