Ron Paul, the Constitution and non- intervention

Nice Lesson,Mathetes!

Hello my friend! I see you are also a late nighter, its good to have friends in the middle of the night! I pray that you and yours are well!

Peace

Dealing with a bully is different than throwing stones at a bully to attract his attention.

Political wars don't work. Never have and never will.

I for one am tired of the USA's military being used as a policeman around the world and the plaything of the politicals.

Thomas Jefferson would not have voted for Ron paul, lol.

Thomas Jefferson was leader in a war against tyranny. The Ron Paul Revolution will doing the same in these coming elections.

Thomas Jefferson would never have attacked Iraq.

Ron Paul voted for the Afghan war because there was verifiable proof that there were terrorist training centers there. Not so in Iraq and he voted against that. Non-intervention means we don't use CIA assets to meddle in the politics of sovereign nations. Ron Paul's not opposed to defending our country, he's against stupid, wasteful wars that do great harm to the USA and its citizens.

The US was paying up to 20% of it's revenues in tribute and ransom every year to the Barbary pirates by 1800.

Congress then authorised Naval ships to use force to defend their trade ships.

I think Ron Paul would have been behind that %100.

Ron Paul would support a war that was called for by a declaration of war which can only come from congress. Just as the constitution dictates. Those that have waged war with out this are traitors to the constitution and to the United States and need to be tried for treason.

The war against the Barbary pirates really had nothing to do with fighting tyranny and everything to do with stopping theives who were stealing goods from us.

It was really a "police action." The pirates were stealing ships and extorting ransom for hostages. The US congress got fed up and sent the marines (to the shores of Tripoli). The marines wore leather collars to protect their necks from slashes with swords, hence the term "leatherneck."

When I think of a war against tyranny, I think of WWII or the US Civil War.

No plane hit the Pentagon
[link to killtown.911review.org]

Building 7 was demolished with prewired explosives
[link to 911research.com]

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt
[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

2.

I'd go with WWII and the Revolutionary war, but you are spot about the Barbary Pirates.

Then why wouldn't he behind invading Iraq when Saddam was shooting at our planes patroling the no fly zone on an almost daily basis?

The problem is he would have said afterwards. "We have been taking away their only source of funding for years....why WOULDN'T they attack us?"

Yes, that too. The British government tried to treat their American colonials like they did their Indian colonials. Didn't work very well.

And if you were a slave in the south, you probably felt that the Civil War was fought over tyranny, which is an over-simplification (No flames, please. I'm from Texas, and one of the reasons we revolted against Mexico was that slavery was "illegal" in Mexico. Remember the Alamo!)

SSSHHHHH!!! SHR QUIT MAKING SENSE!~

to all interested in this thread:

I proposed this exact question to Mr Paul in an email letter to an address I found on his his congressional site. I received a reply that the question was forwarded to his campaign forum site because he cannot field election type questions from the congressional site..conflict of interests one supposes.

Anyway the OP's question is valid and I will share a response with you all when I get one. My question was along the lines of "if we have no interventionism, will we protect sovereign partners if they come under attack and our interests are at stake...." and cited the marine deployment along the barbary coast, etc as precedent for doing so and asked Dr Paul for his thoughts on this.

My personal thought on this is I would be in favor of interventionism in a case like this and would find it more honorable to declare an action for just such a reason instead of thinly veiling military action under some false guise of "liberation" or "stabilizing a region"....if your gonna do it to protect economic interests just come out with it....the federal government should rightfully so protect our countries ability to do commerce overseas.

LOL....It's a bad habit..........;)

I have a hard time thinking that ANY US President would allow pirates to plunder our naval vessels and kidnap hostages, liberal, conservative, whatever.

BTW, we still fight pirates:

[link to www.military.com]

Navy Notches a Win on War on Pirates

Weren't we a country under the King, before Jefferson and the constitution?

Philadelphia is where the Protestant seat of gov was under the king. The Pope sent these infiltrators Jefferson and the rest of the Illuminated Freemasons over here to war/revolution with the King. That's where the mess started.

Jefferson was no hero of the people. The constitution grants congress tyrannical powers that the King had, no difference. There are provisions in the con that We the People demanded be included, but congress has power to change it.

Nonintervention is subjective to the time period.

I don't think this is a US Constitutional issue. I think it's maritime law, which is international.

I could be wrong, as I'm much more familiar with the US constitution than I am maritime law, but I think ALL nations have an obligation to stop piracy on the high seas.

If a nation, such as Somalia, is actively aiding piracy and it is an accepted economic strategy, then it changes the story a bit, I would think, but a naval vessel does not need permission from congress or the president to attack a pirate vessel.

I would like to hear his response, but I suspect it will be vague at best.

So with that in mind when Iraq invaded Kuwait which was a trading partner and friendly to the USA, why didn't vote in favor of the First Gulf War?

OK. If I would bother reading the article! It states that the navy did get permission go after the Somali pirates.

nice SHR..that would be a good follow up question if Dr Paul would be in favor of interventionism if it involved a sovereign partnership...maybe there is some threshold of amount of trade or other qualifiers that would be involved in such a decision..good point!!

Great discussion guys!

Here is another quote from Jefferson

Jefferson in a letter to Adams in a July 11, 1786,
"I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

Dosen't sound anything like Ron Paul? No because Jefferson was dealing with "real world" issues not theoretical ones

I still like Theodore Roosevelt's;

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

..and along these lines of RP's foreign policy ...I'm pretty sure he supports the Monroe Doctrine...so even with RP in office you know we could still be entangled in military deployments(protecting western hemisphere according to MD)....not that I think he wouldn't support it justly according to the consitutional or use it as a false flag to conquer..I just don't want RP supporters to think he is a panacea for military involvement of any kind...we will always need to be involved somewhere methinks.


..so when the heat turns up and RP has to answer these tough questions be prepared for him to possibly concede that interventionism may be just under the right circumstance

Well said!

In this case, SHR's comment makes little sense. Frankly. you boys are both speaking from under your hats.

Ron Paul is against the idea of having foreign troops stationed in police actions all over the globe, for indefinite lengths of time and without congressional approval. I agree with him as I am sick and tired of paying for irrelevant military actions to enhance the accounts of war profiteers and Hilliburton.

Why were we patroling the No Fly Zone for 10 years at the American taxpayers expense? To my recollection it was in subservience to the United Nations, not do to a vote by congress declaring War on Iraq.

I will feel far safer and more secure both at home and abroad with RP as commander in chief than I have or would with any of the warhawks.

You'll see what I mean once Ron's in office.

Peace and Prosperity = RP08

Little by little the Ron Paul supporters will have to grips with reality. Military bases throughout Europe for example and South Korea are not going to go away, they maintain a strategic balance of power.

Just like RP said that the idea that the Government was behind 911 was preposterous, more reality like that will set in once the vapid cheering dies down. And no he wasn't lying in some soopa kewl secret TFH code, I'm sure he believes that is true. He will also have to acknowledge that all the military bases around the world are not going to be packed up and that military force used to protect the interests of the United States is as much a reality as protecting the US itself.