Food for thought- Ron Paul on Af-Pak

[galtgulch]

On Af-Pak: Stop "Helping"

By Ron Paul

Published 05/12/09

While much of the country's attention is on other issues, a serious situation is developing in Pakistan that threatens to plunge us into another fruitless and bloody war. It is very frustrating to see that many who were so vehemently against the wars of the last administration have suddenly lost interest in foreign policy simply because we were promised change.

Those still paying attention know that nothing could be further from the truth. Very little has changed, except perhaps rhetoric, but what does that matter when the bombing missions are only getting deadlier? Rather than drawing down violent military interventions into the affairs of other countries, the new administration is escalating the foreign policy of the previous administration.

In Pakistan that entails the continuation and even escalation of military interventionism just across the border with Afghanistan. The targets are believed to be enclaves of Taliban militants, however, many innocent civilians have been caught in the deadly crossfire, severely damaging our image in the region. Many ordinary Afghanis and Pakistanis that never had cause to take up arms against us are being provided with motivation as family and friends are killed and maimed by our clumsy and indiscriminate bombs. Is it worth it for us to be involved in this way at such a high cost of blood, treasure and goodwill? Is there anything to be gained by this policy?

We are helping the Taliban and other enemies to actually gain numbers and strength, while driving them down from the mountains in the border regions deeper into Pakistan, where they have been making a menace of themselves. As our bombings follow them, beleaguered villagers have little choice but to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of refugees or take up arms and join the fight against us.

Nonetheless, instead of recognizing the cascading unintended consequences of trying to deal with Pakistan's problems, all signs in Washington point to further escalation. Both the House and Senate have newly introduced bills to triple foreign aid to Pakistan, from $500 million to $1.5 billion, with every indication that the leadership in Pakistan is taking advantage of the situation with the Taliban to milk more aid from the US taxpayer. We are broke. This is money we don't have, and it is an insult to the American people to run up the national credit card for this type of military adventurism after many Americans thought they were voting for peace.

The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan's internal problems is not making us safer. In fact, we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and increasing the threats to our security here at home. We are inciting the very terrorism and extremism we are trying to stop. Every dollar we send, even if it is for humanitarian purposes, frees up resources to make war and potentially prop up unpopular leaders. The factions and politics of the Middle East are irrational and dangerous. We play with fire when we meddle in their affairs, and we isolate ourselves diplomatically by making more enemies than friends. We need to bring our troops home, end all foreign aid, and maintain a neutral stance on the world stage. It, in fact, is the only foreign policy we can afford right now, and it would gain us more friends and trading partners than our bombs ever could. Besides, that's what the Constitution permits and our founders strongly advised.

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; Pakistan has nukes. Do you really want them in Taliban hands.

[Alfonso Jones]

Gulch; Pakistan has nukes. Do you really want them in Taliban hands.

Chris -

I'd be inclined to rephrase that as:

Gulch:

1) Do you note that Ron Paul seems quite content for the Taliban to have nukes?

2) Do you agree with Ron Paul on this?

Bill P

[galtgulch]

Gulch; Pakistan has nukes. Do you really want them in Taliban hands.

Chris -

I'd be inclined to rephrase that as:

Gulch:

1) Do you note that Ron Paul seems quite content for the Taliban to have nukes?

2) Do you agree with Ron Paul on this?

Bill P

Bill P

It is easy to criticize especially when thats all you do rather than suggest what you support or reveal what policy you would advocate.

So its all right for the Soviet Union to have nukes and for China to have nukes and Israel and India and who knows who else. Or do you recommend that we demand that everyone in the world give up their nukes except us or including us? And are you in favor of keeping troops in South Korea and Japan and West Germany and Turkey and Iraq but bringing troops home from the rest of the 820 military bases in 1300 countries? Or are you in favor of the U.S. having a military presence all over the world as if it were an Empire?

I worry about terrorists or madmen just stealing cobalt bars which are used in many factories in the U. S. to irradiate food and creating dirty bombs which requires no advanced knowledge or technical know how. Just slap some plastic explosive on the Cobalt bars, distribute them to as many major and minor cities as you like and explode them downtown to render those cities uninhabitable for centuries! Just what is the solution to that threat which I believe is far more likely and achievable than an ICBM with multiple targeted reentry vehicles in each.

So while you keep harping on Ron Paul's non interventionist foreign policy, Obama, whom I assume you don't agree with on anything at all, is destroying our currency, increasing government involvement in many areas as you know. His supporters who voted for him are virtually hypnotized by him, have no minds of their own, are not at all inquisitive to learn what options exist or are plausible and more in keeping with our maintaining our freedom.

All Ron Paul suggested was following the Constitution by having the Congress debate and decide themselves whether going to war would be in America's interest and if so, to declare war as the Constitution empowers the Congress, not the President, to do, nor does the Constitution empower the Congress to pass the responsibility on to the President , as they did.

Most people with whom I speak agree that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land but do not see themselves having any responsibility in seeing to it that our representatives abide by it. Once enough people do read enough history to appreciate that the Constitution limited the powers of the Congress explicitly and that our present situation is a result of the Congress grabbing powers not authorized, then there would be some hope for a peaceful resolution and avoidance of economic catastrophe.

Even if Obama were able to protect us from the terrorists, which appears to be your priority, our economy is doomed with his policies and would weaken our country and open it to invasion.

www.campaignforliberty.com 12May 6PM 152155, 8PM 152181

Re the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

Six more Representatives co-sponsored H.R.1207 yesterday, bringing the running total up to 149! (218 needed for assured passage)

Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 5/11/2009

Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 5/11/2009

Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] - 5/11/2009

Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 5/11/2009

Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] - 5/11/2009

Rep Hare, Phil [iL-17] - 5/11/2009

Best of all, Gerlach and Lance are both on the House Financial Services Committee.

TOTALS*:

129 Republican co-sponsors (72.47%), 25 on the committee.

20 Democratic co-sponsors (7.81%), 2 on the committee.

*totals revised to show accurate co-sponsorship

Have you called your congressperson yet to encourage them to cosponsor HR1207? Its easy at www.DownsizeDC.org The Senate version is S604

gulch

Edited May 13, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

1) "...we demand that everyone in the world give up their nukes except us or including us?" except us. score 1 right wrong 0

2) "So its all right for the Soviet Union to have nukes..." no 2 0

3) "China to have nukes..." no 3 0

4) "Israel..." no 4 0

5) "India..." no 5 0

How am I doing?

Adam

[galtgulch]

1) "...we demand that everyone in the world give up their nukes except us or including us?" except us. score 1 right wrong 0

2) "So its all right for the Soviet Union to have nukes..." no 2 0

3) "China to have nukes..." no 3 0

4) "Israel..." no 4 0

5) "India..." no 5 0

How am I doing?

Adam

Adam,

All that counts from now on is for each of us to try to enlighten at least one other person each day and to recruit them to the movement.

Let us see. First we know from the growth to date that it is possible to add to our numbers by talking with others who may share our concerns and are willing to listen and to read.

So if the 151181 each reach another say in the course of one time interval, and continue to do so. 300k then 600k then 1.2M then 2.4M then 5M then 10M then 20M then 40M then 80M.

See! Each just has to reach nine others who join and recruit. Each successive wave has to reach one less, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and we would be at 80 M enough to take the presidential election. IT all depends on how effective we each can be at recruiting others. That is simply what this is all about. Except for one thing.

We have to all be on the same page in certain crucial respects. One of the most important issues would be to study Article 1 Section 8 and 9 and 10 so we grasp what the Founders had in mind. We have to agree, no matter what other issues we disagree about, that the federal govt should abide by the Constitution.

If and when we get enough citizens together on this stuff to be able to elect representatives , Senators, Congressmen, and President as well as state legislators the rest would be easy.

is this a viable, plausible, achievable goal. We see the numbers growing. Somebody is joining. Each of us joined. YAL is doing it in more and more colleges. The younger generation are open to it even if their socialistic parents are not.

There are supposedly 65M republicans in this country and a similar number of independents. I think that once we have candidates and run their campaigns in which we bring up the issues which are never discussed that might ignite a sea change in American politics.

I understand that in the WSJ today a columnist mentioned that Geithner acknowledged that the govt did play a role in causing the problem! IF they are willing to admit that, which they had denied as they blamed the "greedy" and irresponsible bankers, then we can point out that if the proper diagnosis is that the govt caused the problems then more govt should make things worse not better, and the best solution is to get the govt out of the way of the market place.

www.campaignforliberty.com 152416

Wm

Edited May 14, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gulch:

I was actually kind of chiding you on your people skills with Bill P.

"It is easy to criticize especially when thats all you do rather than suggest what you support or reveal what policy you would advocate."

:poke:

:console:

Adam