Ron Paul: Why Obama Is Wrong On Libya...

[LibocalypseNow]

Libya is likely headed towards becoming another Gulf War I. Ironically,the Left screeched 24/7 about that being an "Evil" & "Illegitimate" War. Now look at em spinning their own current Bombing Campaign. Their spin is becoming dumber & dumberer by the minute. It's just fun entertainment at this point. Hypocritical and dishonest hilarity at its finest. Stick around though because it's sure to become even more bizarre.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well.......which way do you want the president to play this?

You conservatives seem to be playing both sides of the fence.

Do you want Obama to declare war on Libya?
Or ....Do you want him to wait and see how it plays out?


Or do you just want to say...whichever path Obama chooses, I am against it

Obama said we'd get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and GITMO, he hasn't kept his promise. It's YOU LIBERALS who are PLAYING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE.

YOU LIBERALS VOTE FOR HOPE AND CHANGE! IS THIS THE CHANGE YOU VOTE FOR? WHERE ARE ALL THE "ANTI-WAR" LIBERALS NOW?

Oh yeah, a Democrat is in office, so war is good and acceptable.

I oppose this action. Apologize for lying about my position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libya is likely headed towards becoming another Gulf War I. Ironically,the Left screeched 24/7 about that being an "Evil" & "Illegitimate" War. Now look at em spinning their own current Bombing Campaign. Their spin is becoming dumber & dumberer by the minute. It's just fun entertainment at this point. Hypocritical and dishonest hilarity at its finest. Stick around though because it's sure to become even more bizarre.

Stop lying about my position if you don't want to get neg repped.

 

[WillowTree]

Bah...in matters like this you need a decisive leader who will make decisions.
Not a group of lawyers and socialites debating ad nauseum on whether it is an ect of war or not.
1000's of Libyans have been killed by their own government while guys like this want to talk and talk and talk.

What decision do you want?

You want to bring us into a third war?

If Libya attacks us then we should go to war. Not until then.

 

[Londoner]

If Libya attacks us then we should go to war. Not until then.

Exactly Willow.

This is the feeling of the old isolationist conservative party, the one that tried to tell men like FDR and Truman that Government didn't have the money or competence to save the world. [The old conservatives used to protect us from the liberal "world improvers" who wanted to bankrupt the taxpayer on behalf of the impossible, e.g., turning Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya into quaint America-loving satellites] These smart isolationist conservatives realized that nothing concentrates executive power or grows the size of government more than its war powers -- because war, more than anything else, can be used by corrupt or incompetent bureaucrats to enlarge budgets and erode freedoms (which freedoms bureaucrats hate because they can be used by citizens to curb the growth and power of the state, and thus end the free ride of bureaucrats).

The old conservative party didn't suffer from the illusion that Big Government could end poverty at home or eradicate evil abroad. [While improving or saving the world might be a noble endeavor, this is beyond the scope of Washington's capacities and rightful duties] Moreover, conservatives realized that attempts to save the world meant that the American people had to build highly concentrated levers of power inside Washington. Making Washington powerful enough to control 50 states was lamentable; making it large enough to control the globe was a disaster of bankrupting proportions. Which is why the old conservatives drew a strong line between defending the nation (a necessary goal), and saving or managing the world (a liberal pipe-dream)

The old conservative party wisely taught us to be weary of concentrated-power-levers because those levers were used by fallible, corruptible bureaucrats. Meaning: if we tried to end evil abroad, we would be stuck inside bankrupting quagmires, as Washington only got bigger and stronger.

The great conservative postwar president, Dwight D. Eisenhower -- a man who straddled the ideological divide between the old isolationism and the emerging 'military-forward' Cold War -- warned America of the dangers of the military industrial complex, which would spawn whole industrial sectors inside defense policy, leading to perverse incentives where Halliburton was paid to rebuild things blown up by Lockheed Martin at "no-bid" rates.

Eisenhower watched as anti-communism trumped isolationism, and conservatives increasingly supported pre-emptive military action to spread democratic utopia in the face of a strategically overblown soviet threat.

(The Left over-emphasizes poverty and inequality to grow Washington's power; the Right, starting with the Cold War, over-emphasized National Security to do the same. Each party created a special interest network of immoveable government agencies and feeder industries who benefited from the policies of their political ATM machines. This is exactly what the old conservative party warned would happen if you gave Washington too much power to do anything, including defense. These special interests would eventually use the concentrated power of government to grow a "no-bid" culture which enriches itself at the expense of the people).

I've tried to talk to some of my Republican friends about the transition from small isolationist government to Big Military Government -- especially under Reagan, who slyly grew Washington more than any politician in the past 50 years -- but I can tell they've never studied the history of their own party. The brilliance of conservative isolationism was suppressed by Talk Radio and FOX News to convince most of America to get behind George Bush in 2003. That is, we have a generation of voters who have been captured by party Aparachicks like Mark Levine and Rush Limbaugh, who do the bidding of Movement Conservatism, which ultimately answers to the interests which have corrupted defense policy in ways that keep great men like Ron Paul up at night.

Ron Paul thinks we didn't have 3 trillion dollars to attack a country who posed no threat (no matter how evil the dictator in charge)-- and he is more worried than anyone else about what is going to happen when the War on Terrorism comes back in 2012, when the neoconservatives re-take Washington. We are going to descend back into the rabbit hole of color coded hysteria, where shadowy connections are fabricated between retarded underwear bombers and countries which contain lots of oil. The only way we can protect ourselves from the kind of bankruptcy Ron Paul predicts, is if both political parties transcend their current echo chambers and start studying policy and history.

Turn off Limbaugh and FOX and study policy and history. Your ignorance hurt us terribly in 2003 -- we can't afford the second act.
http://www.rense.com/general80/wilmce2.htm

 

[Londoner]

Ron Paul thinks the money in the link below should be given back to tax payers. He thinks that if The People of America had this money, our country would not be bankrupt.

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

(When the neoconservatives re-take Washington in 2012... and they decide to ramp-up the War on Terrorism, will everyone please listen to Ron Paul. We need the Rightwing of American politics to return to being the party that limits Washington's spending and power. Turn off talk radio and take your party back)

 

[Garfield]

Let Libyans take care off their own business. We got enough wars to fight and no money to pay for it.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Too many people are still confusing Neo-conservatism with real Conservatism. No matter how often you try to explain the differences,most just ignore and continue on with their willful ignorance. The fact is,most Republicans & Democrats fully support this current Foreign Intervention. That's because the Neocons and Socialists/Progressives control the parties. Both the Neocons and Socialists/Progressives fully support aggressive Foreign Interventionism. And they always have. They both really do agree on much more than they like to admit. This is the big problem with our country. We need a real alternative to them both. A real Conservative would vehemently oppose this Intervention.

 

[High_Gravity]

"NO WAR FOR OIL!!"...Where did all those people go? Do they really think bombing Libya isn't about Oil? Hmm?

Its all about those lucrative multi billion dollar contracts.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea the "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps are full-fledged Hopey Changey sycophants now. So don't expect to hear from them this time around. It is what it is.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yea the "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps are full-fledged Hopey Changey sycophants now. So don't expect to hear from them this time around. It is what it is.

According to them this war is all about stopping Ghaddafi from killing his own people, if thats the case when are the US Cruise Missiles and French Fighter Jets heading to Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran and Zimbabwe?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea the "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps are full-fledged Hopey Changey sycophants now. So don't expect to hear from them this time around. It is what it is.

According to them this war is all about stopping Ghaddafi from killing his own people, if thats the case when are the US Cruise Missiles and French Fighter Jets heading to Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iran and Zimbabwe?

Right On. Well said.

 

[Baron]

Obama is in all matters wrong except his huge respect to Islam, Lenin and Homosexuals.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

A "No Fly Zone" that shoots & kills guys in Tanks and Cars. They're already lying. Unless Libya has flying Tanks & Cars we don't know about? How sad.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Ahh Hope & Change. Enjoy.