• 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!

Is Ron Paul Insane?

Is Ron Paul Insane?


  • Total voters
    98
I see...

What is the point of the NATO alliance? Why was it created,

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948.[6] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

and why does it still exist?

NATO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and signed in Paris in 1990, mandated specific reductions. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, signed some years later. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and since that time has intensified working relations with the military structure. France did not, however, rejoin the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy have resulted in a major reform of France's military position, culminating in a pledge in June 2008 to rejoin the military command of NATO while maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent.[17]

The first NATO military operation caused by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was Operation Sharp Guard, which ran from June 1993–October 1996. It provided maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February 1994, NATO took its first military action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, had begun a year before, on 12 April 1993, and was to continue until 20 December 1995. NATO air strikes that year helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement, which in turn meant that NATO deployed a peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, first named IFOR and then SFOR, which ran from December 1996 to December 2004. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.

If your answer is "it makes America stronger", then you that is one hefty assumption: deterrence does not create enemies...

I don't submit to neo-con ideas. Read my links and the role that NATO has played in different events since the Cold-War.


OPINION and nothing more...

Alright so NOTHING to reply at what the destruction of your belief that Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is complete lunacy? Noted.

What is the point of an international organization that has very little maneuverability in terms of policy implementation? The UN functions at the pace of the Big 5, and acts as nothing more than a formality, rarely easing political tension. Suffice to say, the UN has proved itself irrelevant...

The deterrence theory you seem to subscribe to has only brought America enemies, and has led to military buildup to escalate throughout the world. Our overall safety is actually reduced as more and more states develop nuclear weapons, which begs me to ask, how is military buildup any different? If anything, arms races are a self fulfilling prophecy, as full scale war becomes reality.

You have proved your understanding of Dr. Paul's ideas on foreign policy is non existent...

Ahahahahaha. How cute. You sound like a child screaming 'YOU DON'T GET ME!'. Ron Paul must have been born in the 15th century if he believes we can just keep to ourselves and everything will be alright if we ignore it. NOBODY other then like 8 people in DC holds these beliefs. Not even the founding fathers held this belief. Not France. Not Germany. Which I'm still trying to figure out why you asked about them. Hold this belief. Nobody. Do you understand why yet? Because in a world where my internet connection is all I need to infiltrate the government of India's databases it simply makes no sense to act like if we hide ourselves long enough that we won't have terrorist attacks, or that Americans will come up with technological advancements before people in other countries or that we'll cure deceases by isolating ourselves. The overwhelming majority of agreements we have with the world yield benefits. It simply does not make sense to 'mind our own business'.
 
You say this.

And then you do your appeal to fear. :roll:

I was talking in the sense of medical advancements. Or do you disagree that more people have been saved, by sharing those advancements with the rest of the world and them sharing theirs with us, because of the UN agreements, then by simply sealing ourselves off?
 
I was talking in the sense of medical advancements. Or do you disagree that more people have been saved, by sharing those advancements with the rest of the world and them sharing theirs with us, because of the UN agreements, then by simply sealing ourselves off?

Sealing ourselves off to who?

I don't promote economic isolation.

The UN agreements can be facilitated privately. Why is the UN even involved?
 
Argument to patriotic emotion Ethereal? Come on now. But since you chose to go down this road :

American Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Americans formed an alliance with France in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France. Although Loyalists were estimated to comprise 15-20% of the population,[1] throughout the war the Patriots generally controlled 80-90% of the territory; the British could hold only a few coastal cities for any extended period of time. Two main British armies surrendered to the Continental Army, at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781, amounting to victory in the war for the United States. The Second Continental Congress transitioned to the Congress of the Confederation with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation earlier in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was ratified by this new national government, and ended British claims to any of the thirteen states.

France in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spain in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which part is that?

Not sure what your point is or why you chose to highlight those specific passages. The originators of non-interventionism (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) were supportive of those alliances, so does that disqualify them as being non-interventionist? A definition from Wikipedia, while concise and informative, does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the term "non-interventionism" by any means. Non-interventionism does not preclude the formation of alliances while at war.

Ah yes the 'many different definitions' argument. You made it clear that Ron Paul was a non-interventionist (he even defines himself as one). I brought up the definition of isolationism and excluded the one thing that stopped him from being an isolationist which was well, economic nationalism. So in every other aspect it seems like the way he defines himself is isolationist in nature. He's an isolationist who is against economic nationalism. What exactly are you not getting?

So, instead of simply referring to Obama as a liberal, I should instead call him a Communist who is against the collective ownership of the means of production?

NATO members help U.S. in its Iraq effort - International Herald Tribune

UNITED NATIONS, New York: European countries have overcome their past differences with the United States over Iraq and all 26 NATO members are now providing training and equipment to Baghdad, according to the alliance's secretary general.

The official, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a former Dutch foreign minister who backed the Bush administration's war while many Europeans opposed it, said Tuesday that he was about to raise the NATO flag over a hugecomplex in Baghdad that had prepared 1,000 Iraqi officers inside the country and 500 more outside.

Focus on the UN: behind-the-scenes benefits to Americans - various UN agencies and their services | US Department of State Dispatch | Find Articles at BNET

Had Ron Paul been President we would have never gone into Iraq in the first place, so your point is moot. Secondly, nations do not help us based upon our membership in NATO. They help us because it is beneficial for them to do so. We are the largest consumer market in the world and the most powerful nation on the planet; it certainly doesn't hurt to be on our good side.

UN organizations concerned with nuclear energy, illegal narcotics, and transportation--to name a few--are essential to ensuring the security and safety of Americans at home and abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) promotes multilateral efforts to enhance radiation protection and nuclear safety, and helps nations develop peaceful uses for nuclear power. IAEA technical assistance and cooperation programs support U.S. nonproliferation goals by bringing the benefits of nuclear techniques in electrical power, medicine, agriculture, and science to countries which support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards.

This could just as easily be accomplished without the UN.
 
I don't submit to neo-con ideas. Read my links and the role that NATO has played in different events since the Cold-War.

Rhetorical questions do not need detailed wikipedia references in reply. NATO has outlived its intention. Military alliances during times of peace escalate military intervention, if by their very existence. Why not risk military intervention when the majority of developed nations are allies. :roll:


Alright so NOTHING to reply at what the destruction of your belief that Ron Paul's foreign policy stance is complete lunacy? Noted.

How do you expect me to respond to an opinionated statement? How about i state my opinion:mrgreen:


Ahahahahaha. How cute. You sound like a child screaming 'YOU DON'T GET ME!'. Ron Paul must have been born in the 15th century if he believes we can just keep to ourselves and everything will be alright if we ignore it. NOBODY other then like 8 people in DC holds these beliefs. Not even the founding fathers held this belief. Not France. Not Germany. Which I'm still trying to figure out why you asked about them. Hold this belief. Nobody. Do you understand why yet? Because in a world where my internet connection is all I need to infiltrate the government of India's databases it simply makes no sense to act like if we hide ourselves long enough that we won't have terrorist attacks, or that Americans will come up with technological advancements before people in other countries or that we'll cure deceases by isolating ourselves. The overwhelming majority of agreements we have with the world yield benefits. It simply does not make sense to 'mind our own business'.

And you sound like someone who wants to argue about international politics, without considering international political theory. What is so hard to understand? You make it out like Dr. Paul advocates the desertion of all US embassies around the world.

As the last 6 years are a testament, our military intervention has created a form of isolation across the globe. You are not failing to get me, instead you are failing to comprehend the idea of which your are opposing. Maybe you should wiki objectivity.

Who were the last countries Germany and France declared war on?
 
Not sure what your point is or why you chose to highlight those specific passages. The originators of non-interventionism (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) were supportive of those alliances, so does that disqualify them as being non-interventionist? A definition from Wikipedia, while concise and informative, does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the term "non-interventionism" by any means. Non-interventionism does not preclude the formation of alliances while at war.

If the originators of non-interventionism had been TRUE interventionists then they wouldn't have accepted the help from France and by extension Spain simply because well what exactly were France and more specifically Spain doing if not engaging in interventionism themselves by helping liberate America? Seems to me like their actions spoke much, much louder then their words.

So, instead of simply referring to Obama as a liberal, I should instead call him a Communist who is against the collective ownership of the means of production?

Go for it? I honestly don't care what you do. :2wave:

Had Ron Paul been President we would have never gone into Iraq in the first place, so your point is moot. Secondly, nations do not help us based upon our membership in NATO. They help us because it is beneficial for them to do so. We are the largest consumer market in the world and the most powerful nation on the planet; it certainly doesn't hurt to be on our good side.

And NATO, the UN set the parameters under which they should help us and make sure one side doesn't try to screw the other.

This could just as easily be accomplished without the UN.

Really? How? By getting every country in the world together, just like with the UN, and getting them to agree on aviation safety, testing phases( in the way the UN facilitates) etc etc? :lol: - Seems like you're making an argument FOR the UN.
 
By removing ourselves from these alliances we can set ourselves up as neutral and possibly open the doors of free trade with any country that wants to.

we could have zero import barriers with many of the countries that don't like us now.

In effect they would be to greedy to oppose us.
They would probably not want to screw with their largest trading partner.

I think a few good men set up the proper platform for these ideas a very long time ago... hmmmm (see below :) )

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. - George Washington

I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace. - George Washington

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto. - Thomas Jefferson

If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. - Thomas Jefferson

My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none. - George Washington

I'm sure you get the point. :2wave:
 
According to some, Ron Paul is apparently insane. In fact, in this month alone I have heard at least three people refer to him or his policies (although they frequently fail to specificy which ones) as crazy. So, my question to you is, "Is Ron Paul insane?" If so, what has he done to lead you to such a moronic and preposterous conclusion? Moreover, what specific policies of his do you find to be insane and why? Please, refrain from citing his policies as you remember them, instead, quote him directly and progress logically from there.

I think he is perfectly logical and has great ideals about how the government is supposed to act.
 
I must be crazy for writing him in... Damnit! I should have listened to everyone else and not "wasted" my vote. ;)
 
Just wanted to add one thing, about France helping the US during the revolution: It bankrupted them, and within a decade of this foreign escapade the heads of their govt were removed, literally and figuratively.

Hmmm...World Power going broke because of foreign adventurism. Where have I heard that before?
 
Just wanted to add one thing, about France helping the US during the revolution: It bankrupted them, and within a decade of this foreign escapade the heads of their govt were removed, literally and figuratively.

Hmmm...World Power going broke because of foreign adventurism. Where have I heard that before?

Quoted for truth.

Ron Paul is a good and honest man who believes in the country and it's Constitution. Something the big 2 political party's seem to ignore at every turn.

Unlike a large percentage of political officials from local on up to federal government. Ron Paul actually listens to his constituents and preforms in the best interest of the people rather than special interest or government interests alone.
 
Last edited:
If the originators of non-interventionism had been TRUE interventionists then they wouldn't have accepted the help from France and by extension Spain simply because well what exactly were France and more specifically Spain doing if not engaging in interventionism themselves by helping liberate America? Seems to me like their actions spoke much, much louder then their words.

I'm going to assume you meant to say this...

If the originators of non-interventionism had been TRUE non-interventionists

If not, please clarify what you meant. Now to the point...

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington CREATED the philosophy of non-interventionism, therefore you nor Wikipedia gets to tell them was TRUE non-interventionism means. If Thomas Jefferson and George Washington say that making treaties during war-time is agreeable to the precepts of non-interventionism then it is agreeable. No amount of Wiki references or semantic word-play is going to change that immutable fact. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Ron Paul are all non-interventionists, period.

Go for it? I honestly don't care what you do.

It seems you are purposely trying to miss the point. It is inaccurate for you to refer to Ron Paul as an "isolationist who doesn't advocate protectionism", just as it is inaccurate for me to refer to Barack Obama as a "Communist who doesn't advocate the collective ownership of land."

In order to be considered an isolationist one MUST advocate economic protectionism just as one MUST advocate the collective ownership of land in order to be considered a Communist. You are simply engaging in semantics in order to misrepresent Dr. Paul's foreign policy position and frankly such a tactic is beneath you. Instead of using abstract and overly exotic terms to refer to Ron Paul and his policies why don't you simply refer to them as what they are...non-interventionism.

And NATO, the UN set the parameters under which they should help us and make sure one side doesn't try to screw the other.

I don't follow.

Really? How? By getting every country in the world together, just like with the UN, and getting them to agree on aviation safety, testing phases( in the way the UN facilitates) etc etc? - Seems like you're making an argument FOR the UN.

Countries don't adhere to UN regulations simply by virtue of their membership. Countries act out of rational self-interest, and if a policy is proposed that provides a potential benefit to them they will implement it regardless of internationalized government. We needn't be members of the UN in order for a country to see a potential benefit in trading with us. We needn't be a member of NATO in order for another country to see a potential benefit in assisting us militarily. What I'm trying to figure out is this: what purpose or benefit is derived from our membership in the UN that could not feasibly be derived otherwise?
 
arguing with libertarians is like pounding your head into a wall.

I'll let the American Conservative do it for me...

The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

After reading this article its quite obvious that the writer is either a Paleoconservative, a Social/Religious Conservative or a Neoconservative. All are the primary right wing enemies of Libertarianism. All three believe the government should legislate morality based on their moral codes while Libertarianism fully believes the government has no right to tell individuals how to live as long as no one else's rights are being violated. For this guy to call Libertarianism Communist shows nothing but a desperate and extremely weak argument. It wouldn't surprise me if this writer is still a Cold Warrior.
 
Last edited:
After reading this article its quite obvious that the writer is either a Paleoconservative, a Social/Religious Conservative or a Neoconservative. All are the primary right wing enemies of Libertarianism. All three believe the government should legislate morality based on their moral codes while Libertarianism fully believes the government has no right to tell individuals how to live as long as no one else's rights are being violated. For this guy to call Libertarianism Communist shows nothing but a desperate and extremely weak argument. It wouldn't surprise me if this writer is still a Cold Warrior.

LOL. Libertarians are being compared to communists?

WOW! :doh
 
Its a new one IMO. We have been called border line anarchists, closeted liberals, and to quote neo-con pansy Johan Goldberg (Closeted gays who want to smoke pot).

Stabs are all good fun.. I just can't fathom what would bring someone to call a true libertarian a "communist".

That is just too funny.
 
Stabs are all good fun.. I just can't fathom what would bring someone to call a true libertarian a "communist".

That is just too funny.

Isn't communism where heathcare, money, etc. is regulated and spread by the government? Isn't this what extreme liberal want? More government regulations and handouts? PUT 2 & 2 TOGETHER COMMIES...oops I meant Liberals....:)
 
Ron Paul isn't insane but he has a humongous uphill battle to fight.

He is really the only one screaming to a deaf audience that they must reign in spending and expansion. In our majority is right society people will think he is crazy.

Some of his supporters like the 9-11 truthers and the I only care about legalizing drugs crowd are bad for his image. It paints the rest of us as the same.

The media didn`t help his image much either. Hmm,for that matter the media didn`t help anyone elses immage ,either,with one exception....
 
After reading this article its quite obvious that the writer is either a Paleoconservative, a Social/Religious Conservative or a Neoconservative. All are the primary right wing enemies of Libertarianism. All three believe the government should legislate morality based on their moral codes while Libertarianism fully believes the government has no right to tell individuals how to live as long as no one else's rights are being violated. For this guy to call Libertarianism Communist shows nothing but a desperate and extremely weak argument. It wouldn't surprise me if this writer is still a Cold Warrior.

He's a Neocon, look at the website, it's the American Conservative. He's a total Neocon nazi and a bad man, but it still doesn't negate his argument.
 
Isn't communism where heathcare, money, etc. is regulated and spread by the government? Isn't this what extreme liberal want? More government regulations and handouts? PUT 2 & 2 TOGETHER COMMIES...oops I meant Liberals....:)

We are talking about ---> Libertarians <--- Try to keep up chap!
 
He's a Neocon, look at the website, it's the American Conservative. He's a total Neocon nazi and a bad man, but it still doesn't negate his argument.

His argument negates his argument because it is based upon the most idiotic premise in the universe, i.e. that libertarians are in anyway comparable to Marxists or Communists. Either way, I'm not overly concerned with the smear campaign against libertarian ideology as it currently exists. Conformists have always tried to maintain the status-quo, but progress can only be delayed for so long. It may take a while - ten or more years perhaps - but libertarian-minded individuals will start to emerge as viable candidates for the Congress and eventually the Presidency. All we needed was somebody to get the ball rolling...thanks Ron.
 
He's using Marxist as a metaphor; libertarians are similar in that they have a fringe political ideology, socialize among each other obsessively and think and act in extremes. Libertarians, just like Marxists, think that their magic ideas will save society, but only if applied in totality and without compromise. And, just like Marxists, libertarians dismiss the obvious failings of their ideology with the fallacy that the specific application of libertarianism was "impure" in some manner and if the libertarian method was applied either in a broader way or more doctrine manner it would have worked.

They're also both basically dead ideologies that only continue on among academics and the political fringe.

What I find particularly obnoxious about libertarianism is that it's used a political red herring by Neoconservatives and social conservatives (ask Ron Paul about his positions towards abortion, something which should be a libertarian no-brainer) to obfuscate the failings of the Republican party. There was not a single Republican president in the last 60 years that was remotely libertarian.

There are three basic kinds of libertarians.

The Republican Liar: Libertarians that are libertarians until it violates some basic Republican tenet (usually something to do with drugs, abortion or Israel).

The Backwoods Psycho: Libertarians that aren't really libertarians they're just insane and heavily armed.

College Libertarians: Too-cool-for-school college kids that will either be socialists in a few months or Neocons.
 
He's using Marxist as a metaphor; libertarians are similar in that they have a fringe political ideology, socialize among each other obsessively and think and act in extremes. Libertarians, just like Marxists, think that their magic ideas will save society, but only if applied in totality and without compromise. And, just like Marxists, libertarians dismiss the obvious failings of their ideology with the fallacy that the specific application of libertarianism was "impure" in some manner and if the libertarian method was applied either in a broader way or more doctrine manner it would have worked.

They're also both basically dead ideologies that only continue on among academics and the political fringe.

What I find particularly obnoxious about libertarianism is that it's used a political red herring by Neoconservatives and social conservatives (ask Ron Paul about his positions towards abortion, something which should be a libertarian no-brainer) to obfuscate the failings of the Republican party. There was not a single Republican president in the last 60 years that was remotely libertarian.

There are three basic kinds of libertarians.

The Republican Liar: Libertarians that are libertarians until it violates some basic Republican tenet (usually something to do with drugs, abortion or Israel).

The Backwoods Psycho: Libertarians that aren't really libertarians they're just insane and heavily armed.

College Libertarians: Too-cool-for-school college kids that will either be socialists in a few months or Neocons.

I guess I'm the second kind. ALthough the insanity is subjective to personal opinion now isnt it?
 
No you're not; you have a computer.

The second kind is Ruby Ridge people.

Well, I'm not in college.

I'm not a republican I guess, as I am FAR too mixed in political and social opinion for that bland title.

The only thing left are my guns and the criticism I get for my outlook.

So, what kind of libertarian would you classify me as?
 
Back
Top Bottom