If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.
That’s what blowback is all about. It seems like such a simple concept, but many of Ron Paul’s opponents for the Presidency vehemently denied its validity.
They proclaim that what our military does abroad has no effect on how the citizens of the world feel towards us. The 9/11 terrorists hated our wealth and freedom so intensely that they sacrificed their lives to prove it? (Of course, our government bombing their countries, propping up their dictators and supplying their enemies with money and weapons had nothing to do with it…)
Instead of securing our borders, we’ve been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. Our military is spread thin all across the planet, yet we remain involved in dangerous power plays that unnecessarily put the lives of our soldiers at risk. And we brazenly squandered the wealth of our nation as if there were no tomorrow.
It doesn’t make any sense unless you consider increasing the profits of the military-industrial complex to be in the “national interest”, no matter what the cost to the rest of us may be.
America first. That is what Ron Paul‘s national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, safely bring our troops back home, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.
Ron Paul loves America. He is one of the very few true patriots left in Washington who are actively working on protecting our freedoms, our lives and our dignity.
JGuy you are spot on in your assessment of the situation. However, I have a different solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism. They are indoctrinated, almost from birth, to be willing to lay down their lives if their Imam tells them to. They have been brainwashed to believe that Paradise is waiting with unlimited virgins to deflower & unlimited quantities of wine to swizel down. Drinking alcohol is forbidden on earth but perfectly ok in Paradise. They have the belief of Paradise & the threat of death is not enough to deter them. So, the solution to our problem is to take Paradise away from them. They justify their actions through the Koran. Use the Koran to take away their promised Paradise. When an Islamic terrorist is captured he (or she) have no rights under the US Constitution. Upon conviction by a military tribunal the terrorist should be sentenced to Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Then their right hand should be amputated so that they can feed themselves with the same hand that they clean their rear ends with. All food eaten after that would be unclean. Next, before sunrise they should be led, by the beard & on film, to a prison van & under military guard to the nearest pork slaughterhouse or farrowing house. They should be forced to labor there EVERY DAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. They should stay there each & every day until 1/2 hour after sunset. Supply t6hem with a prayer rug so they can face Mecca & do their required prayers every day. Once an Islamist is unclean he remains unclean until the next sunset. Never let him be clean again for the rest of their life. Upon the terrorists death, a hole should be dug in his place of labor & the bottom & sides liberraly lined with Hog leavings. Then he should be buried in the hog remains & if Allah wants him he can dig through the pig crap & get him. These actions should be filmed & sent to the Al Jazeera network daily with a reminder that we no longer execute Islamic terrorists but punish ALL OF THEM this way. There are plenty of pig pens around the world to accomodate them. It won’t take many of them before the rest refuse to attack America. Of course, we would have the ACLU breathing down our necks about the inhumane treatment of the “freedom fighters” that we were treating so unfairly but they are at their best when ignored anyway. Nothing else seems to deter them so use their own religion against them. They certainly use it against us.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Hello,
I’m a big Ron Paul fan from Spain. I agree with him on everything except in foreign policy, especially the moral reasoning behind it. I think there are some many ways to make it sound more fair and realistic to the average people, which I don’t think would change them fundamentally. Here are some ideas which for what it may be worth.
First, when people disagree with you on foreign policy, it doesn’t mean they reject the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule means to treat other nations as America would like to be treated. I guess what most Americans want is to be treated with fairness, and I think America has not been particularly unfair to any nation, at least not more than anyone else. During WWII all nations were doing horrible things to each other. Then the war was over, Japan and Germany accepted to be friends with America, and America corresponded with friendship and respect. During the cold war the USSR wast meddling with other countries, if not outright launching attacks to expand their empire, so America also had to do some of that to protect her allies. Then the cold war was over and America left Russia alone. Other nations should take their example and stop making threats against America and her allies, or supporting terrorism, which is in itself an act of war.
The Miliary bases:
They are expensive, but presumably they help protect America’s allies. Well, then, they can be either sold or leased to the allies. They keep protected but they pay for it, not Americans.
But wait, what if the allies run out of money because of all those bases? Well, with Ron Paul’s economic policy Americans will save a lot of money. Those who want to help the allies can send some money on their own, either individually or through some voluntary organized effort. And what if those allies don’t have enough soldiers? Well, they can pay American private contractors. It would be American weapons, American soldiers and American money, but none of it by government decisions.
Iran’s oil embargo:
That’s essentially a boycott. A boycott is not an act of war. People have a right to buy their oil wherever they want. Let the people decide individually. Instead of the government deciding which countries to buy oil from, let individual refineries tell the government how much oil they want to buy, and from which countries. Some of them will advertise the fact they don’t buy oil from Iran, and some Gas stations may sell non-Iran oil.
The borders:
Seal them. I think the best and cheapest way is with vigilance UAVs. Like the one which was apparently hacked by Iran, but without that vulnerability. By the way, that’s completely independent from the immigration policy, which should be about *legal* immigration.
Facing nuclear threats:
Keep the research going in ABM systems. It’s one of the few military technologies which are strictly about defense, as opposed to defense by retaliation. Keep sharing intelligence and techonology with allies. Keep a good network of spies to know what’s going on.
Killer drones:
Keep the research to make them smaller and more precise, so there’s less of a risk of killing unarmed civilians. Maybe some day they can get into buildings where the terrorists are, and use bullets instead of missiles. That would be like US Navy SEALs, but without the risk for Americans, and hence much cheaper.
I think Ron Paul could easily win the nomination and the election with a solid foreign policy approach. I hope he does.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Civicskid Keep it up! Don’t just keep it to yourself either, take it to school and get your friends fired up! Unfortunately war with terrorists is not like a game of “Empire Earth” where people come over in ships and storm the beaches (if it were we’d be in business). Instead terrorists use tactics like we have seen with 911 and suicide bombers. Now Iran is on the verge of developing Nuclear Bombs. It is these cowardly tactics that mean we have to keep our troops overseas to maintain the peace. Also we have a duty to defend our allies. Ron Paul in my opinion does not seem to understand this. Dont take my word for it. Do your own research and always question everything.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
@fellowcivicskid The “war” on terror is nothing more than an invention of the bush administration to gain undeserved power. Terrorism, as you pointed out, is a tactic used by an entity such as, for example, Al Qaeda to instill fear in an adversary by inflicting the most goulish and bloody damage possible. It is a criminal act and should be dealt with via criminal procedures and not by war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
@john lockes ghost@fellowcivicskid This has to be the most IGNORANT post I’ve seen on this thread, that’s saying alot! “War on Terror” IS NOT AN INVENTION! You can’t put terrorist groups/members/affiliates through criminal proceedings either, that is also a stupid statement. Do you have any idea of what could happen if we were to put high value targets in criminal proceedings in federal court? No, you obviously don’t. We would have to give them ALL EVIDENCE against them, which would include classified material of intel gathered over many years of terror groups and everything involved with them. That would be a HUGE mistake. Second, those involved in terror groups have a totally different mindset than us or those who think similar to us. You will never be able to bring them in to a court session, there have already been numerous enemy combatants which have taken their own lives so they don’t give any information. There are numerous terror groups around the world, only few of which intend to target Americans. Terrorists are not seen as a formal military, so they do not fall under the Geneva Convention. That is why they’re referred to as ‘enemy combatants’ and now POW’s. Giving them liberties and OUR rights is the worst ideal ever. You will never sit down and solve anything ‘diplomatically’ with a terror organization.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
@john lockes ghost@fellowcivicskid ****NOT pow’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Given that a terrorist would live to see their day in court, we have no problem with trying high value targets in criminal proceedings in federal court, witness the trying of members of criminal cartels. The people best suited to pursue international terrorists are our military’s special forces and I leave it up to them as to their disposition.
As to my statement, I don’t think you really understand the problem, but have fallen for the mysterious cloak of national security where we sweep all things that we would rather not air.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@fellowcivicskid “…we have to keep our troops overseas to maintain the peace. Also we have a duty to defend our allies. Ron Paul in my opinion does not seem to understand this.”
And you’d be wrong about that last, too. Dr. Paul not only understands the nature of our unsupportable “We’re the Cops of the World!” excuse for a legitimate foreign policy but so do his critics.
I could only wish that some technologically adroit supporter of Dr. Paul’s campaign would apply voice stress analysis measures to the statements of Republican establishment politicians when they condemn Ron Paul’s appreciation of how “blowback” figures in our government’s relationships with the kleptocracies and Islamofascist regimes in the Sandbox.
Critters like Willard Mittney and the Ayatollah Santorum and Newt (“zipper control problem”) Gingrich sure as hell know that what they’re pushing in this regard are pure lies.
Those foreign governments with whom the politicians of our own federal government have entered into treaties of alliance, being more immediately threatened by circumstances to act for their own security and the protection of the people they nominally represent, have even greater reason to exert themselves in all reasonable ways to create and maintain the means for their defense, right?
Every treaty of alliance is a kind of contract, with obligations imposed upon all participants in order to gain the benefits specified. There’s a definite “quid pro quo” in all such agreements.
Okay, so what are we Americans getting from “our allies” in return for the considerable expenditures of blood and treasure we’re providing? And what are these Swiss-bank-account-enriching kleptocrats putting into the pot to secure Uncle Sam’s superpower military might in their support?
Let us inquire – specifically – about what our interests really are in these Third World hell-holes, how these “allies” supposedly do OUR INTERESTS any service, and what our government thugs have been achieving (apart from the ruinous expenditure of our wealth) in creating and maintaining an American empire all over the world.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Tucci78@fellowcivicskid Good points, however, the term “mitigation” can be used in several topics you mentioned as well as referencing treaties, allies, and what being involved in third world countries does for us. Personally I wish we could keep the isolationist policy, however it is not possible in the world we currently live in. This has been a known fact for decades now, stemming from one of our greatest leaders, F.D.R. We can not sit around and only listen to what is going on in the world around us, in order to be safe and secure we must be active.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JGuy07@fellowcivicskid – “Personally I wish we could keep the isolationist policy, however it is not possible in the world we currently live in.”
I do NOT hanker for isolationism. There are definitely (much as I dislike the word) collective American interests beyond our territorial boundaries, and we must have an active as well as reactive foreign policy to provide for those interests.
That understood, however, we need to institute an ongoing process akin to “zero-based budgeting” in all our foreign policy formulations and actions, keeping our eyes on the consideration of each such policy element as to how it serves our national interests.
Or does damage to those interests. Or just does us no damned good at all.
It is profoundly wrong to adhere – blindly, unthinkingly, without re-examination – to commitments made by our retired or dead politicians years and decades ago. Circumstances change, knowledge grows, we achieve better understanding of what can and will serve us as a republic.
In the very WORST sense, our political conservatives refuse to recognize these plain facts of reality, and fail all the goddam time – in the words of the fighter pilot – “to check their six.”
This kind of cement-headed lack of situational awareness, this persistent obstinacy sliding over into the obtuse, is INFURIATING. They refuse to “read and react” worth a damn, and they turn our national foreign policy into the equivalent of a lead life preserver fasted upon the U.S. body politic.
As for “…one of our greatest leaders, F.D.R.”….
Hoo, boy. You do NOT want to go there. Especially not in an online forum supporting the presidential campaign of a candidate who got into politics as the result of studying the work of the Austrian School political economics.
Suffice it to say that what you think you know about F.D.R. is quite precisely equivalent to what was taught to good little Hitler Jugend in the Third Reich about their Beloved Fuhrer back in the 1930s.
You’ve been suckered, and I don’t think you’re going to like learning just how thoroughly that’s been done to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Tucci78@fellowcivicskid I can without a doubt shed my opinion on a forum with political ass blowers and not care for the feedback. FDR had his flaws yes, but for the time and situation he was exactly what the country needed. This same scenario happens during every presidency, different men are needed for the times. Sadly, I am filled with pure disgust on how our political system works and is being ran. The constant bickering of the majority two party system will be the end to our nation in the long run. Look at every election period and how each individual changes to attempt to win over the people. Politics, as well as forums such as this, is nothing about running our nation and leading its’ people. It is simply who has their head further up a politician’s ass and for what questionable cause and reason. Rep blame Dem for problems, Dem blames rep. It is an EQUAL shit storm thanks to both these parties. A person always seems to wander away from the much needed and common sense viewpoint and fall right in line with the rest of their party in fear of being shunned, losing a vote, or their position within government. Career politicians have ruined this nation. Regardless of your opinion, this is mine. Regardless of the outcome to this upcoming election, similar to those past, nothing will be solved or change for the greater good. Why, because neither party will allow for the change. Like I said, even if it is the common sense and much needed directional move for our nation one group will always stand in way of the other. We will never pull away from old useless ties, we will never correct our own mistakes, we will never finally lay out a plan to correct our money mistakes, we will never bounce back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JGuy07@fellowcivicskid – “FDR had his flaws yes, but for the time and situation he was exactly what the country needed.”
So “the country needed” to be dragged through three more depressions and into what amounted to two different wars fought simultaneously?
I’m rather fond of the late Murray Rothbard’s writings on the subject of *America’s Great Depression* (available online in its entirety at http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf ), not to mention the more recent works of Thomas Woods (author of *Meltdown!* in 2009 and co-author of *Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush* in 2008) which include an online essay (at http://mises.org/daily/3056 ) discussing FDR’s Emergency Banking Act of 1933, which – among other things – criminalized the private American citizen’s possession of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates while at the same time summarily cancelling all gold clauses in public and private contracts.
The average American victim of government schooling today (when the legal right to own gold had been restored more than thirty years ago and we all know it’s a Damned Good Idea to get and keep your hands on gold and other precious metals as insurance against inflation) will get a puzzled expression on his phiz and go “WTF? What the hell did the wise and glorious FDR do that for?”
Read Dr. Woods above-cited article, why don’tcha?
– Continued –
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@JGuy07@fellowcivicskid — Continued –
FDR – that paralytic patroon putz – had a boatload more than mere “flaws.”
Late last year, the history of World War Two written by former president Herbert Hoover almost 50 years ago was finally published (*Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath*). It recently got some comments by Pat Buchanan (see http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html ) and that little essay is REALLY worth reading and discussion here.
It’s now condemned as “conspiracy theory!” to speak about how the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s movement to an advanced base in the Territory of Hawaii was a deliberate set-up to get those obsolescent battleships Taranto’d by the Japanese the way the Royal Navy had nailed the Italian battle line at their moorings the year before.
Uh-huh. Totally unjustified speculation. Nothing to see here. Move along to the FDR Memorial and genuflect respectfully every time you see his name mentioned.
Ain’t that little statue of Fala just TOO cute for words?
– 30 –
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
President Ron Paul?
http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi...
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t stand when Politicians read from a piece of paper. Take that shit out of the debates and your speeches and be true with your words. Speak from your heart for crying out loud!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought one of RP’s positions was for open free markets?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
your 12 yrs old? You well informed for your age. I’m sure your parents are very proud of you.
Stay informed young man, you and people your age are the future for this country.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If we keep chasing Al quida around we will be spending money. We should just reinforce are borders and let them come to us. We will just counter attack them with are army. The soldiers deserve to come home and see there families. We should only leave a small amount of people in Iran, Irag etc. Im learning this stuff I am 12 but kind of understand this stuff. I would be glad to leaner more form you guys.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I would like to hear your opinion on foreign aid, and your reasoning for sending money to wealthy countrys while taxpayers go with-out the things that we give other countrys.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0