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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Nicotine and Fish

Genocide Summer Camp, And Other Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

This Can Create Endless Green Energy WITHOUT Electricity

Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It

Pam Bondi Ordered Prosecution of Dr. Kirk Moore After Refusing to Dismiss Case

California woman bombarded with Amazon packages for over a year

CVS ordered to pay $949 MILLION in Medicaid fraud case.

Starmer has signed up to the UNs agreement to raise taxes in the UK

Magic mushrooms may hold the secret to longevity: Psilocybin extends lifespan by 57% in groundbreaking study

Cops favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

Leftist Anti ICE Extremist OPENS FIRE On Cops, $50,000 REWARD For Shooter

With great power comes no accountability.

Auto loan debt hits $1.63T. 20% of buyers now pay $1,000+ monthly. Texas delinquency hits 7.92%.

Quotable Quotes from the Chosenites

Tokara Islands NOW crashing into the Ocean ! Mysterious Swarm continues with OVER 1700 Quakes !

Why Austria Is Suddenly Declaring War on Immigration

Rep. Greene Wants To Remove $500 Million in Military Aid for Nuclear-Armed Israel From NDAA

Netanyahu Lays Groundwork for Additional Strikes on Iran: 'We Didn't Deal With The Enriched Uranium'

Sweden Cracks Down On OnlyFans - Will U.S. Follow Suit?

Joe Rogan CALLS OUT Israel's Media CONTROL

Communist Billionaire Accused Of Funding Anti-ICE Riots Mysteriously Vanishes

6 Factors That Describe China's Current State

Trump Thteatens to Bomb Moscow and Beijing

Little Bitty

Vertiv Drops After Amazon Unveils In-House Liquid Cooling System, Marking Pivot To Liquid

17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago

Hamas Still Killing IDF Soldiers After 642 Days

Copper underpins every part of the economy. If you want to destroy the U.S. economy this is how you would do it.

Egyptian Pres. Gamal Abdel Nassers Chilling Decades-Old Prediction About Israel-Palstine Conflict.

Debt jumps $366B in one day.


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: 3867
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 # 71.

#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  


#57. To: Jethro Tull (#55)

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

Now there is a contradiction of contradictions.

Two things are likely to happen if Ron "sits" this one out.

The black man might well remain President and the "party" stalwarts will owe Rand nothing, in fact might well make sure Rand goes away.

Your political math is askew, in politics 2 plus 2 does NOT always equal 4. In politics there are things going on all the time that we have no knowledge of, namely, Ron WILL NOT do anything that harms his sons future, he is a Father first, a republican second.

Cynicom  posted on  2012-05-11   10:42:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Cynicom (#57)

Now there is a contradiction of contradictions.

Two things are likely to happen if Ron "sits" this one out.

The black man might well remain President and the "party" stalwarts will owe Rand nothing, in fact might well make sure Rand goes away.

Your political math is askew, in politics 2 plus 2 does NOT always equal 4. In politics there are things going on all the time that we have no knowledge of, namely, Ron WILL NOT do anything that harms his sons future, he is a Father first, a republican second.

All this misses the mark by a wide margin. RP has built a movement that will head on down to Tampa and be vocal. His movement is not a Republican movement, but rather a Fabian-like stealth attempt to infect the Republican party with libertarian thinkers. Is it possible? You bet. Think back to how the paleoconservatives in the Republican party squawked when the neoconservatives were allowed to stick their nose under the tent. Those same Zeos now control the party and the paleo's are on the outside looking in. So, we aren't discussing rudimentary math here, but rather a bold initiative to reform one wing of the national politic. It damn well is worth a shot.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-11   10:56:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Jethro Tull (#62)

His movement is not a Republican movement, but rather a Fabian-like stealth attempt to infect the Republican party with libertarian thinkers.

Oh c'mon. Paul and most Paulites haven't a stealthy bone in their body.

Now, some of those indispensible middleman minority organizers in the Paul campaign are another matter.

There's infection going on, to be sure.

Prefrontal Vortex  posted on  2012-05-11   11:48:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#70)

Oh c'mon. Paul and most Paulites haven't a stealthy bone in their body.

Let's see what his delegates do in Tampa before we blow off this strategy.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2012-05-11   11:51:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 71.

        There are no replies to Comment # 71.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 71.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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