Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Question about Ron Paul >

Question about Ron Paul

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Question about Ron Paul

Old 12-22-2011, 06:31 PM
  #1  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default Question about Ron Paul

I always hear how every one loves Ron's positions on everything except for his foreign policies but I never hear any one mention anything specific.

My question is what, specifically, is it about his foreign policies that makes you come to the opinion that he's nut job when it comes to foreign affairs.

Personally, I can't see a whole lot that I disagree with.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 07:08 PM
  #2  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

The problem I had was his stand that "So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon ? Everybody else has one !"

That's just stupid. All the other nuclear powers are not promising to unleash their weapons on Israel as soon as they have the capability. Ron Paul is an unmitigated schmuck.
bergall is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 07:48 PM
  #3  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Same as Bergall. Ron Paul said we should use "diplomacy" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (that hasn't worked so far). Paul then said that Iran just wanted nukes because of their surrounding neighbors, it's dangerous, etc., etc. Paul then said that a "MAD" policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) like we had in the cold war with the soviets would prevent Iran from using a nuke against us. Santorum pointed out to Paul that Iran wants to die as a martyr while killing us and that MAD just wasn't a workable option. FWIW, Iran has also said something along the lines of they plan to blow Israel off the map with nukes.

I'm paraphrasing from the Republican debate on 12-16-11 but you can see where many people would conclude that Paul is off base on this issue. Iran simply isn't reasonable, rational or responsible. That's a bad mixture for a country possessing a nuclear weapon and with their statements about using nukes on Israel, I wouldn't want to take that chance.

I will freely grant that some of Paul's libertarian stances are fiscally responsible and welcome. I like much of what he says about the domestic side of the Presidency. It's the foreign policy where I think Paul is just plain dumb. I honestly don't think Paul is naive about foreign policy as he gets a lot of the intelligence reports on foreign countries and, quite frankly, he knows better.

I would vote for Paul over Obama if that was the choice (those 2 only) BUT I would vote for any other Republican candidate before Paul. Just my thoughts but you were wondering why people felt that Paul is a nut regarding foreign affairs.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 08:19 PM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
 
bergall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,626
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
Same as Bergall. Ron Paul said we should use "diplomacy" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (that hasn't worked so far). Paul then said that Iran just wanted nukes because of their surrounding neighbors, it's dangerous, etc., etc. Paul then said that a "MAD" policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) like we had in the cold war with the soviets would prevent Iran from using a nuke against us. Santorum pointed out to Paul that Iran wants to die as a martyr while killing us and that MAD just wasn't a workable option. FWIW, Iran has also said something along the lines of they plan to blow Israel off the map with nukes.

I'm paraphrasing from the Republican debate on 12-16-11 but you can see where many people would conclude that Paul is off base on this issue. Iran simply isn't reasonable, rational or responsible. That's a bad mixture for a country possessing a nuclear weapon and with their statements about using nukes on Israel, I wouldn't want to take that chance.

I will freely grant that some of Paul's libertarian stances are fiscally responsible and welcome. I like much of what he says about the domestic side of the Presidency. It's the foreign policy where I think Paul is just plain dumb. I honestly don't think Paul is naive about foreign policy as he gets a lot of the intelligence reports on foreign countries and, quite frankly, he knows better.

I would vote for Paul over Obama if that was the choice (those 2 only) BUT I would vote for any other Republican candidate before Paul. Just my thoughts but you were wondering why people felt that Paul is a nut regarding foreign affairs.

IM with you on the domestic policy. A lot of what he says is rock-solid and would be very good for the country. But after obama, to have yet ANOTHER foreign-policy baboon would be too much !
bergall is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 09:40 PM
  #5  
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
 
bigbulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
Default

Yeah, the current sanctions do so much to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to the propaganda machine they are doing just fine with their nuke program despite the sanctions. Does the United States go to war with Iran because we think they are developing nukes? I think Israel can handle Iran just fine with out our help and with out us tying their hands. Ron wants to allow Israel and other nations to have the ability to defend themselves with out us dictating to them the terms for their countries best interests. He believes in a countries sovereignty and their right to handle their own affairs.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist through and through. I believe that most of us here are as well. At least we all talk about getting back to the law of the constitution. Ron isn't anti war or anti intervention or anti force. He wants congress declaring war. He wants congress to debate whether or not the United States should go to war and when we should go to war. War should be a last resort but I believe that Ron would defend this country at all costs if war is what is needed.

I think it is long overdue for us to quit policing the entire world population.
bigbulls is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:15 PM
  #6  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 974
Default Can't we just be friends?????

He has the "If we stick our head in the sand, our enemies will just go away". I think the guy has lost it. Disregard the source, it's the first one to come up that had the entire exchange.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-...-over-a-drone/

Last edited by tight360; 12-22-2011 at 10:23 PM.
tight360 is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:38 PM
  #7  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,998
Default

Originally Posted by bigbulls View Post
Yeah, the current sanctions do so much to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to the propaganda machine they are doing just fine with their nuke program despite the sanctions. Does the United States go to war with Iran because we think they are developing nukes? I think Israel can handle Iran just fine with out our help and with out us tying their hands. Ron wants to allow Israel and other nations to have the ability to defend themselves with out us dictating to them the terms for their countries best interests. He believes in a countries sovereignty and their right to handle their own affairs.
I agree with this. I think we should let Israel make their own decision as they are Iran's # 1 nuclear target. Since the US is probably target # 2, I do think the US should be more involved than just hoping Israel is going to take care of it.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist through and through.
Agreed.
I believe that most of us here are as well. At least we all talk about getting back to the law of the constitution.
Agreed.
Ron isn't anti war or anti intervention or anti force.
I'm not sure on this. It sounds like he's kind of in the middle on war and would pursue a much more isolationist policy.
He wants congress declaring war. He wants congress to debate whether or not the United States should go to war and when we should go to war.
Paul has said this. I think a President should go before Congress to make his/her case for going to war if deemed necessary. Paul does not give the impression that he would lead this effort to persuade as President.
War should be a last resort but I believe that Ron would defend this country at all costs if war is what is needed.
I honestly don't get the same impression. Paul's statements sound isolationist and even a little pacifist. He has said nothing to cause me to believe he would defend this country at all costs.

I think it is long overdue for us to quit policing the entire world population.
Agreed.
I think many of us have similar thoughts and beliefs about the constitution and the need to stop policing the world. It is Ron Paul's other ideas about how to handle nuclear issues, etc. that causes most of us to determine that he simply isn't up for the job. It's too bad because he does have some great ideas domestically.

Last edited by CalHunter; 12-22-2011 at 10:42 PM.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:58 PM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 974
Default Hey Cal...

What are your thoughts on his wanting to cut the Dept. Of Interior? That one really affects hunting and our most precious possessions as a nation?
tight360 is offline  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:48 AM
  #9  
Spike
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Passaic county NJ
Posts: 10
Default

Ron Paul's national security ideas remind me of Nevil Chamberlin just before WWII. Paul doesn't recognize the threat posed by our Muslim enemies. He doesn't want the military deployed anywhere to fight them; he wants to close Gitmo; he wants to end the Patriot act etc.
762nato is offline  
Old 12-23-2011, 04:46 AM
  #10  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,219
Default

Originally Posted by tight360 View Post
What are your thoughts on his wanting to cut the Dept. Of Interior? That one really affects hunting and our most precious possessions as a nation?
I have no issues on this. States can control their own natural resources.
Fieldmouse is online now  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.