I agree with Ron Paul: This is not about national security.

[polichick]

Fascinating conversation between Paul and Alex Wagner on msnbc now.

I also agree with him that libertarians on the right and those on the left concerned with civil liberties should join together to stop these wars that have nothing to do with national security.

I also agree that presidents of both parties surround themselves with people who are invested in these wars.

He's excited that people in both parties have had enough.

I'm excited about that too. imo if the people are divided, we lose against the mic. It's good to look for common ground - even if we don't agree on a lot of other things.


Edited for clarity.

[Marr]

1. "If the people are divided, we lose against the MIC".

Very true, which is why all the shrieking about "you agree with libertarians" is so transparent and sickening. Purely divisive bullshit.

[polichick]

12. Yeah, it's exactly what our corporate parties count on.

[bvar22]

27. Our neighbors in Latin America have given us a successful BLue Print for CHANGE.

They have managed to take their governments back from the 1% through near bloodless Ballot Box Revolutions,
but you won't hear about it in the US Media or from our politicians because it threatens their gravy train.

When the American Working Class & The Poor realize WE have more in common with each other than we have in common with the 1%Elite and their mouth pieces in Washington and the MSM,
THEN we can have "change" too.

As long as "they" can keep us divided,
the Status Quo will prevail.

Spread the WORD.
VIVA Democracy!

[JRLeft]

2. The only problem I have with Ron Paul when it comes to global affairs is he is an isolationist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. And an idiot in general.

[JRLeft]

6. Especially on economic affairs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. You don't have agree with that goof to know we have no national security interest in toppling Assad

[polichick]

7. The point is that the people should not let themselves be divided on this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I understand your point but those who would lie us into war will descend to cast false associations.

Beware, friend. They're out there and they are vicious in defense of their War for Ego.

[polichick]

31. I don't care what they say. Change has to come and it won't as long...

as the people are divided on such important issues.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I honestly admire your fortitude though I may personally demure from counting Paul an ally

[Aerows]

51. Broken clock

and all that...

[leftstreet]

5. Paul is tapping the antiwar sentiment the Dems used

in 2006 and 2008 antiwar sentiment was useful to the Democrats

Now it's not

What did they expect...it'd just go away because they said so and the new President is dreamy?

[polichick]

8. The anti-war people like me need to unite for some purposes with...

libertarians - we need to be far more strategic.

[busterbrown]

11. Do not forget his desire to control woman’s sex organs...

And the fact that he is a State Right’s Racist...

[polichick]

15. Nobody is saying to unite on all issues, just that it's stupid to...

divide on issues we both care about.

[busterbrown]

17. Nope... I wouldn’t invite this guy to the dance.

His anti war stance means nothing to me... Has hurt way too many people ...

[Marr]

22. If you don't want to see people like Paul achieve more prominence on the national stage,

you should hope that the Democratic Party doesn't create such opportunities for them. It's the Third Way types who are paving a road for guys like this by pushing the Democratic Party ever rightward.

People aren't cardboard cutouts. If the party abandons their interests, they're going to make common cause with whomever they agree on specific issues.

[polichick]

25. Well said!

[think4yourself]

48. Exactly.

Very well said.

[leftstreet]

52. +1

This should be an OP

Always, always the voters get blamed
Never the politicians

[Aerows]

55. Exactly

The people for whom party affiliation is everything forget that 90% of the rest of the people care about certain issues and if the party abandons them, they abandon the party.

[LuvNewcastle]

57. +1000

We're supposed to support them at the polls while they ignore us the rest of the time. People are sick of it. I don't know what the Democratic Party stands for anymore. The people running it just seem to do whatever the hell they want, and we're just supposed to like it.

[sabrina 1]

30. What does that have to do with his position on Foreign Policy? Many Democrats, like Grayson and

Kucinich have worked with him on issues where they agree.

It's funny how the goal posts get moved when it suits people.

We have been told OVER AND OVER, that the Presiden'ts 'bi-partisan' policies are 'necessary' and that he 'doesn't have to agree with everything Republicans have to say, to get things done by giving in to them on a few things, so he can get something in return'.

But then that all changes when it comes to this one Republican.

Why does Obama have so many Republicans in his Cabinet?? I totally disagree with their policies on almost everything. How about Clapper? What on earth is he, a very Conservative Republican speaking of Women's Rights, doing in this administration?

Or Colmes, another very Conservative Republican, what is HIS position on Women's Rights, doing in this administration's cabinet.

Let's have that discussion, how it came about that so many Conservative Republicans whose policies are opposed to Women and Gays are now part of this administration???

Why single out the one who at least agrees with us on these wars???

[Hydra]

39. We already know the answer

When the President speaks of Bi-Partisanship, it's only in regards to the people who agree with him. Which happen to be Republicans and Blue Dogs more than real Blues.

Any time we might talk to someone who disagrees with his policies, we are "risking splitting the party."

This is all also based on the ridiculous "new" theory being pushed lately- that people look for someone they feel like they can relate to (Obama) and then they change their values to mirror that persons.

That's called cult of personality, it's older than dirt and it never ends well.

[busterbrown]

43. It’s simple. He’s an out and out racists and is vehemently opposed to woman’s healthcare rights.

End of conversation. You might find a few anti-abortion right wingers in the Administration, but please tell me who in the administration is a self proclaimed racist..

[sabrina 1]

47. Is he or is he not right about these wars?

'Might find'?? Anti-abortion, anti Gay Rights among Republicans, now in the administration?

And that's okay with you?

See, here's your problem. No one here is voting for Paul, no one here is advocating placing him in a powerful position in a Democratic Administration.

Nor would they. You otoh appear to be okay with anti women, anti gay Republicans actually in positions of power in a Democratic Administration. I completely oppose such people being in power which is why we voted AGAINST them and why no one here ever voted for Paul.


They ARE saying he is right about these wars which have devastated women btw, in Iraq where they used to have equal rights, but no longer have. They have spoken out about it, as have the women in Afghanistan, all saying that our invasions have endangered not only their rights but their LIVES.

If you really cared about women's rights and gay rights you would never, ever defend these wars. So stop using women to try to manipulate people into your way of thinking. Women reject being used as tools for political purposes.

It won't work, the issue is US Foreign policy and to excuse the anit-women Republican appointees to powerful positions in a Democratic administration, destroys your claim to have the least concern for that particular issue.

[busterbrown]

50. You have a few issues as well..

Where did I say" anti-gay rights”. Nope..You got that wrong.
I did infer that most republicans are against a woman’s right to choose and there are a few republicans in the administration who “might be anti-abortion” So you got that wrong as well.

And please quote for me in context where I “defended these wars”...Never stated that.

Now back to my point.. Ron Paul is an out ant out racist and that makes him ineligible to be a spokesman for me about anything..

Seems like your hobby might be mis-quoting and looking for arguments...

[beerandjesus]

49. The question was, "What does that have to do with his position on foreign policy?"

And the answer is, "He's vehemently opposed to women's health care rights"?

[Iliyah]

45. Also do not forget that he does not

support civil rights or marriage equality.

[TwilightGardener]

9. In terms of keeping these chem weapons from being more widely used

against Americans or allies in the region, and in terms of just enforcing prohibition of use, I can understand the national security argument. But it's not a direct threat argument, more of a big-picture thing--which makes it less compelling.

[polichick]

10. Paul also suggested that this is ultimately about going into Iran...

and I don't disagree there either.

[TwilightGardener]

19. I think it's more of a matter of showing Iran that we mean what we say and won't

tolerate WMD use.

[polichick]

21. Not "ultimately" - no money to be made from a warning.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well in that case, we should be going after Saudi Arabia where the actual threat to our national

security came from, don't you think? But for some odd reason the fact that they support Al Queda, that they are still supplying them with weapons, doesn't appear to be a problem for the US. Assad hates Al Queda so its unlikely any weapons they get their hands on will come from Syria.

But just this week we learned that the US is supplying Saudi Arabia with CLUSTER BOMBS!! Any idea why we would be doing that? It is a war crime to use those weapons, and with the Saudis so close to Al Queda, what are we thinking?

Or is the 'national security' argument nothing but an excuse to keep these wars going?

So many questions, and never, ever any answers from our government.

[Johonny]

13. Paul is wrong as usual and I totally don't agree with him as usual

Our country is trying to convince the global community to help send a message to end war crimes in Syria. Clearly horrible things are happening there. Yet Russia doesn't want to do a thing... why because clearly the current situation is to their advantage. China, Russia, Major countries in Europe, the Arab League, and the US are all sitting at various corners in the debate as to what to do with the situation in Syria and yet somehow Paul claims this has nothing to do with national security! Holy crap man the world does begin outside your door Rand. Syria itself is not going to threaten us economically or militarily but the other REAL PLAYERS in this game sure as hell can. Anyone that claims national security isn't risked by the current situation is wrong. If we buy into Russia's total fantasy as to what is going on in Syria what are the future ramifications? If we bomb Syria what will Russia's response? Can the US afford to find a middle ground and find a non-military solution that appeases both Russia and shows we respect international law under Obama? The list of questions that involve national security is long.

[polichick]

29. Ron, not Rand.

[sabrina 1]

16. Put it this way, Paul agrees with Democrats on this issue. And good for him for saying so.

[busterbrown]

20. His stance on so many things including states rights is so dangerous.. His reluctance to change any

thing concerning healthcare has caused so much damage.. And of course there is his extreme racist issue he has..This guy means nothing to me..

[sabrina 1]

24. I consider the 'stance' on Warmongering among some Democrats now to be the most dangerous

threat to, not just the US, but the rest of world and its people also.

I don't see any enthusiasm for a National Health Care System anymore among top Democrats, so what's the difference in his 'dangerous' views?

This guy means a lot to a whole lot of people at this point, on Foreign Policy. It means a lot to military families whose loved were taken because of the Dangerous Policies supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

I can't think of anything more dangerous than unnecessary, forever wars to any nation, especially when they are based on lies.

I can disagree with politicians on issues where I believe them to be wrong.

But when they are right, I am not going to bite off my nose to spite my face because they don't have the correct team letter on their jackets.

Paul is correct on this issue. And what's funny is that way back during the Bush warmongering, Paul was hailed as one of the 'good Republican's on Democratic Forums all over the internet. Funny how that changed among a few over the past few years. He was in fact mentioned on one of the top Liberal forums, DK, as 'welcome to the forum' anytime he felt like commenting. Along with 'left Liberatarians' because 'we need all the support we can get'.

What changed? I think we know the answer.

[polichick]

28. Great points!

[busterbrown]

53. His racist States Rights views make him ineligible to say anything..Period..

[sabrina 1]

59. And by that logic, the US's multiple uses of Chemical weapons, and their failure to even investigate

the war criminals right in their own backyard, makes them ineligible to say anything.. Period..

Which the world has been stating clearly over the past week or so.

UK Parliament making no bones about it.

Is your judgement of who gets to speak situational, or across the board?

I take it, rather than seem hypocritical, which the US is being accused of globally, you are now in agreement with the rest of us that we need to back out of this altogether due to our own War Crimes and use of Chemical Weapons background?

[NuclearDem]

18. Uh oh, now you've done it.

Paulbot!

Why do you hate democrats

[polichick]

23. LOL - stirring the shit is a lifelong hobby of mine.

[Skittles]

41. you want I should kick your shit-stirring ass, polichick?

I CAN YOU KNOW

[polichick]

44. Ha! It wouldn't be the first time I got my butt kicked.

[Itchinjim]

33. Fuck Ron Paul.

And his Eddie Haskell look alike kid too.

[polichick]

36. No thanks. ;)

[Comrade Grumpy]

40. Somebody has been infected with Rand Paul Tourette's.

[woo me with science]

34. "If the people are divided, we lose against the mic."

This post is spot on in every word.

Thank you.

[polichick]

35. Thank you too :)

[bvar22]

37. Ron Paul agrees with me on this unnecessary WAR.

Ron Paul also agrees with me on:

*Ending the failed and expensive War on Drugs

*Repealing the Patriot Act & restoring the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitution, especially the 4th Amendment

*drastically Cutting Military Spending

[polichick]

38. With me too, on all those issues...

Maybe putting it that way will make it easier for some folks around here.

[bvar22]

42. The simple minded Logical Fallacy of labling ANYONE who OPPOSES a New War..

...as a "Paulite" is the usual GARBAGE from the usual few.

Ron Paul agrees with me on these issues.
Does that make Ron Paul a bvar22ite?

[madrchsod]

46. why do we really care about syria?

why should the president care about syria? do we trade with them? it`s a civil war so why should we care who wins or loses.
ron and rand are right ...we have nothing in common with the syrian people or their government.

[beerandjesus]

54. Here, I'll stir a little MORE shit:

I'm very confident that the Pauls (both Ron and Rand) will continue to be on my side of this issue regardless of how the political tides turn.

In other words, not only do I consider them allies, I consider them RELIABLE allies.

It's not hard to contrast this with Obama, who was going to fight for a public option, was going to fight for card check, etc. I generally do consider Obama an ally, but he's been happy to throw me overboard in the interest of some (generally non-existent) "compromise". I trust the Pauls to fight to the death for any issue they believe in, no matter how stupid; on this one though, they're right, and I'm glad to have them on my side of the fight, because they won't change their minds to appease war-mongering Democrats.

[polichick]

58. True - and that's what I have trouble with here; the tendency...

some have to simply follow the leader no matter what. It's crazy.

[Autumn]

56. I agree with him too. I wouldn't vote for him but if a person is right I can sure agree

and feel fine with myself about doing so.

[polichick]

60. I wouldn't vote for him either, but when he's right he's right. Right? :)

[Jefferson23]

61. He does not get to cast a vote this time. He did the right thing imo when he voted no

on our previous wars. Can we remember it is a vote we agreed with and not his platform? I wish we could.

That was his contribution, you say thanks and move on...that's what you do.

His value now is to say he is against the strikes, but we need NO votes..if we know
he'll influence his past supporters, great. Like before, you acknowledge the NO vote, if he delivers
and move on.

His political views, the vast majority, are fucking dangerous, I can't stand the guy.

[cpwm17]

62. Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!

RON PAUL!, RON PAUL!, RON PAUL!,


Actually, the only way to get things done in Washington is to make coalitions of common interest across the political spectrum. Party over country destroys the country.

Good luck to all of the politicians that are trying to stop this war.

[polichick]

63. Glad you brought up coalitions! That's really what liberals need to...

think more about. Doesn't pay to put purity over strategy when it comes to policies that are important.

[Eddie Haskell]

64. Everyone I know is against intervention.

I haven't seen this degree of bi-partisan agreement in 20 years.

[polichick]

65. Really! I wish this was a 3D chess situation.