EnviroLink Forum

Surely you're aware of how much presidents on both sides of the aisle give on their campaign promises/positions once in office.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Yes, but most do not take less popular positions in the attempt to gain office. Dr. Paul has already made rather large changes in his positions just switching from the Libertatian to Republican party. The strong isolationist position he has held for so long would tend to indicate even movement away from isolationism would still be significantly more isolationistic than other candisates just because of the starting points.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, but he would create whole new messes, which may be even worse.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlgav80c ... re=related



That is illogical as it assumes isolationism does not create messes as well.



How does he prevent historical actions? The future is unknown and isolationism can be just as much of a problem as prior actions.





Except he would not address those problems either. They are not what he considers to be a responsibility of the federal government.




Isolationism is pacifism unless and until there is a direct attack on us.





Neither have a central organization, leadership, or even concerns. The occupy movement is wantingto have discussions and not a clear position.

Neither have concerns?



Like those who harbor terrorist who plan attacks on the US?

And since occupying various countries in the middle east, there are even more who would like to attack the US. The hornet's nest has been stirred. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate to have been honest enough to point out this glaring fact. Policing the world, shoving democracy down their throats, imposing sanctions if they do not obey .... of course they are murderously angry with the US and it is the foreign policy to date which leads us more and more into danger. And if we don't stop, it is 100% guaranteed there will be endless blood shed. Isn't it worth trying a different tact? As Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it." Wars just create more wars. It will be endless.

Historian explains Ron Paul's take on foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzw9z2WLk0

Historian explains Ron Paul's take on foreign policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzw9z2WLk0[/quote]

And more .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIu0CeVs ... ure=relmfu

You use an example which does not support your position very well. Very few candidates would have invaded Iraq without the cherry-picked and/or created intelligence that was used to justify it. How can this show Dr. Paul being the "only" candidate who would not have created that mess?







More hellish than 9/11 with a nuke added? More hellish than women living under Taliban rule. More hellish than the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia prior to the NATO actions? Looking at the world with blinders is a good way to create a knee-jerk reaction. The poorly considered invasion of Iraq becomes the isolationist movement and the next time there really needs to be some action we ignore it as we did in the 1930s right up to where we were directly attacked and could not continue to do so.



Not if the inaction creates a larger problem to mitigate. How large would the problem have been if Hilter had allowed us to continue to ignore him? If he had not declared war after the Japanese attack we still would have ignored his actions and our aid to the Allies would have been curtailed due to our conflict with Japan. German war echnology would have had longer to develop without interruption.



How does that compare to the hell unleashed on Europe and the rest of the world because the US held an isolationist position that embolded the Axis powers? One good nuke can provide enough material to kill millions in a very slow and painful fashion.



Really? Have you read any history at all? The economies of the world are inter-connected and as such we cannot be left alone by such actions.





Right, neither have concerns as an organization. They have individual concerns which change from person to person and do not apply to all within the movement. That is why they are both fringe movements.





Not really, as the governments who ASKED for assistance in the area are no more lilely to want to attack the US. Kuwait and their "allies" in the region were more than happy to have the assistance of the multinational force led by the US. The new government in Libya is not likely to support terrorist groups in the near future. The government in Afghanistan supported the terrorist organization which did attack us. The old government in Iraq disliked us very much for not allowing them to keep Kuwait while killing their own people.



Huh?



I can see how asking the Iranians very nicely will keep them from building a nuclear arsenal and how none of the nations would ever allow one or more of their nuclear weapons to be used in an attack. Look at how rationally the North Korean government has acted with sanctions and tell us how it would have been better without them and the decreased income for their military.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

According to the first clip Dr. Paul supported the invasion of Afghanistan and in the second he opposes the prolonged wars such as in Afghanistan. Do you not see a dichotomy in those statements?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat ... Terrorists

House of Representatives
On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).

Senate
On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

Total of 1 vote in opposition to the action in Afghanistan by a Democrat.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... votes/455/

To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Yes 296

No 133

Total of 133 votes in opposition to the action in Iraq with only 6 Republicans joining the majority of the Democrats.

It seems Dr. Paul's position on these issues is more in line with the Democrat party rather than the Republican party yet he is running as a Republican. Could it be the opposition of the social aspects by the Republican party is a greater portion of his view?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Right, but you still don't know the nature of Paul's "curve" eminating from the starting point. Got faith?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Only if one assumes than an invasion necessarily equates to a prolonged "war", if we can even call it that. The basic deal with either, dealing with a place like Afghanistan is this: we can get in and out cheaper and risk it going to hell afterward. Option 2 is we can spend 10 years there and risk it going to hell afterward. Personally, I don't see a substantial difference in the risks. Either way, you're dealing with a culture that's intent on killing itself and is by no means ready for civilized democracy.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Yes, the nature of the "curve" has been from a very strong isolationist position to a strong isolationist position. If he was less of an isolationist in the very beginning, it would not matter given the current position and current movement pattern. He most likely would not live long enough to move past what is an isolationist position given the current trend. Thus, when compared to the curve of any other candidate the position is still much more isolationistic. The curve cannot be quantified as it is only the information the candidate wants to give, so there is a measure of faith in the honest portrayal of the position given in all candidates. Comparing what is known to what is known is all which has been done.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Given the history of the region and the nature of the opponent that should have been a given. Of course, one can never know how the winds will blow, but based on the history it was the most probable outcome.



There would be no risk, but a given that it would go to hell if the government were toppled and we leaft quickly.



There is a slim chance it will be stable for a time now, but none if we had exited quickly.



Correct, which is why one must enter with as much knowledge as possible. There was a valid reason for going in and with the decision to enter also came the moral requirement to repair the damage to an acceptable level before leaving AFTER the reason for entering was concluded. We just recently concluded the reason for entering with the death of Osama the bomba.

There was also a greater probability of that being completed earlier if it had not been for the distraction of the invasion of Iraq. That is but one of the reasons against going into Iraq, but one that clearly impacted the time frame for leaving Afghanistan.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Wait, if you cannot quantify the curve, then how do you know how steep it is and where it ends up?



Then you know electing mainstream candidates (from either side) is going to get you more of what you've had the last few decades. It's going to take someone unconventional...no, it's going to take alot of them elected to federal government, in order to turn us around.



Only if we chose that path and of course, collectively agree with your moral stance that we must remain to "repair the damage".



Right, that slim chance surely being worth the resources, time, and lives put in. Do you really believe that? I don't.



That's what "they" want you to think. Fact of the matter is, you're still left with a culture that gives rise to and fosters people like Osama. One man is not the problem.



True. If only it were about Osama.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Where it ends is not as much of a concern as where it is now when he is running for office. That is the only comparison we have to work with at the present. The other candidates may move their positions too, so it is a comparison of slight variables at a point in time or a range of points.



Probably, but getting the right unconventional people is going to be problem. As I said the President cannot do it by themself, so there will have to be a change in Congress too. The current deadlock with the GOP's position of "no" would have to change to get bi-partisan support. Dr. Paul will not even get the support of the majority of the Republicans for many of his stated positions much less the support of the Congress in general. I personally do not see the stated positions of Dr. Paul being the way the US should go. He is still a Libertarian in Republican clothing and that is too unconventional for even the Republicans.



True, but if we change our moral stance that much what else will have been changed in the process?



I believe that view is why we have a continual cycle of problems in the region. The band-aid repair eventually turns into a more costly to repair damage.



No, one man is not the problem, nor was the goal to eliminate the problem of the culture or we would not be leaving now. The goal was to eliminate the organization responsible for the attack on the US, and to replace the government that was shielding that organization. We replaced the government and have now eliminated the majority of the leadership of the organization.



No, the stabilization of the Afghan government would have been much faster too. The area became a "backwater" in comparison to Iraq, which caused too much of the actions to stagnate instead of proceed toward the goals.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Wayne, I had a nicely formatted response typed out but I lost it. I'll just touch on key points.

Shall we continue harping that both dominant parties get along, electing only them all the while, only to dismiss unconventional candidates when they come along because they differ from those about which one side or the other is complaining? Transitioning to this, as you point out, will not be easy but then, that's no reason to dismiss either.

Are we going to get a meaningful amount more out of what we did in Afghanistan than had we either done nothing or much, much less?

Was the goal in Afghanistan the right goal? In due time, I may reflect more positively on our "investment" there. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

_________________
TANG SOO!