Which cherry-picked version of history do you ascribe to?I thought it was a well-scripted cherry-picked version of history the first time Rambone posted it about a week ago. I still think that way.
I thought it was a well-scripted cherry-picked version of history the first time Rambone posted it about a week ago. I still think that way.
Which cherry-picked version of history do you ascribe to?
Your premise is flawed: I don't cherry-pick. F'r'instance, when someone wants to point to a particular group's dislike for our presence in their homeland and uses only recent history as an example, I find it distasteful and dishonest to ignore the older history where this same group of people (same individuals now that I think about it) welcomed our presence when it helped serve their purpose. I also don't leave out the parts where our presence prior to the aggression against us was with the express permission of the leaders of those nations and/or by the governing authority of the U.N.
On second thought: make that two groups of people who benefitted from our presence.
Paul seems to forget the oldest of political maxims: expediency. He's fallen for the international "Get off my lawn" line.
Are you saying that they should have overlooked the CIA-coup of 1953 because the United States was once welcomed there? How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?
I'm coming to the conclusion that you must be a troll. Normally you hang out on a basketweaving forum or something. Your only purpose is to crap in every Ron Paul thread on forums. Oddly this forum has 65% support for Paul And yet you have no favored candidate of your own. By all means keep bleating and let the rest of the sheep choose for you. Or perhaps you can start a thread SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE and let the rest of us crap in it.
Please, how am I a troll?
Are you saying that they should have overlooked the CIA-coup of 1953 because the United States was once welcomed there? How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?
The bridge and the goat skins are a dead give away.
I don't have a candidate of choice for this primary. Were you not so busy picking out and obsessing on only the posts in which I question Paul's policies or chances of election, you'd already know that.
So please, tell me how it is that I'm a troll? Does your trashing the other candidates in other threads not make you a troll as well? Is the standard of troll only relative to one's position on Paul for president? Please, how am I a troll?
I can't just read this thread and maybe watch the video. YOU stepped into this thread specifically to take a couple of stabs. One at Ron Paul, One at Rambone. Now I need to engage you in debate.
Congrats you have once again successfully steered the thread away from the OP. Now lets all debate your points and forget the OP.
Now what was that OP...........
You're putting words in my mouth that you know I did not say. Could you at least attempt an honest discussion without creating straw men deflections?
I'm coming to the conclusion that you must be a troll. Normally you hang out on a basketweaving forum or something. Your only purpose is to crap in every Ron Paul thread on forums. Oddly this forum has 65% support for Paul And yet you have no favored candidate of your own. By all means keep bleating and let the rest of the sheep choose for you. Or perhaps you can start a thread SUPPORTING YOUR CANDIDATE OF CHOICE and let the rest of us crap in it.
Haven't we all been called a troll once or twice? I've been called one dozens of times.
Lets stick to the topic.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ask_for_a_declaration_of_war.html#post2420882
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._of_securing_nomination_slim.html#post2419475
To keep this post on topic to the OP: Only one person directly addressed the points I made in the posts above. Ram started a new thread as well to help shed some light on issue. But as you can see by reading through the posts following mine, nobody else has sufficiently addressed these issues. Or to be more correct, nobody has addressed them at all.
You didn't ask me specifically, but I'll pipe up.
It's naive, immature, and illustrates a disregard for the reality of geopolitical relationships.
Trade is an alliance. And there will be instances where trade with Nation A precludes trade with Nation B because B doesn't like A.
Free trade is a myth. In the first place, we would always be operating at a disadvantage if our approach to international trade was premised on avoiding protectionist policies and assuming an at-cost standard. Sure, China would love to have its goods imported duty-free, while it smacks every U.S. export to China with a substantial penalty for simply being American. Free trade is only free if the other players agree to the rules. I think the odds of that happening are slim to none. Moreover, in order to obligate the other players to honor their promises, one must either enter into a treaty or hope for the best. Treaties are alliances. Back to point one.
His non-intervention policy is a little too pat. He does not allow for the massive middle ground wherein U.S. sovereignty may not be directly threatened, but significant U.S. interests are. Or U.S. Allies are. Is he going to withdraw from every active treaty currently on the books? Would he fail to fulfill U.S. obligations contracted prior to his presidency? While I don't think he would do so maliciously or overtly, I think he would drag his feet and manipulate circumstances to his advantage.
Example: and I'll make this one less muddied. The U.S. is attacked. There is no question about the identity of the aggressor. Kerflopistan has just bombed the west coast from Seattle to the Baja Peninsula. What would Paul do? I have only ever seen two answers from him/his supporters. They are
1. Wait for Congress to declare war and then respond. (How delightfully understated, chap. I do hope they finish up quickly. It's almost tea time.)
2. Address the responsible party with the appropriate action.
As you can see, variations on the same theme. What's important is what I don't see. I don't see Paul SEEKING a declaration of war from Congress. And there has never been a Congressional declaration of war without a request from the sitting president. So would Paul actually make that request from Congress? Honestly, I haven't seen or heard anything that says he will. The possibility always exists that he will (I have no doubt that the appropriate people behind the scenes will be advising him to do so). But he is not making that point clear or definitive. Quite the contrary, he is creating an image of pacifism by refusing to acknowledge military action as a legitimate and/or likely response.
And I don't see specifics. I want to know he's going to kick butt and take names. This isn't some political philosophy class we're talking about. This is real life where bad people do bad things. Okay, so I know real specifics are hard to come by. This is all hypothetical so much would depend on the nature of the circumstances, who was responsible, etc. But he can at least throw us a bone now and then.
Additionally, Paul seems to operate on a premise that the only real threat/action warranting military response is a clearly defined attack by an internationally-recognized nation-state by uniformed members of their armed forces.
What are the chances that's going to be the next threat to the U.S.?
And what would Paul do if it weren't?
Keep in mind, none of these concerns is rooted in hawkish desire to go around bombing the hell out of anyone and everyone. I'm perfectly fine keeping our nose here at home.
And finally, I think Paul has an absurdly sophomoric approach to what motivates people on the other side of the geographical boundary. And the conclusions he has drawn with regards to foreign affairs of the last 10-15 years makes me sick to my stomach.
Sorry, I was trying to understand what you meant about cherry-picked history. Let me try again without that first part.
How far back in history are you looking, and to which specific instances are you referring?