Register to reply

Ron Paul

by falc39
Tags: paul
Share this thread:
DrClapeyron
#37
Dec18-07, 10:54 PM
P: 128
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is.
That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.
ShawnD
#38
Dec18-07, 11:51 PM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.
Reagan is very often quoted on this. Here is what he wrote in his autobiography, word for word:

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

As much as I hate Reagan, I have to give him credit when he can admit possible mistakes.
DrClapeyron
#39
Dec19-07, 12:43 AM
P: 128
Of course neutrality may have worked in Lebanon. There were half a dozen guerilla groups operating in Lebanon. The US chose a side, was bombed and moved off shore where the guerillas could no longer attack. It wasn't as though Lebanon was crucial to US foreign policy. What exactly is Lebanon's staple export/commodity/product? Location

Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.
ice109
#40
Dec19-07, 02:35 AM
P: 1,705
he's never going to win
ShawnD
#41
Dec19-07, 03:45 AM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.
The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years, and the US did nothing to protect either country. The US was helping to fuel the war by selling/giving weapons to Iraq, then it was later discovered in the Iran-Contra scandal that the US was also selling weapons to the Iranians. That's not protection. That's war mongering. If you want to know why Arabs hate the US so much, a review of the 1980's would be a good start.
DrClapeyron
#42
Dec19-07, 10:42 AM
P: 128
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
ShawnD
#43
Dec19-07, 12:20 PM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
You're right about defending allies being a top priority, but the blowback theory isn't about defending allies. It's about state sponsored terrorism that some US politicians openly talk about on live TV. Of course they don't call it terrorism; they prefer the term "Nation Building" which roughly translates as the process of replacing a country's government with one that you like more. Such examples include the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran where CIA and British intelligence overthrew a democratically elected government in order to put the Shah back in power. Then in 1979 he was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and American diplomats were taken hostage. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence and it had absolutely nothing to do with government terrorism that happened in 1953. It makes me wonder if Carter or Reagan tried that same "they hate our freedom" line.

The worst part of this is that there is a disconnect between the people and their government. Nobody goes to the polling station with the mentality of "I think I'll vote for terrorism this time", but politicians end up doing that. Then when retaliation happens 5, 10, 20 years later and innocent people like those in the WTC or on the USS Cole are killed, those same politicians throw up their hands and act like they have no idea why this happened. Sure I was yelling at the dog and hitting it with a stick, but why did he bite me??
Ivan Seeking
#44
Dec19-07, 12:23 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
DrClapeyron
#45
Dec19-07, 12:37 PM
P: 128
Ivan Seeking, I meant that the US is motivated to protect its cash-futures market, to be blunt about the matter.

ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually prefered the Shah.
ShawnD
#46
Dec19-07, 01:19 PM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually prefered the Shah.
Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).

Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protesters of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded.

Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. The already precarious alliance between Mossadegh and Kashani was severed in January 1953, when Kashani opposed Mossadegh's demand that his increased powers be extended for a period of one year.

[.....]

When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests. [...] Despite his stature as a nationalist, he is shunned because of his secularism and western manners
[....]
Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."

He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).
mheslep
#47
Dec19-07, 01:56 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,072
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.
No. Paul clearly opposes US foreign involvement, esp. Iraq. He's hardly clear about the causes of the 9/11 attack, he's dancing on the head of a pin.
~11:17
Host: "Are you suggesting the US caused 9/11?
Paul: "No, ..."

Host: "What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?"
Paul: "The Americans didn't do anything to cause it..."
In the debate he says generically 'attacked' due to policies, is ambiguous whether or not he's means 9/11 or in Iraq; taken with the rest of the video and his own writing posted on the House site, he's contradictory at best. All the more reason why one has to be careful about what's attributed to him.

As an aside, the fun part is the >12000 Paul You Tube comments! For which, this is well earned.
ShawnD
#48
Dec19-07, 02:12 PM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Youtube comments are hilarious. That's half the reason for going there.

I'm refering to the actual debate itself at roughly 6:00 in the video.

Moderator: You don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks?
Ron: What changed?
Moderator: Noninterventionlist policies
Ron: No, nonintervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the middle east... I think Reagan was right, we don't understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics, so right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what we would do if someone else did it to us.
Moderator: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?
Ron: I'm saying we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted we're over there because Osama Bin Ladin has said "I am glad you're over here on our sand because we can target you so much easier." We've already since that time killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary.

Americans themselves did nothing to cause this, as the guy at 11 minutes is trying to get him say, but the government certainly does deserve some of the blame, and Ron Paul says just that at 6 minutes.
mheslep
#49
Dec19-07, 03:05 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,072
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).




He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).
Excuse me while I shift the topic to something like ... the title of this thread, R. Paul. On the subject of avoiding foreign wars with admittedly hostile powers, Paul has cited as an example that the US[West] managed to contain the Soviet Union while avoiding a hot war; I suppose that would also go for China under Mao[1]. If I read Paul correctly, he contends the US should do likewise with todays bad actors. Fair enough. It must be seen however that the USSR containment was done by fighting a cold war through some nasty proxies in S. America, Iran as posted here, the M. East, etc., which Paul again criticizes, saying they cause 'blowback' among other things. I'd agree some of these cold war actions were ill advised / foolish in some cases. I'd also say its unavoidable to have blunders like that in a war, cold or hot.

Now, my summary take on Paul is he:
-Opposes direct military action in Iraq, Sudan, etc and points to containment strategies instead (probably while people rot - Sudan),
-Opposes involvement with proxies required to execute containment,
and all the while says hes not an isolationist. I'm still waiting for a Presidential foreign policy plan he supports in one sentence without criticizing it in the next.

[1] Not that I'd grant this is a given 'good' as Uncle Joe killed/imprisoned 20 million and Mao 10's of millions, but ok, the argument for containment is it's better than blowing up the whole world.
Evo
#50
Dec19-07, 09:22 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,412
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.

To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy

H.R.6
Title: An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110ErkbdS::

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.
Ivan Seeking
#51
Dec20-07, 12:30 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110ErkbdS::

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.
Just because he didn't support this bill that doesn't mean that he is protecting the oil companies. It might be worth seeing why he didn't support it. What's more, Ron Paul's money is coming from a fantastically successful internet campaign, so we know that he's not in the pockets of oil companies. Hopefully Russert will ask about some of these issues next Sunday on MTP.
falc39
#52
Dec20-07, 01:32 AM
P: 14
Sometimes what you see on the outside isn't what he is thinking. It's easy to make assumptions here.

For instance, when asked why he voted against giving a gold medal to Rosa Parks, he shot back with this brilliant response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0A...eature=related
Ivan Seeking
#53
Dec20-07, 01:36 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by falc39 View Post
Sometimes what you see on the outside isn't what he is thinking. It's easy to make assumptions here.

For instance, when asked why he voted against giving a gold medal to Rosa Parks, he shot back with this brilliant response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0A...eature=related
I'd say more Constitutional than brilliant. And I would bet that his opposition to the bill listed above results from similar motivations.

I'd bet he has other finely nuanced ideas, like only Congress has the power to declare war.
Evo
#54
Dec20-07, 09:46 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,412
When you make bad decisions based on some concept, no matter how good the concept itself might be, the result is you've made a bad decision.

His "pro big oil" vote I mentioned is not the only one, he also voted against a bill that would prevent price gouging by oil companies and oil cartels.

He consistently votes against resolutions on human rights. He's voted against raising the minimum wage, against relief for student loans, against protection for homeowner's having their homes take under "Eminent domain", I have a long list at home, I can post them tonight.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The Missing Six Minutes with Ron Paul Current Events 5
Object Hovering In St. Paul Sky General Discussion 18
Paul Hamm General Discussion 3
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1
Dr paul marmet General Physics 1