45 comments
PatMcC
PatMcC

Notice how CNN (owned by NBC) cut Ron Paul out of the shot when showing highlights of the debate. Those dirty dogs sure have it in for him.

susanneroy2
susanneroy2

@KelseyDoiron Want to be your own boss? I became mine 2 months ago and now I make 6k a month working fro home thecashjournalpage .com

cl
cl

What can i do to get this amazing man into presidency?

Brandon Christian
Brandon Christian

I'm glad I got to watch this. It seems like Ron Paul got a bit more time.

disha
disha

where is part seven of the debate???

Liddi1
Liddi1

Ron nailed it... Lobbyist run the country right now.

SW
SW

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the camera totaly excluded Ron Paul? I hope voters remember that there was another candidate on stage.

joojoo
joojoo

right on brother

28wmc
28wmc

Well, it's getting late in Japan, so I'm going to get some sleep. I hoped to see posts more substantial than, "LOL, Newt Gingrich....pathetic", and other substantially pathetic comments. Ron Paul, I hope you continue in the race, but I think your "one size fits all" foreign policy will keep you from the nomination sadly. Libertarianism is not necessarily isolationism.

28wmc
28wmc

I agree with Ron Paul on most issues. I like his return to constitution focus and limited government. I like his economic arguments generally. The one thing that I'm finding hard to swallow are portions of his international policy. To bring back troops from Afghanistan after over 10 years of trying to stabilize the country with mixed results, and to significantly reduce our troop presence in Germany is one thing. Clearly Afghanistan is as good as that backward country is going to get, and Europe is no longer threatened by the Soviet Union (though Russia isn't necessarily benign). However, to bring back troops from South Korea and Japan, as well as disengage almost totally (militarily) from the rest of the world is almost insane. America shouldn't look for fights, but also shouldn't abandon our allies and friends around the world to the influence of increasingly aggressive regimes. Our troop presence in South Korea is a show of solidarity with one of our closest allies in the world against a tyrannical regime to their north (a nation which, by the way, we are technically still at war with). Our troop presence in Japan is a protection force to supplement an inadequate self defense force (Japan cannot constitutionally possess a force capable of war limited by article 9 of their constitution). With China aggressively modernizing it's military and rapidly expanding it's Navy, a Japan wary of these developments welcomes such protection, and having a physical military presence is a tangible symbol of our commitment. I find myself liking Obama's foreign policies, but hating his domestic/economic policies, loving Ron Paul's domestic/economic policies and mixed on his foreign policies. I admire Ron Paul "sticking to his guns", but isn't foreign policy more complicated than a "one size fits all" solution? Looking forward to anyone trying to convince an undecided, independent voter.

kenwcreative
kenwcreative

LOL Newt is appalled, wonder how his wife felt when she found out he was cheating on her.

Just Pathetic.

Citizenelect
Citizenelect

Ron Paul is the (ONLY) Political sovereign on that stage Bar None-the others are STOOGES!

Citizenelect
Citizenelect

Hi I,m here in Australia, Google Dean Clifford. We have absolutely no coverage of Ron Paul in our Main stream media. Talk about censorship. Can anyone help with this problem? We are all in this together :) Go RON PAUL.

doug
doug

:) if anyone finds part 7, please post in here :)

doug
doug

where is part 7?

28wmc
28wmc

Goodnight Will, joojoo, and kralspaces. ... dagobertotorres, see you in sunday school next week when we learn about multiplication tables. -28wmc

joojoo
joojoo

@28wmc It's not THAT late! And it's Friday night too. You make some good points but overall, I think what Paul is trying to say is, what some of us believe, is that there will be no more world wars between the economic power houses, so why do we need the bases in Japan. Certianly, if NK ever attacked they would be beaten back and killed like a rabid dog. It would just take us 2 or 3 days to get there. So, why spend the money to have a base in S Korea when you can be there, in force in 2 or 3 days.

Will
Will

@28wmc The problem with the current foreign policy is that it perpetuates conflict and hinders peaceful settlements. When the US supports one side over the other (South Korea) then that side has no incentive anymore to make the painful compromises necessary for a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the opposing side (North Korea).

If both sides were on an equal footing then they would both work hard to resolve the conflict. But the US wants North Korea to lose. The communist system must lose and the Kim dynasty must lose. So it needs troops stationed and money spent to preserve the status quo. These nations would have to face up to their realities and solve their conflicts on their own

North Korea poses no threat to the US. Ron Paul's foreign policy is to avoid entangling alliances that force long term military commitments with no end in sight. America is not and should not play the role of the policeman of the world.

Libertarian777
Libertarian777

@28wmc it's interesting that you say that about Ron Paul, when in reality we have a 'one size fits all' foreign policy NOW.

What is that one size fits all?

Acquiesce to the united states and we will give you money, don't and we will bomb you.

Note that for the most part those who acquiesce to our requests are DICTATORS.

Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein (yes we funded him), Mubarak (Egypt), Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen), Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan's previous general), Harmid Karzai (Afghanistan), the list goes on and on.

We proclaim to want to spread democracy (which is BS, since the USA is NOT a democracy but a constitutional federal republic), yet when the PEOPLE elect a government (e.g. Iran pre-1953, Syria) we REJECT it because we don't like those leaders and start the process of regime change.

Foreign policy is indeed complicated, but the UNDERLYING issues are always the same. The point is we, as a nation, should not be trying to pick winners and losers in the economy or in the world government. How do you change a country?

Look at Vietnam. 50 years ago we were at war, bombing civilians and killing people. Did we change the regime? no.

What is our current status with Vietnam? we TRADE with them. Intel built a multi-billion dollar factory over there. Employs people. Those employed there will be more favourable to the united states.

Contrast this to Iran, or Cuba. Why don't we engage in trade with them? Surely Iran would feel less threatened by us and not require a large military or a nuclear weapon if we just traded with them? How does sabre rattling help?

Does Iran have nuclear weapons? Where are Iraq's WMDs? we're still looking for them. When they couldn't be found they changed the reason for why we went to war. They were already talking about war with Iran in 2003.

And if it really is so bad for Iran to have a nuclear weapon then why are we not threatening North Korea? Why don't we invade them? Where is the consistency? What has Iran done to us? You can argue they funded the uprising in Iraq and supplied IEDs etc, but then the root question is why were we in Iraq in the first place? If we had no troops there none would be dying at the hands of Iran. How many Chinese soldiers have died in Iraq? or Afghanistan? or at the hands of Iranian IEDs?

dagobertotorres
dagobertotorres

@28wmc Troops can be deployed within hours. No need to have them parked at a far away country.

kralspaces
kralspaces

I prefer the 'sucker punch' approach to foreign policy. If intervention is required then hit, hit hard and then leave. We don't need to be building permanent bases and staying for years. Japan needs to amend their constitution and allow a defensive military to be re-established. I feel the same about Germany too. Both countries have gone through transformation and the need for property expansion is no longer there.

kralspaces
kralspaces

Ron Paul is also ignored in our main stream media, even our so called 'fair and balanced' Fox news. There are many web sites keeping the public involved. It won’t be long before MSM will have to report on Paul because he maybe the last MAN standing. Actually, he is already the only ‘trusted man’ standing.

Str0ngbad
Str0ngbad

Thank you! I've been going nutstrying to find it for the last half hour.

Wonkbro
Wonkbro

no idea, was wondering that too

happy_tags
happy_tags

@ringostar003 no problem, someone messaged me that you can watch it on CNN but the video isn't working for me at all so this helped me.

28wmc
28wmc

@joojoo You're right, it's not THAT late, but tomorrow I have big plans in Tokyo. You know what that means if you've lived here. Anyway, I also don't think there will be world wars in the same way that there was in the 1930s-1940s. However, we must recognize that we are human, the rest of the non-western world doesn't have this historic experience necessarily, and I doubt that most people in 1935 believed there would be a world war just a couple years later. If you think the rest of the world is that advanced now, please visit some other places.

Let me explain it this way, if you and I were twin brothers, and we had an older brother who would kick our butts if we acted up. Now, if we were in the same room (and we had a history of beating each other up) when the older brother was at the store down the street, things would probably get out of control. Alternatively, if older brother was in the same room with us (given his history of action), we would probably not get into an all out brawl.

I realize this analogy could be full of a lot of holes, but I think the basic concept is essentially realistic.

28wmc
28wmc

Will, Thanks for the intelligent response. I wish more people would understand the importance of well thought out posts on the internet. Unfortunately, supporters of candidates often default to a "hell yeah!" style post, than actually talk about the issues, and I think this is Ron Paul's weakest issue.

Peaceful settlements are, of course, preferred. South Korea and North Korea share a mutual manufacturing plant which is encouraging. But let's look at North Korea's past with respect to South Korea: assassination attempts, bombings of airlines, Special operations insertions, naval attacks, and artillery bombardments. I'm not sure, within that history of the past 30 years or so, shows potential for a peaceful solution short term.

I'm not sure that our political goals today are so sinister that it amounts to an "our way or the highway" philosophy. All parties involved seem to favor a "one Korea" in the future, and I think it would be welcomed. Indeed, America is not only present in South Korea as a deterrent for North Korea, but also as a deterrent for South Korea. I guess we could roll the dice and see what happens if we leave, but to assume the result would be peaceful is a little bit naive in my opinion.

I don't believe that military alliances are necessarily entangling, but can be productive in the current Geo-political landscape in Asia. The world's economy is fragile, and susceptible to external factors. In the case of Korea, you're gambling that peace is attained in a peaceful way. Well, if not, kiss anything Samsung, Kia, or Hyundai goodbye as they are South Korean made.

I do agree with you that we should not be policemen of the world. Let the world figure it out for themselves to a large degree where balances of power are practical without American influence. However, where balances of power are not favorable to our allies without some kind of American presence, let us not allow the balances of power to favor violence or international upheaval as a result of our departure.

28wmc
28wmc

@Libertarian777

I do say that about Ron Paul's policy. It seems to me that bringing back troops, breaking military agreements, etc with EVERYONE in the world and bringing it all back to America is a "one size fits all" policy. It would be a little less so if libertarians agreed to judicial withdrawal based on diplomatic analysis, rather than all out withdrawal. The military, when not being totally committed like in WW2, is an extension of the political arm of America. We can make investments so to speak with it. In recent history, many of those investments have been poorly chosen and poorly run as you have mentioned in your post. I have no issues with many of your arguments, the only thing that I have an issue with, is a mass "sell off" of all of our military investments. Some of those current investments are actually good and positive (maintaining balance of power particularly in Asia), and some of them currently are destructive and are either stagnant or we're actually losing credibility, money, lives etc and I think it's time we ended THOSE investments (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, shrinking our presence in Germany, etc). No Paul supporter that has commented on my posts has even mentioned that (judicial analysis and subsequent responsible withdrawal as necessary) as a possibility. If Ron Paul says it, and his supporters say it, then I have to conclude that it is an official "one size fits all" philosophy.

28wmc
28wmc

@dagobertotorres I will not comment on the American military. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, however.

28wmc
28wmc

@kralspaces I would agree with you in certain modern circumstances (Iraq and Afghanistan principally). I would also agree that Germany and larger Europe are clearly capable of self defense as there is no adjacent, potentially hostile force. I suppose it's just about as easy for the Japanese to amend their constitution as it is for us to completely alter ours. The Japanese do have an existing defensive self defense force (JSDF), but the prevailing attitude in Japan is against the growth of a large military force for various reasons. The complete withdrawal of US forces in Japan would be such a shock to the Japanese, and the repercussions of that unexpected move are unknown. It's easy to say "let's leave Japan", but in practice I believe it would be devastating to our friendship and force the Japanese to do one of two things; become militaristic to the likes not seen since WW2, or slowly accept the cold embrace of their aggressive neighbor to the west, China (I assure you, China is having no such dialogue that you and I are having now).

28wmc
28wmc

@RONPAUL201216@joojoo Ronpaul201216, did you even read what I wrote on this thread?

I've said several times all over this thread that I don't want to be there or anywhere around there. But there ARE places we should be PRESENT (not actively involved) in order to influence the balance of power in certain regions for the betterment of WORLD stability. You don't want WW3 right? Well, IMO withdrawing completely is inviting it and accelerating the possibility. What was our foreign policy before WW2? Answer: Isolationism. It's possible to be libertarian without irresponsibly abandoning all of our allies.

RONPAUL201216
RONPAUL201216

@28wmc@joojoo

think about the war in iraq, it cost trillions of dollars per year itself! we dont want to keep the wars going. were 16trillion dollars in debt right now and i dont think iran has any nukes to bomb usa or israel yet. plus there are numerous of dead scientists in iran sooo.

RONPAUL2012 (it may be our only hope)

28wmc
28wmc

@joojoo Damn it. This Republican primary season is just too interesting to actually go to sleep at a decent hour. If you mean was it complicating and awkward....yes. If you mean I've had too many canned Japanese Suntory Highalls.....then also yes.

Me and several of my coworkers want to support Ron Paul, but it's almost impossible when we hear the extent of his foreign policy ideas. We're tired of extreme points of view. We want an economically conservative, socially.....who cares it's up to the states,....and an internationally responsible candidate. I think Paul has 2 out of 3. But Americans, including me, are proud.....we can't accept a completely withdrawn America. We just need to be more judicial (and constitutional) on how involved we are.

28wmc
28wmc

Good point generally. It's true that our presence there may somewhat embolden the South Koreans and/or encourage them to not immediately settle....but I think that's the point. Enabling South Korea to come to the table as an equal rather than a country militarily weaker than North Korea and it's ally surrounding Korea on two sides, China.

You mentioned earlier

"If both sides were on an equal footing then they would both work hard to resolve the conflict"

Well, how do you propose SK does that? ...make nukes itself?

You also said,

"it needs troops stationed and money spent to preserve the status quo. These nations would have to face up to their realities and solve their conflicts on their own"

However, you mentioned yourself that under Bill Clinton there was a positive atmosphere to work with North Korea. Our troops were still there at that time. It is possible and responsible to have a positive atmosphere without abandoning one of our closest allies to almost certain coercion at best.

I understand your argument. It's well argued. But the basis of it is formed without understanding of the world and how governments interact and without recognizing some kind of positive role as the best superpower in the world. I'm not saying that to tick you off, I'm saying it because I think you've never been to South Korea and the DMZ JSA, you didn't see how America helped Japan in operation Tomodachi (Friend in Japanese).

I suppose our foreign policy ideas are irreconcilable. If Ron Paul insists on a one size fits all foreign policy, and would abandon our long term allies that actually want us to be there (not Iraq and Afghanistan...couldn't care less about them), then I find it too dangerous to support his presidency despite agreeing wholeheartedly with his domestic policies.

Will
Will

@28wmc Of course your concerns are well founded. But US policy, I believe, is forcing NK's hand into a belligerent stance. When the SK has no incentive for peace and in fact is prodded to have a policy of isolation towards NK then NK will be less likely to play nice. The NK leadership will naturally flex their muscles to show they are tough and should be taken seriously and ignoring them comes at a cost.

In fact under Clinton, where there was a positive atmosphere to work with NK, it was cooperating. But when W Bush came in with is cowboy attitude he turned them off and they tested their first Nuke.

If you don't see a direct relation between US actions and NK's reactions then you are willfully blind.

The Koreas have more reason to some how unify and find a resolution to the conflict that the US does. US meddling is not productive. The US went to war 60 years ago. It doesn't mean it owns that country and its problems for ever. It is time to leave and let them solve their own problems.

28wmc
28wmc

@Libertarian777 It's trading one extreme for another. Extremism is what is getting this country into trouble time and time again.

28wmc
28wmc

@Libertarian777

Now for your specific statements and examples:

You said, "The point is we, as a nation, should not be trying to pick winners and losers in the economy or in the world government." - Yes we should. That IS the point. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't pursue the interests of our country? It doesn't mean that we need to use the military kinetically to do that in all situations or even the majority of the time. We can do that with more judicial use of the military (i.e. maintaining presence in certain regions without kinetic use of the military).

You mentioned our partnership with certain dictators. Sometimes it's necessary to work with people you don't like in pursuit of your international objectives. I think ignoring certain countries because we don't like their leadership is appropriate sometimes when our interests aren't involved, and inappropriate sometimes when our interests are involved.

You mentioned Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea specifically. I don't understand the Cuba thing either, so I'm with you there. Vietnam is becoming buddy buddy with us because of China's South China Sea claims...and frankly it scares the hell out of them. I think the most difficult thing to talk about are the Nukes with North Korea and Iran. North Korea has them obviously, but the situation on the peninsula is still more or less the same as it ever was. I think we're so concerned with Iran having nukes because they are perceived to be more likely to actually use them outright, or as a negotiating tool. North Korea isn't threatening to block any critical sea lanes, they just want attention and aid. Iran on the other hand has very actively opposed the US, and it's neighbors. I think your point on escalating the situation via sanctions etc is good and worthy of more thought. So why not review it and see if that course of action is a good way to invest our time and effort, or if another route would be more beneficial to our interests. As long as we are an oil consuming country, and as long as the middle east region produces that oil, the fact is we have interests in the region, and we need to figure out how to deal with those interests. Disengaging completely from the region doesn't seem like a viable way to deal with our interests there.

28wmc
28wmc

@kralspaces I guess what I'm looking for is why should I support a policy that relies on what SHOULD or "it would be great if _____ happened," when the reality is different. We SHOULD all get along and live peacefully together, but the reality is different. We are the only power on the earth that is capable of influencing the aggressive policies of rogue regimes and thus able to avert violence in some areas of the world simply by our presence. Seeking out war is one thing, and I agree is against the constitution, but I don't see anything in the constitution about maintaining a military presence (to the extent of today or not) that is against the constitution. I want someone to explain to me why bringing back all troops to America from every place in the world would be beneficial to us long term. Obviously it would save money short term, but you might think differently when all of Asia falls under the hegemony of China and their influence with our complete withdrawal.