 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 31, 2007 at 07:55:28
by Caleb Friz (Posted by Caleb Friz) Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Let me be clear: Ron Paul is the only viable peace candidate in the presidential race. He has the money, he has the organization on the ground in the early primary states, he has the buzz, the press coverage, and the momentum to win the Republican nomination. Most importantly, he has the platform to unite perceived enemies behind the same message of peace, liberty, and prosperity. . . But in order to do that, he's going to need some help from some unlikely places, namely us, the liberal/progressive end of the democratic party. Why should we support him? Because he has the message that we have been waiting for. Ron Paul has done more to convince conservatives that the war is an immoral failure than 5 years of 'raising consciousness' has been able to achieve. Ron Paul's stance on the war, on the military-industiral complex, and on American foreign-policy in general is a peace activist's wet dream. And yet he still has the Republican credentials to reach across the aisle and pick up a large contingent of support from hardcore conservaties. He has the right blend of positions to make him palatable--though not totally acceptalbe--to people from across the entire band of the political spectrum. What excites me most about his candidacy, though, is not only his ability to draw from both sides, but his principled and fearless stance on War as an instrument of policy and his advocacy for the protection of civil liberties. He publicly says that we need to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. . . and Afghanistan, and Korea, and Japan, and Europe. He publicly says that the military-industrial complex has too much sway in American politics and foreign policy. He publicly says that preemptive war is not just bad, but morally abhorrent. In fact, he said at a Republican debate that the number one moral problem facing America in the 21st century is our society's acceptance of aggressive war as a just and reasonable instrument of foreign policy. Not teenage sex. Not abortion. Not homosexual marriage. This man is not your average Republican.
But it doesn't stop there. Ron Paul is also concerned about our growing surveillance/police state. He was willing to say on Meet the Press last Sunday that America is on the verge of Fascism. He wants to repeal the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, and the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. He consistently rails agains the excessive secrecy of the Bush Administration and against their blatant attacks on our civil liberties through wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, torture, rendition, and the implementation of a national ID card. Don't you wish Obama would start talking about those issues?
On Iraq, foreign policy in general, and the erosion of civil liberties Ron Paul is far to the left of the major democratic contenders. Only Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel match him on these ardent stances, and they have been marginalized to the point of extinction.
But a curious thing happened with Ron Paul. The media played its normal game and tried to marginalize him, but try as they might they couldn't get rid of him. He kept working his way into news by his fundraising, and the audacity and ingenuity of his followers. His donor base is 250,000 wide for the fourth quarter alone meaning that even though he has managed to raise almost $19 million (an astounding amount for a 'second-tier' candidate with 'crackpot' ideas) his average donation size is still only $76, showing that his money is not funneled from corporate interests but amassed in small increments by people excited by his message.
Ron Paul is single-handedly bringing into the national discussion issues about aggressive war, preemption, surveillance, civil liberties, and America's stance in the world that liberal activists have been trying to get into the public consciousness for years. Even if he doesn't win, it's worthwhile to support him just so that he can continue to speak on national television about the CIA overthrow of Iran in 1953, the Real ID act, and the fact that America has become an empire, plain and simple.
In short, Ron Paul has the message on war and on civil liberties that all but the most centrist democrats long for, and yet he has still managed to break through into the mainstream. Next to Ron Paul, Clinton, Obama and Edwards look like Neocons willing to suppress domestic dissent in order to wage aggressive wars to secure foreign oil. In my view, this is the first time that such an ardent anti-war candidate has risen to prominence since Bobby Kennedy.
This is the moment we have been waiting for. This is the man we have been waiting for. Ron Paul has the potential to dismantle the military-industrial complex and all the attendent lobbyist corruption that comes with it, end foreign wars, and restore the Bill of Rights to relevance in one fell swoop. But he's not going to do it on his own. He's going to need our help.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Editor |
|
|
|
|
| 28 comments |
|
Ron Paul for President
I just wanna add that i follow the whole thing from europe and I wish we had a politician of his caliber. Man he is consistent since 1974!!! Unbelievable by Chris Schuman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 8:23:44 AM  (0+)
|
|
Why choose Ron Paul?
I want to congratulate Caleb on a very well argued piece. Let's focus on what's really important. In the interest of fairness, I must disclose that I am an Australian and therefore beg your indulgence to comment on American affairs. Like most Australians, I like and admire most Americans I meet. But American foreign policy is a nightmare. When travelling and living abroad I am often asked if I am American and people are always friendlier when I reply that I am Australian. It's not fair. Many many Americans are friendlier, kinder and more interesting than I am. It's only bewcause American foreign policy is so unpopular. Getting back to the point. Ron Paul is an inspiration to me. He is so different from the usual crop of politicians. He is clearly a man of very strong principles and deep integrity. He is strong yet humble. He applies the Golden Rule. He is the only American politician who I have ever heard say, "Imagine how we would feel if they did that to us?" America will be much safer from terrorists if it is no longer perceived as an international bully. With Ron Paul as president, America will go back to being loved and admired around the world. by John Haigh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 118 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 9:50:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Yes, let's look at Ron Paul!
Let's look very carefully. We may get all excited at his distaste for the Neo-Cons, for President Bush, and for the Iraq War which has devastated our national treasury and placed us in eternal debt. Let's look at WHY he so despises these events. Ron Paul is basically an isolationist from the original Rand conservatives. If Bush made you uncomfortable with his stress on "individual responsibility", you ain't seen nothin' yet. Paul wants to eliminate all the social progess that our country has made in the last century! If you really entertain the idea of actually voting for this man, I have a few suggestions for you. First, if you have any money, buy gold right now! It won't take long before he institutes his own "fiscal reform" which will mean the end of paper money. Then, if you don't have sufficient money to last for a couple of decades, take your still-useful credit card and run out to buy a tiller. You're going to need it to plow up your back yard so you can grow all your food. It will be the second coming of Herbert Hoover! by Mary Pitt (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 282 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:40:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A Few Quick Curiosities
Having just worked on the Delegate process I had to find out the party affiliation of those who signed up to be Delegates. MOST --26 out of the 30 I was slated to fact check-- had just switched parties TO the Republican Party just to vote for Ron Paul. What does that say? It says that Ron Paul has changed the face of the Presidential Election process and we have yet to find out what it means. He's polling "low" they say...but who are they polling? Republicans who voted in the last election, right? Well....guess what.....26 out of this 30 were NOT Republican's last time around! Boy are they in for some surprises! Thank you for this article! Signed, Former 30 year Democrat :) Gigi* by Gigi Bowman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 11:58:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Talk about a superficial evaluation!
I would hope that Ron Paul could bercome the Republican candidate, which won't happen. But if it did, that would expose the sordid and dangerous underbelly of Paul's politics. The things that he likes to talk about publicly sound good, for the most part...if you focus on the anti-war stance, and the constitutional freedoms that we've been losing (which his Republican allies have endorsed), and a few other items. But Paul's recent comments about the Civil War, and Lincoln, and his denial of evolution (amazing since he's a medical doctor), and his desire to eliminate -- rather than modernize -- most of the federal government, and his complete rejection of the progressive principles that lie beneath the handful of policies that the warmongers despise and we progressives like, make him an entertaining oddity, but a very dangerous character. No, Ron Paul isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a progressive! And he would never have my support. by Ed Menken (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 1:15:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Oh please...
Just what we need a reactionary, anti-evolutionist. No real progressive/liberal/sane person would even glance in Ron Paul's direction. by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 2:01:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: actually
Ron Paul isn't ANTI-evolution. He doesn't fight it, or want the theory the blacked out of textbooks. He'd just rather not talk about it. If you read the FULL transcript of the heavily edited video that Andrew Sullivan referenced lately, you'll see. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 5:10:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: link not ink
sorry by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 5:12:26 PM (0+)
|
|
NOT 'just what we need' BUT 'just what's happening!'
I think Dr. Paul is still a long, long shot to be the GOP nominee---but the fact is, he has touched a chord of response from citizens. Listen less to his supporters or his detractors and listen more to what he says himself. I like and respect the guy. He doesn't put a finger to the wind or convene a focus group to decide which way to vote or how to "craft his message." He speaks from conviction and adheres to his principles. I may not agree with him on everything---well, I DON'T agree on everything---but he intends to stop torture, withdraw troops, end the dictatorial executive practices of Bush/Cheney/Addington, restore habeas corpus, and de-throne the neo-cons. I'd sure as hell settle for that! Would he do it? He's from the trigger-happy, macho state of Texas and he voted AGAINST the Iraq invasion and AGAINST the so-called "Patriot Act." That took guts, considering the inflammatory atmosphere when they rushed those atrocities through the Congress. Minnesota's radical progressive Congressman, C. A. Lindbergh, said 90 years ago: "Of all the cowards, no other is so cowardly as the average politician." Ron Paul is no coward. He is WAY above "average." He's got a groundswell behind him that gives him the resources (money and people) to run a national campaign. Whether he can turn this groundswell into enough actual votes remains to be seen. Even if he can't, I am excited that here is a guy who's got the megaphone to match the message. The neo-cons expected resistance all along from the traditional liberals---and has found them all too easy to intimidate and steamroll---even after losing control of both Houses of Congress! The last thing they expected---and what they can't figure out how to quell---is a political insurrection led by a credentialed conservative. Well, behind the Ron Paul candidacy---IT'S HAPPENING. We're in a Constitutional Crisis. Let's agree to disagree on many issues---and focus on fortifying Ron Paul's defiant political uprising! p.s.: Congressman Lindbergh, a small-town lawyer and businessman who found much to admire in Socialism, was an early and outspoken foe of the Federal Reserve System, which he described as a tool of the Money Trust. It's kind of neat to see Congressman Paul raising the Fed as an issue in this campaign---after 90 years of institutionalized financial jobbery. by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 3:49:41 PM (0+)
|
|
THIS is what's important
The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year. by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 5:16:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Beware A "Means to an End"
If Ron Paul is anti-war it is because he is another doctrinaire Ayn Rand noodle-head, persuaded by that facticious author's silly fiction featuring comic-book characters like Howard Roark and Dagny Whats-Her-Name. More to the point, Ron Paul has a history of writing racist, survivalist newsletters (see elsewhere on OpEdNews postings) with very explicit racially-biased culturally-insensitive comments about young, black U.S. citizens. This "means to an end" could get us right back to the sort of Dept. of Justice that wanted to ignore Orval Faubus, George Wallace, et alia. No thanks, Caleb Friz. I'll take Dennis Kucinich (right the first time, every time) instead. by R. Queisser (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 7:45:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul would take Dennis Kucinich, too.
I don't know how to post a link, but I did see the video of Dr. Paul answering a question about which other candidate he could support if he didn't get nominated himself. Ron ruled out the war candidates, I think he noted that Chuck Hagel isn't running, and then offered a very gracious compliment to Dennis Kucinich and noted that they were friends who had worked together in the House. You see, your stereotype of Dr. Paul, based on cooked-up political attacks, is off the mark of who the man really is. Listen to Congressman Paul speak for himself. Then you may vehemently disagree with him, but I think you should be able to respect him as a principled participant in the political process---neither an ego-tripper, nor a neo-con cheerleader for the military-industrial imperialist interests, nor a front man for white supremacists, nor someone indifferent to the plight of the poor and dispossessed. Most of all, he sees the peril of totalitarianism lurking in war hysteria and in things like the so-called "Patriot Act." Why are you trashing a REPUBLICAN WHO DENOUNCES FASCISM---and who means by that, the direction this country is going---NOT the rhetorically bogus neo-con neologism "Islamofascism"? Come on now---relax a little and enjoy what Dr. Paul is doing to the party of Bush, Cheney, Giuliani and Gonzales. by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 8:45:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Counterpoints to comments by posters Pitt and Menken:
1. "Ron Paul is basically an isolationist ... If Bush made you uncomfortable with his stress on "individual responsibility", you ain't seen nothin' yet." by t quigly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 9:07:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Protest Rupert Murdoch's Exclusion of Ron Paul At Fox News F
Protest Rupert Murdoch’s Exclusion of Ron Paul At Fox News ForumContact info for Rupert & Fox News personnel can be found at by Ron Holland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Don't misunderstand Ron Paul !
I live in Japan and work in finance. I think Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread, and so do many Japanese who are following the U.S. presidential election. And so do many people who work in financial/securities fields. Mary Pitt says Ron Paul will be the second coming of Herbert Hoover. WRONG. FDR was the "second coming of Herbert Hoover." The USA still had high double-digit unemployment all through the 1930s after going off the gold standard, and the rate of unemployment went up sharply in the late 1930s. Going off the gold standard did nothing to help the economy recover. The current monetary system is quite possibly the greatest enemy of social justice going. It is a money machine for the privileged few, mercilessly transferring wealth from the weakest members of society to the wealthiest and most powerful. By all appearances, the dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered. If the vast ocean of dollars held outside the USA starts to flow back to the USA, the USA will experience very serious price inflation and will also see ownership of vast chunks of America's production infrastructure transferred into foreign ownership. (They have to spend their vast dollar holdings on something, and the USA is the one place where dollars are legal tender.) So Americans can look forward to being increasingly dispossessed in their own country. None of this is Ron Paul's fault. Rather, he is the sole presidential candidate who understands the problems and proposes workable solutions. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the legal tender laws that hold Americans hostage to the Incredible Shrinking Dollar. He wants to allow competition from other currencies and from private mints. Give people the the freedom to contract for the means of settling debts that they prefer: competition among currencies will force the money to stay honest. Gresham's Law -- "Bad money drives out good" ONLY applies when there are legal tender laws. When there are no legal tender laws, good money drives out bad money. "Bad money" is bad because it is a form of theft. The current monetary system is destroying the value of your money even as it sits in your wallet. Hardest hit are people on fixed incomes -- retirees, poor people on welfare, etc. Now the baby boomers are starting to retire, and the government is going to be faced with corresponding expenses. Believe me, the government will keep its promises, even if it has to run the printing presses 24x7 to do so. Trouble is, in the process that money may end up being useful mainly as toilet paper. The fact that as the world's reserve currency the USA has been exporting inflation for many decades really needs to be appreciated. When that stops, Americans are going to go through some very painful experiences. None of that is Ron Paul's fault. People concerned about other issues can mope, groan, and grimace that Ron Paul does not harmonize well with their favorite song, but they need to keep things in the right perspective: without addressing the "slide into fascism" issue and the "destruction of the currency" issue -- which are really two sides of the same coin, since the empire is financed by fiat money -- in a few years there will be no America left to "lean to the left" or "lean to the right" on various social issues. The two big issues I referred to are THE social issues of the day, because without taking care of them, there will not be a milieu in which it is even possible to debate the other social issues. There will either be totalitarianism, or chaos, or both. A few other comments are in order on those other issues, however. Evolution: Ron Paul is in favor of promoting the free market of ideas. In a free market of ideas, good ideas will win out over bad ideas. Good science will win out over bad science. If an idea is true, it should not be necessary to impose it on other people by force. Ron Paul is in favor of not having a one-size-fits-all curriculum imposed on all people from above, because that amounts to censorship and social engineering. Another thing that needs to be said about evolution versus creation is that is possible to affirm both: a person could consistently say that God originally created the world as described in the Genesis creation account, but since then the creatures have been evolving. Such a person could affirm everything about how evolution works as an ongoing process, at least to the extent that science has been able to demonstrate those processes. What the creationist would reject are some of the inferences that are commonly made by evolutionists, e.g., that life originally came about without any divine intervention from non-life. Now THAT is something that the evolutionist can only hold as a matter of faith. Upon hearing that, the creationist might crack a smile and say, "Oh, so you believe in the theory of spontaneous generation, do you?" Indeed, that is exactly what one famous evolutionist said: "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility . . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner George Wald in "Origin, Life and Evolution" (Scientific American, 1978). Evolutionary theory does not have anything authoritative to say about the ultimate origins of either life or the cosmos, but rather only speculations. Even looking at the size of the cosmos and drawing inferences that the cosmos is X number of years old has to first assume all sorts of things, such as that the speed of light is actually constant and most importantly that God did not create distant celestial objects so that they could be visible from earth in the instant of their creation. My whole point here is simply to warn evolutionists not to assume that someone has been lobotomized simply because he disagrees. There are plenty of cogent and rational ways to disagree with evolution, as well as irrational. George Wald's position is ultimately no less religious than Huckabee's. Paul as a "racist": This is another red herring, and totally false. Ron Paul has publicly indicated that he would be happy with someone like Walter Williams as his running mate for VP. Williams has also endorsed Ron Paul. And there are plenty of other prominent blacks who have come out in his support. The leading "evidence" of Ron Paul's racism is one issue of an old newsletter (1992) that was written by one of Paul's staffers and published under Ron Paul's name, discussing the Los Angeles riots after the police were found not guilty of brutality against Rodney King. Admittedly, that newsletter does sound like a rant. But Paul has distanced himself from it and insists that he did not write it. More importantly, however, Thomas Sowell and other conservative black writers have written very much that same sort of stuff as the content of that newsletter. Really, racism is the very LAST thing anyone needs to worry about with Ron Paul. It is a charge that does not stick. Ditto with anti-semitism, anti-hispanic, blah blah blah. He is for treating everyone fairly and equally, and he objects ONLY to ILLEGAL immigration. As someone big on the rule of law, what other position could he possibly take? He's against the war on drugs, which is clogging our prisons with blacks and poor people disproportionately. He's pushing progressive buttons on a LOT of issues. Abortion: Face it folks, with 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, the voter base of people who would tend to be in favor of legalized abortion is shrinking. Conservatives don't have abortions! They have babies instead. Legalized abortion is bringing about a demographic shift that is going to make abortion illegal again, sooner or later. It is not a question of if, but rather when. Adding to this is the growing popularity of homeschooling and other alternatives to the government schools. A liberal social agenda is not going to be promoted outside the government schools. My suggestion is that you not oppose Ron Paul because he personally opposes abortion. He has very good constitutional grounds for wanting to see this issue returned to the states. Some states will allow it and others won't. From the pro-choice perspective, that's the best that can be hoped for in the long run. What Ron Paul will be in favor of is encouraging pro-life Americans to put their money where their mouth is and provide financial support for pregnant single mothers and outlets for babies in need of adoptive parents. (These already exist, but Ron Paul would encourage the private sector to provide maximum help here, and I for one expect it would be forthcoming.) These are all solutions that ought to be pushing the buttons of progressives. Maybe they are not all the modes of thinking that progressives have previously been accustomed to, but they are solutions nonetheless. And if the private sector can provide solutions that get the government off of our backs and out of our wallets, then we are all going to be winners in the end. by Christopher Witmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 6:06:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Troop withdrawl
CDWitner, With your experience in Japan. How do you see Ron Paul's call to remove all US troops from Japan, presumably including shutting down the US bases there? What would be the range of opinions and likely reactions from the Japanese people and their politicians? What would be the time frame considerations, Do it immediately, phase it, etc? My biggest concern with Paul, is his lack of a cadre of experts who can bring more detail to his proposals. This is needed to manage the fear that his radical proposals evoke. Thanks for the informative post. by rp haigh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 10:13:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you
I really enjoyed reading this intelligent post. by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:29:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Unplugging the welfare state means plugging in people
Ron Paul wants to completely end or, failing that, at least drastically revise the income tax to a very low flat tax, and to eliminate the IRS. Eliminating our massive overseas expenditures will reduce our country's budgetary requirements considerably, but even that won't allow all current domestic welfare programs to be kept intact. Add to this the fact that legalized abortion's days are numbered and one conclusion becomes inescapable: we will have to resuscitate civil sector vehicles of social welfare that have largely atrophied from disuse. Especially if Ron Paul is returning to people the money that the government has been confiscating all these years, it would be unconscionable for people to fail to start reaching out to our fellow countrymen who are in need of help. We will need to shift away from the impersonal welfare of the State and rediscover personal, face-to-face welfare as was traditionally provided by the civil sector before the state took over. The state can't coerce this but it is certainly morally incumbent upon all the people who oppose abortion to be willing to do what they can to help out women who find themselves pregnant but either lacking the will or the resources to be responsible for that child. And of course this also necessarily means we get involved with people in need much more extensively. One of the ironies of the welfare state is that it has been a major cause of segregation -- segregation and mutual resentment -- due to the totally impersonal nature of welfare. Eliminating state welfare will "force" people to come together out of necessity. I think this will be a good thing for all parties concerned, once we get the hang of it. Personal welfare is all about personal accountability. It's what the LOVE in the Ron Paul rEVOLution is all about. by Christopher Witmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:08:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Troop withdrawal from Japan and Korea would be welcomed
I can't speak with confidence concerning the ruling oligarchy -- and they really are an oligarchy here in Japan, there's just nothing else to call it -- because their personal fortunes are tied up in all sorts of special interests. When you start following the money it leads into all sorts of funky places, like North Korea. (I used to live in South Korea and briefly worked for a Japanese thinktank focused on Korean affairs, as well as for a thinktank founded by former PM Yasuhiro Nakasone.) Basically they are in power now as a vassal state of the USA (a point freely admitted by many Japanese) and they probably don't want to rock the boat. If they saw the withdrawal from East Asia as interfering with their milk cow, they might oppose it from their very narrow sense of self-interest. On the other hand, the vast tracts of real estate held by the US military would have tremendous development potential if they wanted to go in that direction, or, they might be used by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Either way the powers that be could stand to make a lot of money. As for the average Taro in the street? I think most Japanese would look at withdrawal very favorably indeed. Japan is more than capable of taking care of all of its defense needs entirely on its own. It really has zero need of the USA for its own security. Thanks to breeder reactors it has a large supply of plutonium and it regularly puts satellites in orbit, so it could have a very credible nuclear-tipped ICBM in six months if it needed to. (I very strongly doubt that Japan would go that route -- they are on good terms with China and North Korea's nuclear threat is a joke.) The same goes for South Korea; in their case Seoul is within very short striking distance but North Korea is currently being kept on life support by South Korea. "For God's sake please don't have a regime collapse that leads to a reunification of the country! If you do, we'll secede! We're not going to let you North Koreans become our permanent welfare class." -- that about sums up the feelings of many South Koreans toward the North. The North has a huge percentage of what they've got tied up in their military, and they could inflict massive damage on the South, but to what purpose? I doubt they could get support from either China or Russia for a war effort. The South Korean military is more than a match for the North's, not that they are ever going to have to use it (except maybe to keep themselves from being invaded by refugees). So there too we could definitely pull out without any need to worry. In the case of both countries I think everything would be just fine. I think we could pull out of both countries on very short notice without any downside. As for the alleged lack of experts, I'm not sure just what areas you are talking about. I think experts are not all they are cracked up to be. Look at the subprime mortgage crisis. The guys who gave us that were all a bunch of geniuses. If experts are truly needed for a lot of the things Paul wants to dismantle, the ones currently working for the federal government can go work for the various state governments, and the states can cooperate with and imitate each other if necessary. In the area of money, all Paul really needs to do is eliminate the legal tender laws. As soon as people are free to contract using competing currencies, Gresham's law is reversed and good money drives out bad. You automatically get sound money because the market punishes bad currencies and rewards good currencies. Elimination of legal tender laws effectively pulls the plug on the welfare-warfare State, which can only be maintained by debasing the currency. by Christopher Witmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 6:42:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks
cdwitmer, Thanks for the followup on troop withdrawl. Your observations and conclusions ring true. Hopefully Ron Paul's candidacy will bring more attention to this alarming waste of taxpayer dollars. by rp haigh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 5, 2008 at 9:12:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Rand and current disciples are PRO-intervention:anti-Paul
Ayn Rand thought challenging the Soviet Union anywhere and everywhere was a moral obligation, and the Ayn Rand Institute is in FAVOR of the Iraq War and intervention worldwide. They have condemned Paul for his anti-war and non-interventionist positions. Paul has never followed Rand. For one thing, Rand's philosophy has atheism as its foundation. Paul is not an isolationist: he is a non-interventionist. He supports "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." In other words, he is a Jeffersonian Democrat I dislike some of Paul's positions, but war is not a small thing: it is the most important in all political life. Anyone supporting Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, all of whom refused to commit to getting out of Iran by the END of their term (January 2013) and who thought "all options should be on the table" in Iran has no business claiming to be a progressive. Peace is the non-negotiable starting point of progressivism. The only Democrat with integrity on war is Kucinich, and both he and his wife have frequently praised Paul and even suggested a joint ticket. But Kucinich is clearly at the end of his money and attention, while Paul was the leading Republican fundraiser in the 4th quarter. Sure it's tactical, but justified to support him enthusiastically. By the way, 65% of his supporters were NOT Republicans before this election season (according to a poll taken at Ron Paul Nation, the primary activist site supporting his campaign). Lincoln didn't fight the war to stop slavery. In his first SOTU address, he offered to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery permanently if the South would return. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tactic that only freed slaves in the seceding states (not in those on the Union side). What year was the British Civil War to end slavery? The Spanish Civil War to end slavery? The Brazilian Civil War to end slavery? He fought the war to preserve the union, not to abolish slavery, and every history book says so. Read EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel of San Jose State University for a solid discussion of the ideology of both the Confederacy (which DID leave to preserve slavery) and the Union (which DID NOT fight to end it). The abomination of slavery disappeared from every advanced nation: only we had a war. It might actually have been gone in 1860 had Fillmore not pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850. Paul didn't give a good sound bite answer to Russert, but essentially was proposing the use of eminent domain to immediately free the slaves without a war. Wouldn't freeing the slaves without mass slaughter and more than a century of repercussions against blacks have been better than freeing the slaves with all that? Oh, by the way, wouldn't discussing the Iraq War be more relevant than the Civil War? I don't really care about Paul's view of evolution unless someone can explain how it will affect his presidential decisions, but the widely distributed YouTube turned out to be heavily edited, and the full transcript gives a very different impression. Really, though: he isn't running for scientist-in-chief. In any event, great article, Caleb! by Less (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 7:09:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Prissy Progressives
I am amazed. I thought only libertarians would parse a candidate like some dreamstruck freshman coed waiting for Mr. Right to escort her out on her first date on campus. Now I know progressives (some at least) are guilty of the same political narcissism. Waiting for Mr. Right; someone who meets ALL of your needs, you throw away plenty of potential companions (candidates) and consequently spend Saturday night sitting in the dorm being especially proud of yourself and your detachment. Wake up people. Though I am a Ron Paul supporter, I would change a hundred things about him. More related to delivery and style than substance. Ron Paul, despite disagreeing personally with things like evolution, abortion and the the welfare state, realizes freedom and liberty for every American is more sacred than his personal opinions. He sees himself totally constrained by the Constitution. He recognizes the people play an essential role through their Congress and he would never abuse it; in fact he would demand vociferously that Congress play their appointed part. Even if he could wave a magic wand, which he can't; even if America could fix health care, immigration, Social Security...you name it; and of course we can't, because we don't have the money to do it. Even if money grew on trees, and we could heal our domestic wounds, our most hated nation status, acquired by virtue of our aggressive, militaristic, empire driven, foreign policy, would continue to divide our country and destroy our image throughout the world. Every other candidate, except for Kucinich and Gravel, who have little money and little grass roots support, would insure the tyranny we export remains alive and well at home. Absent the money tree, the only way we, as a country, can heal our domestic wounds is to find the money to do it. We can only get that money by reigning in our out of control empire. Imagine what we could do with an extra $750 billion to take care of our American Family--not Europe, not Japan and not Korea? So, those of you who insist on Mr. Right, can continue to "Priss Out" waiting for your dream candidate; or you can see the Ron Paul glass as half-full and decide ending the empire is a place to begin to restore thoughtfulness and compassion for Americans and the world. For God sake, this is a man who, because of his compassion, delivered babies and treated women for free. He was equally concerned about his patients and the people who, in his mind, were being unfairly taxed to support Medicare. Ron Paul has a heart for all Americans. Wake up and smell the roses--even if it is only half a dozen. by Lawrence Cook (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 7:45:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Your one chance, Americans!
I registered to post this. (Boy, what a procedure, just to register!) I am from Sweden, and I like Americans, but I hate what your establishment has done to you and to other countries. You guys in the U.S. have to understand that this is your one chance to get back at the establishment in Washington. You won't have another chance. You have to vote for Ron Paul. So he doesn't stand for everything you do; he is against abortion. Well, he won't ban abortion, he says he wants each state to handle the issue separately. And will he control Congress, to get everything he wants in politics? No. The president doesn't get all the legislation he wants. But what the president can do is pull back the military from foreign shores. Don't let lobby groups use your military to fight its wars! Let's be serious: real people are dying in the Middle East, and more people are going to die, because of American attacks. How can you discuss anything else when your army is doing this? It's like a house is on fire and you quarrel about how to do the dishes. Stop the killing now! Your one chance to put a real monkey wrench in the establishment plans. Take it! America needs this chance, and the world needs it. by Vendelwalker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 5:36:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for the support from Sweden
After Ron Paul gets his eight years in the USA, we'll send him to Sweden. You folks need him too! by Christopher Witmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:11:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Very well reasoned article!
It has been said that 100% of Americans can agree on 80% of the issues at any given time. The powers that be use the other 20% of the issues to divide us and conquer us. It is time we put aside the 20% and unite behind the one candidate who stands for the only thing that really matters if we wish to save America: Respect for the US Constitution. That man is Dr. Ron Paul. by JimInNY (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:15:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul -- only true anti-war candidate
Ron Paul is the only true anti-war candidate, except perhaps Kucinich. None of the others have advocated a true non-interventionist policy of bringing troops home, not only from Iraq, but Japan, Europe, and the rest of the world. All the other candidates support some form of interventism, either to help UN "peacekeeping" missions, to support Israel, or for some other reason. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who, quite rightly, opposes the Iraq war on Constitutional grounds. He also is the only candidate who opposes the unconstitutional violations of privacy in the whole panoply of anti-terror laws, including the Patriot Act and the Miliatary Commissions Act. No candidate is as anti-war as Ron Paul. For a great satire on the war on terror, as well as the president and the mainstream media, see the YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musicalfeature film, “Song of the Dead.” In it, horror movie veteran, Reggie Bannister, plays to president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera is giving a share of his profits from the sale of the film to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to: by michael ketcher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:40:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Network This NOW!
I'm looking for any Internet sites that support ways to support Ron Paul. I am poor, but I want to add my voice to him in a big way. I believe in him. I wasn't going to vote, but came close to Edwards until I learned he would support abortion and more innocent murders of the weakest and voiceless members of our civilization. I then learned of Ron Paul. Lets get the word out in a big way for all our sakes. PLEASE! by Darin Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 5, 2008 at 1:13:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Paul supporters
I'm sick of Paul supporters marginalizing Kucinich the same way the media does. Ron Paul is anti-war but he is also pro corporate rights. Dennis Kucinich is for peace and against corporate rule. Conservatives should give Kucinich a second look instead of progressives giving Paul a second look. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
