RonPaul would not have sent SEAL team after bin Laden

[MomentsofSanity]

Man it pains me to quote Fox a second time in a month but

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

Paul plans to announce his candidacy Friday in New Hampshire, two sources told Fox News. Ahead of that announcement, he suggested in a radio interview Tuesday that the U.S. government could have worked with Pakistan to secure Usama bin Laden's capture instead of unilaterally entering the country and killing him -- despite concerns that the Pakistanis could have tipped him off.*

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs*raid.

The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.*

Granted Ron Paul's stance on taking action in foreign countries is no secret but does this have the potential to completely derail his Presidential aspirations given the overwhelming support for this action and the easy to attack soft on terrorism angle that will likely be played?

He raises an interesting point as well. What IF we knew is was in a different country. Would we have gone in if he were in, say, Italy?

 

[irishScott]

Man it pains me to quote Fox a second time in a month but

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/


Granted Ron Paul's stance on taking action in foreign countries is no secret but does this have the potential to completely derail his Presidential aspirations given the overwhelming support for this action and the easy to attack soft on terrorism angle that will likely be played?

He raises an interesting point as well. What IF we knew is was in a different country. Would we have gone in if he were in, say, Italy?

No, we would have informed the Italians in such as way as to make it a joint operation. The Italian government and military is also much more competent than Pakistan and would not have leaked to Bin Laden.

And as was mentioned in that Article, Ron Paul just lost the support of the Tea Party with that statement. If he ever had a legitimate shot at winning the primary, he just dumped it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Ron who?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Perhaps Italy was a bad choice for that example. Substitute China in it's place and everything gets interesting.

 

[Sinsear]

Ron Paul is an ass.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Perhaps Italy was a bad choice for that example. Substitute China in it's place and everything gets interesting.

china is a bad example too, imo. a stable but clearly inferior in terms of economy and military would make more sense.

 

[matt0611]

Isn't he saying he would have sent people in to get him but he would have done it with Pakistan's consent or working with them?

I don't see whats so outrageous about that view really...

 

[Doppel]

If Ron Paul would or would not do something there is a very simple flow chart. It has one condition: is it in the constitution. Yes? No? He does appear to be one of principles but also no imagination and very naive.

 

[LegendKiller]

If Ron Paul would or would not do something there is a very simple flow chart. It has one condition: is it in the constitution. Yes? No? He does appear to be one of principles but also no imagination and very naive.

Libertopians are very naive. They see the world in black/white and, as you describe, "constitutional" and "unconstitutional". They either see it as a "Free" market or "communism". It's a juvenile position that has no place in modern times, yet, here we find Mr. Isolationism pretending that there are no "bad guys" in the world that will want to steal our wealth, well, what wealth we would have left if we prescribed to his economic policies.

Using Italy or London as an example is simply moronic. Neither of them are terrorist states and are, more or less, allies of the US. They do not have schizophrenic attitudes towards harboring terrorists. They do not play the double games, hiding people who would love to kill thousands of Americans in one swipe.

Quite frankly, any sane individual would give Ron Paul the fucking finger and run away from him. Sadly, too many are Ron Paul Bots.

 

[matt0611]

Libertopians are very naive. They see the world in black/white and, as you describe, "constitutional" and "unconstitutional". They either see it as a "Free" market or "communism". It's a juvenile position that has no place in modern times, yet, here we find Mr. Isolationism pretending that there are no "bad guys" in the world that will want to steal our wealth, well, what wealth we would have left if we prescribed to his economic policies.

Using Italy or London as an example is simply moronic. Neither of them are terrorist states and are, more or less, allies of the US. They do not have schizophrenic attitudes towards harboring terrorists. They do not play the double games, hiding people who would love to kill thousands of Americans in one swipe.

Quite frankly, any sane individual would give Ron Paul the fucking finger and run away from him. Sadly, too many are Ron Paul Bots.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist...
Liar.

Oh wait, its just your usual cut and paste post bitching about "libertopians". Why am i even bothering to respond?
How original...

 

[LegendKiller]

Ron Paul is not an isolationist...
Liar.

Oh wait, its just your usual cut and paste post bitching about "libertopians". Why am i even bothering to respond?
How original...

From 2007

There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. … I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.

Yup, a "few submarines" will really protect us against China's army which would inevitably raise if unchecked. Such idiocy has known no bounds since the possibility of all of Europe falling into Communism after WW2 had the US not re-armed, the Marshall Plan not been enacted and Greece and Turkey not been bolstered.

I mean, really, does this guy think that a "few submarines" would deter Ammanutjob, North Korea, Libya, or any other terrorist states?

 

[matt0611]

From 2007



Yup, a "few submarines" will really protect us against China's army which would inevitably raise if unchecked. Such idiocy has known no bounds since the possibility of all of Europe falling into Communism after WW2 had the US not re-armed, the Marshall Plan not been enacted and Greece and Turkey not been bolstered.

I mean, really, does this guy think that a "few submarines" would deter Ammanutjob, North Korea, Libya, or any other terrorist states?

A small military != isolationism.

I want a large military anyway, though I think we could stand to lower the spending just a bit.

 

[LegendKiller]

A small military != isolationism.

I want a large military anyway, though I think we could stand to lower the spending just a bit.

LOL - Yeah, a "few submarines" is not isolationism?


http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron-paul-on-throwing-our-allies-under-the-bus/

How about having no allies, no foreign basing of troops, no international influence, combined with a small deterrent "submarine" force.

Wow, if that isn't isolationism then I'd LOVE for you to explain, exactly, what that is.

Let's be honest here. The guy is a fucking naif, simple as that. He lives in some world of unicorns, nectar of the gods, and rainbows everywhere.

 

[matt0611]

LOL - Yeah, a "few submarines" is not isolationism?


http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron-paul-on-throwing-our-allies-under-the-bus/

How about having no allies, no foreign basing of troops, no international influence, combined with a small deterrent "submarine" force.

Wow, if that isn't isolationism then I'd LOVE for you to explain, exactly, what that is.

Let's be honest here. The guy is a fucking naif, simple as that. He lives in some world of unicorns, nectar of the gods, and rainbows everywhere.

Isolationism means theres no trade, basically no diplomacy, no alliances etc

Ron Paul still wants to have treaties, trade, friendships and diplomatic relations with countries.

I would also guess the "submarine" comment is hyperbole, I'm sure he believes we need tanks, soldiers, missles, etc

Doesn't mean we need to defend Europe, Japan, South Korea, police entire sub-continents etc

And yes, you can still have relations and friendships and trade and diplomacy with other countries without having military spread across the half the world.

Isolationism still not found.

 

[Doppel]

Relatively speaking Paul is isolationist, compared to his brethren, compared I'd guess to in fact most Western leaders.

 

[ElFenix]

Isolationism means theres no trade, basically no diplomacy, no alliances etc

uh, no. it's mostly just the 3rd of those. there's usually been high tariff advocates but that's internal mercantilism more than anything else.

 

[matt0611]

uh, no. it's mostly just the 3rd of those. there's usually been high tariff advocates but that's internal mercantilism more than anything else.

Every definition I've found goes something along these lines.

"The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."

Ron Paul is not an advocate of isolationism, I don't know of a single libertarian who is.

 

[Doppel]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/ron_paul_on_war.html

Basically there's no condition other than foreign boots in US soil that would have Ron Paul committing US troops to anything. Kind of an asshole approach, isn't it? This seems very much like I have my buddies over and we're comparing our various guns that we own and having a beer and then some thug starts beating to death a neighbor on his driveway (not my property) and I just watch and make a moral statement.

It's not consistent, either. For example saying don't bother with Gulf War because Israel and Saudi would do something. Something because they are not isolationist? Lawls

 

[ElFenix]

Every definition I've found goes something along these lines.

"The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities."

Ron Paul is not an advocate of isolationism, I don't know of a single libertarian who is.

the only time in US history when the economic part was a major factor in US isolationism was during the great depression. US isolationism has been far more of the non-interventionist variety.

 

[Anarchist420]

Robert A Taft was also accused of being an isolationist, but he wasn't an isolationist because he didn't advocate borders for everything. He, like Dr. Paul, was a non-inverventionist. The neocons are isolationists.

 

[JS80]

The neocons are isolationists.

 

[xj0hnx]

Dr. Paul, was a non-interventionist.

Some people are confused by this, some are just dishonest.

 

[DominionSeraph]

He lives in some world of unicorns, nectar of the gods, and rainbows everywhere.

Thanks to Lauren Faust the world of unicorns and rainbows has grown up, so that level of simple-mindedness wouldn't fly even there anymore.

Ron Paul is more on the level of a smurf.

 

[tvarad]

The only place where bin Laden would have gotten shelter is in unstable countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen etc. amongst irregular sympathizers. Most Middle Eastern leaders (including guys like Gaddafi, Assad, Ahmedijimbob etc..) loathe the guy because his goal was to overthrow them. No stable country would provide him shelter, least of all China since it's goal is to go head to head militarily with the U.S. and not have some two-bit terrorist do it's dirty work for them. In fact, China doesn't need a bin Laden, it already has North Korea and Pakistan doing it's dirty work of asymmetrical warfare to keep it's "foes" off balance and it's also spreading it's wealth all around the world to project influence.

So that leaves only one country viz., Pakistan which is a "neither here nor there" country that was the only one interested in keeping bin Laden alive because he was their meal-ticket to obtain the latest military goodies and also part of the billions of dollars to fight the war on terror.

 

[tvarad]

I can understand presidential wannabes beating up on Obama about healthcare, economy and other hot-button issues but it must be sheer desperation on their part to criticize him on this picture-perfect operation. The ball's out of the ball-park and these guys are complaining that he used the wrong bat. Yeah, that'll get them elected (shows how desperate they've become).