A better summation of what he has said is that it's not our problem. Let the countries in mideast deal with it.
.
Ron Paul has stated he would end support of Israel.
Ron Paul has stated if North Korea invaded South Korea he would not respond.
Ron Paul has stated that Iran should have a nuclear weapon.
Okay, can somebody tell me how the OP is trolling?
^^^^ This and by not giving context or links for his quotations.by saying things they don't agree with
Okay, can somebody tell me how the OP is trolling?
Posting three unverified "statements" as facts to discredit a person and inferring that their supporters are illogical nincompoops doesn't really qualify as legitimate debate, does it? It seems more of a thinly veiled attack couched as political criticism. Isn't that trolling by definition?
Posting three unverified "statements" as facts to discredit a person and inferring that their supporters are illogical nincompoops doesn't really qualify as legitimate debate, does it? It seems more of a thinly veiled attack couched as political criticism. Isn't that trolling by definition?
Yeah, I get some of that, but at least give the guy a chance to provide the requested information. We run people off by labeling then trolls and giving them negative rep before they have the opportunity to learn the "culture" of the site. JMHO, but if anyone can provide some verification of the statements, I would be glad to read them. I'm slowly becoming more interested in Paul and would like to read a bit more in depth about his political ideologies.
Yeah, I get some of that, but at least give the guy a chance to provide the requested information. We run people off by labeling then trolls and giving them negative rep before they have the opportunity to learn the "culture" of the site. JMHO, but if anyone can provide some verification of the statements, I would be glad to read them. I'm slowly becoming more interested in Paul and would like to read a bit more in depth about his political ideologies.
Do any of the other candidates really believe we should now start a war with Iran to prevent her from developing nuclear weapons? As John Derbyshire pointed out in his piece in the National Review, “Which Republican candidate advocates such a course of action? If the answer is ‘none’ [which of course it is], then what, in effect, is the difference between Dr. Paul’s Iran politics and that of Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and the rest?” Other than the phony rhetoric and demagoguery? Not a hill of beans.
We need to cut Israel's umbilical cord and let them fund their own wars.
@ Destro
Are they? Ron Paul has said he would end foreign aid. Israel is included in that equation. Why should they be any different? More importantly, why should Israel be singled out as solely being deserving of American money? Why the specific calling out the end of foreign aid to Israel alone as a reason to declare someone "illogical" or other derogatory term? In your own post, Dr Paul said "he would respond if Congress declred war", in accordance with the Constitution, if DPRK attacked ROK, not that he would "ignore it" as the OP implied. That's trolling.
Ron Paul never said "Iran should have a nuclear weapon". He said it's not our place to say whether or not IRR "can" have a nuclear weapon. So that, with respect to the OP, is out and out lying. If not an intentional lie, it is either an intentional misrepresentation of a political position to foster animosity, or an unmitigated display of ignorance.
How is that NOT trolling?
Destro provided the documentation of the positions EBG proffered. If my calling him a troll is disruptive, I'll gladly edit the post. It just seems that the OP wasn't really looking for debate, he's building a farcical argument which can't effectively be countered because it's based purely on opinion and is unsupported as a position.
Also, I never give neg rep. I either plus rep posts I like or agree with, or just ignore it. Everyone has a right to an opinion/position, just as I have a right to disagree.
So-called "conservatives" maunder on about cutting foreign aid, but they don't really mean it. At least Paul means it. What "conservatives" really mean is "cut foreign aid to people I don't like, but keep the spigots flowing to my favourite aid cases. That's why "conservatives" should never be taken seriously. They're not serious.
he has made it a point for the US to take a neutral view on Israel and Palestine
Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both
It is sort of a contest: should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or Anti-Arab, and how are we perceived doing this? It is pretty important.
But I think there is a third option that we often forget. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the US?
I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out. I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and be neutral unless someone declares war against us.
The perceptions are yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.
I have a proposal. We should start by defunding both sides. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.177-178 Dec 15, 2001
Also lets not forget, we are still at war with DPRK
Really...
Huh...
I thought the UN was at War with NK, and Truman put us there under UNSCR 84, 1950...
Maybe I just have my History wrong...