Ron Paul Refuses to Support a Military Dictator in Pakistan

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
If a possible President Ron Paul wants to maintain the Nato occupation of Afghanistan and prevent a full blown civil war from breaking out, he then has just two choices. Support Musharrif in Pakistan or Ahmadinejad in Iran.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,834
2,630
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

Judging by most of his stances, it probably leaves him, and us, staying the hell out of other countries problems.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

Judging by most of his stances, it probably leaves him, and us, staying the hell out of other countries problems.

until when? pakistan's nukes fall into a terrorist's hands?

I mean, boo dictators, but you can't just say "not our problem" and whistle on down the street.

I'd prefer a stable Pakistan led by a dictator ala pre-invasion Iraq over totally anarchy in a nuclear power.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Since it belongs here, I'll repost what i wrote about this interview in the other thread...

I agree with everything he had to say in that video.. with two caveats:

1) Our Special Forces and Intelligence services must still be deployed where and when they are needed for counter-terrorism purposes. (ie. sending more "advisers" into NW Pakistan)

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

If he caveatted his ideals with those two exceptions, I'd probably think about voting for the crazy SOB! lol... he really does say a lot of great things that need to be said...

Hell, if all he said was "We'll cut our presence in Iraq by half, and start there..." I might take him more seriously.

but the "We're pulling out everyone NOW" thing just isn't going to fly...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

In all honesty, lifting the sanctions on Cuba is long overdue... but neither Party can resist the Cuban Lobby in Florida! DOH!
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,834
2,630
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

Judging by most of his stances, it probably leaves him, and us, staying the hell out of other countries problems.

until when? pakistan's nukes fall into a terrorist's hands?

I mean, boo dictators, but you can't just say "not our problem" and whistle on down the street.

I'd prefer a stable Pakistan led by a dictator ala pre-invasion Iraq over totally anarchy in a nuclear power.

I'm just telling you what I think that his answer would probably be. His belief in leaving EVERYONE alone and NEVER getting involved in anything is one of the things that I disagree with. Although, with the way many of the anti-Bush and anti-Iraq people talk, you'd think that they'd be 100 percent with RP on this one.

Edit - I pretty much agree with Palehorse on this one, although I'll be voting for RP.
 

SpongeBob

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2001
2,825
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite clearly palehorse74 thinks he has a magic wand. And for some unknown reason he has declined to use it already. And at the right moment of need, he will wave it and poof everything will be fixed. But first we must prove our devotion to his genius by blundering around in Iraq for the 10 or 20 years he predicts.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.

Without resources and the help it will turn into what former Afghanistan was, that is not an option.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite clearly palehorse74 thinks he has a magic wand. And for some unknown reason he has declined to use it already. And at the right moment of need, he will wave it and poof everything will be fixed. But first we must prove our devotion to his genius by blundering around in Iraq for the 10 or 20 years he predicts.

Sometimes you are a complete idiot.
 

piotrgurin

Senior member
Apr 4, 2005
343
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Since it belongs here, I'll repost what i wrote about this interview in the other thread...

I agree with everything he had to say in that video.. with two caveats:

1) Our Special Forces and Intelligence services must still be deployed where and when they are needed for counter-terrorism purposes. (ie. sending more "advisers" into NW Pakistan)

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

If he caveatted his ideals with those two exceptions, I'd probably think about voting for the crazy SOB! lol... he really does say a lot of great things that need to be said...

Hell, if all he said was "We'll cut our presence in Iraq by half, and start there..." I might take him more seriously.

but the "We're pulling out everyone NOW" thing just isn't going to fly...

Choosing a candidate has never been easier these days. All you have to do is hop online and see who's in the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and who isn't.

This year from my research there are only 3 candidate running that are NOT part of the CFR: Dennis K, Mike G. and R. Paul. These are the only candidates that anyone should choose from. If you vote for anyone else you are voting for the CFR.

If you don't know what the CFR is or don't think its a negative organization please do a little research. Please do your own research, but here are a few video i picked out from Youtube to give anyone interested on the subject alittle introduction:

Here's Ron Paul's response on the CFR in the CNN Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXQLUIc1Ak

The CFR controls American media video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPlvdSQ6cAM

Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...07J_zg&feature=related

Council On Foreign Relations Advises Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_BucPcJrHI
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
I'm sorry, but nothing concerning Ron Paul is "breaking" considering (1) he is not the President of this country and (2) he hasn't yet shown any of the noise he's generated is good for votes.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

uh... who cares about Cuba? There is no reason to do anything about Cuba at all except leave them to do what they want.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Maybe ti is time to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries? I realize that we profit from meddling, and that this is the REAL reason why we meddle at all (for those who like to lie to themselves and think we are being good samaritans), but we just eed to mind our own damn business as it is costing us now and will cost us even more in the near future. I am not speaking of isolation, I am speaking of true diplomacy (i.e. not manipulation of any type).
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

uh... who cares about Cuba? There is no reason to do anything about Cuba at all except leave them to do what they want.

if Ron Paul refuses to support a dictator, he has three choices, more or less...

-military action (which he's against)
-sanctions (which don't work)
-doing nothing

doing nothing when you've got a nuclear power potentially spiraling down into anarchy is the wrong answer. you can't really not meddle when a country is sitting on a nuclear arsenal that could end up god knows where if we just sit back and let the shit hit the fan.

military action's not really an answer, much as I'm sure Bush would love to send special ops in, grab the nukes, and gtfo, so what are we left with other than supporting whichever leader is going to support stability, dictator or not?

it's not the feel-good solution, but what is?
 

SpongeBob

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2001
2,825
0
76
Originally posted by: spittledip
Maybe ti is time to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries? I realize that we profit from meddling, and that this is the REAL reason why we meddle at all (for those who like to lie to themselves and think we are being good samaritans), but we just eed to mind our own damn business as it is costing us now and will cost us even more in the near future. I am not speaking of isolation, I am speaking of true diplomacy (i.e. not manipulation of any type).

Unless you are a major shareholder in a petroleum company you aren't profiting. It is costing you money in the form of direct taxation and hidden taxes (inflation).
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
Things in Iraq are much better today than they were six months ago.

There are a lot of positive stories come out of Iraq these days. Hopefully it is only a mater of time before real political progress is made.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
Things in Iraq are much better today than they were six months ago.

There are a lot of positive stories come out of Iraq these days. Hopefully it is only a mater of time before real political progress is made.

That doesn't really answer the question. I hope that I get to spend tomorrow night with Jessica Alba, but tell me how likely THAT sounds. Things in Iraq do seem better than they did six months ago, but that's a short term improvement...the long term questions have yet to be answered. Folks like you and palehorse74 seem to think it's a matter of just sticking around until things are "fixed", but I don't know if it's a matter of time or a matter of resources...I wonder if it's even something we can do.

For what it's worth, I agree with the idea that we should try to help Iraq as much as possible. I disagree very strongly with the initial invasion, and I think we totally fucked up a country that wasn't exactly all that great to begin with. I just don't think the power of positive thinking is going to get us very far, I disagree with the idea that we CAN "fix what we broke".
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: loki8481
and he doesn't support military actions against dictators... so where does that leave him?

more embargoes and sanctions? look how well that's worked with cuba.

uh... who cares about Cuba? There is no reason to do anything about Cuba at all except leave them to do what they want.

if Ron Paul refuses to support a dictator, he has three choices, more or less...

-military action (which he's against)
-sanctions (which don't work)
-doing nothing

doing nothing when you've got a nuclear power potentially spiraling down into anarchy is the wrong answer. you can't really not meddle when a country is sitting on a nuclear arsenal that could end up god knows where if we just sit back and let the shit hit the fan.

military action's not really an answer, much as I'm sure Bush would love to send special ops in, grab the nukes, and gtfo, so what are we left with other than supporting whichever leader is going to support stability, dictator or not?

it's not the feel-good solution, but what is?

I have no problem sitting back and doing nothing. India will deal with it.
 

Jinru

Senior member
Feb 6, 2006
671
0
76
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.

A interesting quote from Benazir Buhtto in a Parade interview.

Parade Magazine will be publishing an interview with Benazir Buhtto on January 6th and this is the most interesting part:

What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman.

She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf's government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.' I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years."

The interview is here:

http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Jinru
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.

A interesting quote from Benazir Buhtto in a Parade interview.

Parade Magazine will be publishing an interview with Benazir Buhtto on January 6th and this is the most interesting part:

What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman.

She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf's government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.' I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years."

The interview is here:

http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html

Basically she was a threat to our dictator buddy and his extremist pawns. No one wonder she was killed.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: SpongeBob
Originally posted by: palehorse74

2) We need to create a stable Iraq before we just up and pull out - IOW, fix what we broke.

I agree with you philosophically, but do you really think WE can fix it? I think the only ones who can fix it are the Iraqis and we need to get out of their way.
Things in Iraq are much better today than they were six months ago.

There are a lot of positive stories come out of Iraq these days. Hopefully it is only a mater of time before real political progress is made.

The Goldman family is doing better than it was shortly after OJ murdered Ron Goldman.

There are a lot of positive stories coming out of the Goldman family these days. Besides the income from the publishing of OJ's book, they're pleased he's in legal jeopardy again.

I guess that this improvement in the situation with the Goldman family proves OJ's murder of Ron was a good policy after all.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
what does it matter whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

unless anyone's got a wayback machine stashed away, there's jack shit that we can do about the past now... the American people obviously chose not to hold him accountable by giving him a second term.