mf - story #4825 - Ron Paul's military

posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2008 at 8:19PM

Ron Paul's military policy:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...ch?v=WI5FqTuybKU

posted by Vina on December 9th, 2008 at 10:15PM

He made some good points. The war was not necessary. I'm forgetting something...I remember he said the americans should focus on fixing their own bridges, but did he say that eventually, the bridges they ruined in others countries be fixed by the americans? It would be irresponsible and selfish of him to neglect the damages his fellow americans did to other people's land. I'm just too lazy to watch the video again.

Link

posted by dennisn on December 10th, 2008 at 9:24AM

Not only does he say "the war" was unnecessary, but also unethical for various reasons, a violation against taxpayers being one of them, Iraq not having attacked the US being another.

And, you heard him right :P... he doesn't want to fix the bridges his fellow Americans destroyed. You could tell he struggled with the question a little, and sees the validity in the argument. In fairness though, it's not HIM that is being irresponsible and selfish, it's Bush and Clinton and all the guys that fucked things up in the first place. They should be the ones to pay for THEIR mistakes. Why should 70% (?) of the population (that is anti-war) have to pay for the reckless and retarded expenditures of the other 30%?

Link

posted by dsk on December 9th, 2008 at 9:28PM

He's against Iraq, voted to invade Afghanistan, but generally sounds like he's pro-military to me.

What were you talking about?

Link

posted by dennisn on December 10th, 2008 at 9:27AM

He only voted to invade Afghanistan, actually only to hunt down Bin Laden, not to take over the country or affect it's anti-democratic state policies in any way--and only because Bin Laden threw the first punch *on American soil*.

He is indeed (unfortunately) pro-military, but ONLY for *internal* defense. He is absolutely against ALL foreign state manipulation/aggression.

Link

posted by dsk on December 10th, 2008 at 11:31AM

>not to take over the country or affect it's anti-democratic state policies in any way

Where does he say that?

You have to take out the Taliban if you want free reign to hunt down bin Laden in Afghanistan. So if you're going to overthrow the Taliban, you have to replace it with another form of government.

If you remember, the vote he cast was specifically for military action against the Taliban.

>He is absolutely against ALL foreign state manipulation/aggression."

Except Afghanistan it seems.

Link

posted by dennisn on December 10th, 2008 at 11:44AM

In several places:

4m20s:
"We [would have done] much better trading with Vietnam than fighting with them."

4m50s:
"It's wrong to spread [democracy] by force. We should spread it by example."

5m0s:
"Threatening Pakistan and threatening Iran makes no sense whatsoever." Soon afterwards he says how he supported going after Al Qaeda into Pakistan, not after the Taliban or the state, and how he is adamantly opposed to the "neocon" agenda of nationbuilding.

Link

And yet he voted to overthrow by dsk on December 10th, 2008 at 12:00PM.