Robdog Snoopcat's Blog

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Ron Paul - Why I Can't Vote For Him

I've listened to Ron Paul speak via video
on the web and in the debates. He has
a passion for returning the country to
the ideals it was founded on.

True freedom from government.

I fully support this ideal and am impressed
with his consistency. It isn't his overall
goal that I have serious concerns with, it is
a few specific ideas and mindsets he has that
just aren't realistic.

I heard his opinions on the Iraq war.
It was an illegal war fought on false pretenses.

While you may disagree with going to war in Iraq,
it was neither illegal nor fought on false
pretenses. It was approved by Congress and U.N
resolutions. It might not be a formal declaration
of war but the weight of the Congressional act is
equal.

In light of 3,000 citizens being murdered
by a small group of nut jobs, I can certainly see
how Bush would always view intelligence from
an aggressive view point. We still don't know if
the WMDs were moved prior to our invasion in order
to embarrass us. Russia, China, Syria, etc... All
would have the ability and motive. Iran did as
well although their participation is far less likely.

Vials of chemical agents from Iraq were just lying
around the U.N. office until discovered last week.

I saw pictures of fighter jets buried in the Iraqi
desert. The notion that the WMD's existed and have
yet to be found is not a huge stretch for me.

I heard Ron Paul's opinions on why Islamic radicals
killed 3,000 U.S. citizens. Our military bases
in the middle east that do nothing but make sure
we can pay enormous prices for oil? Perhaps
our support of regimes they don't like? That's justification
for the mayhem these thugs inflict on the West and
even worse on their so-called Muslim brothers?

Ron Paul has a limited and naive view of world affairs
and specifically radical Islam.

I heard Ron Paul mention his desire to eliminate the
FBI and CIA because they aren't functioning as well
as he'd like.

In today's world, can a nation of 300 million people
really maintain law and order and some semblance of
security from outside military intervention from
rogue states or groups?

I hear about all the things Ron Paul doesn't like but
you rarely hear an effective solution from him other
than a theme about freedom from government.

His apparent strategy for defeating Islamic radicalism
is to simply take our ball and go home. Hopefully,
they won't follow us to our own shores?

Ron Paul talks a lot about the U.S. getting involved
in too many places it shouldn't. He often quotes
the founding fathers on this topic. On the surface,
this sounds like a reasonable approach. Just 50 years
ago, the danger was minimal. Today, allowing
situations to fester breeds hatred that builds.

In an age of force multipliers, WMD's, the internet,
and the acceptance of suicide terrorism (all things the
founding fathers could never have contemplated),
allowing small situations to quickly get out of
hand poses a serious threat to America.

From my perspective, Ron Paul has allowed his
commitment to his ideals to cloud his judgement
regarding the defense of American interests.

It is for this reason, I just can't support him
with my vote. My hope is that he can direct
his energy to other domestic agendas and be
a positive force there.

posted by Robbe Morris at 4:03 PM

19 Comments:

  • Your assesment on how Iraq "had" WMD is rediculous, this is the same argument put forth by the "truthers" that they blew up the WTC. They weren't their you didn't find them, you can't just say, "well they were there" and be vindicated for bad intellegence.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:17 PM  

  • Saddam had them in the 80's.

    Saddam used them on the Kurds.

    Saddam refused to let inspectors do their job.

    Saddam paid terrorists to attack
    Israel.

    British intelligence still stands by its assessment of Saddam attempting to aquire yellow cake uranium in Niger.

    In order to believe that there
    were no WMD's at the time of the
    invasion, you have to believe
    in the following:

    Saddam wouldn't lie but also
    didn't want to let inspectors in
    to verify his truthfulness.

    Saddam totally gave up all
    of this WMD programs in the
    early 90's and didn't think
    he'd need them if the Israelis
    or Iranians attacked.

    And this post could go on and on.

    I'm sorry, there is just too much
    hard evidence to ignore and call Bush a liar.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 4:27 PM  

  • Paul voted to go into Afghanistan to hunt down Al-Qaida. He supports letters of Marque and Reprisal, and looking at the reasons people attack us, learning from history, taking advice from the founders on foreign policy. Marching out is the best possible solution, and the only way to stop more needless wars. The foreign policy is flawed, and is making us less safe. In short, if you want safety, vote for Ron Paul.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 5:29 PM  

  • I'm sorry but it is your opinion which is shallow and under researched. Ron Paul has done extensive research on the causes of 9/11. He has consulted with CIA specialists in the field and has referenced numerous studies to back up his position.
    I suggest that you do a google search on "Rudy's reading list." After a debate in May, Ron Paul suggested a rather extensive reading list to Rudy Giuliani who had never heard of the concept of blowback. Since you apparently haven't heard of it either, you might want to check it out.
    Ron Paul's knowledge of the history of the middle east is extensive. He understands that there has been a long, sad history of US intervention in the area and that our policies have cause a great deal of suffering and death in that region. This is what motivates the people who commit suicide terrorism, not simply their religious beliefs.
    Religion plays a part, but it is politics and the sense of outrage and helplessness caused buy our policies that actually motivate people to commit these horrible acts.
    Stop listening to the propaganda from the administration and do what Ron Paul has done - your own research.
    You might start with the offical 9/11 commission report that blamed blowback against US policies as the prime cause.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 5:54 PM  

  • His positions are outlined pretty well here:

    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm

    "Extract ourselves from a holy war"?

    Since when can you simply say "Uh, we are done fighting, you have to leave us alone now" actually work against an enemy much less a radicial religious enemy?

    The vast majority of those 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths he quotes (which I seriously question) had to have come during the 91 gulf war where we kicked Saddam out of a neighboring allied nation. After his surrender, we enforced a no fly zone but did not engage in systematic bombing of Iraq.

    The '91 gulf war proved that there was a need to defend our allies. If Ron Paul were President, Saddam would have marched right through to conquer Saudi Arabia.

    This guy's simplistic thought process and refusal to see reality scares the daylights out of me.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 5:55 PM  

  • I've read his assessments and totally disagree with them.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 6:00 PM  

  • If there is an actual danger to the United States, I'm pretty sure a President Paul would act on it. The intelligence we had before Iraq was shaky at best. What does it matter to you, exactly, if a dictator kills someone halfway across the globe? Shit like that happens all the time. Here's an idea, let's let them sort their own shit out, like we did. I've got my own problems.

    By Blogger derp, at 6:56 PM  

  • I believe he would respond to an attack. I'm convinced that he won't be aggressive enough to prevent one.

    And, as I mentioned, the force multipliers available these days leaves the idea of "wait to be attacked" unacceptable in my view.

    Of course, one needs to use good judgement and only use preemption when it is clear that your adversary isn't rational. An expensive cold-war is far preferrable to actual bullets flying war.

    As far as dictators go, history has shown me that they have a thirst for power that is never quenched. When they are done killing the weak, they will move on to conquer others.

    It is a little like handing the keys to a 4 time DUI violator and "hoping" they'll do the right thing if you threaten them a 5th time.

    At some point, you have to permanently remove the threat.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 7:08 PM  

  • If you are concerned about "actual danger" to the US, it is presently coming from the White House. The most dangerous person in the world to American liberty is George W. Bush. A terrorist might be able to kill a few Americans once in a great while, but Bush now has the power to crush freedom for all Americans forever.
    We need Ron Paul in the White House to reverse the abuses of the Bush administration. No other candidate has the balls to do the job.
    Last night's debate shows that Ron Paul is, in the words of one commentator, "a steel spined kickass with dangling anatomy of solid brass."
    My vote is for Ron Paul. I will accept no substitute.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 7:15 PM  

  • I agree that this war, and these times are fairly new, considering the number of people willing to blow themselves up, and especially the persistent targeting of civilians.
    But, keeping a standing army on the ground as an occupying force is not the way to handle it. In fact it just assures that the supply of nut jobs with vest bombs doesn't end.
    Will they miraculously go away if we leave? No, but they sure aren't going anywhere if we stay either.

    Also, research the history of radical Islam as we know it today. If we are out of their hair they will 'most likely' refocus on taking over their state again, because remember that they hate Arabs who disagree with them just as much as us.

    Lastly, the 'follow us back here' bit. Right now, its sad to say, but we have a pretty darn porous boarder and crap for port security. If they wanted to simply attack us they could. I'm sorry but our intelligence isn't going to stop someone from say blowing up a gas storage facility next to say a highway during rush hour. If they wanted to inflict damage on us they could. Paul at least will have our military remain strong and inside this country protecting it.

    I do not agree whatsoever with Paul's 'getting rid of the CIA FBI' bit. Luckily I think him smart enough to realize intelligence is more than half the battle, and worst case scenario, those ideas would never fly.

    my 2cents

    By Blogger ocrapnotagain, at 7:43 PM  

  • Personally, I think Ron Paul would direct a very strong foreign policy. He's not about weakening the US. He understands that the federal government's job is to protect the citizens. I'm not sure I agree we should just leave Iraq but I do think that his ideas on non-interventionism are spot-on. He doen't blame the US for 9/11. He realizes that our meddling in the middle east and Bill Clinton's lack of retaliation mantra are and was a horrible way to conduct ourselves in that region. Either fight or war or don't. Right now we're merely engaged in policing activity.

    But I don't vote on foreign policy. I vote on domestic policy.

    By Blogger Bert, at 8:15 PM  

  • Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E3KMWW5VVIXZNQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/27/wiran27.xml

    ...and uses ALQAEDA to do it!
    Jundullah (the group they're using) is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

    How can you support that pack of criminals and their illegal wars. Its all a lie.

    By Blogger B.S.Anderson, at 8:24 PM  

  • This is my point exactly!

    "Also, research the history of radical Islam as we know it today. If we are out of their hair they will 'most likely' refocus on taking over their state again, because remember that they hate Arabs who disagree with them just as much as us."

    Then, when they are done with the Arabs who disagree with them, who is next?

    Will they be more powerful then or now?

    I think you see the sparks of this with Iran and you saw it with the Taliban. While our presence with troops on the ground may be a true recruiting tool, it isn't the reason they hate the West.

    This truly is a religious war (in their eyes) and we'll need a president who can not only see that but be prepared to act efficiently.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 8:42 PM  

  • Another interesting concept:

    "He doen't blame the US for 9/11. He realizes that our meddling in the middle east and Bill Clinton's lack of retaliation mantra"

    We put troops on foreign soil when invited by foreign governments to protect them against Soviet intervention (or other state).

    We do nothing but sit there. We go to great lengths to keep a low profile.

    Bill Clinton doesn't fight back and still they fly airplanes into buildings.

    At some point folks, you've got to realize their hatred for us isn't policy driven...

    Each of you should re-read some of the historical statements from the 1930's and see if anything sounds familiar.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 8:46 PM  

  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E3KMWW5VVIXZNQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/05/27/wiran27.xml

    Good story. I like creative and aggressive thinking. Bush should have been doing this sort of thing a long time ago.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 8:49 PM  

  • You don't see anything wrong with Bush funding Al Qaeda? What is wrong with you, Sir? Are you insane?

    By Blogger B.S.Anderson, at 10:23 PM  

  • Neither of us knows as much about this group as the CIA does.

    That said, Bush is clearly trying to accomplish the goal of denying Iran nuclear weapons at any cost.

    If he can accomplish it without putting more Americans and Iranian civilians at risk, fantastic.

    This reiterates my point. I won't vote for a President that doesn't take this war seriously and attempt to win it. I insist that my President aggressively persue our adversaries in the most creative and efficient manner possible. It that means getting your hands dirty, no problem.

    I'd much rather defend a decision to pursue our enemies to America's haters than to defend inaction to thousands of mourning American families.

    While Bush has seriously disappointed me in this area, I'll take him over Ron Paul any day.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 7:39 AM  

  • Overall, your argument seems reasonable, except I always have problems with believing that anybody (including terrorists) makes decisions, especially the decision to sacrifice themselves for some cause, entirely irrationally, even with religion to back them.

    Going back to the 9/11 commission report, section 2.2, "BIN LADEN'S APPEAL IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD," the Commission reports that "His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources—Islam, history, and the region’s political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances
    against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel." Please don't take my word for this; the full report's available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html .

    That being the case, it seems that most of the causes for Islamic attacks on Americans are rooted in their presence and involvement in the region. It seems to me that, by abandoning our military involvement there, we'd significantly reduce the number of terrorists specifically targeting the US, at least. Not too many are trying to attack Canada...

    By Blogger Unknown, at 8:30 AM  

  • Islamic radical hatred toward the U.S. has been going on long before the items you mentioned.

    Again, our forces were "invited" by these governments. It isn't like we invaded Saudi Arabia or our other Arab allies.

    If you listen long enough to them and their end idealogical goes, you'll find that their hatred for us isn't "really" driven by our policies other than supporting Israel's right to exist.

    By Blogger Robbe Morris, at 8:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home