Ron Paul: On Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy
“RHETORIC DOES NOT MATCH U.S. ACTIONS …” By Ron Paul || President Barack Obama�You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
“RHETORIC DOES NOT MATCH U.S. ACTIONS …” By Ron Paul || President Barack Obama�You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
19 comments
We need more Red Lines.
‘We need more Red Lines’ – that don’t fade away at sunset.
since the idiot provides no conclusions, we can only assume that paul supports Assad, Morsi, and the russian annexation of ukrainian territory. politics is about difficult choices. Paul wants the world to operate freely without human intervention or at least without the intervention of thoughtful and charitable humans. this is what makes him an infant and makes ‘libertarianism’ a joke.
I thought the joke was a foreign policy that takes money from people here and blows it on people in other places while at the same time helping to bankrupt our country.
Glad you cleared it up for us.
Let’s talk about Ukraine. USA backed overthrow of Democratically elected government. People supported included Albanians with strong ties to Alqueda and real life Nazis who still worship Hitler. The only reason for support appears to be to box Russia in.
Result is that everyone except those living here know the truth. Russia takes Crimea in response. Russia also dumps 20% of treasury holdings and then goes further by forming an agreement with China to bypass the dollar in a $400 billion gas bill. I hope you are aware of BRICS.
So the result is that the USA is damaged, both in reputation and economically. Russia and China are more connected than ever before. There is no possible military retaliation. It is a complete failure and if Ron Paul had his way this would have never happened.
“Syrians held their first multi-candidate presidential election in 50 years. Almost three-quarters of Syrian voters participated, giving President Assad 88 percent of the vote.”
If Paul doesn’t want to interfere, lose lives and waste money overseas why doesn’t he just say so and leave it at that. Why does he have to make a fool of himself be legitimizing obviously fraudulent elections.
1. Any election in which the incumbent or candidate supported by the current government claims to gets 80% or more of the vote is fraudulent.
2. Any election which claims 80% or more turnout is fraudulent.
3. Any election the which the party in power controls the media is fraudulent.
4. Any election that doesn’t allow respected well known independent observers is fraudulent.
The people that engineer these fraudulent elections want their opponents to believe they are fraudulent. That way they are less likely to participate. They always claim to win by overwhelming numbers to discourage any hope by the opposition. Yet these elections do provide cover for timid cringing politicians such as Ron Paul
I think Ron Paul presents several valid points. First, the election results indicate that many Syrians now recognize much of the rebels for what they are: fundamentalist Sunni Muslims backed largely by Saudi and Qatari interests. As a consequence of this recognition, many Syrians, especially the Alawites, Druze and Antiochan Christians, prefer the Assad regime to what would replace it. I don’t think Paul is saying that the election was legitimate by our own standards, but to deny Assad’s recent surge in popularity is in my opinion a denial of fact. Second, Paul is one of the few who understands the power of language in framing issues of foreign policy. Very few Americans would support the mass arming of a foreign rebel group with ties to Al-Qaeda based solely on its status as a proxy fight between us and Iran. However, if you call those fighting Assad “freedom fighters” and instill some humanitarian and democratic language to justify the proxy war, then the support for intervention naturally increases and those opposed to the conflict are somehow seen to support the incumbent regime. However, Paul rightly points out that our government’s posturing regarding these points are propaganda at best and outright lies at worst, as the Syrian rebels are in no way a beacon of democracy.
JC you are right. Everyone with half a brain who is also paying attention knows the rebels are the same alqueda fighters we have been fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The same that were eagerly cutting off the heads of Americans and posting on the internet.
As for elections, yes it is possible to get 80% of vote cast with an overwhelming win. Look at India. It just happened. I wish posters would either pay attention or quit opposing things that are obviously correct just because they identify themselves as either as a Democrat or Republican.
All ye Liberal scum shall inherit Hell. Look at the complete mess the Demonuts have caused this once great nation. I remember when a bottle of pop was 10 cents.
I remember those days, pre Jimmy Carter.
TBG doesn’t even remember “pop” being called “pop”.
Go Midwest Tonto Go Midwest.
You so much hate being stupid and irrelevant, don’t you?…LMAO…
10 paragraphs of verbal masturbation.
Rand Paul Calls Hillary’s Book Not Worth Plagiarizing
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) ripped former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s new book, “Hard Choices,” today, telling reporters, “I read it, and honestly, I didn’t find anything in it worth plagiarizing.”
Calling the new book “disappointing,” Sen. Paul said, “I read a lot of books, and it’s rare that I don’t find a passage or two to lift here or there. I just read the second Harry Potter book and I thought there was some dialogue of Voldemort’s that could work well in my stump speech. But this Hillary book? Nada.”
Asked whether he would read future books by Secretary Clinton, Sen. Paul said that it was “unlikely.”
“Look, if you write six hundred and fifty-six pages and give me nothing to steal, you are just wasting my time,” said Sen. Paul, who added that he was currently finding “some great stuff” in the novel “The Fault in Our Stars.”
Ouch))
The silence from the left is deafening.
Obama is just following a path that RonPaul supports, even if Obama is claiming different. .
The fact that Obama LIES about what he is doing, does not make Paul any less guilty of his ignorant stances regarding America.
Obvious idiot. Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows he is a non-interventionist. Obama is the opposite. Obama believes in American exceptionalism. Ron Paul believes in the Golden Rule. Obviously Republicans have the same general beliefs as Obama. To say otherwise is to say Republicans do not believe in American exceptionalism.
Do not pay attention to anything this guy says.