Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine (Read 6529 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #40 - Jun 22nd, 2015 at 4:43pm
Print Post  
Tom, you don't think negotiating with Iran gives them more legitimacy than they deserve? Isn't that a huge favor to the Ayatollah, to negotiate with his lackeys?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #41 - Jun 24th, 2015 at 9:10am
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 5:30am:
Actually it's bloody typical, although we were taught differently in grammar school.

They didn't teach us that the ink was barely dry on the Constitution when US war hawks in the Senate fomented the invasion of Canada.
http://www.cryslersfarm.com/battle.htm


Your reading of history is pure nonsense.  That was a battle in the war of 1812, (and ink dries and a generation passes in  ~25 years).   The Brits, you might want to recall blockaded US Atlantic shipping, impressed US merchant sailors into the royal navy (kidnapping & enslavement) repeatedly attacked US territory with ground troops, burned Washington (the new US capital) and attempting to take New Orleans.  "war hawks" does not properly describe self-defense.


Quote:
Then there was the invasion of Mexico,

Certainly you can''t mean the Mex-Amer war. Spain left Mexico in 1821,organized as an empire, quickly replaced w. a pretty good constitution in 1824 ... which was shredded be a military dictatorial take-over by Santa Ana in  1836.  This take-over caused at least three of Mexico's regions to revolt and fight for independence - legitimately IMO.  Tejas/Texas succeeded in leaving Mexico in 1836 and operated as a separate nation till they voted for annexation to the US in 1845.

Mexico declared the US annexation an act of war, refused to recognize the borders or to negotiate.  Expansionist - certainly, war-hawkery, no.  Sorry again , but this cartoon revisionism  doesn't support your point.  A military dictator stamping on the rights of individuals doesn't IMO have any valid territorial claims.

Quote:
the Spanish-American War that Mark Twain railed against, and on and on.

Spanish-Amer war was adventurism - agreed.  We had no need to intervene.  Very diffenet from the previous two cases.


Quote:
Check out the description of Gore Vidal's book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-War-Peace-How-Hated/dp/156025405X

It's true as they taught us that America was the land of economic freedom and opportunity for many, but if the US government ever really stood for peace and justice abroad, someone would have to prove that to me.


Why ? Gore Vidal is/was a very bright guy, excellent writer, and notorious libtard US-hater.  He's perfectly willing to invent 'facts' w/o benefit of evidence;, like the FDR knew of Pearl Harbor in advance, or that Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima.  He used to be too sharp for that sort of blatant lie.

So what do you imagine was the US ulterior motivation  in WW1 & WW2 ?  How about Serbia/Croatia  Korea ?  ?  Were we just rapaciously stealing territory & removing individual rights as the hate-america-first types believe ?   That argument makes no sense.  We probably have little real interest in places like Korea of Serbia, but it's quite hard to argue the goal wasn't liberty.

Quote:
Imho the US has never been a Sweden or a Switzerland, and it takes a lot of Orwellian doublethink, the ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time, to believe that it ever was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink


I agree, we're not neutral bystanders, but face reality.  Sweden and Switzerland were only able to remain neutral b/c Russia & UK & USA did the heavy lifting against Germany & Italy. Several other nations tried neutrality and were ... neutered.   And US interests were violated, for example when Germany interdicted US ships to Britain&France.

As much as I am in favor of staying out of conflicts like Korea, Vietnam or Saddam overrunning Kuwait where we have almost no interest at stake; yet, there is also something very wrong with cowering in the basement, like Switzerland & Sweden did - as their neighbors and trading partners were dismembered.   "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good ppl to do nothing" (E.Burke), and therefore Sweden & Switzerland did their part for the cause of evil.

Quote:
Finally, check this out, from a US President and five-star general:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-ye...


Yes there really are a lot of war-hawks, esp Republicans like McCain & Graham (nearly all Reps I think) - those who can't distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism.  Those who can't distinguish "national defense" from the projection of offensive power.  However you really need to read some history & find better examples&arguments.

I really think Obama is doing the right thing by not taking the bait and jumping back into Iraq w/ big force.  OTOH his lack of a policy wrt ISIS kidnappings & killing US citizens,  or security breaches is pathetic.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #42 - Jun 24th, 2015 at 10:13am
Print Post  
Land of Freedom wrote on Feb 17th, 2015 at 2:44pm:
What are libertarian solutions to deal with Islamic terrorism?



Describe terrorism.  You mean their internal fight w/ atrocities ?  Or kidnapping/murder of US nationals ?  Or terrorism against US interests ?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #43 - Jun 24th, 2015 at 10:30am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 21st, 2015 at 4:34pm:
...
But, who's selling them arms?
I'd say Iran, but I wouldn't count out the Communists either.

....


Russia is certainly in the business of selling arms on a large scale, but considering that Isis is undermining their big investment in Syria and their Mediterranean port, I'll wager not.

Iran, but let's not ignore Turkey - our NATO ally.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #44 - Jun 24th, 2015 at 5:36pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 10:30am:
Russia is certainly in the business of selling arms on a large scale, but considering that Isis is undermining their big investment in Syria and their Mediterranean port, I'll wager not.

Iran, but let's not ignore Turkey - our NATO ally.

I just read a short article at UK Independent saying that "Western Diplomats" don't know where ISIS is getting so much money.
I suppose if the NSA was watching that sort of thing, they'd know something, and tell the President, who may or may not inform his diplomats... but they know, they just don't want it to become public knowledge. Somehow, having the American people know who is actually supporting ISIS would jeopardize "National Security". Probably just the security of the people in our government responsible for our foreign policy. This foreign policy is in the name of the American people.

The Turkish government doesn't like ISIS at all, why would they?

Russian arms get sold, and resold, and often sold again, so Russian policy won't matter, as long as they're selling lots of arms, but hey, so is everybody else! What a great idea! Arm the entire Middle East with modern weapons, including quite a few nukes and missiles to deliver them.
Without the U.N. just think how bad things might have gotten...

Who knows, maybe ISIS is about to run out of ammunition.

Do we have any ballistic missile, or cruise missile, or drone protection against nuclear attack for any of our cities? ( I grew up near a Nike site, they're long, long gone).

How many new ballistic missiles did Putin say Russia was going to deploy? Aimed at the U.S.
It seems lots of people around the world have nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S., or they're trying to get them.

It's the result of our long time foreign policy.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #45 - Jun 24th, 2015 at 6:00pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 9:10am:
Your reading of history is pure nonsense.

Steve, your reading of history is excellent, and your recaps of it are terrific. I enjoy reading them, and I learn things. Thanks.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2034
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #46 - Jun 25th, 2015 at 6:26pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 9:10am:
Your reading of history is pure nonsense.  That was a battle in the war of 1812, (and ink dries and a generation passes in  ~25 years).   The Brits, you might want to recall blockaded US Atlantic shipping, impressed US merchant sailors into the royal navy (kidnapping & enslavement) repeatedly attacked US territory with ground troops, burned Washington (the new US capital) and attempting to take New Orleans.  "war hawks" does not properly describe self-defense.


Certainly you can''t mean the Mex-Amer war. Spain left Mexico in 1821,organized as an empire, quickly replaced w. a pretty good constitution in 1824 ... which was shredded be a military dictatorial take-over by Santa Ana in  1836.  This take-over caused at least three of Mexico's regions to revolt and fight for independence - legitimately IMO.  Tejas/Texas succeeded in leaving Mexico in 1836 and operated as a separate nation till they voted for annexation to the US in 1845.

Mexico declared the US annexation an act of war, refused to recognize the borders or to negotiate.  Expansionist - certainly, war-hawkery, no.  Sorry again , but this cartoon revisionism  doesn't support your point.  A military dictator stamping on the rights of individuals doesn't IMO have any valid territorial claims.

Spanish-Amer war was adventurism - agreed.  We had no need to intervene.  Very diffenet from the previous two cases.



Why ? Gore Vidal is/was a very bright guy, excellent writer, and notorious libtard US-hater.  He's perfectly willing to invent 'facts' w/o benefit of evidence;, like the FDR knew of Pearl Harbor in advance, or that Japan tried to surrender before Hiroshima.  He used to be too sharp for that sort of blatant lie.

So what do you imagine was the US ulterior motivation  in WW1 & WW2 ?  How about Serbia/Croatia  Korea ?  ?  Were we just rapaciously stealing territory & removing individual rights as the hate-america-first types believe ?   That argument makes no sense.  We probably have little real interest in places like Korea of Serbia, but it's quite hard to argue the goal wasn't liberty.


I agree, we're not neutral bystanders, but face reality.  Sweden and Switzerland were only able to remain neutral b/c Russia & UK & USA did the heavy lifting against Germany & Italy. Several other nations tried neutrality and were ... neutered.   And US interests were violated, for example when Germany interdicted US ships to Britain&France.

As much as I am in favor of staying out of conflicts like Korea, Vietnam or Saddam overrunning Kuwait where we have almost no interest at stake; yet, there is also something very wrong with cowering in the basement, like Switzerland & Sweden did - as their neighbors and trading partners were dismembered.   "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good ppl to do nothing" (E.Burke), and therefore Sweden & Switzerland did their part for the cause of evil.


Yes there really are a lot of war-hawks, esp Republicans like McCain & Graham (nearly all Reps I think) - those who can't distinguish non-interventionism from isolationism.  Those who can't distinguish "national defense" from the projection of offensive power.  However you really need to read some history & find better examples&arguments.

I really think Obama is doing the right thing by not taking the bait and jumping back into Iraq w/ big force.  OTOH his lack of a policy wrt ISIS kidnappings & killing US citizens,  or security breaches is pathetic.



You left one out.  Vietnam.

7,662,000 TONS

of explosives.
(Seven Million Tons.)

Chicken Hawk Cheney "had other priorities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombs_in_the_Vietnam_War
« Last Edit: Jun 25th, 2015 at 8:11pm by Tommy Palven »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2034
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #47 - Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:27am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Jun 24th, 2015 at 9:10am:
Your reading of history is pure nonsense.  That was a battle in the war of 1812, (and ink dries and a generation passes in  ~25 years).   The Brits, you might want to recall blockaded US Atlantic shipping, impressed US merchant sailors into the royal navy (kidnapping & enslavement) repeatedly attacked US territory with ground troops, burned Washington (the new US capital) and attempting to take New Orleans.  "war hawks" does not properly describe self-defense.


Yeah, I drank the Kool-Aid they served me in fifth grade, too, but I got over it.

War Hawks in the US Senate argued that with the British tied up fighting Napoleon, the time was ripe to invade and conquer Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crysler%27s_Farm
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 47787
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #48 - Jun 26th, 2015 at 4:41pm
Print Post  
Tommy Palven wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:27am:
War Hawks in the US Senate argued that with the British tied up fighting Napoleon, the time was ripe to invade and conquer Canada.

At the time, getting the British off the North American continent was a reasonable goal, since the British had done nothing but make trouble for the U.S. since the beginning, resulting in lots of deaths and enslavement, and property loss too. Today, we would call it State sponsored terrorism.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tommy Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2034
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Reply #49 - Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:32pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 4:41pm:
At the time, getting the British off the North American continent was a reasonable goal, since the British had done nothing but make trouble for the U.S. since the beginning, resulting in lots of deaths and enslavement, and property loss too. Today, we would call it State sponsored terrorism.


Back then it was the British government, but now it's the US government that taxes and makes trouble for us.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Ron Paul on ISIS and Ukraine
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy