Ron Paul - Perpetual War is Expensive

[Trench]

"We have spent trillions of dollars based on the false pretense of defending freedom and our Constitution.
We are now seen by the world, not as a peacemaker, but rather a troublemaker and an aggressor. Millions of
citizens have been killed, wounded and displaced in the countries on the receiving end of our bombs,
drones, sanctions and occupation. Iraqi political stability is a joke. Ending hostilities in Afghanistan is a dream.
We are now much poorer and less safe." -- Ron Paul 1/20/2011

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DGeC5fjpHUo" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Duff Miver]

Ron Paul hits the nail on the head.

Why is this simple truth so frigging hard for people to grasp?

 

[Trench]

Duff, the American people have been lied to for so long, they no longer recognize the truth when they hear it.

As we discussed on your thread -- The Death of American Industry -- we've surrendered one industry after another to countries offering an endless source of cheap labor without government regulation and as a result, the engine that drives the American economy more and more is of course, the military industrial complex fueled by perpetual war.

 

[Duff Miver]

Duff, the American people have been lied to for so long, they no longer recognize the truth when they hear it.

As we discussed on your thread -- The Death of American Industry -- we've surrendered one industry after another to countries offering an endless source of cheap labor without government regulation and as a result, the engine that drives the American economy more and more is of course, the military industrial complex fueled by perpetual war.

The problem is that military spending doesn't really drive the economy very well. $1000 spent on bullets provides no benefit beyond the wages paid to produce those bullets, but that same $1000 spent producing food, clothing, education, etc, provides a tangible benefit to the people who pay the bills.

If I pay $1000 to kill Iraqis, I derive no benefit. Money down the toilet. If I pay a farmer, teacher or textile worker $1000, I get food, education or clothing.

Cripes, I don't agree with everything RP thinks, but I may have to vote for him because he at least gets some important things right.

 

[Trench]

The problem is that military spending doesn't really drive the economy very well.

Bingo.

It's a lesson as old as history itself.

 

[Trench]

Nader & Paul on Fox Business News this week...

Nader & Paul on Fox Business News this week...

What a country this could be if Progressives and Libertarians united to fight the
plutocracy of corporatism by electing candidates like Nader and Paul.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kwIZ4syCFLc" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Lumi]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/anmlPvmd1Ew" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Chadman]

What was the original commentary made in response to? Was it some kind of budgetary thing, or a constitutional thing, or what? It's a strong message in the early stages of the session, for sure. One that won't be met with much support from conservatives, I'll bet.

 

[Trench]

What was the original commentary made in response to? Was it some kind of budgetary thing, or a constitutional thing, or what?

My take is that it was just the latest of Paul's statements about our continuing policy of military aggression in the Middle East, but not necessarily a response to a particular event. Of course, Paul's been critical of the buildup of troops in Afghanistan, our continued presence in Iraq, our drone attacks in Pakistan and the threat of expanding our aggression in the region into Iran and Yemen.

IMO, Paul's also interested in continuing to expose the hypocrisy of his peers in Congress. While his Republican colleagues pursue the repeal of HR3200 under the guise of smaller government, they (along with the majority of Democrats) continue to support our runaway military spending.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

Great speech. Too bad nobody will hear it. The guy gets no air time. Remember how he was shoved to the side in the Republican debates? Really frustrating. The two party system BLOWS!

 

[Duff Miver]

Great speech. Too bad nobody will hear it. The guy gets no air time. Remember how he was shoved to the side in the Republican debates? Really frustrating. The two party system BLOWS!

Yes. We most definitely need a third party. It would not have to be huge, say 15% of voters, which would be enough to swing any election to either the Dem or Repub who would do as the third party wanted. I can see both RP and Nader in that party. They don't have to agree on everything as long as they agree on the biggies.

The teabaggers can't be a third party as they are for the most part simply the right wing fringe of the Repubs, and can be depended on not to vote for a Dem. They're content to chew on the occasional rotten bone thrown their way by the Repubs, like the nonsensical "vote to repeal Obamacare" which is DOA.

A third party *could* demand and get control of military spending, corporate influence buying, and promote excellence in education and health care. Since it would be a coalition of strongly opinioned people, they'd have to give up their personal bickering over minor issues like abortion, leaving that and other chickenshit issues for another day.

I'd like to think that 15% of the population could see how well that would work. However I may be giving my fellow citizens too much credit.:facepalm:

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

I'd like to think that 15% of the population could see how well that would work. However I may be giving my fellow citizens too much credit.:facepalm:

We need more people to realize that voting against the current system is a more valuable use of their vote than voting Dem or Repub. People are so worried about wasting their vote, then they go and truly waste it by supporting the system they know is broken.

 

[Duff Miver]

We need more people to realize that voting against the current system is a more valuable use of their vote than voting Dem or Repub. People are so worried about wasting their vote, then they go and truly waste it by supporting the system they know is broken.

True, but just voting for anyone who isn't "one of them" is pointless. It just scatters votes so that either the Dem or Repib wins and doesn't giveashit about anyone else. Business as usual.

What we need is a true third party, with leaders and a platform. Someone would have to be the spearhead, and I don't much care whether it's Ron Paul or Russ Feingold. At least they're both honest men who will stand up to the status quo.

Ross Perot tried, and had enough support. The problem is that he insisted on being the King rather than the kingmaker, so he ended up insignificant. Third place is worthless.

 

[Trench]

Ron Paul: "How to Start a 20 Year War"

Ron Paul: "How to Start a 20 Year War"

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8JANYT8FCik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Trench]

Ron Paul: "If anything, this war is incentive for Al Qaeda to grow in numbers!"

Ron Paul: "If anything, this war is incentive for Al Qaeda to grow in numbers!"

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0zuVFBjxx2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>