Paul says he won’t support GOP nominee

[Janett_Reno]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/13702.html

Last month, during a Republican debate, Ron Paul was asked whether he promised to support the GOP nominee next year, no matter who emerges from the primary process. “Not right now I don’t,” Paul said, “not unless they’re willing to end the war and bring our troops home.”

Paul called his Republican presidential rivals, including frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, “neo-conservatives” whom he couldn’t support in the general election should his own bid fail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So again dude, i know you feel it is only a few chosen ones that guard the gate, while others like Paul, Lugar, Hagel, Warner are left out and can't come in but you sure welcome in Libberman. Like the cowboy's way, my way or no way or kick them to the curb if they do not go along. It will be many more Ron Pauls, Lugars, Hagels and John Warner's in the next election dude. Republicans are getting to where they are not afraid to speak out, generals and the majority. Not just the war, big spending but at all what the neocons are failing at. Even Paul knows Rudy is a neocon.

[FishForLunch]

He should support democrats then, switch his party affiliation then if he believed in that so much.

[dude1394]

Keep dreaming janet.. Ron Pauls foreign policy is childish.

Lugar/Hagel/Warner will either accept they are wrong or will be just as wrong as the dems. In fact it would be interesting to see how lugar/hagel/warner voted on the last lost-to-al-queda-funding measure by the democrats. So again I would caution counting chickens.

Let's look..
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00411

Hagel - Voted with Dems
Warner - voted with reps
Lugar - voted with reps.

[Janett_Reno]

Yes dude, if anyone on this board or a politician does not stand for and with a neocon, in your eyes, they are wrong. I can point out many you send down the river in a swift boat like Paul, Hagel, Warner, and Richard Lugar.

I would lot's rather have any of those men as president as the neocons we have. That is why you do not agree with a conservative Republican because you stand with neo conservative. Before you stand with a conservative, you would even rather stand with a Rudy, and he is alot closer to a Libberman and is no where close to being conservative.

But i do agree with you that Rudy has sold out to big oil and the neocons and he will keep on doing what W is doing and keep it going. If the people love W, Chains and Ramsfield, then by all means Rudy is your man. You try to dress him up and make him a conservative, in which you aren't but he is in bed with Chains and W and you overlook him being what he is.

Ron Paul takes a tough stance and you do not like a tough stance against the neocons policy. So no way you would ever like Ron Paul.

[dude1394]

Ron Paul takes a childish stand with respect to foreign policy, it's naive.

As far as who takes a tough stand against the "neo-cons", there really aren't any that I see. Maybe Obama as he's been consistent, clinton and edwards are just opportunists.

[dude1394]

When it comes to someone providing AlQueda in victory, yes they are wrong. And they are dangerous to american interests, I sincerely hope they are defeated.

Your children will as well.

[iella]

dude, do you think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is "childish" because you disagree that our foreign policy can have unintended consequences?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by iella

dude, do you think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is "childish" because you disagree that our foreign policy can have unintended consequences?

No of course our foreign policy can have unintended consequences. So can our withdrawal from leadership. A vacuum will be filled by someone and some power.

Ron Pauls radical isolationism imo is childish, it doesn't recognize realities of the world. Think what would happen if the US didn't provide protection just to Japan for example. Japan is in a very dangerous part of the world, they would have no recourse but to re-arm to face down china.

What about when the warsaw pact was threatening europe, or the berlin air lift? How about Taiwan being threatened by china.

US leadership has brought 100's of millions (probably billions) of people out of poverty by promoting free trade and protecting those shipping lanes.

And yes the free-flow of oil.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No of course our foreign policy can have unintended consequences. So can our withdrawal from leadership. A vacuum will be filled by someone and some power.

Ron Pauls radical isolationism imo is childish, it doesn't recognize realities of the world. Think what would happen if the US didn't provide protection just to Japan for example. Japan is in a very dangerous part of the world, they would have no recourse but to re-arm to face down china.

What about when the warsaw pact was threatening europe, or the berlin air lift? How about Taiwan being threatened by china.

US leadership has brought 100's of millions (probably billions) of people out of poverty by promoting free trade and protecting those shipping lanes.

And yes the free-flow of oil.

Learn the difference between isolationism (which is not what Paul stands for) and non-interventionism and you can come back. Till then don't even try...

Oh and if it helps you:

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy...6852110&sr=8-1

And one question: Do you think the US is less isolated throughout the world because of its aggressive pre-emtive war strategy?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Learn the difference between isolationism (which is not what Paul stands for) and non-interventionism and you can come back. Till then don't even try...

Oh and if it helps you:

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy...6852110&sr=8-1

And one question: Do you think the US is less isolated throughout the world because of its aggressive pre-emtive war strategy?

Semantics Arne...Everything I listed was attributable to your term "non-intervention". If you can't debate your candidates position then why comment?

Well what is it, "isolation" or "intervention". The US is a hegemon and as such is looked upon in the world as too big, too arrogant and too powerful. If we were so "isolated" and really hated don't you think that the people of south korea, japan, germany, etc. would be asking us to leave their countries?

It seems to me like a pretty typical parent-child type relationship. They gripe about what they don't like and don't really give much thanks for what's being provided for them, but they sure do appreciate it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Learn the difference between isolationism (which is not what Paul stands for) and non-interventionism and you can come back. Till then don't even try...

Oh and if it helps you:

http://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Policy...6852110&sr=8-1

And one question: Do you think the US is less isolated throughout the world because of its aggressive pre-emtive war strategy?

here is how ron paul defines the difference:

"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

that's about as good a dance as I've read any candidate attempt. ron paul says he isn't isolationist because he encourages "trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy", yet he will conduct these relations seemingly devoid of any affects on other country's "internal affairs" or without any interference in other country's "financial" affairs either.

that would be a heck of a trick to pull off.

clearly the ron paul foreign policy position is to disengage from our treaties such as nato, to step aside as the preeminent power in the world and the leadership role that america has performed since ww2, and to allow each and every nation to do as they wish inside their borders. seems to be the definition of "isolationist" to me.

according to the mantra of ron paul if we follow these "non-interventionist" guidelines the rest of the world will love us, and the rest of the world will not involve america in any of their disputes, and the rest of the world will continue to realize economic progress without our leadership or support.

uh huh. south africa would have removed apartheid if america and the world would have just left them alone. totalitarian russia would have stopped their expansionism if we had just left them alone.

put me down as a believer in america as a country that can help and aid other countries, as a country that has spread political and economic liberty to other countries, and that america and the world has benefitted from these bilateral relations.

has america made mistakes in its actions? clearly we have,

that does not mandate that we stop being the progressive force in the world. that does not dictate america stop trying to spread economic and political liberty.

[dude1394]

Mavie continues to be one of my most favorite posters. A liberal who truly does love america, sees her faults and points them out, yet also sees the goodness in her.

Bravo sir.

[iella]

Four points.

First, when Paul says interventionism, he means government-on-government interventionism. Obviously, we cannot interact with other countries without having some influence on their economy - in fact, the whole point is that we want to influence their economy in a good way by doing business with them. This is a much subtler (and Dr. Paul argues, more effective) way of promoting democracy and capitalism than sending our military in to occupy the land of sovereign nations and trying to use force to manipulate their establishment of power.

Second, I absolutely agree with Mavdog that America should be a progressive force in the world, and that we should be trying to spread economic and political liberty. I disagree with the idea that our method should be to go into other countries, establish a military presence there, and wait for people to declare how great we are and how they want to be just like us.

Third, I see how Dr. Paul's emphasis on non-interventionism can be seen as extreme to the extent of inappropriateness. In fact, I don't necessarily agree with him that we ought to completely remove the military from our international bases and that we should never interfere in cases of genocide. However, I support him because I do agree that the American military presence abroad needs to be diminished, first because we can't afford it (how many billions have we borrowed from China to fund the war in Iraq?) and second because it incites a lot of hatred in the Middle East. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is remotely headed in this direction - everyone else only talks about how we need to strengthen the international presence of the military and make everyone afraid of us.

Fourth, Dr. Paul understands that implementing change takes time. Whether it's his ideas on the size of the federal government or military actions abroad, he doesn't expect change to happen immediately. Again, what I think we need is to move away from trying to police the world with our military and toward using tactics of diplomacy and trade to spread our message of liberty and prosperity.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Semantics Arne...Everything I listed was attributable to your term "non-intervention". If you can't debate your candidates position then why comment?

Well what is it, "isolation" or "intervention". The US is a hegemon and as such is looked upon in the world as too big, too arrogant and too powerful. If we were so "isolated" and really hated don't you think that the people of south korea, japan, germany, etc. would be asking us to leave their countries?

It seems to me like a pretty typical parent-child type relationship. They gripe about what they don't like and don't really give much thanks for what's being provided for them, but they sure do appreciate it.

Do you think people in Germany want you guys to stay? The government won't tell you to go, the people would tell your government to go, however. Huge protests when Bush came to visit, they had to completely lock down a whole town...

Do you think people in Saudi-Arabia want you guys to stay? Do you think Turks want you guys to stay? America's government is hated in many countries, not liked in even more. - Back in the days it was admired.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Do you think people in Germany want you guys to stay? The government won't tell you to go, the people would tell your government to go, however. Huge protests when Bush came to visit, they had to completely lock down a whole town...

Do you think people in Saudi-Arabia want you guys to stay? Do you think Turks want you guys to stay? America's government is hated in many countries, not liked in even more. - Back in the days it was admired.

Are those not the democratically elected guvmnets? If so they should say it with their ballots, not an opinion poll.

And the guvments of europe have been coming closer to the US's thinking, not farther, see the election results.

[Arne]

Oh I forgot, opinion polls only matter when it comes to defending your neo con administration...

[dude1394]

And here I thought you were a serious person and not just another cliche-slinger.

Elections are the polls that matter.

- So france elected a pro-us prez...Because they hate us?
- Germany elected a pro-us prez...Because they hate us?

Elections are the polls that matter, dontcha' know.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by iella

Four points.

First, when Paul says interventionism, he means government-on-government interventionism. Obviously, we cannot interact with other countries without having some influence on their economy - in fact, the whole point is that we want to influence their economy in a good way by doing business with them. This is a much subtler (and Dr. Paul argues, more effective) way of promoting democracy and capitalism than sending our military in to occupy the land of sovereign nations and trying to use force to manipulate their establishment of power.

there isn't any candidate in this race who advocates the use of our military, or of occupying any other country's land, to acheive our nation's foreign policy goals. none.

let's be clear here, this is a broader issue than just iraq. I admire ron paul's vote against giving the pres the power to attack iraq. at the same time ron paul has a foreign policy platform that advocates america abandon those international treaties that have been on the whole very positive to world peace and economic growth.

Second, I absolutely agree with Mavdog that America should be a progressive force in the world, and that we should be trying to spread economic and political liberty. I disagree with the idea that our method should be to go into other countries, establish a military presence there, and wait for people to declare how great we are and how they want to be just like us.

and I, as well as the other candidates in the race, agree with you on this.

Third, I see how Dr. Paul's emphasis on non-interventionism can be seen as extreme to the extent of inappropriateness. In fact, I don't necessarily agree with him that we ought to completely remove the military from our international bases and that we should never interfere in cases of genocide. However, I support him because I do agree that the American military presence abroad needs to be diminished, first because we can't afford it (how many billions have we borrowed from China to fund the war in Iraq?) and second because it incites a lot of hatred in the Middle East. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is remotely headed in this direction - everyone else only talks about how we need to strengthen the international presence of the military and make everyone afraid of us.

we are decreasing the number of us troops and bases stationed outside america.

Fourth, Dr. Paul understands that implementing change takes time. Whether it's his ideas on the size of the federal government or military actions abroad, he doesn't expect change to happen immediately. Again, what I think we need is to move away from trying to police the world with our military and toward using tactics of diplomacy and trade to spread our message of liberty and prosperity.

it takes both a strong stick and good dialogue to acheive consensus with those we deal with.

[Arne]

Your kind of self-absorbed if you think that the US will play the main role in an election in Europe.

I've followed both elections very closely.

France elected Sarkozy for his progressive thhinking his new ideas, this air of being someone who will bring change. France was messed up domestically with unemployment being the number one issue cloesly followed by crime rates and immigration in the election. Foreign policy wasn't an important issue in 2007. The US had gone to war already and there was no new war in sight anyways.

In Germany we elect parties not politicians. The party of Gerhard Schröder is still in power and the only reason Schröder isn't with them anymore is that he can't be Bundeskanzler anymore. But guess who's ministre of foreign affairs in Germany... It's SPD's Frank-walter Steinmeier who comes from Schröders party...

Then here's a poll made after one of the debates leading to the election:



The headline means something to the sound of: "Who's had the better stances on:"

And the forth line, which says "Aussenpolitik" has to be translated in "foreign affairs"...

You see, their's no chance in hell that Germany would've given more votes to Merkel's party for Merkel's stance on foreign affairs.

You're uninformed and mislead by your neo con media sources.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Your kind of self-absorbed if you think that the US will play the main role in an election in Europe.

I've followed both elections very closely.

France elected Sarkozy for his progressive thhinking his new ideas, this air of being someone who will bring change. France was messed up domestically with unemployment being the number one issue cloesly followed by crime rates and immigration in the election. Foreign policy wasn't an important issue in 2007. The US had gone to war already and there was no new war in sight anyways.

In Germany we elect parties not politicians. The party of Gerhard Schröder is still in power and the only reason Schröder isn't with them anymore is that he can't be Bundeskanzler anymore. But guess who's ministre of foreign affairs in Germany... It's SPD's Frank-walter Steinmeier who comes from Schröders party...

Then here's a poll made after one of the debates leading to the election:

The headline means something to the sound of: "Who's had the better stances on:"

And the forth line, which says "Aussenpolitik" has to be translated in "foreign affairs"...

You see, their's no chance in hell that Germany would've given more votes to Merkel's party for Merkel's stance on foreign affairs.

You're uninformed and mislead by your neo con media sources.

If you say so...And the sky isn't blue...

1. If the countries wanted the us out of their countries they would say so and we would go, period.
2. When said countries elect leaders that are more pro-american then how am I to interpret the results except that the countries elected leaders that are more pro-american.
Not to mention also more aligned with our policies.
3. The "poll" that matters is elections.

So either I have to conclude that.
a. The anti-american vitriol is at least surface deep.
b. If those countries ARE anti-american it doesn't make a hill of beans because they are more supportive of our policies and not less.

You decide it.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by iella

... America should be a progressive force in the world, and that we should be trying to spread economic and political liberty. I disagree with the idea that our method should be to go into other countries, establish a military presence there, and wait for people to declare how great we are and how they want to be just like us.

Short of establishing a military presence, how shall we spread economic and political liberty????

Outside of prayer and/or propaganda, the only really proactive thing I can thing that comes to mind is economic sanctions....that is, coercively lower the standard of living in another country by isolating the country....

My point is that it's quite difficult to spread economic and political liberty except by coercive force, and coercively forcing political and economic liberty is a bit like bragging about one's humility.....such acts tend to redound in unpredictable and undesirable ways.

[iella]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there isn't any candidate in this race who advocates the use of our military, or of occupying any other country's land, to acheive our nation's foreign policy goals. none.

let's be clear here, this is a broader issue than just iraq. I admire ron paul's vote against giving the pres the power to attack iraq. at the same time ron paul has a foreign policy platform that advocates america abandon those international treaties that have been on the whole very positive to world peace and economic growth.

If you would agree with me that establishing Iraq as a stronghold of democracy is one of our foreign policy goals, the use of our military and occupation to achieve our foreign policy goals is something advocated by every candidate, Democrat and Republican, with the exception of Ron Paul (and perhaps Kucinich and Gravel).

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and I, as well as the other candidates in the race, agree with you on this.

If you ask any politician to their face, of course they're not going to say that they advocate the use of military force as their first option. If you listen to the way they talk the rest of the time (how many have threatened to bomb Pakistan or supported an attack on Iran?), I'm not so convinced. I think we need a man with a consistent record of advocating the spread of democracy through friendship and peace, and I think Ron Paul is that man.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we are decreasing the number of us troops and bases stationed outside america.

This would be surprising and encouraging to me, if true (do you have exact numbers?). Regardless, I think that Ron Paul as President would be more likely to continue this trend than any other candidate.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it takes both a strong stick and good dialogue to acheive consensus with those we deal with.

Dr. Paul's point is that we HAVE a strong stick, and everyone knows we can use it. We don't actually have to be beating people over the head to have that kind of influence. Someone with a strong stick that beats people is nothing more than a bully.

It comes down to a difference of attitude. When someone says, "Yes we want diplomacy, but we need to be strategically positioned so that we can destroy your country if you don't agree with us," that's quite different than saying "Yes, we want diplomacy, we're willing to accept that you might disagree with us and hope that we can convince you anyway. Let our companies do business with yours." The former is why other countries accuse the United States of arrogance, because no matter how many times these politicians say they want democracy, their underlying attitude is, "If you don't agree with us, we're going to bomb the hell out of you."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Short of establishing a military presence, how shall we spread economic and political liberty????

Outside of prayer and/or propaganda, the only really proactive thing I can thing that comes to mind is economic sanctions....that is, coercively lower the standard of living in another country by isolating the country....

My point is that it's quite difficult to spread economic and political liberty except by coercive force, and coercively forcing political and economic liberty is a bit like bragging about one's humility.....such acts tend to redound in unpredictable and undesirable ways.

the answer is really quite simple. surprised you don't grasp it.

free trade, and open (rather than closed) societies.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by iella

If you would agree with me that establishing Iraq as a stronghold of democracy is one of our foreign policy goals, the use of our military and occupation to achieve our foreign policy goals is something advocated by every candidate, Democrat and Republican, with the exception of Ron Paul (and perhaps Kucinich and Gravel).

well, no, that is not the position of most of the candidates. the only candidate that I recall who backs bush on iraq is mccain, all the rest distance themselves from the current administration's iraq policies.

as it relates to the dems, obama and edwards are both advocates of complete withdrawl from iraq within a year. clinton is not as specific on her positon saying it will be done (I recall) "in an orderly manner".....whatever that means.

If you ask any politician to their face, of course they're not going to say that they advocate the use of military force as their first option. If you listen to the way they talk the rest of the time (how many have threatened to bomb Pakistan or supported an attack on Iran?), I'm not so convinced. I think we need a man with a consistent record of advocating the spread of democracy through friendship and peace, and I think Ron Paul is that man.

not too sure if any candidate has advocated bombing pakistan or openly supported attacking iran either.

my point is that paul is against the international treaties that have fostered peace as well as being against the trade pacts we have negotiated (such as nafta and others he voted against). that is clearly NOT a consistent record that is positive in regard to international affairs in my book. just the opposite.

This would be surprising and encouraging to me, if true (do you have exact numbers?). Regardless, I think that Ron Paul as President would be more likely to continue this trend than any other candidate.

at least 70,000 troops will be removed from overseas bases. two groups- overseas basing commission and Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)- decide which and when.

Dr. Paul's point is that we HAVE a strong stick, and everyone knows we can use it. We don't actually have to be beating people over the head to have that kind of influence. Someone with a strong stick that beats people is nothing more than a bully.

It comes down to a difference of attitude. When someone says, "Yes we want diplomacy, but we need to be strategically positioned so that we can destroy your country if you don't agree with us," that's quite different than saying "Yes, we want diplomacy, we're willing to accept that you might disagree with us and hope that we can convince you anyway. Let our companies do business with yours." The former is why other countries accuse the United States of arrogance, because no matter how many times these politicians say they want democracy, their underlying attitude is, "If you don't agree with us, we're going to bomb the hell out of you."

the attitude you express is not unique to ron paul, and could be embraced by just about every candidate (save perhaps for guilani...)

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the answer is really quite simple. surprised you don't grasp it.

free trade, and open (rather than closed) societies.

Yes, that would be Ron Paul's non-interventionist view you are describing. I was addressing the government sponsored liberty speading, not non-interventionism which is intrinsically libertarian (non-coercive).

I do grasp it, btw.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yes, that would be Ron Paul's non-interventionist view you are describing. I was addressing the government sponsored liberty speading, not non-interventionism which is intrinsically libertarian (non-coercive).

I do grasp it, btw.

hmm, quite a contradiction.

you ask what can foster growth of economic and political liberty w/o using coercion and force, so i mention free trade and open societies.

you state ron paul advocates that very idea.

yet ron paul has voted no on every trade agreement presented for ratification.

his actions do not follow the your words...

[alexamenos]

then Ron Paul is a hypocrite...

regardless, free trade by and among citizens of various states is the absence of government intervention, which makes it non-intervention.

(btw....government managed trade is not free trade. Voting against inter-government programs which establish trading blocs which have highly regulated trading rules is not voting against free trade)