I like the article Gary! You're a good writer with great passion. Ron's biggest problem is that he's literally insane on foreign policy, and that's why he'll never get my vote. Too bad because I like most of the other things he says.

That is why we each get to invest the time to determine the candidate that's best suited to our views.  Personally I don't think a strong non-intervention foreign policy is insanity.  I believe insanity is formed in believing we are right to take up positions in over 700 worldwide locations instead of maintaining our strength at home and showing the world how free, civil societies should interact with one another. 

Terrorists have less chance for success when there is more people interacting in a civil manner.  However, there are those convinced a pre-emptive interventionist approach is somehow wiser.  I know it is better for maintaining the fuel necessary for arms sales and for keeping the terrorists fueled with rallying cries like those we've now fueled Putin with so he can attempt to restore Russian power and his dreams of a Caspian Sea alliance. 

Perhaps one day we shall be able to once again test the powers of communication and friendship from a foundation of strength.  One of the very things that bothers you about Ron Paul draws my vote toward him.  Yet, I know you are a conservative and truly embrace the Constitution so we shall see if there is any common candidate we can support once the primary smoke clears. 

---

 

When I first heard of Ron Paul and his views, I called him a crack pot lunatic that should be incarcerated in a mental institute!

That was about a year ago,

However, the more I read and heard about him, the more sense he makes. What is wrong with minding our own business when it comes to foreign affairs? How many other countries in the world have taken front seat to foreign wars besides the U.S.? Why should the Federal government be involved in educating your kids? What's wrong with me expecting my take home pay to be what I earned?

If following the constitution means you are a crack pot lunatic, what should we call the other candidates?

Here is a quote from todays radio address from Bush:

 "I will discuss the importance of countering the aggressive ambitions of Iran," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "And I will assure them that America's commitment to the security of our friends in the region is strong and enduring."

The "region" he talks about is probably the richest region in the entire universe! Why can't they take care of their own security? 

It's crap like this that could force me to become a Paulist!!!

 

---

I like Ron Paul. He does make alot of sense. For everyone's info, check out this website to see why We The People cannot get these politicians to do anything for us. www.opensecrets.org . Find out who is buying our elected officials. We don't stand a chance going up against all the special interest and corporation money. The politicians running right now like McCain etc... are all on this list. It's funny to hear that they want to help us with healthcare. I'm serious about checking this out. I hope you will pass on the info and website, so that everyone will know who's full of crap in this election.

It basically comes down to this:

Giuliani should be running on the Democratic ticket, so that he could just admit that he's a liberal.

Romney should accept a position as CEO with any of the greedy corporations that are lying, conniving, or outsourcing jobs overseas, in order to make a profit. He's a natural. He may be a Mormon, but his god is Mammon.

If anyone believes that McCain cares anything about what Americans think, want or need, just write him a letter. His reply will be....nothing. I know from experience. When it comes to the illegal immigration issue, even Hillary stands to the right side of McCain.

Thompson is a classic example of the old saying, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS". He's pretty much been the token "crusty old codger" in these debates.

Huckabee must have been taking notes during the 2004 election. He learned much from  John Kerry. "Forget the past. This is now." If he were to get elected, he'll do more than just look like Gomer. It'll be "Surprise, surprise, surprise".

While all the Washington bureaucrats have been beating around with Bush on this illegal immigrant issue, there have been three names that have been consistently out on the border, coming up with realistic solutions.

Those names are Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter. Any one of these fine men could win the election on a grassroots sweep, if the crooked Republican Party heads, and the leftist media would just shut up with their skewed straw polls and biased coverage, and let the American people decide for themselves.

 

Face it none of these guys are going to do a thing about illegal immigration. They all are saying whatever they can to get elected. Fred was a lobbyist and so is his son. They are tied up with Washington insiders’ big time. The only guy I believe is Ron Paul. (Duncan & Tom don't have any support) He at least will strip them of any benefits they get here and will bring home all our troops so we can guard our border and finally build  that fence.

More importantly is the fact he is the ONLY candidate that talks about, and more importantly knows about, the economy. The rest of these guys all want big government and to stay the course militarily around the world. This is bankrupting our country. The money we are spending on the military, combined with the housing bubble and the record setting personal debt (credit cards) of Americans is sending us into a deep recession at best and a depression at worst. Gold is near $900 Oil is $100 and our dollar is going into the toilet. The Fed is expected to drive interest rates down (i.e print more money) to help the markets. This will send the dollar further down. Anyone here ever remember being at parity with the Canadian dollar? 

If we don't elect a President who is going to tackle these problems we won't have to worry about Illegal immigration because they will all go home on their own when our economy collapses.

I am 56 years old and have never contributed a nickel to any Politician. I gave to Ron Paul's campaign. I truly believe he is our only hope to save our Country. I urge everyone to take another look at the Man and what he stands for.  The clock is ticking.

BTW I was in International Banking for over 30 years and I personally know the games the Federal Reserve plays all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

 

Watch this video. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands how the current administration, big business, universities and just about every other person in authority is shafting this nation and its legal citizens.

The rest of the candidates are part of the shafting process. Vote for one of them and the shafting is going to increase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27QOTZy_VQM

 

 

CasaWood, I've got a couple of questions for you.

(1)  In 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, 800,000 human beings lost their lives in a civil war.  Because the U.S. did not take the lead to stop the genocide, the rest of the world sat idly by and did nothing. Was this non-interventionist policy the proper course of action for the U.S. to embrace in this particular situation?

(2) Right now, today,  in Dafur, Sudan, basically we have genocide happening once again as the world sits by and watchs. Should we once again embrace this same non-interventionist stance, or, should we-the lone superpower- take the initiative and do something to quell the violence before it is, once again, too late.

(3) HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPLIT, BEFORE YOU NON-INTERVENTIONISTS, HEAR IT CRYING OUT TO YOU FOR HELP. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE BEFORE YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE IT OUR BUSINESS?

Please, CasaWood, don't run from my questions. Give me a number. I'd really like to know.  1 million? 2 million? 6 million? How many, sir?

---

Texas Tommy Two-Shoes said: CasaWood, I've got a couple of questions for you. (1)  In 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, 800,000 human beings lost their lives in a civil war.  Because the U.S. did not take the lead to stop the genocide, the rest of the world sat idly by and did nothing. Was this non-interventionist policy the proper course of action for the U.S. to embrace in this particular situation? (2) Right now, today,  in Dafur, Sudan, basically we have genocide happening once again as the world sits by and watchs. Should we once again embrace this same non-interventionist stance, or, should we-the lone superpower- take the initiative and do something to quell the violence before it is, once again, too late. (3) HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPLIT, BEFORE YOU NON-INTERVENTIONISTS, HEAR IT CRYING OUT TO YOU FOR HELP. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE BEFORE YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE IT OUR BUSINESS? Please, CasaWood, don't run from my questions. Give me a number. I'd really like to know.  1 million? 2 million? 6 million? How many, sir?

I'm sure Casawood will answer you but I will also.

The responsibility of the U S government is to protect  U S citizens, first, last, always and only. The U S government is doing a rotten job of it as 25+ Americans a day are being  raped, murdered and slaughtered on our roads by illegal aliens, mostly Latinos.  Many more thousands of U S citizens daily are robbed, raped, murdered and slaughterd on roads by fellow citizens.

Our government, within U S borders, is unwilling or unable to protect its own citizens from these hideous atrocities. So why should beleagured U S citizens be expected to pony up billions and billions (probably trillions) of dollars to protect the barbarians (of your concern) who have been killing each other for centuries?.....that's right for centuries.

And the same goes for Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing each other is a way of life for them and it has also been going on for centuries. 

Iraqis, Afghans, Rwandans and  others don't want to be like us. They are much older civilizations than the USA and they have not progressed for  reasons known only to them.

This may seem hardhearted and cruel. But the fact is we live in a hard hearted and cruel world. And throwing all the money and manpower this nation can muster up, at the self created  problems of these nations, will not make one bit of difference in the end.

The nations whose people are killing each will still be killing each other centuries after the once great USA has spent itself into oblivion attempting to accomplish mission impossible. 

 

 

johannah said:

Texas Tommy Two-Shoes said: CasaWood, I've got a couple of questions for you. (1)  In 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, 800,000 human beings lost their lives in a civil war.  Because the U.S. did not take the lead to stop the genocide, the rest of the world sat idly by and did nothing. Was this non-interventionist policy the proper course of action for the U.S. to embrace in this particular situation? (2) Right now, today,  in Dafur, Sudan, basically we have genocide happening once again as the world sits by and watchs. Should we once again embrace this same non-interventionist stance, or, should we-the lone superpower- take the initiative and do something to quell the violence before it is, once again, too late. (3) HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPLIT, BEFORE YOU NON-INTERVENTIONISTS, HEAR IT CRYING OUT TO YOU FOR HELP. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE BEFORE YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE IT OUR BUSINESS? Please, CasaWood, don't run from my questions. Give me a number. I'd really like to know.  1 million? 2 million? 6 million? How many, sir?

I'm sure Casawood will answer you but I will also. The responsibility of the U S government is to protect  U S citizens, first, last, always and only. The U S government is doing a rotten job of it as 25+ Americans a day are being  raped, murdered and slaughtered on our roads by illegal aliens, mostly Latinos.  Many more thousands of U S citizens daily are robbed, raped, murdered and slaughterd on roads by fellow citizens. Our government, within U S borders, is unwilling or unable to protect its own citizens from these hideous atrocities. So why should beleagured U S citizens be expected to pony up billions and billions (probably trillions) of dollars to protect the barbarians (of your concern) who have been killing each other for centuries?.....that's right for centuries. And the same goes for Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing each other is a way of life for them and it has also been going on for centuries.  Iraqis, Afghans, Rwandans and  others don't want to be like us. They are much older civilizations than the USA and they have not progressed for  reasons known only to them. This may seem hardhearted and cruel. But the fact is we live in a hard hearted and cruel world. And throwing all the money and manpower this nation can muster up, at the self created  problems of these nations, will not make one bit of difference in the end. The nations whose people are killing each will still be killing each other centuries after the once great USA has spent itself into oblivion attempting to accomplish mission impossible.     

aaaaaa......could it be that maybe...just maybe...Its the humane....morally humane, thing to do?  Duh??

God blesses our nation for a purpose.  We are to be a nation to be emulated. We have a moral duty to be an example before the world.

Thank God, you're not my neighbor. If you saw someone breaking into my home to harm me, you'd probably just sit by and watch.

I'll ask again....HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPILT...HOW MUCH SPLIT BLOOD WILL YOU LET CRY OUT  FOR ACTION?  You've become so wise in your ways that your ears are stopped with your own ideals and your conscience so seared that you are unmoveable. But that's alright. All men must make an account of their actions and inactions eventually.  Cordially!

---

Texas Tommy Two-Shoes said: CasaWood, I've got a couple of questions for you. (1)  In 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, 800,000 human beings lost their lives in a civil war.  Because the U.S. did not take the lead to stop the genocide, the rest of the world sat idly by and did nothing. Was this non-interventionist policy the proper course of action for the U.S. to embrace in this particular situation? (2) Right now, today,  in Dafur, Sudan, basically we have genocide happening once again as the world sits by and watchs. Should we once again embrace this same non-interventionist stance, or, should we-the lone superpower- take the initiative and do something to quell the violence before it is, once again, too late. (3) HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPLIT, BEFORE YOU NON-INTERVENTIONISTS, HEAR IT CRYING OUT TO YOU FOR HELP. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE BEFORE YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE IT OUR BUSINESS? Please, CasaWood, don't run from my questions. Give me a number. I'd really like to know.  1 million? 2 million? 6 million? How many, sir?

 

TexasTommy,

 I'll try not to run too far from your question.  You lament it is the non-interventionists fault these atrosities are occuring in Rwanda and Darfur.  With passion the numbers of innocent lives destroyed are presented and then the finger is pointed toward a policy that, if in effect, may well have helped prevent these tragedies long before they happened.  

Pre-emptive, interventionists run this country RIGHT NOW and they do nothing to help Darfur.  Clinton continued an interventionist policy during his administration and did NOTHING to help Rwanda!

Your comments show a willingness to refuse to understand this country intervenes at its desire.  Over 500,000 Iraqi citizens and, too soon, 4,000 of our brave have died, while so many others are forever wounded, through intervention.  All this while bin Laden is allowed to roam free and Darfur is ignored...how's that interventionist policy working for you so far?

You ask if non-intervention is working, we don't know, our political leaders are too wise to allow it.  We've used a policy of intervention since the Wilson administration.  Let me say this, and I don't speak for anyone but me on this (or anything else I write), non-intervention does not mean isolation or pacifism.  If there were a true non-intervention policy in place during times of crisis like Rwanda and Darfur we would be in a position to rally the world to respond in unity against inhumane actions such as genocides.  We would be in a better position and we would not be picking and choosing where to intervene and where not to intervene based on what is in it for us.

I ask you to ask you pre-emptive, interventionist leaders why they are unwilling or unable to help in places like Rwanda and Darfur when they are more than willing to attack Iraq and threaten Iran further (remembering 1953).  I ask you why you cannot see it is not non-intervention keeping us out of these coutries it is greed, need, and little care from our leaders who have shown they are more than willing to intervene...ask them.  If it were me and my non-interventionist attitude bin Laden would be either captured or killed by now, Rwanda and Darfur would have had a world willing to help, our borders and our country would have the strongest defense available.  1,000,000 is a number far to high, BTW!

---

CasaWood said:

Texas Tommy Two-Shoes said: CasaWood, I've got a couple of questions for you. (1)  In 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, 800,000 human beings lost their lives in a civil war.  Because the U.S. did not take the lead to stop the genocide, the rest of the world sat idly by and did nothing. Was this non-interventionist policy the proper course of action for the U.S. to embrace in this particular situation? (2) Right now, today,  in Dafur, Sudan, basically we have genocide happening once again as the world sits by and watchs. Should we once again embrace this same non-interventionist stance, or, should we-the lone superpower- take the initiative and do something to quell the violence before it is, once again, too late. (3) HOW MUCH BLOOD MUST BE SPLIT, BEFORE YOU NON-INTERVENTIONISTS, HEAR IT CRYING OUT TO YOU FOR HELP. HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE BEFORE YOU'LL BE WILLING TO MAKE IT OUR BUSINESS? Please, CasaWood, don't run from my questions. Give me a number. I'd really like to know.  1 million? 2 million? 6 million? How many, sir?

  TexasTommy,  I'll try not to run too far from your question.  You lament it is the non-interventionists fault these atrosities are occuring in Rwanda and Darfur.  With passion the numbers of innocent lives destroyed are presented and then the finger is pointed toward a policy that, if in effect, may well have helped prevent these tragedies long before they happened.   Pre-emptive, interventionists run this country RIGHT NOW and they do nothing to help Darfur.  Clinton continued an interventionist policy during his administration and did NOTHING to help Rwanda! Your comments show a willingness to refuse to understand this country intervenes at its desire.  Over 500,000 Iraqi citizens and, too soon, 4,000 of our brave have died, while so many others are forever wounded, through intervention.  All this while bin Laden is allowed to roam free and Darfur is ignored...how's that interventionist policy working for you so far? You ask if non-intervention is working, we don't know, our political leaders are too wise to allow it.  We've used a policy of intervention since the Wilson administration.  Let me say this, and I don't speak for anyone but me on this (or anything else I write), non-intervention does not mean isolation or pacifism.  If there were a true non-intervention policy in place during times of crisis like Rwanda and Darfur we would be in a position to rally the world to respond in unity against inhumane actions such as genocides.  We would be in a better position and we would not be picking and choosing where to intervene and where not to intervene based on what is in it for us. I ask you to ask you pre-emptive, interventionist leaders why they are unwilling or unable to help in places like Rwanda and Darfur when they are more than willing to attack Iraq and threaten Iran further (remembering 1953).  I ask you why you cannot see it is not non-intervention keeping us out of these coutries it is greed, need, and little care from our leaders who have shown they are more than willing to intervene...ask them.  If it were me and my non-interventionist attitude bin Laden would be either captured or killed by now, Rwanda and Darfur would have had a world willing to help, our borders and our country would have the strongest defense available.  1,000,000 is a number far to high, BTW!

CasaWood, there are so many false statements and misconceptions in your reply that I am literally dumbfounded! Quite frankly, its going to take me more time than I've got available to me now to adequately answer your reply. (This is not a ploy. I'm a long-haul truck driver and I'm heading for Chicago in a few minutes.) I didn't expect such an answer from you, to be quite honest. This weekend I'll do my best to give your reply the attention it deserves, I promise. Until then, have a good next couple of days. Oh, by the way, what was that number that I was looking for in my post that you failed to put into your reply? Think about it over the next couple of days as I seriously would like to know. Thank you. 

---

Drive safe to Chicago Tommy, keep it between the lines the weather is tough, but you know that better than most of us. 

I thought I addressed your number at the end but I feel any number is too high.  If we were operating under a non-intervention policy many of the challenges we are facing with terrorism may not even be around, we simply cannot say for sure.  Based on the CIAs blowback theories and the decades of intervention in the Middle East I believe we've weakened and tarnished our ability to really gain support around the world for justice.  I think of the support we had right after 9/11 from countries that were not friendly and how it evaporated once we attacked Iraq.  I think of the reasons Putin uses to attempt to rally a Caspian Sea alliance or the reasons Achmadenejhad (? sp) had for gaining the Iran Presidency.  I also wonder why we are willing to invade some countries and yet stand idly by in the face of real human tragedy. 

 As far as misconceptions, I'm sure as we all see things differently.  My views of non-intervention even differ from many others but mine are based on the understanding I have from studying Jefforson and Washington, right or wrong.   False statements?  Well, I'll await your answers to see if I errored, I'm not in the habit of making false statements on purpose.  Anyway, I'll keep you in mind on the roads and await your reply when you are back safe.

---

Mission accomplished, CasaWood! By the grace and enablement of my God, another mission accomplished. I made it back from Chicago.

Now, let me begin:      You say in your 1st paragraph that I lament it is the non-interventionists fault these atrosities are occuring in Rwanda and Dafur. I say, correct, CasaWood. You are very perceptive; I put the blame squarely on their shoulders!

Your next sentence:" With passion the numbers of innocent lives destroyed are presented and then the finger is pointed toward a policy that, if in effect, may well have helped prevent these tragedies long before they happened." I say: Oh, really, CasaWood? May well have...? You don't sound too sure. Sounds a whole lot like just an opinion to me, CasaWood. Or, at best, just a theory.  You say that you are a history buff, and, I say that I am a fair man. Let's prove it to each other.  For every example from history that you can find that legitimately proves your point that a non-interventionist foreign policy actually prevents disasters such as Rwanda and Dafur, I'll find you two, that proves it doesn't. (I could say 5, but I'm trying to be humble.)

Your 2nd paragraph:" Pre-emptive, interventionist run this country RIGHT NOW and they do nothing to help Dafur. Clinton continued an interventionist policy during his administration and did NOTHING to help Rwanda."  I do not agree that the present administration are pre-emtive interventionists. Truth is that they are trying to be, but, the commie left, the hate America liberals and the blame America 1st libertarians are preventing them from being such. I do agree, however, that the Bush Administration is doing far too little. I don't agree that the Clinton Administration continued an interventionist policy. Truth is he just played at it to avert the American peoples eyes from what (who) he was really up to.

Your 3rd paragraph:" Your comments show a willingness to refuse to understand this country intervenes at its desire."  Not so ,my good man. Not so!  CasaWood, do you ever dream? Do you ever just sit quietly in a chair an just let your imagination go....? (Of course you do. What a silly question. Why you're a Libertarian Republican. Good gosh, what's wrong wth me?)

Because I like you so much, CasaWood (really, I'm serious), I'm going to give you a glimpse into the mind, the imagination of a real unhindered pre-emptive interventionist.                                                         

Let's imagine that GWB isn't the president, but that, instead,....(oh, gee, who shall I pick?)... I am.....Texas Tommy is president.

OK, here we go, CasaWood, we're going for a ride: Do you remember back to the last Israelie, Lebanon war? It was a joke! Here's how I would have handled things: (1st) I would have went to Israel and talked with their leaders privately. I would have made it abundantly clear that losing or withdrawing was not an option. I would have persuaded them, in no uncertain terms, tat they were to do everything in their power to draw Syria into the fray. Once that much was accomplished I would (2) send enough US aircraft to Syria to destroy all of their ground and air defenses (aircraft, tanks, radar, etc.) which hopefully would draw Iran to their defense. Once Iran took the initiative, I would have an excuse to bomb the hell right out of them.  Conventional wisdom says that Iran has too many nuclear sites, so deep in the ground, that we'd never get them all, and I agree. My pre-emtive interventionist mind would,  therefore, choose different targets. Instesd, I would use "smart bombs" to target every one of the mullahs, imams and the Republican Guard's houses, in addition to regular army , navy, and air support defenses. (3) Then, the freedom fighters within Iran, that I had previously armed could stepup and finish the job of freeing their country.

You see, CasaWood, as bad as you think this administration is, it could be worst. If a guy like me were president, I'd show you Libertarian Republicans what real unhindered pre-emtive intervention is really about.

No, I do not agree that this country intervenes at its desire. Nonsense.  Once again, we are hindered from being so by the likes of the commie left, the anti-American liberals, and the " heads in the sand" libertarians- leftovers from the sixties generation and their progeny.

2nd sentence, same paragraph:" Over 500,000 Iraqi citizens and too soon, 4000 of our brave have died while so many others are forever wounded, through intervention." Yes, CasaWood, people get killed and wounded in wars. So, are you saying that because this is so, no war is just? Should we just gather all the people of the world together and tell them that, from now on, everybody's got to play nice because too many are dieing and getting maimed? Isn't that really what that evil UN that you libertaians so despise istrying to accomplish? I see you guys standing with the commie left, the anti-war,anti-American liberals. Now, are you really going to align yourselves with the stinking UN in their efforts to eliminate wars?

CasaWood,mark my words, GWB and this war will go down in history-inspite of all of the mistakes and blunders you're so willing to again and again point out- as one of the best executed and smartest wars ever fought. Once again, my history buff friend, I challenge you to go back in history and show me a better executed and well fought war with a lesser amount of casualties and a lesser amount of collateral damage. I don't think its possible, however, if you can, i'll admit I'm wrong.

3rd sentence, same paragraph:" All this while bin Laden is allowed to roam free and Dafur is ignored...how's that interventionist policy working for you so far?" Again, its not a interventionists policy that this administration is operating under. You're just plain wrong! If you were right, things would be going down differently! Bin Laden is being allowed to roam free, which proves my point, not yours. If you read any of the mercenary type magazines, you will soon realize that we have binLaden located just fine. Even though there's a 25 million dollar bounty on his head, he's so well insulated with his comrades AND ALL THEIR FAMILIES WITHIN THESE VARIOUS TRIBES, that they can't reach him. They'd love to get him and, consequently, collect the money, but can't because he has so much help. In other words, CasaWood, There are lots of men, women, and children all around him. If GWB was a real pre-emtive, interventionist, like you claim, those foks around him wouldn't even concern him. Now, I ask you, my friend, do you really think that the American people have the stomach for killing such large numbers of innocents, just to get one man? You think the "Democratics" and their allies are bitching now, what would it be like after we pulled a stunt like that to get binLaden? Get real, CasaWood. Get Real! They'd crucify poor ol' George.  Not even President Texas Tommy, pre-emtive, interventionist that he is, would want that on his conscience. An, as far as Dafur being ignored, since you are a non-interventionist, what's that to you? you can't have it both ways, CasaWood.

4th paragraph, 1st sentence: I don't understand this sentence, so I'm going to by-pass it and go onto the rest of the paragraph, to wit: "Let me say this, and I don't speak for anyone but me on this (or aything else I write), non-intervention does not mean isolation or pacifism. If there were a true non-intervention policy in place during times of crisis like Rwanda and Dafur we would be in a position to rally the world to respond in unity against inhumane actions such as genocides. We would be in a better position and we would not be picking and choosing where to intervene and where not to intervene based on what is in it for us." Sorry, CasaWood, I don't buy your argument. Who's this world you're talking about. By the time GWB sent his Secretary of State all around the world to garner enough support to do something, Rwanda and Dafur, etal., would be done deals. So, I'm left with no other conclusion to draw but to assume that, once again, you're talking about that dreaded bunch of tin-hornrd dictators at the UN. Who else could you be refering to when you say the world?  And, as far as picking and choosing where and when and for what purposes we intervene or don't intervine, who has the right to make such determinations?  CasaWood, its called the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and, the Bush Doctrine, for a reason. Get it? It's the President of the United States perogative to determine his own doctrine, not the commie left's, or, the anti-American Democratics', or, the libertarians who have infiltrated the Republican Party. It's in the Constitution, CasaWood, my friend. The President is the commander -in-chief. He gets to determine. He gets to decide. And, if the Congress doesn't agree, they can block him by not giving him a resolution to go to war, or, by not giving him an outright declaration of war. In addition, they don't have to fund any war that they don't want to. Understand? It's not that complicated, really. Lastly, if we nwould be in a better position to garner support if we were non-interventionists or not, is pure speculation on your part. Quite frankly, I don't think it would make a nickel's worth of difference. No matter what the US's policy is, the rest of the world is clueless when it coes to tragedies. Look how long it took them to get their "stuff"" together in WWII, at which time in the beginning, at least, we were standing aside.

Last paragraph, 1st sentence:" I ask you to ask your pre-emptive, interventionist leaders why they are uwilling or unable to help in places like Rwanda and Dafur when they are more than willing to attack Iraq and threaten Iran further( remembering 1953). " CasaWood, its a matter of priorities and realities. Our Congress, and all the anti-war and anti-interventionists that back them, have intimidated the Bush Administration into believing that the support isn't there to do both- take pre-emptive action for national security and help in situations such as Rwanda and Dafur.  President Texas Tommy would do both, however, GWB is another matter. As far as remembering 1953 goes, how could we forget? We'll always have fellows like you around to keep reminding us.

2nd sentence, last paragraph:" I ask you why you cannot see it is not non-intervention keeping us out of these countries it is greed, need, and little care from our leaders who have shown they are more than willing to intervene...ask them." This, once again, is pure speculation on your part. If you want to believe that, be my guest. I think my explanation is closer to the truth than yours is.

3rd sentence, last paragraph:" If it were me and my non-interventionist attitude bin Laden would be either captured o killed by now, Rwanda and Dafur would have had a world willing to help, our boders and our country would have the strongest defense available. " In the first place, my friend, it would take lots more than your non-interventionist attitude to accomplish all that, and secondly, now who's doing the dreaming?

4th and last sentence, last paragraph: "1,000,000 is a number far too high, BTW! " I'm not too sure what this sentence means, but if its an answer to my  question, CasaWood, I'm holding you to it, as God is my witness.

Well, CasaWood, you really made me work this time. Perhaps in the not too distant future, I can return the favor.                    Cordially!

 

 

  

                                                                                                                                                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gwb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Casawood, you make 150% sense. The Foreign Policy needs to be repealed. You must also understand that we've been a country that has been so conditioned for years to accept intervention as the norm and that no President respects the Constitution that when a Statesman like Ron Paul comes along and talks about repealing our Foreign Policy and getting back to the Law "The Constitution," that in itself is just "FOREIGN" to many Americans. It sounds crazy. That's how far and away we've moved from sanity to insanity. Another thing is what people don't understand is that this government might send funds to nations like Darfur but the funds/food/clothes hardly ever if no NEVER gets to the people that need it most. Instead it goes to the government and/or military and it is used against the people who need it...it is abused. That is why there are still many 3rd world countries where people are starving, dying of diseases, and living in refugee camps. As much money and is sent, these people should still not be living in these conditions. BUT there is much evil in these countries and I'm not just talking about Darfar...pick any other 3rd world country. Besides there are over 6 million American starving in America and we have bridges to fix, homeless people, folks losing jobs, we have A LOT of problems here in our own backyard we need to straighten out before we go anywhere else and fix others problems...and there is abuse in other countries, we can't afford to be big brother to all these countries. If we don't like another country's culture, who are we to go in there and tell them how to run their lives. We don't want our government telling us how to run our lives. SO long as we are law abiding citizens, that's what matters.

Here's what our Foreign Policy of "INTERVENTION" has gotten us. Here's the link if you want the audio/video/or transcript to this program Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/... January 03, 2008 Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners

TexasTommy,

Could it be as simple as" Are we in the UN or not??  Until somebody gets us out of the UN, we are going to be sucked into any and every little fracas that involves oil or uranium.  If those aren't in play, it will be ignored.

Why must the federal government of the US funded by we the taxpayers be the world's policemen.  I understand the domino theory and the notion that if we don't help, then nobody will help us.  But frankly, I don't think there are enough external dominoes to topple us as a country and nobody is going to help us anyway.

If you or I, as private citizens or soldiers of fortune care to get involved in third world politics, that isd fine.  But lets let our government focus on keeping its own house in order and keeping the UN out of its wallet.

---

Ron Paul is campaigning again in Pennsylvania! With the choices that we have at this point in time Ron Paul is truly our only real solution! I hope people will open their eyes soon!

Lady Jane said: Ron Paul is campaigning again in Pennsylvania! With the choices that we have at this point in time Ron Paul is truly our only real solution! I hope people will open their eyes soon!

Keep hoping, Lady Jane. Keep hoping.  6-7% of the vote at best. Just wait and see. Deep down, people know libertarianism is wrong. Its a wedding between that which is good-constitutionalism-which is worth conserving, and, that which is very bad- postmodernist libertinism- which came about in the 1960's and 1970's, and, is not worth preserving. Our forefounders would recognize the one, but, not the other as good for America.

People's eyes are open, Lady Jane, wide open.

---

An important fact that no one seems to have considered:

Out of all of the candidates we had at the start of these primaries, e.g. Tancredo, Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, etc. - who has not yet turned tail and run? Who still has hope that Americans will wake up to the true conditions in this country? Who has shown the moral fiber to stick with it? Who is still putting up with the name-calling and derisible comments?

I believe the answer is - Ron Paul

No candidate will ever be acceptable to 100% of the people at any given time. This is why they have advisers on issues they are unclear about. This is why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights for reference. How many of the candidates, past and present, know or even read these documents?

The symbol of our country is the American Eagle. Our current government has made this symbol an ILL-Eagle. Its time to get the doctor in the house to cure this once-noble symbol.