• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No more living in denial... Ron Paul the answer?

Great. You have an opinion on the past. Pretty easy stuff to do.

How about now...

In your opinion, would Israel be able to exist without US support from here forth?

I don't know. Israel is much different today, than it was 50 years ago. Also, RP foriegn policy would not just eliminate US support for Israel, but also most of our activities in the Middle East. Without any involvement, it's hard to say what would happen, but I doubt it would work to Israels benefit.

Without our giving billions to Egypt, they might become more hostile to Israel. This might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

Without or giving billions to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, they wouldn't be able to provide as much social and economic assistance to their populations (subsidies for bread, etc) which would increase support for the extremists in those nations. Again, this might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

IOW, ending support for Israel, and our involvement in the Middle East (apart from buying their oil) would have serious repercussions, and I doubt any of them would be good for Israel. RP's policies are, intentionally or not, bad for our strongest ally in the region
 
I don't know. Israel is much different today, than it was 50 years ago. Also, RP foriegn policy would not just eliminate US support for Israel, but also most of our activities in the Middle East. Without any involvement, it's hard to say what would happen, but I doubt it would work to Israels benefit.

Without our giving billions to Egypt, they might become more hostile to Israel. This might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

Without or giving billions to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, they wouldn't be able to provide as much social and economic assistance to their populations (subsidies for bread, etc) which would increase support for the extremists in those nations. Again, this might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

IOW, ending support for Israel, and our involvement in the Middle East (apart from buying their oil) would have serious repercussions, and I doubt any of them would be good for Israel. RP's policies are, intentionally or not, bad for our strongest ally in the region

There is also money going to Palestinians as well. What if all the financial support were withdrawn from all ME countries and Israel used the UN as resources rather than lobbying our government for cash and arms? That would put them on par with all our other allies. Do you think that would be sufficient for their survival?
 
There is also money going to Palestinians as well. What if all the financial support were withdrawn from all ME countries and Israel used the UN as resources rather than lobbying our government for cash and arms? That would put them on par with all our other allies. Do you think that would be sufficient for their survival?

Yes, money also goes to the Palestinians. Your point?

And I doubt Israel would get much support from the UN. As far as whether or not they would survive, I've already said that I don't know and that Israel today is much different than it was 50 years ago. I have been consistent in making clear that my statement about Israels existence was referring to the past. Your constant attempts to drag it into the future, when that is clearly not what I said, is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Yes, money also goes to the Palestinians. Your point?

And I doubt Israel would get much support from the UN. As far as whether or not they would survive, I've already said that I don't know and that Israel today is much different than it was 50 years ago. I have been consistent in making clear that my statement about Israels existence was referring to the past. Your constant attempts to drag it into the future, when that is clearly not what I said, is dishonest.


I'm not trying to be dishonest. I'm trying to figure out where the hell you stand. I don't care about what you think about history.

You are conflating past and present by talking about modern politics and then coating in a past-time framing. The fact that you do this means you are speaking in pure fiction. Present day politics cannot effect the past so throwing out dumb hypotheticals mixing today with yesterday is pointless.

Then when you are asked about where you stand with regards to reality and the present you play the semantics wiggle-room game that your time conflating provided and then **** on people who are just trying to have a conversation with you in a nasty defensive manner.
 
I'd say it's more political than cultural or economic. They (some of them) hate us because we're continually ****ing with their part of the world, and rarely with their best interests in mind.

I'd say the last 1500 years of Christian-Muslim relations prove you wrong. Islamdom, Christiandom and their derivatives ie Democracy, strong-man dictatorships, Liberalism, Marxism etc. are by definition: incompatible.
 
I was very clear. I said that "if we HAD followed RP's advice". I said nothing about the future. I merely commented on how things would be different if we had done things differently IN THE PAST. Your asking about the future when I was speaking about the past shows that your confusion is of your own making. You are dreaming up connections and imagining that I actually said those things.

So... to be clear, you believe Israel would not exist today if not for previous US intervention because in the past it was dependent on the US. However, now Israel is a stand-alone country without dependence on the US?

If this is what I understand you to say, can you please explain two things: 1) Why would we continue to support a nation that is now a stand-alone country with no dependence on us, for which we receive no direct benefit for helping? 2) Why would you bring up an un-provable hypothetical past including hypothetical consequences of 'neglecting' Israel if you did not think those consequences still existed if we started 'neglecting' Israel today? It seems the leap in logic wasn't too far to assume you were making that connection. Otherwise, you were making a point that was completely irrelevant to this conversation.

My point is: If you are saying Israel is now independent, then your argument to not follow RP's foreign policy is moot.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Israel is much different today, than it was 50 years ago. Also, RP foriegn policy would not just eliminate US support for Israel, but also most of our activities in the Middle East. Without any involvement, it's hard to say what would happen, but I doubt it would work to Israels benefit.

Without our giving billions to Egypt, they might become more hostile to Israel. This might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

Without or giving billions to Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, they wouldn't be able to provide as much social and economic assistance to their populations (subsidies for bread, etc) which would increase support for the extremists in those nations. Again, this might not mean the end of Israel, but it would not be good for them

IOW, ending support for Israel, and our involvement in the Middle East (apart from buying their oil) would have serious repercussions, and I doubt any of them would be good for Israel. RP's policies are, intentionally or not, bad for our strongest ally in the region

These nations political systems are obviously very corrupt. RP's point is that giving this foreign aid does not help the people. It goes into the pockets of these corrupt individuals running their nations. We are not helping the people of these nations. We are empowering their leaders at costs to our national debt/future generations.
 
I'd say the last 1500 years of Christian-Muslim relations prove you wrong. Islamdom, Christiandom and their derivatives ie Democracy, strong-man dictatorships, Liberalism, Marxism etc. are by definition: incompatible.

No doubt any religion or ideology taken to an extreme is incompatible with any other that's different. But that's not necessarily a problem as long as they remain apart. In this case AQ didn't attack us because they don't care for our culture. They attacked us because we brought our culture and a couple of tank battalions to Saudi Arabia -- near the heart of their culture. And because we materially support leaders in the ME who maintain a culture that they don't appreciate.
 
I'm not trying to be dishonest. I'm trying to figure out where the hell you stand. I don't care about what you think about history.

You are conflating past and present by talking about modern politics and then coating in a past-time framing. The fact that you do this means you are speaking in pure fiction. Present day politics cannot effect the past so throwing out dumb hypotheticals mixing today with yesterday is pointless.

Then when you are asked about where you stand with regards to reality and the present you play the semantics wiggle-room game that your time conflating provided and then **** on people who are just trying to have a conversation with you in a nasty defensive manner.

Again, you are trying to drag my original comment into the present and future (ie "You are conflating past and present by talking about modern politics and then coating in a past-time framing") I challenge you to quote anything I've said that conflates the past and the present because I have clearly and explicitely stated that Israels condition today is much different than it was 50 years ago

And when it comes to the present, I just as clearly and explicitely answered your question about Israels survival by saying "I don't know". There's no wiggling there, so again I challenge you to quote anything I've said that is in any way dishonest.

You can meet my challenges or you can clearly show that you have no intention of engaging in an honest discussion. I suspect the latter
 
So... to be clear, you believe Israel would not exist today if not for previous US intervention because in the past it was dependent on the US. However, now Israel is a stand-alone country without dependence on the US?

That's pretty close. I only take issue with the term "stand alone country" becuase no nation "stands alone". However, I doubt that Israels very survival depends on our continued assistance.

If this is what I understand you to say, can you please explain two things: 1) Why would we continue to support a nation that is now a stand-alone country with no dependence on us, for which we receive no direct benefit for helping? 2) Why would you bring up an un-provable hypothetical past including hypothetical consequences of 'neglecting' Israel if you did not think those consequences still existed if we started 'neglecting' Israel today? It seems the leap in logic wasn't too far to assume you were making that connection. Otherwise, you were making a point that was completely irrelevant to this conversation.

My point is: If you are saying Israel is now independent, then your argument to not follow RP's foreign policy is moot.

1) We help Israel because it is in our interests to do so. I never said that we do not get anything in return.

2) To demonstrate RP's poor judgement. There are consequences to RP's foreign policy. Showing how his policies would have affected us helps illuminate the effects his foreign policy might have in the future. If we had followed his policies in the past, we'd have one less strong and democratic ally in the world. If we follow his policies from here on, we might have one less democratic ally at some point in the future.

Take Myanmyar for example. It's been isolated for years. However, thanks to diplomatic efforts, it seems to be opening up to reform. Under a RP foreign policy, we would have less leverage to open it up to reform because under RP, we would not be able to offer financial and military aid, or form any sort of military alliance with it. RP's vision of diplomacy is being willing to talk to them, but it does not allow us to offer as many inducements to reform as our present policy does.
 
These nations political systems are obviously very corrupt. RP's point is that giving this foreign aid does not help the people. It goes into the pockets of these corrupt individuals running their nations. We are not helping the people of these nations. We are empowering their leaders at costs to our national debt/future generations.

And I agree that it doesn't help the people of those nations. We do it because it helps us

Foreign aid is not motivated by humanitarianism. It's motivated by our national security interests.
 
And I agree that it doesn't help the people of those nations. We do it because it helps us

Foreign aid is not motivated by humanitarianism. It's motivated by our national security interests.

So in summation: we displease foreign nations and groups with our foreign military bases and intervention, arguably doing more damage to our national defense than good because we are making them angry (which is undeniable given that we have to pay them foreign aid to compensate for this inconvenience to them), and in this monetary payment, we are empowering those nations to continue to be corrupt and take advantage (to put it mildly) of the individuals in those countries (so it is at the people of THEIR countries' expense that we are doing this too), all of which we cannot afford and so we borrow from other nations, making them angry as well because we are showing signs of inability to ever pay that debt back (which is compounding with interest and growing exponentially because we simply cannot stop spending).

Did I sum that up correctly? You really think this is the correct path?
 
We do it because it helps us

sorry, we agreed to the formation of the State of Isreal for humanitarian reasons. Nobody reasonable would argue it gives us any sort of economic/political advantage. It was out of compassion, not mutual benefit.
 
So in summation: we displease foreign nations and groups with our foreign military bases and intervention, arguably doing more damage to our national defense than good because we are making them angry (which is undeniable given that we have to pay them foreign aid to compensate for this inconvenience to them), and in this monetary payment, we are empowering those nations to continue to be corrupt and take advantage (to put it mildly) of the individuals in those countries (so it is at the people of THEIR countries' expense that we are doing this too), all of which we cannot afford and so we borrow from other nations, making them angry as well because we are showing signs of inability to ever pay that debt back (which is compounding with interest and growing exponentially because we simply cannot stop spending).

Did I sum that up correctly? You really think this is the correct path?

And people call Ron Paul crazy because he rejects this kind of foreign policy? How can they say this out loud and with a straight face?
 
And people call Ron Paul crazy because he rejects this kind of foreign policy? How can they say this out loud and with a straight face?

as Paul himself has been known to say, "truth is treason in an empire of lies"

Ron Paul said:
Every election cycle we are treated to candidates who promise us "change," and 2008 has been no different. But in the American political lexicon, "change" always means more of the same: more government, more looting of Americans, more inflation, more police-state measures, more unnecessary war, and more centralization of power.

Real change would mean something like the opposite of those things. It might even involve following our Constitution. And that’s the one option Americans are never permitted to hear.

Today we are living in a fantasy world. Our entitlement programs are insolvent: in a couple of decades they will face a shortfall amounting to tens of trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, the housing bubble is bursting and our dollar is collapsing. We are borrowing billions from China every day in order to prop up a bloated overseas presence that weakens our national defense and stirs up hostility against us. And all our political class can come up with is more of the same.

One columnist puts it like this: we are borrowing from Europe in order to defend Europe, we are borrowing from Japan in order to keep cheap oil flowing to Japan, and we are borrowing from Arab regimes in order to install democracy in Iraq. Is it really “isolationism” to find something wrong with this picture?

With national bankruptcy looming, politicians from both parties continue to make multi-trillion dollar promises of “free” goods from the government, and hardly a soul wonders if we can still afford to have troops in – this is not a misprint – 130 countries around the world. All of this is going to come to an end sooner or later, because financial reality is going to make itself felt in very uncomfortable ways. But instead of thinking about what this means for how we conduct our foreign and domestic affairs, our chattering classes seem incapable of speaking in anything but the emptiest platitudes, when they can be bothered to address serious issues at all. Fundamental questions like this, and countless others besides, are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.

This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

There is an alternative to national bankruptcy, a bigger police state, trillion-dollar wars, and a government that draws ever more parasitically on the productive energies of the American people. It’s called freedom. But as we’ve learned through hard experience, we are not going to hear a word in its favor if our political and media establishments have anything to say about it.

If we want to live in a free society, we need to break free from these artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions once again. I am happy that my campaign for the presidency has finally raised some of them. But this is a long-term project that will persist far into the future. These ideas cannot be allowed to die, buried beneath the mind-numbing chorus of empty slogans and inanities that constitute official political discourse in America.
 
Last edited:
No, that was not what I said. If I had wanted to say that, I would have actually have said it

I said "If we followed RP's advice, Israel would not exist". The word "followed" is the PAST TENSE of the word "follow" and the word "would' is PRESENT TENSE. At no time did I mention anything about the future.

English. Learn it

your problem is Ron Paul is telling us what to do moving forward. He is not giving advice on what we should of done in the past.

So when you say following his advice would mean the end of a nation, you are actually talking about the future, not the past.
 
So in summation: we displease foreign nations and groups with our foreign military bases and intervention, arguably doing more damage to our national defense than good because we are making them angry (which is undeniable given that we have to pay them foreign aid to compensate for this inconvenience to them), and in this monetary payment, we are empowering those nations to continue to be corrupt and take advantage (to put it mildly) of the individuals in those countries (so it is at the people of THEIR countries' expense that we are doing this too), all of which we cannot afford and so we borrow from other nations, making them angry as well because we are showing signs of inability to ever pay that debt back (which is compounding with interest and growing exponentially because we simply cannot stop spending).

Did I sum that up correctly? You really think this is the correct path?

No, you did not sum it up correctly. Your "summation" was entirely slanted in one direction

I don't deny that our actions sometime engender more hostile reactions than hospitable one. Our aid can work to our benefit or to our detriment. I don't think you're doing your argument (or your credibility) any favors by depicting in such a slanted manner

For example, we give aid and station military bases in many foreign nations that do not resent out presence there. Your depiction of our stationing troops in foreign nations as universally despised by the host nations is a complete distortion of reality.
 
sorry, we agreed to the formation of the State of Isreal for humanitarian reasons. Nobody reasonable would argue it gives us any sort of economic/political advantage. It was out of compassion, not mutual benefit.

Sorry, but that is nonsense. We agreed to the formation of Israel because it was in our national interest to do so.

And most recognize that our support for a democratic ally in the region helps us secure a steady supply of oil
 
And people call Ron Paul crazy because he rejects this kind of foreign policy? How can they say this out loud and with a straight face?

No, it's because people who think that was an accurate portrayal of our foreign policy are out of touch with reality
 
your problem is Ron Paul is telling us what to do moving forward. He is not giving advice on what we should of done in the past.

Well, duh!!

So when you say following his advice would mean the end of a nation, you are actually talking about the future, not the past.

Not at all. If that's what I wanted to say, I would have said it

Others have understood what I said, so your failure to do so is your problem not mine. Putting words in my mouth will not improve your understanding
 
Sorry, but that is nonsense. We agreed to the formation of Israel because it was in our national interest to do so.

And most recognize that our support for a democratic ally in the region helps us secure a steady supply of oil
.

how does support for a nation without Oil, and at odds with the oil producing states achieve this?
 
No, it's because people who think that was an accurate portrayal of our foreign policy are out of touch with reality

I most certainly believe that is our current foreign policy and I am in touch with reality. Perhaps your lack of a real response is because of a lack of an effective rebuttal on your part.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
 
I most certainly believe that is our current foreign policy and I am in touch with reality. Perhaps your lack of a real response is because of a lack of an effective rebuttal on your part.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

If you think Germany and Japan hate the US and wants us to remove our military bases from their soil, they you are indeed out of touch with reality
 
Your lack of understanding concerning our foreign policy is not an argument.

then enlighten me. I asked directly how aiding a country that doesn't export oil, and is disliked by those that do produce oil, helps us meet our oil requirements.

show us how brilliant you are
 
Back
Top Bottom