The Instigator
JasonMc
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Luna3
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Anything Ron Paul

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 1820
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (7)

 

JasonMc

Pro

If you disagree with Ron Paul on any topic, I would love to debate you about it. Please, keep it rational, and give specific reasons why you disagree. Also, leave your emotions at the door. I'm looking for a rational debate, not a meaningless argument.
Luna3

Con

Greetings.

During the last Republican debate, Mr. Paul argued that in 2000 Bush was against "nation building," yet in 2008 we are in Afghanistan and Iraq. He used this as an example of how Bush went against his word.

Whereas, one could argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are "nation building" it is wholly unrealistic, irresponsible, and strange to omit the influence September 11, 2001 on a change in Bush's nation building policy.

I contend in this exchange that Mr. Paul must concede that 9-11 greatly influenced and changed Mr. Bush's foreign policy pertaining to nation building, and it wasn't a simple "flip flip" as Paul suggested.
Debate Round No. 1
JasonMc

Pro

JasonMc forfeited this round.
Luna3

Con

Luna3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JasonMc

Pro

Sorry I didn't post an argument in round 2 in time. In all fairness to you, I'd like to offer a redo, if you care to have one. I'll give a reply to your argument from round 1, and if you don't care for a redo, we can continue in the comments section. Even if you don't care to continue the debate at all, please read my reply. It may give you some food for thought.

If you go to www.pbs.org and find Frontline on their list of programs, you can watch a documentary called "The Dark Side" for free. It explains how Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were gunning for Hussein before Bush ever got elected into office. This was inconsistent with Bush's supposed "conservative" foreign policy at the time.

It then goes on to explain how we got the faulty CIA intelligence that led us into war in the first place. What it shows is that Cheney ordered George Tenet, then head of the CIA, to compose the documentation that must be presented to congress in order to get a declaration of war in two weeks, when it would normally take two years.

What Tenet used to compose the documentation in time to meet his deadline was old information from the first gulf war, added to a nominal amount of false testimony that the Egyptians tortured our of an Iraqi defector. It's the same "faulty intelligence" that Colon Powell went to the UN with. It was the basis for another false flag operation.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA declassifies classified information 25 years after the fact. To date, the CIA has declassified information about several false flag operations they were involved with, including overthrowing dozens of regimes such as Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, etc. There were many similar instances after WWII and during the Cold War.

Those we are fighting overseas see an America that's been overthrowing regimes, assassinating political figures, imposing sanctions on countries which forces hundreds of thousands into poverty and starvation, starting wars and bombing their people, families, and holy land, occupying their countries and building military bases on their holy land, and basically treated their nations like pawns during the Cold War. This is why they call us crusaders.

This is why they feel motivated to become suicide terrorists. It's not because we are free and prosperous, it's because all of our meddling over the past six decades or so has caused them to declare a jihad. This is what the CIA itself states in the 9/11 Commission Report, it's called "blowback".

This is in no way a defense of terrorism or terrorists, there is nothing that can justify such actions. What I am saying is the same thing Ron Paul and the CIA are saying, which is that the American people didn't provoke the attack on 9/11, but the blowback from hyper aggressive covert operations and foreign policy did. If you don't believe me, read the 9/11 Commission Report issued by the CIA.

This concept of blowback seems to be escaping a large number of Americans. It's happened to every great empire throughout history, and it's happening to the US now. Empires expand beyond their means and fall when they get stretched too thin. When you're military might is spread around the globe like butter, you have a lot of weaknesses, such as not having a strong enough military presence to bail out the residents of New Orleans during Katrina, or to have fighter jets in the sky when there's a bunch of high-jacked commercial airliners flying into major US buildings, or to protect our borders from an invasion of immigrants or more potential terrorists.

These are the reasons why Ron Paul calls George Bush out on flip flopping about his "conservative" foreign policy. There's nothing conservative about it. He's a neocon, which is a leftist liberal. This may be hard for some to accept, but look in to it before you dismiss it.

Granted that it's not the most credible source, if you search wikipedia for paleoliberalism and neoconservatives, it will point you in the right direction. It says: "According to Michael Lind, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many "anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson… preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals'". According to Lind, this group of people influenced or later became neoconservatives. - Lind."

I am not claiming that just because neocons aren't conservative that they are liberal, I'm claiming they are liberal because they ARE leftist liberals under a conservative guise. If one party should ideally give balance to the other, neocon republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the liberal opposition is liberal itself, then the scales tip to one side, and there is no balance to the system. There's nothing democratic about a system without balance. This is why Ron Paul is standing up against the other republican candidates, who are truly being "wholly unrealistic, irresponsible, and strange."
Luna3

Con

This might comes as some surprise to you, but I am well aware of Bush and Company's plans to go into Iraq before 9-11, and before January 2001. I am keenly aware of the efforts of the Project for the New American Century as well.

The issue is not whether or not Bush was planning on nation building in Iraq or not prior to 9-11, the question is whether or not 9-11 provided the vehicle necessary for the US to go into Iraq.

This debate is not about Bush and his pre 9-11 plans for Iraq. It is about whether or not Paul was incorrect to leave 9-11 out of the discussion for why the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan. Agree or disagree, when you are standing in a debate you just look foolish when you subtract 9-11 from the discussion of why were are in Afghanistan. It's really just silly. Paul asks "why" with this tone as if he is so baffled. I would definitely have more respect for him if he would at least concede a little that 9-11 changed foreign policy. Because: it did.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Black.Nite17 9 years ago
Black.Nite17
RON PAUL is the canidate to vote for! hands down.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
That's the best you can think of? Do as the Paul supporters say and actually google "Ron Paul", you will get so much amunition for this debate you wont know what to do with it all.
Posted by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
"flip flop" excuse me.....
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TheSloth 9 years ago
TheSloth
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
JasonMcLuna3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03