Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Zig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqiUl3OtnDE&feature=player_embedded

 

Speaking on BP, etc.

[weirdone]

from what i understand on this its not much different that palin calling obama and canada a bunch of socialists when she was trying to bash the healthcare bill, then took her kid to canada for medical care.

the states is truly at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to retarded double talking politicians, some of the shit they say actually calls me to question if the majority of he people watching these clips on fox or wherever actually, even for a second, could ever beleive a word out of all your lying ass saps. i know if voting changed anything itd be illegal but christ i think i could honestly spin peoples words better than half the idiots they have in office or who are a part of the opposition (if thats how its referred to in the states?)

 

but yea im not one who should listen to politics especially from the states i guess, it makes the stereotype of all americans being idiotic biggots who are only concerned about themselves and their views very easy to beleive

[Zig]

Military Spending Must Be on the Table

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2010/06/28/military-spending-must-be-on-the-table/

 

This past week various news events once again made it abundantly clear that our foreign policy is an abject failure. Unfortunately, in spite of this, the administration is determined to stay on this destructive course, despite any past promises to change it. For Afghanistan especially, if ever there was an opportunity to admit shortcomings and change strategies along with leaders, this past week was it.

 

There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan. Our mission has morphed from apprehending those who attacked us, to apprehending those who threaten or dislike us for invading their country, to remaking an entire political system and even a culture. I remain highly skeptical that, as foreign occupiers, we can ever impose Western-style democracy on another country. Our troops have debilitating restrictions on defending themselves against enemies, which are so often indistinguishable from civilians. They also face dire setbacks in winning hearts and minds when innocents are mistakenly harmed, which happens all the time. We can never make friends this way; the tactic never works.

 

This is an expensive, bloody, endless exercise in futility. Not everyone is willing to admit this just yet. But every second they spend in denial has real costs in lives and livelihoods.

 

Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control. This is largely because fiscal accountability in military budgeting is seen, by many, as weak on defense. This is absolutely wrong and a dangerous way to think. It is certainly possible for the military to waste money, or to spend money counterproductively, and indeed it has. But out of political correctness, the military has been getting blank checks from the administrations and Congress for far too long.

 

It is important to defend our soil, but let us defend our own soil instead of defending Europe’s soil. Our willingness to defend Europe enables their lavish social spending at our expense, while they criticize our model of capitalism. It is time they allocated the money for their own defense. The same goes for Korea, Japan, and other countries like Egypt and Israel.

 

It is also important that while our troops are in combat, our soldiers have what they need to do the best they can, even if we disagree with why they are there. It is an embarrassment that some soldiers and families have had to buy body armor at their own expense when billions are awarded to politically well-connected defense contractors for weapon systems that don’t work, are over-budget, and are past deadline. This is the kind of waste that needs to end. I firmly believe that there is enough waste in the military budget that we can both save money overall and at the same time be safer.

 

Of course, the obvious way to save money and be safer is to stop meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and just bring our troops home. This will happen eventually if our empire, like every other fallen empire, insists on spending itself into collapse. If we want to avoid this, we must look into ways to bring our costs under control. Military budgets must be on the chopping block along with everything else.

[El Mamerro]

There really is nothing for us to win in Afghanistan.

 

 

Off topic, but...

 

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

 

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Yes, 1 trillion in untapped mineral deposit's sure make up for a three trillion dollar war.

 

Way to look at it in a "the glass is half full" kind of way.

 

Just to add something else, what are we going to do, steal these resources from the Afghan people whom which should receive most of the profits?

 

I mean, wouldn't that further the Taliban agenda, wouldn't that alienate the people further away from the United States? Aren't we running COIN, isn't that counter productive?

 

Regardless these wars need to end, and the only thing that seems to be happening is further aggression.

[El Mamerro]

3 trillion? I didn't know it was that high... most numbers I find off a quick search put it way below that.

 

Regardless, it is *something* to look forward to in terms of any sort of gain. What our options could be, how we would work with Afghanis, and how the Taliban would react, is discussed in the article.

 

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

 

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

 

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

 

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

 

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I was including the numbers from the Iraq war.

[El Mamerro]

They're included in that link too, still just says over $1 trillion.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

After further research, you are correct.

 

Still, doesn't make it worth it.

[Zig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skWt4uUwzSs

[wearekilluminati]

yo seriously if you are a ron paul supporter..........................your late for work..................................wake the fuck up..................................

[Zig]

Ron Paul's Full Speech at CPAC 2011: The Brushfires of Freedom Are Burning!

 

 

Paul gets CPAC crowd on their feet

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/paul-gets-cpac-crowd-on-their-feet/

 

Washington (CNN) - Texas Rep. Ron Paul addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday, repeating the mantra of limited government that has rocketed him to stardom among a certain segment of conservative activists.

Easily garnering the most enthusiastic applause of the day, Paul advocated for a complete governmental retreat in every realm of society.

 

"We've had way too much bipartisanship for about 60 years," said Paul, in comments that drew one of many standing ovations during the 25-minute speech. "It's the bipartisanship of the welfare system, the warfare system…it all goes through with support from both parties. "

 

"There is truly a revolution going on in this country. We live in a time where we don't just need a change in attitude and a change in ideas," Paul also said. "We need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about. "

Paul, who ran a quixotic presidential bid in 2008 that caught fire with many fiscal conservatives and libertarians, added the crisis in Egypt is further proof American needs to disentangle from its foreign engagements.

 

"We need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, not only in Egypt, but around the world," he said. "The people don't like us propping up our dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country propped up a dictator here."

 

Paul was the winner of the straw poll here last year, and, judging by the reception of the over-capacity crowd, is a favorite to win again. This year's straw poll will be closely watched given the annual event has become an early testing ground for potential GOP presidential candidates.

[christo-f]

I listened to that CPAC speech and I read some of his other stuff. Now I won't talk about his ideas for domestic policy and culture because that I something I have very little knowledge on.

 

 

HOWEVER, his foreign policy ideas.....

 

 

Sorry, this guy is so far off the mark on how things work that it is simply astounding. Anyone who has sat through International Relations, Political Economy, International Security 1001 or even just read a history book will know how far off the mark this guy is on the basic mechanics of how international relations and security works.

 

He really does not understand the system. Toe even entertain the idea that leaving the Middle East and Japan will make everyone happy and the US safer is just childish and makes me think this guy is basing his judgement on emotion and wishes.

 

 

I don't want to talk the guy down because he seems like he has heart and I like that. But real is real and his forpol platform is like that of a person who has never studied or even mored outside the region and interacted with other strategic decision makers but still thinks he understands them.

 

 

 

I have nothing against his domestic or ideological position so this is not a personal attack, I don't care if it's him or Santa Claus saying this stuff. It's an objective opinion based on depth. He aint got shit when it comes to foreign policy, none at all.

[Zig]

I listened to that CPAC speech and I read some of his other stuff. Now I won't talk about his ideas for domestic policy and culture because that I something I have very little knowledge on.

 

 

HOWEVER, his foreign policy ideas.....

 

 

Sorry, this guy is so far off the mark on how things work that it is simply astounding. Anyone who has sat through International Relations, Political Economy, International Security 1001 or even just read a history book will know how far off the mark this guy is on the basic mechanics of how international relations and security works.

 

He really does not understand the system. Toe even entertain the idea that leaving the Middle East and Japan will make everyone happy and the US safer is just childish and makes me think this guy is basing his judgement on emotion and wishes.

 

 

I don't want to talk the guy down because he seems like he has heart and I like that. But real is real and his forpol platform is like that of a person who has never studied or even mored outside the region and interacted with other strategic decision makers but still thinks he understands them.

 

 

 

I have nothing against his domestic or ideological position so this is not a personal attack, I don't care if it's him or Santa Claus saying this stuff. It's an objective opinion based on depth. He aint got shit when it comes to foreign policy, none at all.

 

i don't agree with everything and anything ron paul like a lot of his supporters, and i actually would rather not see a RP presidency because I know things will be much different then his rhetoric if he actually got voted into office. it would probably end up like an Obama situation I think, where it sounds all nice on paper but when it actually gets down to it the execution is much different than expected.

 

simply saying he doesn't comprehend the mechanics of foreign policy though is a bold statement. i think, at the very least, the man has a strong understanding of what it is our nation, at it's foundations, expected of it's own foreign policy such as non-interventionism. i think the man probably does have an understanding of how today's modern foreign policy operates, yet he is fundamentally against what it has become and politically positions himself as an opposition to that rather than to simply go along with it because "it is what it is", or because that is how things are. it's good to see that sort of conviction from a politician when it comes to the issue of foreign policy, and I personally believe America is in need of someone who takes this rare, and admittedly a bit of a radical, approach to the way our nation deals with other nations around the globe because in my opinion continuing what is the norm of international relations and "security" has transformed America into something that it should never have become and has only really benefited the military industrial complex, not the average American citizen who I believe RP looks out for more than anything.

[angelofdeath]

"i think the man probably does have an understanding of how today's modern foreign policy operates, yet he is fundamentally against what it has become and politically positions himself as an opposition to that rather than to simply go along with it because "it is what it is", or because that is how things are."

 

truth

 

 

i know christo comes from a 100% statist perspective and all that and i dont see a need to discuss various specific policies because i come from a moral/natural rights perspective and he doesnt see a need to respect these positions so there is no way to possibly argue these out... but i'd like for christo to touch on the concept of blow back. and if this position of RP's is fantasy. does this also mean that michael scheuer is full of BS when he talks of this same position? (MS as in the same guy who headed the CIA's bin laden unit)

 

blowback not only makes perfect sense, but i know for example that if russia started putting military bases in the US and occupied it the way the US occupies foreign countries, everyone i know would be out taking pot shots at russian convoys if not engaged in outright war against them. its interesting to note that americans dont want to accept this concept, mainly because the US govt will not allow (and rightly so) any one near the US. i just think its about time we afforded the rest of the world the same.

 

now, enter in various comments about how i dont understand the world, how the world will collapse without totalitarian governments telling everyone how big their toilet bowls and reading our emails, etc etc.

 

but the RP approach is to speak in broad generalities. he wants to reexamine the roll of government in domestic and foreign affairs. will the world look different if ron paul could reengineer foreign policy? yup. for better or worse? it depends how much you value freedom.

 

one thing that i always found funny with statists is they typically think the world can only work one way because of the current set up of governments, etc. its as if we had food distribution off the back of army trucks and someone says..'hey, i think the market could do a good job at this!' and he gets shouted down with calls of ..'hahaha, you idiot, you think the MARKET can deliver food! you dont know the first thing about life!'

that seems to sum up the opposing position pretty good.

[lord_casek]

I don't think Christo understand Ron Paul very much at all.

 

I'm fine with that, He can't vote here.

[wearekilluminati]

yo seriously if you are a ron paul supporter..........................your late for work..................................wake the fuck up..................................

 

 

 

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!

[lord_casek]

Yeah, it's obvious you haven't got anything worth reading to say.

[angelofdeath]

i think he is just part of the venus project or something

[lord_casek]

More like the penis project.

[wearekilluminati]

lol. more like i got a life project. what i meant is millions of people around the world were fooled by the whole hope,change, i am Jesus Christ and im going o fix the world campaign. during that whole campaign i would tell people that don't get your hopes up on this fool. and the responses that i would receive were your a jerk, your an imbecile, you don't know what you are talking about, get the fuck out. were going to have the first black president and your talking shit. lol yea laughable responses now.

well whole and behold! like i said ya think im this troll dumb ass, and i could really give a fuck. but in reality there's more than just a thematic screen name to me, but that's for you not to know.

 

n e how im just saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

 

does my post make more sense to you now. lol

 

all im saying don't be so gullible on topics we face now

 

 

investigate investigate investigate and surely your investments wil pay off.

 

peace mutha fuckas.....

[wearekilluminati]

More like the penis project.

more like you know where to put it project

[Zig]

whole and behold

 

:lol:

[lord_casek]

lol. more like i got a life project. what i meant is millions of people around the world were fooled by the whole hope,change, i am Jesus Christ and im going o fix the world campaign. during that whole campaign i would tell people that don't get your hopes up on this fool. and the responses that i would receive were your a jerk, your an imbecile, you don't know what you are talking about, get the fuck out. were going to have the first black president and your talking shit. lol yea laughable responses now.

well whole and behold! like i said ya think im this troll dumb ass, and i could really give a fuck. but in reality there's more than just a thematic screen name to me, but that's for you not to know.

 

n e how im just saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

 

does my post make more sense to you now. lol

 

all im saying don't be so gullible on topics we face now

 

 

investigate investigate investigate and surely your investments wil pay off.

 

peace mutha fuckas.....

 

 

Should've been more clear. I think we've all done our homework on Ron Paul.

We know where he stands.

[christo-f]

i don't agree with everything and anything ron paul like a lot of his supporters, and i actually would rather not see a RP presidency because I know things will be much different then his rhetoric if he actually got voted into office. it would probably end up like an Obama situation I think, where it sounds all nice on paper but when it actually gets down to it the execution is much different than expected.

 

I think that's a pretty rational and mature way to see it.

 

simply saying he doesn't comprehend the mechanics of foreign policy though is a bold statement. i think, at the very least, the man has a strong understanding of what it is our nation, at it's foundations, expected of it's own foreign policy such as non-interventionism. i think the man probably does have an understanding of how today's modern foreign policy operates, yet he is fundamentally against what it has become and politically positions himself as an opposition to that rather than to simply go along with it because "it is what it is", or because that is how things are. it's good to see that sort of conviction from a politician when it comes to the issue of foreign policy, and I personally believe America is in need of someone who takes this rare, and admittedly a bit of a radical, approach to the way our nation deals with other nations around the globe because in my opinion continuing what is the norm of international relations and "security" has transformed America into something that it should never have become and has only really benefited the military industrial complex, not the average American citizen who I believe RP looks out for more than anything.

 

There are a few things that he's said that indicate either he doesn't understand how things work or he is speaking in emotive terms which may imply that he is a populist.

 

Two examples are:

 

He was saying in that CPAC talk that the US gives Mubarak aid and he implied that is what is filling his bank account (actually I think he even said it directly). This is totally incorrect as it was military aid that was being given, which means that money is then used by Egypt to by US military kit. That means the money is going in to American banks, not Mubarak's account (disregarding the more granular argument of the mil-industry and the corruption that exists there as that is separate).

 

To see military aid the way RP put in that speech is totally inaccurate.

 

In an article I read about he and Kucinich lately he was talking about the bases in Japan (can dig article up if required) and said that the US shouldn't be paying to protect Japan and they should shoulder that responsibility themselves. Two problems with that off the top of my head, 1. Japan DOES pay the US money to have the US there, it doesn't happen for free. 2. Those bases are in the US interest for so many reasons.

 

Japan has already shown that it is capable and willing to build a large and strong military force and use it against pretty much fucking anyone and everyone. That was only 60 odd years ago. Japan has the second most powerful navy in the world, they can be nuclear armed within months if they choose to be and they are the third largest economy in the world and a very large population compared to most other countries. If they chose to militarise they have the industrial capability and capacity to very quickly build a serious offensive force.

 

They could very easily and very quickly become a serious competitor to the US and that is something that the US would much prefer to preclude. So, the US provides military protection (which Japan pays for because it doesn't have to spend its money on building shit to do it) and this takes away the need for Japan to militarise and give themselves the capability to challenge US interests in the west PAcific. That's something that is VERY much in the US interest. If the US left and Japan militarised again it would be EXCEEDINGLY more expensive than keeping marines, aircraft and a carrier based there.

 

Secondly, Russia has nuclear submarines based in Kamchatka and nukes in Vladivostok. They will soon be deploying Mistral amphibious craft to their Pacific fleet and these are serious offensive weapons. China is drastically expanding its military offensive power with power projection capabilities. This then gives them the capability to shut down key water ways such as the South China Seas and the Malacca Straits. These are one of the two most important water ways in the world, if they were dominated by one country this would be SUPER expensive for the US, more so than keeping a base in Japan.

 

You remove the bases from the western Pacific countries like Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia, Singapore, etc. will know that they cannot rely on the US for political and military protection and they will have no choice but to go over to China or Russia who are both strategic competitors of the US. That can mean anything from blocking votes in the UN, to the blocking of market access for the US and its allies all the way to military balancing and access denial to key water ways. How expensive do you think that would be compared to keeping a base in Japan?

 

 

Then RP said something even more stupid, "How would the US like it if China put a base in New York?".

 

Really? REALLY?! That's just childish to think that international security works on a system of fair play!! The US doesn't give a shit if it upsets China that a base is in Japan. It wasn't too long ago that Chinese soldiers were killing US servicemen in a number of different countries. The reason why the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1996 was because the Chinese were feeding the Serbs intelligence on the US that put your guys at risk. China made itself a competitor of the US when the Communists attacked and killed the US backed nationalists in the 1940s. To say that China's strategic competitor status is due to US aggression towards it is to totally ignore history and what happens every day now.

 

Nations compete, people have to accept that. There has NEVER been a stage in history where nations have all worked together for mutual benefit or the greater good. IT would be great if it did happen and it's not impossible. But the way nation states work now is in competition with each other. So if the US was to turn isolationist enmity or aggressiveness toward US interests would NOT just disappear. Even worse it would give belligerent nations the opportunity to take advantage of the US.

 

A change in US behaviour does NOT equal a change in behaviour of everyone else. Look at the whole Obama thing. He wanted the 'reset' button with Russia and gave his 'I love Muslims' speech in Egypt. What changed? Nothing. The US does not set the pace or system for global behaviour, the fact that there is no higher authority than the nation state means that there is no global law, it's anarchy. Just because the US changes doesn't mean the system changes.

 

 

If RP wants to count the costs of forward deployment he needs to balance it against the costs of isolationism.

[christo-f]

"i think the man probably does have an understanding of how today's modern foreign policy operates, yet he is fundamentally against what it has become and politically positions himself as an opposition to that rather than to simply go along with it because "it is what it is", or because that is how things are."

 

truth

 

 

i know christo comes from a 100% statist perspective and all that and i dont see a need to discuss various specific policies because i come from a moral/natural rights perspective and he doesnt see a need to respect these positions so there is no way to possibly argue these out... but i'd like for christo to touch on the concept of blow back. and if this position of RP's is fantasy. does this also mean that michael scheuer is full of BS when he talks of this same position? (MS as in the same guy who headed the CIA's bin laden unit)

 

blowback not only makes perfect sense, but i know for example that if russia started putting military bases in the US and occupied it the way the US occupies foreign countries, everyone i know would be out taking pot shots at russian convoys if not engaged in outright war against them. its interesting to note that americans dont want to accept this concept, mainly because the US govt will not allow (and rightly so) any one near the US. i just think its about time we afforded the rest of the world the same.

 

now, enter in various comments about how i dont understand the world, how the world will collapse without totalitarian governments telling everyone how big their toilet bowls and reading our emails, etc etc.

 

but the RP approach is to speak in broad generalities. he wants to reexamine the roll of government in domestic and foreign affairs. will the world look different if ron paul could reengineer foreign policy? yup. for better or worse? it depends how much you value freedom.

 

one thing that i always found funny with statists is they typically think the world can only work one way because of the current set up of governments, etc. its as if we had food distribution off the back of army trucks and someone says..'hey, i think the market could do a good job at this!' and he gets shouted down with calls of ..'hahaha, you idiot, you think the MARKET can deliver food! you dont know the first thing about life!'

that seems to sum up the opposing position pretty good.

 

 

The problem with the isolationism that the constitution saw is that was written a few hundred years ago. Since then a lot has changed: industrialisation, ships made out of metal with big guns, world war one, world war two, nuclear weapons, the spread of Marxism/communism, massive international trade, export dependent economies, energy and raw material access, long range bomber, submarines, aircraft carriers, the internet, interbank loans, etc. etc.

 

These things COMPLETELY change the world and thus how one needs to act in it. Doesn't mean we have to act this way but it does mean that the game changes. So the view of how govt should work in sovereign issues may not be too different but the world changes. The US could have stayed isolationist whilst the world changed and there is a good example of what happened to a country that tried this.

 

From the 16-1700s China was trading with the British and some other countries by sea (as opposed to the Silk Road land route). They chose not to go to the UK to trade as well and ignored most of what the UK wanted to sell. This created trade imbalance (among other grievances). The British saw that the Chinese had created gunpowder, took it back to Europe and created cannons. That weapon then proliferated throughout Europe and they then made their way back to China and blasted the fuck out of the Chinese coast with their new weapons (the two Opium Wars). China had never seen these weapons before and had no defences. They lost HK to the Brits, half of Shanghai to the French, Americans, Japanese, etc. Qingdao to the Germans and so on and so on.

 

If the Chinese had not have been isolationist they would have had knowledge of the cannon well before they suffered from it. They would have been prepared and able to defend themselves. That is a very simple example of how risky isolationism can be but it is a very real one.

 

Blowback is a Chalmers Johnson theory, which I am familiar with. I am unaware of how RP uses it as well as Scheuer. If you'd like me to comment on that you'll have to forward it to me.

 

The idea of Russia putting bases in the US etc. is a bit of a non-starter, really. All the countries that the US has bases in give permission for the US to be there. If it wasn't for the US bases in Japan and Germany they would not be the world's 3rd and 4th largest economies today. The US doesn't force its way in to countries to make bases (ah, except for Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against the Iraq war for strategic and tactical reasons. Rumsfeld is a fucking moron and I think those arguing against the war on practical reasons have pretty much been justified based on the outcome).

 

Japan WANTS the US base, ROK WANTS the US base, Kyrgyzstan is making huge dollars out of the Manas air base. The lilypad bases set up in Romania etc. are all there with permission and sometimes through requests by Eastern European countries. Poland is BEGGING for US bases in their country.

 

Forward deployed bases in places like Japan (7th fleet), Bahrain (5th fleet) have kept strategic water ways such as the Malacca Straits and the Hormuz strait open. That means that EVERYONE in the world gets to use them to trade and transport energy and so on.

 

China openly says that without the US dominance of the oceans there is no way they would have been able to grow their economy at 10%+ every year since the 1990s.

 

 

You talk about Russia setting up bases in the US, why?! The US doesn't have bases in Russia. They have some in the former Soviet Union but they are independent countries that benefit from the US presence, shit they ASK the US to come in a lot of the time?

 

So I can't understand why you and RP talk about Russian/Chinese bases in NY because the US is not doing that to Russia or China. Secondly, do we all forget that Russia DID have bases in Cuba and installed nuclear missiles there in the 1960s??!!

 

There seems to be this underlying culture with you guys that they US dictates the way the international system works. Comments like "if RP reengineered forpol" are really weird to me. Are you saying if RP reengineered forpol for the whole world? IF so, well of course it would change as it would if you did, I did or fucking Van Gogh did. But come on, that's never going to happen and sounds a little crazy, how is any one person ever going to dictate the foundations of forpol for the world??!

 

IF you mean if RP could reengineer forpol for the US would the world look different? Yeah it would but that is because countries would REACT tot eh change, not FOLLOW it.

 

If the US stopped protecting Taiwan, what do you think China would do? I can pretty much say they wouldn't be thinking "Well, the US has removed their influence and weapons from Taiwan, that really changes things and I guess we won't invade them. Instead we will recognise their independence and support their democracy".

 

What do you think would happen to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait if the US pulled out of the Gulf? Do you think Iran would say, "Well, the US has gone now and that was the only problem we ever had. Let's all hang out and drink coffee together and be friends!!"

 

No, China would invade Taiwan and reintegrate it under its authoritarian system, just as it is doing to HK now. Iran would blockade KSA, take Bahrain (as it has said it would) and it would then dominate the Middle East.

 

Just because the US changes doesn't mean everyone else does too.

 

 

 

So, an isolationist US would equal:

 

Increase of Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence.

That would mean access denial to the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal along with the South China Seas and the Malacca Straits. The outcome of that would mean energy prices would rise DRAMATICALLY, access to raw materials would become more complicated and expensive due to declining access to key water ways and export markets as well as cheap labor bases would be closed off to the US (as well as a HUGE amount of US interests throughout the world would be nationalised and the US couldn't do shit because mobilising to take them back would be so damned expensive).

 

 

The cost of living in the US would triple within 5 years and your access to products would decline MASSIVELY. The US (And the world) would be forced to totally change their societies, culture and economies. That may result in a nice, green, egalitarian society like we all want it to be. It could also change in to a messy, polluted, authoritarian state where people screw each other over for resources and access (thinking China today here). There is no reason to say that this change would bring about the results that you want for your country. The only thing we can say for sure is that it would bring change, TOUGH change and it would be decades before the country stabilized again, if it didn't break apart or get eaten by Russia, China or Iran first.

[christo-f]

lol. more like i got a life project. what i meant is millions of people around the world were fooled by the whole hope,change, i am Jesus Christ and im going o fix the world campaign.

 

I often wonder if Obama was also fooled by this stuff. Did he actually think he could just close Gitmo and everything would go smoothly? Did he think that Russia even WANTED to press a reset button and did he actually think that his pretty words in Cairo and new years messages to Iran would change anything at all?! I really wonder if he did think that or if it was just electioneering.

 

Reset button, pffft. Russia just retook Ukraine, showed the FSU states that the US won't come to their rescue by invading Georgia and showed the Central Asian states that they are still Russian by overthrowing Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan. Not only that but they are setting up an new Soviet Union, so to speak with the CIS states and the Customs Union with Kazakhstan and Belarus.

 

Why the fuck would Russia want to reset, they're on a fucking roll and gaining strength. And that goes back to my argument above and yours as well. Just because the US changes doesn't mean the world wants to will or even can. And that's the same as changing the President of the US. Ron Paul may say he wants to change the way the US acts in the world but the range of decisions that can be made by a president in forpol are really limited. Not many people are going to make decisions that spell disaster and that really cuts down the room to move for a President. So I actually agree with Penilluminatis, Obama, McCain, Paul, Jesus Christ, makes relatively little difference in the end as they are very limited by the system and what other countries decide to do.

[russell jones]

 

Two examples are:

 

He was saying in that CPAC talk that the US gives Mubarak aid and he implied that is what is filling his bank account (actually I think he even said it directly). This is totally incorrect as it was military aid that was being given, which means that money is then used by Egypt to by US military kit. That means the money is going in to American banks, not Mubarak's account (disregarding the more granular argument of the mil-industry and the corruption that exists there as that is separate).

 

.

 

Good point. I studied International Relations and Third World countries a little in college, and that is what I found most enlightening. Foreign aid almost always means that the money comes back to us in some way, whether it is giving money to buy weapons from US suppliers, or it is investing in infrastructure so that US businesses can operate. IMF money now functions as a loan sharking operation backed by US bonds. When I hear people complain about "all the money going overseas" it makes me laugh about how ignorant they are. Everything we do, we do because it benefits us (at least in the opinion of policy makers), not because of some sort of altruism.

[wearekilluminati]

Is Stratfor Credible?

 

 

--------- National Security Agency director Michael Hayden tried to explain to his wife the difference between the black-and-white world of facts and the gray world of intelligence this way: ”If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be intelligence.”

 

That neatly sums up the challenge I have had assessing the general question of Stratfor credibility. Stratfor is in the business of selling intelligence to subscribers, which is of interest to those of use who don’t work for the CIA. Even if I was officed at Langley, the frenzy we’ve seen over “intelligence failures” implies that infallibility is a scarce commodity.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

How do we assess and grade Stratfor credibility? Michael J. Sniffen wrote on the general credibility challenge in this 5/18/2004 AP article Citizens, officials have hard time deciding what is credible.

 

Inside the FBI, Mefford said, “‘credible intelligence’ is a term taken very seriously. It always referred to information we believed to be reliable.”

 

Nevertheless “credible intelligence is a very subjective term,” Mefford added. And the analysis of intelligence “is not a science; it’s an art.”

 

With those caveats I’ve undertaken to search out evidence pro or con on Stratfor’s record since their founding in 1996. It is difficult to extract a one sentence summary from all this, but I’ll attempt this:

 

1.Stratfor is not a “silver bullet” – like other sources, the reader still has to do his own thinking, contrasting and correlating.

2.Stratfor is not a member of the journalism herd – that has value.

3.When I see a Stratfor bulletin relevant to my issues, I’ll read it carefully and include it as input.

4.I’ll continue to file their bulletins so I can look back and assess how they are performing.

What did I find useful on the Web? Numerically, there are certainly more favorable than unfavorables. The unfavorables that I’ve found are mostly of two types: (a) a disagreement with a Stratfor conclusion – on issues I would classify not as fact, but as opinion; and (b) “Hrrrrmph. Stratfor is like the US version of Debka. Occasionally right, usually completely fictional.”

 

this on is for you cristof with love of course

[Zig]

christo you make good points, and there is even some of RP's domestic positions that I also disagree with but no one is perfect, and a judging whether or not to vote for someone as leader of your nation shouldn't be based on his/her rhetoric and idealogical view alone. i would also base my decision on merit, integrity and overall character, all of which i believe RP shows strong signs of having among other qualities that are in my opinion, presidential.

 

with that said, i'll post the full transcript of his CPAC speech so we aren't misquoting the man, out of respect for him of course:

 

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2011/02/12/transcript-ron-paul-speech-at-cpac-2011/

 

Ron Paul: Thank you very much, thank you. Great to see you everybody, great to see you, I’m glad to see the revolution is continuing. Well, we have first seen some of the results of the revolution of a few years ago and that was last year’s election, and understand we had a few new members sent to Congress, and we have you to thank you for. But I do want to take a moment to take a little special privilege and say, we also had a new Senator from Kentucky, and we like that too. So there’s a lot of exciting things going on, there is truly a revolution going on in this country, and we’ve been dealing with this and encouraging it, because I do believe that we live in a time where we do need a change in attitude, a change in ideas. We don’t need to just change the political parties, we need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about.

 

This past week, we had a pretty good victory for the Freedom Movement, we had a vote come up all of a sudden under suspension and it had to do with the PATRIOT Act, and the PATRIOT Act we know has nothing to do with patriotism, they always name it opposite of what it is. The PATRIOT Act is literally the destruction of the 4th Amendment, that’s what it’s all about. Now, the one thing in Washington they haven’t quite understood is what’s happening in grassroots America, because they assume that everybody love the PATRIOT Act, we’ll bring it up under suspension and pass it automatically. Well, we didn’t get a majority vote but they didn’t pass it automatically with a two third vote, sending a message that this country is waking up, and we want to protect our civil liberties as well as our economic liberties.

 

This week I was scheduled to be on a financial program, I’ve been on a few of those lately, talking about things like the Federal Reserve and a few other things. But I never got around to talking about this program this week about the Federal Reserve, because all of a sudden there was a speech to be given by Mubarak about his potential resignation, of course he resigned today. So that was the subject, but a lot of people now say “what should our position be? What should our position be about finding the next dictator of Egypt?” And I would say “we need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, not only in Egypt but around the world.”

 

Some people want to argue about that and say we have a moral responsibility to spread our goodness around the world and it’s our obligation to do this. But let me tell you, fiscal conservatives should look at this carefully, how much did we invest in that dictator over the past 30 years? $70 billion, we invested in Egypt. And guess what? The government is crumbling and the people are upset, not only with their government by they’re upset with us for propping up that puppet dictator for all those years. Now to add insult to injury, where do you think the money went? To Swiss bank account, that family, the Mubarak family had 40, 50, 60 billion – nobody knows – stashed away in other countries, other areas of your money and that is true.

 

Then you know, it used to be the conservatives were against foreign aid, I’m still against foreign aid for everybody. Now I was saying that I used to describe foreign aid, foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country. And there can’t be a better example of that than what we did with Egypt, we took money from you, made people poor, it contributed to our debt, billions and billions of dollars and all we get is chaos from it and instability, there’s nothing wrong with what the founders talked about. They talked about having friendships and trade and getting along with people and staying out of the entangling alliance and the internal affairs of foreign nations when it’s none of our business.

 

Now we’ve been doing it for a long time and you get periods of relative stability, there was relative stability when we were propping up the show, but it ended up with bad results, we ended up with Ayatollah and now we have a problem on our hands. But all the Middle East is unstable because of this, now it’s Tunisia, next it’s Egypt and it’s going to keep going because all the problems are there because the people don’t like us propping up their dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country came in here and propped up a dictator in our country. But the real danger is that this will most likely spread and when it gets to Saudi Arabia and there’s disruption there, then you are going to see some real problems and it will be a partial consequence of our flawed foreign policy and temporary stability does not guarantee stability that we need around the world. And besides, we just flat out don’t have the money, and we shouldn’t be doing it.

 

Just remember the Soviet system did not collapse because we had to fight them, they collapsed for economic reasons, guess where their final plunge was on their empire, Afghanistan. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. So no matter how badly you want us to do that, it’s time to reassess that foreign policy. It’s time for us to bring troops home, we’ve had troops in Japan since World War 2 and in Germany, why are we paying for their defense? Now, there’s been a lot of talk about the budget deficit and that’s something that I was concerned about, just a few years back like 1976, and that’s why I haven’t voted for any appropriation bills during that period of time either. But people are starting to recognize it’s bad, we have to do something about it, we have to have a balanced budget amendment and all these things.

 

But, unfortunately even in spite of the improvement in the Congress right now, we don’t have the votes which is tragic, it’s going to continue, and we’re going to continue to bail out, we’re going to continue to spend the money, nobody wants to cut, I am sure that half the people in this room won’t cut one penny on the military, and the military is not equated to defense, defense spending is one thing, military spending is what Eisenhower called the “military industrial complex” and we have to go after that. But let’s say government as you all, I am sure would agree is out of control and it’s very hard for us to get a handle on it. So let’s say we even theoretically and a miracle happen and we balance the budget where we are today, it would be still a disaster because we’re spending too much money.

 

But it wouldn’t change a whole lot, when a crisis comes guess what happens? Guess who does the bailing out? The Federal Reserve used $4 billion to pass out without congressional approval and most people say “Oh, well that’s the Federal Reserve job to do that.” No it is our job to check up and find what the Federal Reserve has done, audit them and find out who their buddies are that they’re taking care of. The Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air, they can loan to banks, central banks of the world, to other governments and international financial institutions and we’re not even allowed to know, they resent the fact that when I ask these questions, that they don’t have to give us information that’s why the bill to audit the Fed is the first step to ending the Federal Reserve.

 

But the Federal Reserve will end itself because they will destroy the dollar, since the Fed came into existence since 1913, they’ve eliminated 98% of the value of the 1913 dollar and its continuing erosion, they pumped at first when the crisis hit $1.2 trillion and another $600 billion and believe me, there is an economic law that says you just can’t continue to do this. So Congress has responsibility, they should cut back, but Congress has a responsibility to protect the value of the currency and that means that we have the moral and the legal authority to put checks on the Federal Reserve system.

 

There’s been a lot of talk about bipartisanship after election, we need bipartisanship, and in some ways that might be true, but I’ll tell you what I think about it, I think and I believe that we have had way too much bipartisanship for about 60 years. We have bipartisanship on medical care, you say “yeah, the current administration is giving us bad new medical care.” But what is done on the other administration, we’ve been involved for a long time. It’s the bipartisanship of the welfare system, the warfare system, the monetary system, the challenge to our civil liberties, it all goes through with support from both parties. So there’s way too much bipartisanship. This should be a challenge of the issue of philosophy, good philosophy versus bad philosophy.

 

And when you can agree on something you should make coalitions with whomever will agree with you and come together. But I’d like to see some bipartisanship though, what I would like to see is take those big government conservatives who love to spend money and never cut their efforts and their spending and get the big government liberals where they want to spend and never want to cut and let them get together and say “it’s time, this deficit is good” let’s have a little bit of bipartisanship and cut both.

 

There’s been talk lately about American exceptionalism, man we like to talk about that, I think we certainly live in an exceptional country, we have been blessed, it’s been the greatest country, most freedom, most prosperity. My concern is I’m afraid we’re losing it, I’m afraid we’ve given up on our devotion to liberty, that’s where our problem is. But where I think we go astray on this exceptionalism is there are some people and sometimes they’re referred as neoconservatives and they’re sort of neo-Jacobins where they believe that we have this moral responsibility to use force to go around the world and say “you will do it our way or else.” Well force doesn’t work, it never works.

 

The best way to get people to act more like us if we’re doing a good job, is for us to have a sound economy, a sound dollar, treat people decently, have a foreign policy that makes common sense, treat people like we want to be treated, and then maybe they would want to emulate us and say “freedom does work and we ought to try it.” But we can’t force it on other people. There’s one general rule about what we should expect from government. The first amendment is a great amendment, freedom of expression is protected, the government shall write no laws in reference to our freedom of expression, it doesn’t say that we’re to have an expression of only the noncontroversial ideas, it’s freedom of expression.

 

Now, most people are pretty good on the First Amendment, but where they slip up is; they say “The government should write no laws about the freedom of activity,” so the Liberals want to talk about how to regulate your economic activity, how you spend your money and others want to regulate your personal lifestyle, but government should not be regulating us and we should adapt one other principle for that to work. We should all swear off the use of violence against our neighbors, our friends who are other countries. The purpose of all political activity from my view point is to promote liberty. Liberty is the most important element, liberty comes from our creator, it doesn’t come from our government. If we have a free society, we can go about our business and do our very best work toward virtuous things and work toward excellence.

 

When government takes over the role of making us virtuous and making us excellent and redistributing the wealth, they only do it at the expense of liberty and that’s why we’re in such terrible shape today, it’s cause we’ve allowed the government to be so much involved. Government should never be able to do anything you can’t do. If you can’t steal from your neighbor, you can’t send the government to your neighbor to steal for you, there should be no redistribution of wealth. The exciting things that are happening today and get’s me energized is coming to events like this and meeting with the young people and going to the campuses and finding put what young Americans for liberty have done, and believe me the ideas and the principles of liberty are alive and well in the next generation and there’s every reason in the world for us to be optimistic about what’s coming.

 

I would like to make one suggestion before I close; just to think about because it’s not a perfect solution, but especially the young people, what if could, if I had the authority to do, what if I could offer you and say “look, we’re not doing such a good job in government these days, we make promises and we don’t know about the future. But would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition, you pay 10% of your income, but you take care of yourself, don’t ask the government for anything.” Tragically you’re probably going to have the opportunity because government is in the process of failing and they can’t deliver on the goods, just as the Soviets couldn’t deliver the goods and maintain their empire, we will have those same problems domestically and we face serious economic problems as this dollar crisis evolves.

 

But let me close with comments from a Sam Adams, he says “Don’t worry about it if we’re not a majority, all we need is the minority keen on spreading the brushfires of liberty in the minds of man.” That is what we need to do and believe me, the brushfires are burning, they will not be able to squelch the brushfires, they’re burning and they’re spreading and people are getting excited, because they’re starting to separate it out, what true liberty is all about, what market liberty, personal liberty is and what it means in foreign policy, what it means in our traditions, the American tradition, what it means because the Constitution confirms and confirms with what I’m saying. There is no authority in the constitution to have a Federal Reserve system, no authority for the welfare state and no authority for the police state, it’s not there.

 

So we should all assume personal responsibility for promoting the ideals of liberty, and one thing that Samuel Johnson always advised when they were in the dire consequences of the problems of the revolution, he said “We cannot present long faces to the people to [...] at that time, because it will make them realize how tough things are.” So we should not have long faces, we do not know exactly what tomorrow will bring, but I do know that the effort is worthwhile and I do know that you can have a lot of fun defending liberty, and believe me, if you understand liberty and realize it’s the only humanitarian system existed ever on mankind, I’ll tell you what, if you learn about it study and know free market economics and fight for this, I can guarantee you, you will sleep better at night, you will enjoy your life and you will feel like you’re doing something worthwhile. Defend liberty!

 

because, i honestly hate picking other people's posts apart line by line and analyzing what you've said... i'll just make my response here on a few of your points without directly quoting you.

 

on your point about what RP said concerning Mubarak's money and where it comes from... i don't necessarily think there is any concrete evidence to support RP's claim that money we've sent to Egypt for their military was in fact pocketed by Mubarak and ended up in his swiss bank accounts, however on the contrary there really isn't any evidence to refute that claim either. quite frankly, i don't know how that man is so rich and if you happen to know why then please enlighten me because for all i know the man was accumulating large amounts of money and wealth from some form of corruption in my opinion, and i wouldn't be surprised if it ends up coming to light that Western funding assisted in that accumulation somewhat. regardless of the matter, i believe RP's point that propping up dictators in foreign nations goes against the average American citizen's interests.

 

as the world changes, so have our policies and responsibilities and i agree with you that just because we change doesn't mean the rest of the world will. however, i agree with RP's fundamental differences with the way we currently operate and just because his rhetoric sounds isolationist doesn't necessarily mean that his actions as a president will be a direct reflection of that rhetoric. he could get into office and be much wiser about the way he approaches changing our current form of foreign policy, and overall his direction could accommodate the world and benefit it much better than having another politician in office who would just continue down the current path of escalation. i see RP as a dissenting president, who is bold enough to make radical changes to a system that has gone awry and has strayed far from it's original path. that alone would get my vote, simply because he positions himself as the opposition to that trend. take into consideration the fact that rhetoric is simply rhetoric, and once someone takes office their actions don't always necessarily reflect that down to a T. i believe RP is a very intelligent, wise, sophisticated individual who has a deep understanding of our Constitution, our history, and our rights as human-beings and that alone is respectable enough for me to vote for him as a leader of our nation and let him make the tough decisions.