Ron Paul-his responses at last night's debate

[basimpson22]

Wow, it seems as though Ron Paul support is growing here on OL. I've been a Ron Paul fanatic for some time now. Recently, I was asked to organize the local campaign for Ron Paul. I'm waiting to hear back from the Regional Coordinator.

[Selene]

Wow, it seems as though Ron Paul support is growing here on OL. I've been a Ron Paul fanatic for some time now. Recently, I was asked to organize the local campaign for Ron Paul. I'm waiting to hear back from the Regional Coordinator.

He has acquitted himself well in the debates. One of his serious problems is the stupidity of some of his "True Believers," for example, attacking like worker bees anyone who questions Dr. Paul. Unfortunately, he has no control over them, but they taint his message because they scare some folks with their rabid attacks.

[Mark]

Ron Paul’s conclusion – end all foreign aid – is great, but some of his arguments for it leak.

... U.S. "foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us ... They should have their sovereignty back."

A stupid, altruistic argument. Apparently it’s aimed at Israel’s supporters, rots-a-ruck.

... "We can’t afford it."

"Afford" is hardly in the same category as the feds taking your -- not "our" – money and giving it away. But if we descend to that vernacular, even if the U.S. could afford giving "its" money to Israel, it would still be wrong. "Afford" is irrelevant.

Ron Paul can be annoying. Still, he’s the best by far.

[anthony]

Ron Paul’s conclusion – end all foreign aid – is great, but some of his arguments for it leak. ... U.S. "foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us ... They should have their sovereignty back." A stupid, altruistic argument. Apparently it’s aimed at Israel’s supporters, rots-a-ruck. ... "We can’t afford it." "Afford" is hardly in the same category as the feds taking your -- not "our" – money and giving it away. But if we descend to that vernacular, even if the U.S. could afford giving "its" money to Israel, it would still be wrong. "Afford" is irrelevant. Ron Paul can be annoying.

Mark,

Why "stupid, altruistic" rather than respectful and good-willed? That's my read of R. Paul. I am one of those pro-Israelis who is very much in favour of cutting Israel loose, financially.

For one, the relationship can only improve, with fewer demands on Israel from the US g'ment.

Perhaps then, a true alliance based on commonality of interest could grow - as trading partners, military allies, and friends, instead of the growing resentment I'm seeing among some Americans towards its 'charity case'.

As well as dissipating the myth that supporting Israel is drawing hatred on the US from Muslim nations.

American Jewry should be allowed to privately send funds, if they're that concerned.

(But if I recall right, there are tight monetary controls on US citizens: odd that, the State can send brillions of your tax dollars in aid overseas - but not a private individual.)

Certainly, though, Israel is only one recipient of aid - and for some reason always the one singled out, which is incomprehensible and irrational.

[Mark]

WhYNOT writes:

"... Israel is only one recipient of aid -- and for some reason always the one singled out, which is incomprehensible and irrational."

The reason is obvious. Setting aside that some of the aid is bribes to leave Israel alone, the other countries get far less per capita and they don’t harp on their being America’s greatest ally, the beacon of the West etc., nor have they done a fraction of the harm Israel has done to America -- see "This Is Our Ally?" on ARI Watch for just some of it.

Israel and its supporters have earned neither respect nor goodwill but rather contempt.

Ron Paul said he would end all foreign aid. He mentions Israel explicitly in this regard because his detractors do. And per above there are other regards, other reasons for singling out Israel.

When will Israel start paying the foreign aid back? It doesn’t seem to be on any Israel supporter’s agenda. Regarding private donations to Israel, because for now Israel is at war with America such donations would be treasonous and should be forbidden.

War describes it pretty well. Massive propaganda, fraud and theft, all that’s missing are the bombs. And the bombs come from Israel’s enemies which the U.S. attacks, either directly itself or indirectly through Israel. U.S. support of Israel is not the whole reason for Mideast enmity -- the U.S. mucks around there due in part simply to powerlust and "war is the health of the state" -- but at the least it's a substantial reason. And for what? Israel, to repeat, doesn't deserve support.

Ron Paul gets smeared as an isolationist because he points out that our government’s foreign policy is insane. In the news just the other day: yet more foreign aid going to Uzbekistan because it’s a supply route to Afghanistan. Read the transcript of Craig Murray’s talk The Banality of Evil to see how your money gets spent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Israel and its supporters have earned neither respect nor goodwill but rather contempt.

I support Israel.

I stand with Israel.

Michael

[anthony]

WhYNOT writes: "... Israel is only one recipient of aid -- and for some reason always the one singled out, which is incomprehensible and irrational." The reason is obvious. Setting aside that some of the aid is bribes to leave Israel alone, the other countries get far less per capita and they don’t harp on their being America’s greatest ally, the beacon of the West etc., nor have they done a fraction of the harm Israel has done to America -- see "This Is Our Ally?" on ARI Watch for just some of it. Israel and its supporters have earned neither respect nor goodwill but rather contempt. Ron Paul said he would end all foreign aid. He mentions Israel explicitly in this regard because his detractors do. And per above there are other regards, other reasons for singling out Israel. When will Israel start paying the foreign aid back? It doesn’t seem to be on any Israel supporter’s agenda. Regarding private donations to Israel, because for now Israel is at war with America such donations would be treasonous and should be forbidden. War describes it pretty well. Massive propaganda, fraud and theft, all that’s missing are the bombs. And the bombs come from Israel’s enemies which the U.S. attacks, either directly itself or indirectly through Israel. U.S. support of Israel is not the whole reason for Mideast enmity -- the U.S. mucks around there due in part simply to powerlust and "war is the health of the state" -- but at the least it's a substantial reason. And for what? Israel, to repeat, doesn't deserve support. Ron Paul gets smeared as an isolationist because he points out that our government’s foreign policy is insane. In the news just the other day: yet more foreign aid going to Uzbekistan because it’s a supply route to Afghanistan. Read the transcript of Craig Murray’s talk The Banality of Evil to see how your money gets spent.

Silly arguments. A distinct lack of sense of proportion. Who doubts that Israel only has to lose one war, to vanish, while the USA will always exist? As front-line, Israel has HAD to act in its self-interest.

Your shop-worn links I believe you've used before: opinion pieces, and conspiracy theories. (Do they include your old favorite, that Israel could have pre-empted 9/11?)

If I could, I'd ferret out truck-loads of stuff to prove the opposite - that the two nations have mutually benefited hugely from each other, accepting too, the probability that much of it is covered by Official Secrets Acts.

I have not followed everything by Ron Paul, but would guess that he is wanting to bring about principled isolationism - of returning the US to a neutral position, in which she doesn't owe, or be owed, anything. Where all guilt from past misdeeds are

wiped out, and no amends have to continue being made. Zero appeasement, and no buying false friends and allies.

In other words, no more 'good-cop, bad-cop' routine to the world. Just pursuing true value from real friends, and smacking the real enemies on the head very hard - without costly and involving wars. Returning to the benevolent trader with other nations. A rationally self-interested America. If so, he's "my Man".

Unprincipled isolationism is a childish ' I'm taking my marbles and going home 'cos you guys don't appreciate me'. It is hiding from the reality that other countries exist, and should be judged on their own merits. It demonstrates lack of self-esteem - and fear.

Altruistic isolationism, in a nutshell.

[Mark]

WhyNOT writes:

... "... Israel only has to lose one war, to vanish, while the USA will always exist ..."

The USA qua the Founders and the Enlightenment is vanishing before our eyes. I don’t care about Israel except that the USA would be better off if it either "cleaned up its act" or "good riddance."

I’ve posted the Uzbekistan link before but it’s worth posting again because in an easy to read format it shows what U.S. foreign aid to dictators really means. Craig Murray is a decent man even if he’s something of a (British) liberal.

9/11 didn’t have to happen, that is a point Ron Paul makes repeatedly. Rodney Stich, former FAA agent, makes the point that airline cabins were left unarmed and improperly secured despite dozens of previous hijackings over the years.

As for deeper government corruption, it looks like elements within both U.S. and Israeli intelligence strongly suspected something would happen that day: see the ARI Watch links page under 9/11.

... "If I could, I’d ferret out truck-loads of stuff to prove ... that the two nations have mutually benefited hugely from each other ..."

"Ferret" is an appropriate word, but it can’t be done, even by ferreting. The benefit street is one way to Israel.

Yes, I gather Ron Paul’s foreign policy is "principled isolationist" as WhyNOT puts it, but since the word "isolationist" has always been a smear it might be better to just elaborate and leave off trying to put it in one or two words.

[anthony]

WhyNOT writes: ... "... Israel only has to lose one war, to vanish, while the USA will always exist ..." The USA qua the Founders and the Enlightenment is vanishing before our eyes. I don’t care about Israel except that the USA would be better off if it either "cleaned up its act" or "good riddance." I’ve posted the Uzbekistan link before but it’s worth posting again because in an easy to read format it shows what U.S. foreign aid to dictators really means. Craig Murray is a decent man even if he’s something of a (British) liberal. 9/11 didn’t have to happen, that is a point Ron Paul makes repeatedly. Rodney Stich, former FAA agent, makes the point that airline cabins were left unarmed and improperly secured despite dozens of previous hijackings over the years. As for deeper government corruption, it looks like elements within both U.S. and Israeli intelligence strongly suspected something would happen that day: see the ARI Watch links page under 9/11. ... "If I could, I’d ferret out truck-loads of stuff to prove ... that the two nations have mutually benefited hugely from each other ..." "Ferret" is an appropriate word, but it can’t be done, even by ferreting. The benefit street is one way to Israel. Yes, I gather Ron Paul’s foreign policy is "principled isolationist" as WhyNOT puts it, but since the word "isolationist" has always been a smear it might be better to just elaborate and leave off trying to put it in one or two words.

"WhyNOT", he also say :

"O, 'tis excellent to have a giant's strength! But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." [Will S]

And: There is nothing more self-contemptuous than apologizing for your strength to those who lack it.

Between those two wrongs - tyrant and apologist - there is an endless gap. Or, some would say, a false dichotomy. Comparable to that between a 'fascist' and a 'progressive', I think.

[Mark]

Apparently WhyNOT is accusing some group of apologizing for their (or someone other group’s) strength. I’ll take a wild guess, as a cryptologist. "By not having their government bomb Iran right now Americans are ashamed of their strength."

But maybe I got the meaning wrong.

Americans are a sleeping giant all right, but their real enemy, the enemy they need to wake up to before it’s too late, is not Iran, it is their corrupt government.

The giant suppine in the face of this tyranny is the real humility.

[anthony]

Apparently WhyNOT is accusing some group of apologizing for their (or someone other group’s) strength. I’ll take a wild guess, as a cryptologist. "By not having their government bomb Iran right now Americans are ashamed of their strength." But maybe I got the meaning wrong. Americans are a sleeping giant all right, but their real enemy, the enemy they need to wake up to before it’s too late, is not Iran, it is their corrupt government. The giant suppine in the face of this tyranny is the real humility.

Apparently WhyNOT is accusing some group of apologizing for their (or someone other group’s) strength. I’ll take a wild guess, as a cryptologist. "By not having their government bomb Iran right now Americans are ashamed of their strength." But maybe I got the meaning wrong.

When you get it wrong, you sure go the whole hog. Lack of good faith does that, I notice.

And when I argue often enough for effective but minimal force, when absolutely necessary.

What I call "apologist", is condemning 'the good' - in oneself - for being the good.

I am concerned for Israel's survival today, and for the USA's return to its principles, long-term, but rational isolationism will be a gradual process - and given the Ayotollah's recent speech, now is not the time to start.

But if we got started on our respective Nanny States, and their corruption and deceptions,

(shh, the children mustn't hear!) who knows, we might even agree, for a change...

[Mark]

"WhyNOT", he also say :

"O, ‘tis excellent to have a giant’s strength! But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." [Will S]

And: There is nothing more self-contemptuous than apologizing for your strength to those who lack it.

Between those two wrongs - tyrant and apologist - there is an endless gap. Or, some would say, a false dichotomy. Comparable to that between a ‘fascist’ and a ‘progressive’, I think.

As intimated in my reply, WhyNOT’s writing above is rather less than clear. It’s still obscure no matter how good your faith. If he doesn’t want to be misunderstood he should write what he means.

Perhaps his "whole hog" remark illustrates his own good faith.