Ron Paul on Defense and War in Iraq

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

On every single matter vital to the long-term health of the United States of America, I see not a single candidate with stated goals and ideals better than Dr. Ron Paul. He's also the only *gasp* honest, principled person in the running among the "first tiers" (if you count him first tier).

"Stated goals and ideals" can kiss my posterior. 

ALL candidates have stated goals and ideals.  The Democrats are particularly fond of blathering on and on and on about their good intentions for the country.  But when you compare the actual results of their policies against their "stated goals", you see that they've actually made things far, far worse.

It's results that matter, not goals.  I am absolutely convinced that the results of Ron Paul's policy will be detrimental to the United States.  Letting large swaths of the world run amok, while glibly chanting "We're a Noninterventionist Libertarian Utopia, we don't have to care what the rest of the world is doing lalalalala" will NOT produce favorable results.

[Finch]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/ron_paul_isolationism_isnt_wha.html

Isolationism isn't what I advocate, Paul told Blitzer. I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.

Under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world, Blitzer asked the candidate.

When Congress directed me to in the act of war, Paul replied. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.

Is that really so bad? Is it so bad to respect the constitution and not allow the president to start wars at his whim?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.

Sounds like exactly what happened with Iraq.  The whole country, Democrat and Republican alike, Congress and White House alike, agreed that Iraq was a threat.  So Congress approved the war, and the Pres carried it out.

For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism", and for not realizing that proper procedure was followed with the Iraq war,  well, that's why some folks might feel that Mr Paul is a little off his rocker.

[Sergeant Bob]

If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.

Sounds like exactly what happened with Iraq.  The whole country, Democrat and Republican alike, Congress and White House alike, agreed that Iraq was a threat.  So Congress approved the war, and the Pres carried it out.

But, what Congress did is invalid because they didn't do the secret handshake, then all stand up together and say "We Declare War" three times!

[Len Budney]

For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"...

Isolationist: China from 3,000BC until Nixon.

Non-interventionist: the Swiss, AKA bankers, watchmakers and chocolatiers to the entire world.

Non-difference?

[Sergeant Bob]

For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"...

Non-interventionist: the Swiss, AKA bankers, watchmakers and chocolatiers to the entire world.

Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.

[Len Budney]

Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.

Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland. 

[Sergeant Bob]

Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.

Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland. 

You're the only one who said that. Find another straw man.

It just gets real old how people like to hold the Swiss up as some kind of virtuous angels or example to be aspired to, when they are far from that.

They were worse collaborators than the Vichy French, who at least were open about their treasonous actions.

[Len Budney]

Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.

Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland. 

You're the only one who said that. Find another straw man.

Your quote is above, verbatim. You've associated them with the Nazis and accused them of profiteering on the Holocaust.

It just gets real old how people like to hold the Swiss up as some kind of virtuous angels...

I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything that any Swiss person might do. As a rather parochial New Englander, I don't actually like Europeans on a personal level. I'm no admirer of Germans, French or Swiss, in particular. Matter of fact I absolutely despise Sweden, but I commend their non-interventionism as well.

They were worse collaborators than the Vichy French, who at least were open about their treasonous actions.

I believe you mentioned a "straw man" above. Now they're "treasonous" and "collaborators" as well. I rest my case.

--Len.

[Paddy]

It's results that matter, not goals.  I am absolutely convinced that the results of Ron Paul's policy will be detrimental to the United States.  Letting large swaths of the world run amok, while glibly chanting "We're a Noninterventionist Libertarian Utopia, we don't have to care what the rest of the world is doing lalalalala" will NOT produce favorable results.

In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

[Manedwolf]

Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.

I guess some people like to make up their own news instead of reading the real news...?

[K Frame]

"You've associated them with the Nazis and accused them of profiteering on the Holocaust."

The Swiss associated themselves quite closely with the Nazis and profited quite hansomly on both the Holocaust and the collapse of Nazi Germany.

[Paddy]

Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.

$99 plus change is a few pennies short of $100.  Who are you, Clinton?  He liked to parse words, too.

Oh, and $87 won't last long after OPEC decides not to increase production.

[Len Budney]

"You've associated them with the Nazis and accused them of profiteering on the Holocaust."

The Swiss associated themselves quite closely with the Nazis and profited quite hansomly on both the Holocaust and the collapse of Nazi Germany.

I'm aware of some specific cases of wrong-doing, and wouldn't dream of defending them. As I'm aware of Ford, Lindberg and others' pro-Nazi sentiments, and don't defend them either.

But when you say, "The Swiss associated themselves quite closely..." you are apparently referring to the fact that they allowed Germans to hire their (banking) services. In other words, when a McDonalds in Alabama serves food to a van full of white supremacists, who lynch someone after lunch, McDonalds becomes an accomplice in the lynching. "The Swiss" didn't load Jews into boxcars, or deport Swiss Jews, or otherwise participate in the Holocaust. In that respect they beat the hell out of the Vichy French, the Polish, the Italians--in fact, than anyone except the Spanish, Swedish and Albanians, with whom they're tied at zero Jews killed.

That's not to say that there wasn't any antisemitism in Switzerland. Refugees, most of whom were Jewish, were kept apart from the general population in internment camps.

As for "profiting from the Holocaust," that's a mis-characterization. The Swiss banks are famous for withholding information about accounts with deceased owners, such that heirs can't get the money unless they already know about the account. This means that lots of money became inaccessible during WWII through the owners' deaths--including Jews, Nazis and anyone else to die in the war without leaving account numbers where the heirs can find them. I don't endorse that policy, and in the case of Holocaust survivors I find it heart-wrenching, but to suggest that this makes them complicit with the Nazis is as absurd as claiming that holding onto Nazi money makes them complicit with the Allies.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.

$99 plus change is a few pennies short of $100.  Who are you, Clinton?  He liked to parse words, too.

Oh, and $87 won't last long after OPEC decides not to increase production.

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

Do you not even see what you wrote yourself? Don't equivocate and revise. You said "$100 a barrel and rising". It's never done that. You can't get out of it by pretending you meant to say "just short of".

[K Frame]

The Swiss no only associated their banking services with the Nazis, near the end of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the Swiss government passed numerous laws that made it easier for the banking interests to keep the loot that the Germans had siphoned from Europe.

The Swiss government also never fulfilled commitments it made after the war to return money looted from various European nations overrun by the Nazis, or to liquidate hundreds of millions in German-government held assets to assist in the resettlement of those uprooted by the Nazis.

After 1939 when ENORMOUS amounts of gold began to flow into Switzerland, oddly enough coinciding with the fall of various European nations to the Nazis, the Swiss gladly accepted these shipments. As noted above, they also gladly kept much of it when the Nazis were defeated.

The Swiss knew what was going on. It was far MORE than simply serving food to a busload of white supremicists.

It's easy to claim that "oohhhh, the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew." You're intelligent enough to know, though, that culpability and guilt doesn't end with the individual whose finger was on the trigger.

The Swiss, individuals, corporations, and even the Swiss nation, profited hansomly from their complicity with the Nazis and full knowledge of what the Nazis were doing in Europe.

[Paddy]

Do you not even see what you wrote yourself? Don't equivocate and revise. You said "$100 a barrel and rising". It's never done that. You can't get out of it by pretending you meant to say "just short of".

This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from Republicans.  $99.26 is not $100.00, but the economic result is identical.

[Len Budney]

The Swiss no only associated their banking services with the Nazis, near the end of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the Swiss government passed numerous laws that made it easier for the banking interests to keep the loot...

Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him. I'd say it's sleazy, and potentially criminal if the facts are exactly as you present them, but it isn't collaboration.

It's easy to claim that "oohhhh, the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew." You're intelligent enough to know, though, that culpability and guilt doesn't end with the individual whose finger was on the trigger.

Agreed--but none of what you're talking about constitutes complicity in the Holocaust.

The Swiss, individuals, corporations, and even the Swiss nation, profited hansomly from their complicity with the Nazis and full knowledge of what the Nazis were doing in Europe.

Possibly true. I'm not defending individual Swiss or their actions. However, proving that Switzerland wasn't perfect (which wasn't in dispute) doesn't prove that non-interventionism is wrong. No more than proving that Jeff Dahmer was nice to his mother proves that mistreating your mother is the thing to do.

--Len.

[K Frame]

Intellectual dishonesty?

Oh really?

So I guess your claim that oil is "$100 a barrel and rising is actually just the regular old standard kind of dishonesty?

You know, a blatant LIE?

You made a statement that is easily proven false, and instead of being man enough to admit that you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole, you try to claim that those who have called you out on your falsehood are themselves being dishonest.

Stop the crap.

[Sergeant Bob]

I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything that any Swiss person might do. As a rather parochial New Englander, I don't actually like Europeans on a personal level. I'm no admirer of Germans, French or Swiss, in particular. Matter of fact I absolutely despise Sweden, but I commend their non-interventionism as well.

Yeah, well, I despise Al Capone but I commend his donations to the soup kitchens.

[Len Budney]

I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything...

Yeah, well, I despise Al Capone but I commend his donations to the soup kitchens.

Exactly. Why the eye-rolling? Hint: everyone's a sinner. Commend anyone you want (except Jesus, say) for anything you want, and I guarantee that person also deserves criticism on some front. Odds are good I can even tell you what.

--Len.

[K Frame]

"Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him."

You're joking, right?

Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.

It's called being an accessory.

The Swiss also never refused to give the money back to the Nazis. They KEPT the money for their own purposes and benefit after the Nazis were defeated. In your example it would be the same as your keeping the proceeds of the bank robbery for your own use after finding out that the robber left your home and was hit by a bus and killed.

The Swiss knowingly and willfully provided financial services to and accepted gold from the Nazis despite their full knowledge of what was occurring in occupied Europe. Their actions made them complicit in the deaths of millions of Europeans. And their greed led them to lie about what actions they took during the war and hide the evidence of their complicity for decades.

[Paddy]

You made a statement that is easily proven false, and instead of being man enough to admit that you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole, you try to claim that those who have called you out on your falsehood are themselves being dishonest.

I already did, when I said:

$99.26 is not $100.00

However, in the interests of 'accuracy', let me correct my remark:

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100$87/barrel  and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

It may be $87 today, but it will never return to any level even close to the $26/barrel when Bush took office.  That is a direct result of this occupation in Iraq.

Now that I've amended my incorrect statement, you are welcome to address the substance of my remark.

[Len Budney]

"Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him."

You're joking, right? Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.

I'm talking morally, not legally: your own version has them operating at cross-purposes. The Swiss were, by your telling, robbing the Nazis, not helping them.

The Swiss also never refused to give the money back to the Nazis. They KEPT the money for their own purposes and benefit after the Nazis were defeated.

You just said, "They never refused to give the money back. They just never gave the money back." Um... yeah.

The Swiss knowingly and willfully provided financial services to and accepted gold from the Nazis despite their full knowledge of what was occurring in occupied Europe.

Which I oppose, exactly as I would oppose letting white supremacists patronize one's grocery store or restaurant. This observation doesn't support interventionism, though. It's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Their actions made them complicit in the deaths of millions of Europeans.

Anyone who feeds OJ Simpson is complicit in the slaying of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Everyone should refuse to sell him food, clothing or anything else. I'm not kidding; I sincerely believe that. However, selling food to OJ Simpson is not a prosecutable crime. What you're describing is a summary of many individual actions, some of which probably are prosecutable crimes, and some of which are not. Blanket statements are a blunt instrument in this case.

--Len.

[Finch]

In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?

And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?

I find it funny that everyone choose to clamor about the slight hyperbole in Riley's post and totally ignore everything else. Wonder why that is...