August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

[Avorysuds]

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Whew, it scares me you're a voter.

So lets see, you dodged his answer by asking the same question again... Here, let me ask you a question.

If US policy and the policy of other nations with nukes around Iran have helped give them reason to "hurry" and developed nukes of their own... wouldn't that make your foreign policy a real threat? Not a "possible" threat by a nonintervention policy like Ron Paul’s? Not to mention your way costs money, lots of it and provokes war…

 

[Immanuel]

No they probably won't because we have affected their policies by asserting our influence on them for so long. Like Paul said, We stood up to the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and we did alright. Why do we need to freak out about a Iran having one nuclear weapon?

Maybe if we stopped spreading our "democracy" by the end of a gun and started spreading it by EXAMPLE then we wouldn't have countries trying to develop nukes.

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Good point... and the chances of that happening?

Granted maybe if Paul won we might pull out completely. Would we leave Israel to fend for itself? Is that the right thing to do?

Immie

 

[liebuster]

If US policy and the policy of other nations with nukes around Iran have helped give them reason to "hurry" and developed nukes of their own... wouldn't that make your foreign policy a real threat? Not a "possible" threat by a nonintervention policy like Ron Paul’s? Not to mention your way costs money, lots of it and provokes war…

This is the entire point of Ron Paul. These countries develop nukes because we are the bullies of the world, NOT because we are free.

 

[Lovebears65]

I actually liked Newt Tonight . He made some good points! Especially about the media

 

[Avorysuds]

No they probably won't because we have affected their policies by asserting our influence on them for so long. Like Paul said, We stood up to the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and we did alright. Why do we need to freak out about a Iran having one nuclear weapon?

Maybe if we stopped spreading our "democracy" by the end of a gun and started spreading it by EXAMPLE then we wouldn't have countries trying to develop nukes.

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Good point... and the chances of that happening?

Granted maybe if Paul won we might pull out completely. Would we leave Israel to fend for itself? Is that the right thing to do?

Immie

Lucky for us the question of is it right or wrong no longer matters because we simply can't afford it. So lets find out because either way it will end.

 

[Immanuel]

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Whew, it scares me you're a voter.

So lets see, you dodged his answer by asking the same question again... Here, let me ask you a question.

If US policy and the policy of other nations with nukes around Iran have helped give them reason to "hurry" and developed nukes of their own... wouldn't that make your foreign policy a real threat? Not a "possible" threat by a nonintervention policy like Ron Paul’s? Not to mention your way costs money, lots of it and provokes war…

I dodged nothing. I gave my answer. Adopting Paul's nonintervention policy is not going to bring about the forgiveness of the Iranian people.

You seem to believe that by adopting Paul's attitude we would somehow win the graces of the President of Iran. That isn't going to happen. In the meantime adopting such policies will leave us and our allies sitting ducks for a lunatic who has made it clear that his goal in life is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

You seem to think that suddenly throwing our hands in the air and saying we're done is going to change something. That is foolishness X 1000.

Immie

 

[ShackledNation]

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

He sounds like an isolationist by saying remove trade barriers? He is a noninterventionist, not an isolationist. You have allowed the media to brainwash you into listening to Paul with a jaundiced ear. Paul is not saying lets give Iran nuclear weapons. He is saying trying to prevent them from doing so will only hurt the US as Iran becomes more upset with us.

As for the contention that we had isolationism 30-40 years ago (or nonintenventionism, which I assume you meant)...are you kidding? We were a huge interventionist power then. The foreign policy of the United States since the dawn of the 20th century has been one of heavy interventionism. We were meddling with Iran, Europe, had bases around the world...heard of the Cold War? Vietnam which was just before that? Where are you getting this bizarre notion that in that time we were noninterventionists? It is simply completely false.

I havnt heard anything about Paul on the media, his name rarely comes up when I watch tv. Having said that what I am referring to when I say isolationist is the fact that he will let anyone do anything they want and he will just take a back seat. Isolating our govt from the powers it should be exercising both outside our borders and within.

It matters not. I don't think he will be the nominee. I won't vote for him unless its either him or Obama. I wasted a vote once on a fringe candidate. I won't be making that mistake again.

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

 

[liebuster]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

You gotta know when to fold'em

We can't keep spending trillions of $$$$ to just save face.


And for the record he has stated that it will take years to get rid of these horrible policies. He admits that we can't just "shock" the system over night. It took a 100 years to get here, it will take a long time to undo what we created.

 

[Immanuel]

He sounds like an isolationist by saying remove trade barriers? He is a noninterventionist, not an isolationist. You have allowed the media to brainwash you into listening to Paul with a jaundiced ear. Paul is not saying lets give Iran nuclear weapons. He is saying trying to prevent them from doing so will only hurt the US as Iran becomes more upset with us.

As for the contention that we had isolationism 30-40 years ago (or nonintenventionism, which I assume you meant)...are you kidding? We were a huge interventionist power then. The foreign policy of the United States since the dawn of the 20th century has been one of heavy interventionism. We were meddling with Iran, Europe, had bases around the world...heard of the Cold War? Vietnam which was just before that? Where are you getting this bizarre notion that in that time we were noninterventionists? It is simply completely false.

I havnt heard anything about Paul on the media, his name rarely comes up when I watch tv. Having said that what I am referring to when I say isolationist is the fact that he will let anyone do anything they want and he will just take a back seat. Isolating our govt from the powers it should be exercising both outside our borders and within.

It matters not. I don't think he will be the nominee. I won't vote for him unless its either him or Obama. I wasted a vote once on a fringe candidate. I won't be making that mistake again.

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

You gotta know when to fold'em

We can't keep spending trillions of $$$$ to just save face.


And for the record he has stated that it will take years to get rid of these horrible policies. He admits that we can't just "shock" the system over night. It took a 100 years to get here, it will take a long time to undo what we created.

I agree with some of what he says but I can't condone just withdrawing from everwhere like that. So many countries would collapse, so many people would die and so many enemies could make horrific plans and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Clinton tried the lite version of leaving them alone even after being attacked and look what it got us.

No thanks.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

No. I'm sure they'd still want a nuclear bomb, even though we have no evidence of them attempting to build one, because Israel has nuclear weapons. They'd be no more a threat to us if we left them alone than they would be to Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden or any other country that knows how to mind its own business.

I think you are wrong... maybe if we quit intervening in the ME and stayed out for 1000 years, but in the meantime we'd be waiting for the day they came after us.

Immie

Well you've got to start sometime if it's going to take 1000 years, but I don't believe that for a second. If you make it clear that the U.S.'s policy is to mind its own business from here on out, and show signs of following through on that promise, then the terrorist threat against the U.S. is going to lose much of its teeth right away.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No they probably won't because we have affected their policies by asserting our influence on them for so long. Like Paul said, We stood up to the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and we did alright. Why do we need to freak out about a Iran having one nuclear weapon?

Maybe if we stopped spreading our "democracy" by the end of a gun and started spreading it by EXAMPLE then we wouldn't have countries trying to develop nukes.

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Good point... and the chances of that happening?

Granted maybe if Paul won we might pull out completely. Would we leave Israel to fend for itself? Is that the right thing to do?

Immie

Israel is the dominant power in that region. They're more than capable of defending themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

Whew, it scares me you're a voter.

So lets see, you dodged his answer by asking the same question again... Here, let me ask you a question.

If US policy and the policy of other nations with nukes around Iran have helped give them reason to "hurry" and developed nukes of their own... wouldn't that make your foreign policy a real threat? Not a "possible" threat by a nonintervention policy like Ron Paul’s? Not to mention your way costs money, lots of it and provokes war…

I dodged nothing. I gave my answer. Adopting Paul's nonintervention policy is not going to bring about the forgiveness of the Iranian people.

You seem to believe that by adopting Paul's attitude we would somehow win the graces of the President of Iran. That isn't going to happen. In the meantime adopting such policies will leave us and our allies sitting ducks for a lunatic who has made it clear that his goal in life is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

You seem to think that suddenly throwing our hands in the air and saying we're done is going to change something. That is foolishness X 1000.

Immie

The thing is is that the Iranian people of the younger generations at the least really don't have anything to forgive the U.S. for. It's the Iranian government that resents us. However, if we were to start bombing them and applying sanctions to them then we would give the Iranian people a reason to dislike us.

 

[liebuster]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

You gotta know when to fold'em

We can't keep spending trillions of $$$$ to just save face.


And for the record he has stated that it will take years to get rid of these horrible policies. He admits that we can't just "shock" the system over night. It took a 100 years to get here, it will take a long time to undo what we created.

I agree with some of what he says but I can't condone just withdrawing from everwhere like that. So many countries would collapse, so many people would die and so many enemies could make horrific plans and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Clinton tried the lite version of leaving them alone even after being attacked and look what it got us.

No thanks.

NO!! Clinton did not leave them alone, he continued the same policies of the U.S. that have been in place for decades.

And don't forget that the U.S use to "officially" fund Al Qaeda.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

 

[ShackledNation]

I havnt heard anything about Paul on the media, his name rarely comes up when I watch tv. Having said that what I am referring to when I say isolationist is the fact that he will let anyone do anything they want and he will just take a back seat. Isolating our govt from the powers it should be exercising both outside our borders and within.

It matters not. I don't think he will be the nominee. I won't vote for him unless its either him or Obama. I wasted a vote once on a fringe candidate. I won't be making that mistake again.

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I havnt heard anything about Paul on the media, his name rarely comes up when I watch tv. Having said that what I am referring to when I say isolationist is the fact that he will let anyone do anything they want and he will just take a back seat. Isolating our govt from the powers it should be exercising both outside our borders and within.

It matters not. I don't think he will be the nominee. I won't vote for him unless its either him or Obama. I wasted a vote once on a fringe candidate. I won't be making that mistake again.

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Iran in our own backyard, huh? Iran is going to attack and invade the preeminent military power that has ever existed on this planet? Iran?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

You gotta know when to fold'em

We can't keep spending trillions of $$$$ to just save face.


And for the record he has stated that it will take years to get rid of these horrible policies. He admits that we can't just "shock" the system over night. It took a 100 years to get here, it will take a long time to undo what we created.

I agree with some of what he says but I can't condone just withdrawing from everwhere like that. So many countries would collapse, so many people would die and so many enemies could make horrific plans and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Clinton tried the lite version of leaving them alone even after being attacked and look what it got us.

No thanks.

No, I'm afraid Clinton didn't try anything resembling noninterventionism, and despite Republican talking points neither has Barack Obama.

 

[ShackledNation]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

You gotta know when to fold'em

We can't keep spending trillions of $$$$ to just save face.


And for the record he has stated that it will take years to get rid of these horrible policies. He admits that we can't just "shock" the system over night. It took a 100 years to get here, it will take a long time to undo what we created.

I agree with some of what he says but I can't condone just withdrawing from everwhere like that. So many countries would collapse, so many people would die and so many enemies could make horrific plans and we wouldn't be able to stop them. Clinton tried the lite version of leaving them alone even after being attacked and look what it got us.

No thanks.

Actually, Clinton did not leave them alone, and through his intervention in the middle east he provided funding for a certain terrorist group we now all know to well as Al Qaeda. It is clear that government policy at home creates unintended consequences. Why do you find it so hard to believe the same applies to policy abroad?