Ron Paul on Israel

NMyTree

Byrnzie wrote:

So it's me that should be on the back foot here is it? Wow, the irony!

The fact you don't see it and can't admit it, is fairly funny.

Byrnzie wrote:

Edit: And please point out where I labeled all 'Middle Easterners' as Arab, or even Muslim.

Byrnzie wrote:

Right, so labeling all Arabs as irrational isn't racism?

You're a racist because unless someone submits a highly detailed disclaimer before and after each sentence, you interpret what is said in your own twisted way and condemn someone for not thinking the way you do:D

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Vote results:

Democratic
186 yes
7 no
4 not voting
4 present

Independent
1 yes
0 no
0 not voting
0 present

Republican
223 yes
1 no
6 not voting
0 present

Total
410 yes
8 no
10 not voting
4 present

NAYS:
Abercrombie
Conyers
Dingell
Kilpatrick (MI)
McDermott
Paul
Rahall
Stark

Fence-sitters:
Kaptur
Kucinich
Lee
Waters

No voters:
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Duncan
Evans
Fortenberry
McKinney
Northup
Nussle
Sanchez, Loretta
Westmoreland

We live in a sick country.

Byrnzie

NMyTree wrote:

His comments were directed at the muslim extremists who have commited the killing and destruction and they are accurate.

No they weren't. He said nothing about Muslim extremists:

PaperPlates wrote:

Trying to deal rationally with irrational people is craziness. If it wasnt for that lovely black gold we need so bad, we could leave them to their irrationality and let them all send each other to allah.

And Palestinians aren't in possession of 'that lovely black gold we need so bad'.

NMyTree

gue_barium wrote:

He alluded to the oil as well, correctly i might add.

Which of course was his subtle way of criticizing the United States, this Administration and the corporate interests involved.

But some of these guys will ignore that and continue with their overly-sensitive, Hyper-PC agenda.

Byrnzie

NMyTree wrote:

I don't believe you know the definition of "racisim ".

NMyTree wrote:

You're a racist because unless someone submits a highly detailed disclaimer before and after each sentence, you interpret what is said in your own twisted way and condemn someone for not thinking the way you do:D

Wow, the irony!

NMyTree

Byrnzie wrote:

No they weren't. He said nothing about Muslim extremists.

Wasn't the 'Allah" reference enough for you?

Certainly it is clear he was directing his comments at them (muslim extremists), since "Allah" was mentioned. Seems rather clear to me.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

paperflakes fishes his butt for nuggets then smears em here on the train for us to behold.

lol...I think I saw that at the zoo once...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NMyTree wrote:

Wasn't the 'Allah" reference enough for you?

Certainly it is clear he was directing his comments at them (muslim extremists), since "Allah" was mentioned. Seems rather clear to me.

I think any more interpretation on your behalf would involve tea leaves, water, and tarot cards...

NMyTree

Byrnzie wrote:

No they weren't. He said nothing about Muslim extremists:



And Palestinians aren't in possession of 'that lovely black gold we need so bad'.

Not everyone writes in a perfectly suitable manner, which fits in with your perceptions. Some people structure their sentences in a way which does not coincide with your approach.

Maybe you can get off your high-horse, remove that big stick from your ass and try reading what is said; rather than creatively reading-in.

Byrnzie

NMyTree wrote:

Wasn't the 'Allah" reference enough for you?

Certainly it is clear he was directing his comments at them (muslim extremists), since "Allah" was mentioned. Seems rather clear to me.

Oh, shit, yeah, sorry. Thanks for the lesson. Allah = Muslim extremists. How did I fail to miss that obvious equation?

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

We live in a sick country.

As a Doctor, you would think Ron Paul could find a way to address it that way.

Kann

Isn't it a little too late?
I think the blind support the us provides Israel is one of the (many) reasons of the turmoil in this region. But I also think that no it's done it would be even more dangerous to undo it :
the presence of the us in this region (and by this I don't include their presence in Irak which is another point) is like sticking a knife in an artery, it wasn't such a good idea at first but immediate retrieval would make things turn out worse.
I don't think the immediate solution (once again I am not referring to Irak) would be to just pull out and abandon all interests in this region at once. This should be done with patience and care as many interests are at stake including the first concerned : Israel and Palestine.

Byrnzie

Kann wrote:

Isn't it a little too late?
I think the blind support the us provides Israel is one of the (many) reasons of the turmoil in this region. But I also think that no it's done it would be even more dangerous to undo it :
the presence of the us in this region (and by this I don't include their presence in Irak which is another point) is like sticking a knife in an artery, it wasn't such a good idea at first but immediate retrieval would make things turn out worse.
I don't think the immediate solution (once again I am not referring to Irak) would be to just pull out and abandon all interests in this region at once. This should be done with patience and care as many interests are at stake including the first concerned : Israel and Palestine.

It seems fairly simple to me: The U.S should cease vetoing every resolution calling for a two-state solution. Israel should then be made to pull back to the pre 1967 borders. Then Israel can talk about securing it's 'borders'.

gue_barium

I think everybody should just dance. Play some loud music for days on the Gaza strip, and party like it's 1999. In fact, they should only play Prince songs.

Byrnzie

gue_barium wrote:

In fact, they should only play Prince songs.

That would surely drive them all into the Med though?

Kann

Byrnzie wrote:

It seems fairly simple to me: The U.S should cease vetoing every resolution calling for a two-state solution. Israel should then be made to pull back to the pre 1967 borders. Then Israel can talk about securing it's 'borders'.

I agree with this, and also think Jerusalem should be internationalised for now (until an agreement of some sort has been made between both countries). What I was saying is that the US is now an incontrovertible partner in this problem. And that going back on isolationist views (at least with this problem) may have very bad side effects.

I think everybody should just dance. Play some loud music for days on the Gaza strip, and party like it's 1999. In fact, they should only play Prince songs.

That would be nice, except 1999 was a crappy year.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

I think everybody should just dance. Play some loud music for days on the Gaza strip, and party like it's 1999. In fact, they should only play Prince songs.

Raspberry Beret would get them all wiggling and jiggling...no doubt. The Gap band "you dropped a bomb on me" would probably evoke a Michael Jackson Thriller dance response... would probably be a big hit on youtube.

You want to sit down with me and write up a proposal? It should probably begin with a large shipment of disco balls...

gue_barium

Kann wrote:

I agree with this, and also think Jerusalem should be internationalised for now (until an agreement of some sort has been made between both countries). What I was saying is that the US is now an incontrovertible partner in this problem. And that going back on isolationist views (at least with this problem) may have very bad side effects.


That would be nice, except 1999 was a crappy year.

I had a great '99. And to think about it even more, damn, I sort of miss it like you hear the old folks miss the more simple times.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Raspberry Beret would get them all wiggling and jiggling...no doubt. The Gap band "you dropped a bomb on me" would probably evoke a Michael Jackson Thriller dance response... would probably be big hit on youtube.

You want to sit down with me and write up a proposal? It should probably begin with a large shipment of disco balls...

Like the flowers were to M-16's during Vietnam, disco balls could be to bulldozers on the Gaza strip.

mammasan

El_Kabong wrote:

i may not agree w/ him on everything, but he's dead on w/ this...it'd be nice if more ppl would get the stones to say it

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul335.html

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006

I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.

I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives.

I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict.

Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.

It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah.

Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.

July 21, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Kabong, first thanks for posting this. Second it's a sad sight to see that only a small handfull of politicians really have the courage to do and say what is right. It also is an indicator on how far removed the people are from politics and the decisions made by our elected officials. Unfortunetly people like Ron Paul can continue to speak the truth till they are blue in the face, but untill the people decide to pay attention and see past the web of bullshit spun my the majority of politicians and the media nothing will ever change.