Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Ron Paul: Not the most anti-war

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The 2001 Presidential military order:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

There was indeed only one vote cast against this resolution in either house of Congress...That one vote was not Ron Paul. Ron Paul voted yes. The one no vote was Rep. Barbara Lee.

Just thought I'd inform you.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 2:49:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The 2001 Presidential military order:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

There was indeed only one vote cast against this resolution in either house of Congress...That one vote was not Ron Paul. Ron Paul voted yes. The one no vote was Rep. Barbara Lee.

Just thought I'd inform you.

Yeah, he explained his vote. He supported going in to root out the Taliban, but then we botched it up royally, turned it into an occupation/nation building exercise, and should srlsy gtfo liek nao.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 3:00:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ron Paul was always against occupying the Middle East, but since we had already did that in the past and instigated the 911 attacks, then we had no choice but to go after the bombers and defend against them. That's probabaly Ron Paul's reasoning. Also, he never supported empire building or anything else to intervene and interfere with the Middle East.

He doesn't make it a secret that he supports going after the people directly responsible for 911.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 2:42:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 2:49:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The 2001 Presidential military order:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

There was indeed only one vote cast against this resolution in either house of Congress...That one vote was not Ron Paul. Ron Paul voted yes. The one no vote was Rep. Barbara Lee.

Ron Paul is a "paleoconservative", it would be a surprise if he had taken an enlightened stance against Bush's codification of his militarism and imperialism in the above quoted presidential military order. The thinking of the likes of Ron Paul will not be our salvation as a society, the fed-up-with-politics-as-usual public needs to look elsewhere for a champion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 3:26:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 2:42:05 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/3/2010 2:49:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The 2001 Presidential military order:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

There was indeed only one vote cast against this resolution in either house of Congress...That one vote was not Ron Paul. Ron Paul voted yes. The one no vote was Rep. Barbara Lee.

Ron Paul is a "paleoconservative", it would be a surprise if he had taken an enlightened stance against Bush's codification of his militarism and imperialism in the above quoted presidential military order. The thinking of the likes of Ron Paul will not be our salvation as a society, the fed-up-with-politics-as-usual public needs to look elsewhere for a champion.

Have you found your saviour?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:22:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'd support a war that made sense and wasn't a convient assistance of Isral.

Let's say Africa, Africa has many resources we could use, and is nothing but aids riddled savages who molest and kill eachother. Noone would miss a bunch of wild negro pirates yelling as they shoot off their AK-47s... So we "occupy" that country, take all their delicious diamonds and minerals, and nothing of value to hummanity was lost...

Or you know... we could attack people who actually pose a threat to our financial stability and global monopoly. Like China (A-HUUR-DUUR!!!) Though Russia likes China, so China can't be too bad. I'm inlove with Russia and want to rub my face against Vladimir Putin's shiny bald head.