[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain?

Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish'

Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow?

Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

Death Certificates Reveal FBI 'Revised' Murder Stats Still Bogus

A $110B bubble on $500M earnings. History warns: Bubbles always burst.

Joy Behar says people like their show because they tell the truth, unlike "dragon believer" Joe Rogan.

Male Passenger Disappointed After Another Flight Ends Without A Stewardess Frantically Asking If Anyone Can Land The Plane

Could the Rapid Growth of AI Boost Gold Demand?

LOOK AT MY ASS!

Elon Musk Responds As British Government "Summons" Him To 'Disinformation' Hearing

MSNBC Contributor Panics Over Trump Nominating Bondi For AG: Dangerous Because Shes Competent

House passes dangerous bill that targets nonprofits, pro-Palestine groups

Navy Will Sideline 17 Support Vessels to Ease Strain on Civilian Mariners

Israel carries out field executions, massacres in north Gaza

AOC votes to back Israel Lobby's bogus anti-Semitism definition

Biden to launch ICE mobile app, further disrupting Trump's mass deportation plan: Report

Panic at Mar-a-Lago: How the Fake Press Pool Fueled Global Fear Until X Set the Record Straight

Donald Trumps Nominee for the FCC Will Remove DEI as a Priority of the Agency

Stealing JFK's Body

Trump plans to revive Keystone XL pipeline to solidify U.S. energy independence

ASHEVILLE UPDATE: Bodies Being Stacked in Warehouses & Children Being Taken Away

American news is mostly written by Israeli lobbyists pushing Zionist agenda

Biden's Missile Crisis

British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost

NASA chooses SpaceX and Blue Origin to deliver rover, astronaut base to the moon

The Female Fantasy Exposed: Why Women Love Toxic Love Stories

United States will NOT comply with the ICC arrest warrant for Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Mississippi’s GDP Beats France: A Shocking Look at Economic Policy Failures (Per Capita)

White House Refuses to Recognize US Responsibility for Escalation of Conflict in Ukraine


Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Bad for America, Bad for Israel, Bad for the World (Dr. Ron Paul)
Source: antiwar.com
URL Source: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/20 ... -for-israel-bad-for-the-world/
Published: May 10, 2012
Author: Dr. Ron Paul
Post Date: 2012-05-10 08:12:53 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 1741
Comments: 134

Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counterproductive foreign policy legislation. This bill’s real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines U.S. diplomatic efforts by making clear that the U.S. is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East.

The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be U.S. policy to “help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge” in the region.

While I absolutely believe that Israel — and any other nation — should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military.

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the U.S.

More than 20 years after the reason for NATO’s existence — the Warsaw Pact — has disappeared, this legislation seeks to find a new mission for that anachronistic alliance: the defense of Israel. Calling for “an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises,” it reads like a dream for interventionists and the military-industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more U.S. interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 109.

#1. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, 4 (#0)

This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to “reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.” However, according to our Constitution, the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the U.S.

This is such a simple and well articulated point.

It's no wonder RP wasn't invited to speak before influential Jewish groups this past December.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   8:31:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)

While I absolutely believe that Israel — and any other nation — should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military.

This is such a simple and well articulated point.

I agree with you.

However, being a cynic, I must look beyond the correctness of the statement, and ask myself, why has Ron Paul been reelected twelve times, run for president three times, always with an anti ISRAEL agenda and is tolerated and ignored? No combined effort by anyone to rid the Congress of such a person?

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   9:11:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom, 4um (#2)

Cyni, I'm sensing that your well founded cynicism has morphed into a personal dislike, which tends to shade your opinion of RP from criticism to harshness. He's a good man, he has a solid message and this run isn't anything like '08. It's far better and he's staying in it till the end. He has grabbed the interest of some in the younger set and hopes of a movement far larger than one man is a possibility. Since no one I know is willing to stick a rifle out of their window yet, he's about the best we got right now.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   9:39:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Jethro Tull (#3)

personal dislike,

You need a new sensor young man.

I suspect we all will have a different perspective on Ron Paul by November. I will not be shocked at whatever course he takes, you may well be.

We have to remember, Romney CANNOT WIN WITHOUT Ron Paul being for or neutral. A negative Paul and we have the black queer again. Wish and reality are NOT bed mates.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   9:59:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Cynicom (#5)

We have to remember, Romney CANNOT WIN WITHOUT Ron Paul being for or neutral. A negative Paul and we have the black queer again.

Your suggestion here is that RP, for the good of the party, will toss aside his principles for a Republican victory. I can honestly say you are nearly alone in your assessment for a number of reasons, the main one being fellow Rs despise him and an endorsement would not only cripple all RP has tried to build, but also it would hamstring his son's future, one you feel strongly is tied to his presidential run. Cyni, IMO he isn't going to Tampa with his delegates to back Romney.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   10:14:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Jethro Tull (#7)

Your suggestion here is that RP, for the good of the party, will toss aside his principles for a Republican victory. I can honestly say you are nearly alone in your assessment for a number of reasons, the main one being fellow Rs despise him and an endorsement would not only cripple all RP has tried to build, but also it would hamstring his son's future, one you feel strongly is tied to his presidential run. Cyni, IMO he isn't going to Tampa with his delegates to back Romney.

1) He (or rather his delegates) may fight in Tampa, but when the nomination process is over and done, Paul will endorse Romney.

2) Paul's not trying to build or destroy anything. My dog has more will to power than Paul. Corollary: Paul does not care that a Romney endorsement will hurt his "cause." He simply does not understand.

3) A Romney endorsement will help Paul Jr., because most Paul Jr. voters will vote for Romney. Do you seriously think Paul Jr. himself isn't going to endorse Romney after Romney secures the nomination? Paul Jr. is less radical than daddy.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10   10:37:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro Tull (#13)

Paul Jr. is less radical than daddy.

Since Rand arrived I have taken care to read as much about his views as possible.

Rand tells us that "big labor" is to blame for the national debt, to blame for the deficit, to blame for lack of jobs, etc etc.

Thats fair but he neglects to tell his readers that big labor is now but eight per cent of the American work force.......

He is for all right to work laws as workers have no rights, then he announces that "doctors have the right to earn a COMFORTABLE living.

Paul has made a deal. If not I maintain the right to use as much ketchup as I like while eating crow.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   10:47:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Cynicom, 4um (#15)

He is for all right to work laws as workers have no rights, then he announces that "doctors have the right to earn a COMFORTABLE living.

Paul has made a deal. If not I maintain the right to use as much ketchup as I like while eating crow.

As I've said before, I haven't followed Rand Paul so I haven't a clue what his policies are. I do feel that the movement RP is building won't fit comfortably on the foot of just anyone, including his son. The young people, and the growing number of vets aren't party pods and leadership will have to be earned, not handed down which is the essence of elitism.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-10   10:58:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Jethro Tull (#18)

The young people, and the growing number of vets aren't party pods and leadership will have to be earned, not handed down which is the essence of elitism.

That is true, and that's another reason I don't think Paul has made a deal.

A Paul endorsement won't actually help Romney much.

---

This communication from Paul about this bill is 100% establishment respectable.

It is not revolutionary. It is not heretical.

HERESY would be basically the same communication, except to OMIT whether it's good for Israel.

HERESY would then be, when asked whether it's bad for Israel, to say "I don't know." Period.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-10   11:22:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#24)

A Paul endorsement won't actually help Romney much.

That being the case, what would be the effect of a neutral stance or vocal opposition?

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-10   11:29:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Cynicom, Jethro Tull (#25)

That being the case, what would be the effect of a neutral stance or vocal opposition?

I don't think RP will endorse Oromney I think he will likely go neutral or vaguely negative - but not overtly or strongly negative.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-05-11   0:39:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Original_Intent, 4um (#42)

I don't think RP will endorse Oromney I think he will likely go neutral or vaguely negative - but not overtly or strongly negative.

Agree.

RP uses the Republican Party as a vehicle to promote his vision for America and not for the country club perks. Romney would and will surly look for his support, but I'd put the chances of that happening at zero percent.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-11   8:29:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Jethro Tull (#46)

I don't think RP will endorse Oromney

That being the case, it would have to be acceptable to Paul that Obama remain President?

As a "loyal republican" it is difficult for me to see Paul standing aside, doing nothing.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   9:56:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Cynicom, 4 (#51)

As a "loyal republican" it is difficult for me to see Paul standing aside, doing nothing.

I can see your having difficulty with the issue. Again, just because Paul uses the Republican Party as a vehicle to reach people with his freedom message doesn't mean he is a member of the 'club.' He isn't and most here know this simply by having watched the debates and seeing how different his positions on war and the economy are when compared to the other pubes. BTW, who is the last presidential nominee he endorsed? McCain? Bush II? Bush I? Dole? If the answer is that he didn't endorse any of them, I think you'll notice a distinct pattern which will carry through to November.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-11   10:09:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Jethro Tull (#53)

. BTW, who is the last presidential nominee he endorsed? McCain? Bush II? Bush I? Dole? If the answer is that he didn't endorse any of them, I think you'll notice a distinct pattern which will carry through to November.

If we look at that pattern of the past, compare it to the present and future, we find one very glaring difference , RAND PAUL.

I know of no Father that would do anything to hinder the future of his own Son, in fact most Fathers would do all in their power to aid that future.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   10:18:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Cynicom, 4um (#54)

If we look at that pattern of the past, compare it to the present and future, we find one very glaring difference , RAND PAUL.

I know of no Father that would do anything to hinder the future of his own Son, in fact most Fathers would do all in their power to aid that future.

OK, so your answer is that RP HASN'T endorsed any of the previous nominees. We agree. And about Rand. If Pop wants to ensure that Rand forever carries a neocon yoke around his neck for the length of his political career, then he'll ENDORSE Romney. Whereas you think a Romney endorsement will help Rand, the opposite is actually true.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-11   10:28:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Jethro Tull, cynicom (#55)

Whereas you think a Romney endorsement will help Rand, the opposite is actually true.

Can you see Paul explicitly endorsing VP Rand but not mentioning Romney?

Cyni -- If Paul is sufficiently cult-like in his mentality, which he may well be, I can see him forsaking his son.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-11   11:05:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#65)

I can see him forsaking his son.

We must remember that the supreme goal here for Paul is to capture the republican nomination for President.

If we stop to consider that might well not happen, then what are we willing to expect or accept from the winner?????

Nothing? That is what was gained last time, nothing. The voters elected a black man that was totally unqualified to be president or janitor. Paul walked away, having thrown in the towel midstream. For our money and support, we also got nothing, not a thing. McKook laughed Ron off the stage.

No third party then nor now, so why not go for broke, demand the pound of flesh NOW?????

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   11:28:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Cynicom (#67)

We must remember that the supreme goal here for Paul is to capture the republican nomination for President.

If we stop to consider that might well not happen, then what are we willing to expect or accept from the winner?????

That is not Paul's supreme goal.

Nothing? That is what was gained last time, nothing. The voters elected a black man that was totally unqualified to be president or janitor. Paul walked away, having thrown in the towel midstream. For our money and support, we also got nothing, not a thing. McKook laughed Ron off the stage.

No third party then nor now, so why not go for broke, demand the pound of flesh NOW?????

They're used to nothing; if they got something, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

This is all probably academic anyway. Though he is cute, Aqua Buddha will probably not be selected for veep.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-11   11:42:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro tull (#69)

That is not Paul's supreme goal.

Is that right????

Damn, fooled me agin.

Last time around I gave a hat full of money to Ron Paul and what puny support I could muster.

Now you shatter me with news that Ron does not want to be president????

Well, this time I have been sitting on my wallet but there are a lot of people here that believe him.

I hate to think they are all Rubes??????

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   12:56:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Cynicom (#75)

I hate to think they are all Rubes??????

Not rubes, no.

No matter what Paul said to HIMSELF when he decided to run, that was not his goal.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-11   15:59:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro tull, Abraxas, Christine, Assorted Rubes, (#82)

If all the Paulites on this forum are sincere in their beliefs and their political protestations, it would seem to an impartial viewer, that they would be supporting Bob Johnson en masse, as soon as Romney is coronated?????

That being true, I would be happy to lemming along with them.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   17:10:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Cynicom, Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro tull, Unsorted Rubes (#83) (Edited)

that they would be supporting Bob Johnson en masse, as soon as Romney is coronated?????

I don't know about this Bob Johnson character......but if the two party fraud offers two frauds--Obama and Romney--and call this farce a choice, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian Ticket. : )

abraxas  posted on  2012-05-11   17:14:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Prefrontal Vortex, Jethro tull, Abraxas, Christine, Assorted Rubes, (#84)

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian Ticket. : )

Well, that makes TWO of us and I will BE TICKED OFF IF PAUL DOES NOT ENDORSE JOHNSON.

As for the rest of our friends here, after Ron kisses Mitt, they will swoon and vote REPUBLICAN.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   17:23:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Cynicom (#88)

I will BE TICKED OFF IF PAUL DOES NOT ENDORSE JOHNSON.

But, Cyni my dear, you are already ticked off at Dr. Paul, so why is his endorsement so important to you? No, he will not kiss Mitt butt. And, no, liberty minded people will not swoon.

abraxas  posted on  2012-05-11   17:32:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: abraxas (#89)

But, Cyni my dear, you are already ticked off at Dr. Paul, so why is his endorsement so important to you? No, he will not kiss Mitt butt. And, no, liberty minded people will not swoon.

From your fingertips to God's mouth truth.

Lod  posted on  2012-05-11   17:48:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Lod, abraxas (#93)

No, he will not kiss Mitt butt.

Unseen and unknown numbers of Paul supporters will indeed vote for Romney, most likely not enough to throw Obama out.

My thinking is that Paul COULD ENSURE THAT THE BLACK MAN LEAVES.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   18:22:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Cynicom (#96)

My thinking is that Paul COULD ENSURE THAT THE BLACK MAN LEAVES.

By replacing him with a pseudo conservative globalist puppet JUST LIKE THE BLACK MAN?

Ensuring ObamaLite and pretending it is some grand improvement is WORTHLESS, IMHO.

abraxas  posted on  2012-05-11   19:48:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 109.

#112. To: abraxas (#109)

By replacing him with a pseudo conservative globalist puppet JUST LIKE THE BLACK MAN?

Exactly...

If you vote, you are part of the system.

Obama was created for a reason, being President was not the main agenda.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11 20:02:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: abraxas, Cynicom (#109)

Ensuring ObamaLite and pretending it is some grand improvement is WORTHLESS, IMHO.

What I want to know is would the real cynic please stand up?

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-05-11 20:13:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 109.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]