Ron Paul on Libya: 'Victory for Empire,but Loss for American Republic'...

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul today denounced the United States intervention in Libya, criticizing the operation as unconstitutional and costly.

The longtime Texas congressman, who is in third place in the GOP nomination race, according to Gallup polls released this week, wrote in a statement that the United States was in no position to meddle in Libyan affairs.

“The current situation in Libya may be a short term victory for Empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic,” Paul wrote. “And, I fear it may be devastating to the Libyan people.”

“There is no doubt that Moammar Gadhafi is a bad guy, and that he has brought harm and misery to his country,” Paul continued. “However, our involvement in another country’s civil war is costly and unconstitutional.”

Paul said the he fears the the country will be taken over by another dictator or descend into sectarian anarchy, rather than peacefully transitioning to a democracy. Meanwhile, he wrote, the United States has spent money overseas while in the midst of a debt crisis.

“We have spent over $1 billion on a war that this administration has fought not with the consent of Congress, but under a NATO flag and authorization from the United Nations,” he wrote.

“And so, our government continues to spend trillions of dollars in overseas foreign wars while we face unsustainable debt, a looming dollar crisis, and our Constitution seems to lose any meaning,” Paul continued. “These actions will sink our country if we do not reverse course.”



Read more: Ron Paul | Libya Intervention | Victory For Empire | The Daily Caller
http://www.drudgereport.com/
 
Last edited:

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
 
OP
LibocalypseNow

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
Ron Paul does not hate Democracy. Your statement is dishonest & bizarre.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
More likely the country will dissolve into tribal warfare and genocide.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,459
Reaction score
4,494
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
Ron Paul does not hate Democracy. Your statement is dishonest & bizarre.
Ron Paul is bizarre, but that's a given. He's a libertarian and, like the Marxists, doesn't realize it would take a basic shift in human nature for his philosophy to work. :cuckoo:
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
There is nothing horrible about that. There is, however, something repulsive about the way Obama went about it.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
Ron Paul does not hate Democracy. Your statement is dishonest & bizarre.
Ron Paul is bizarre, but that's a given. He's a libertarian and, like the Marxists, doesn't realize it would take a basic shift in human nature for his philosophy to work. :cuckoo:
What basic shift would it take?
 
OP
LibocalypseNow

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48

Google

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
499
Points
130
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
Substitute Lybians for Iraqis and see how stupid you are.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
There is nothing horrible about that. There is, however, something repulsive about the way Obama went about it.
QW is right. I even supported the no-fly zone and even NATO's aggressive interpretation of it. But it boggles my mind why Obama chose not to seek Constitutional authorization.

So I half agree with Ron Paul: the war can be opposed purely on Constitutional grounds. As for cost, a few billion is worth the price for toppling Qaddaffi and the chance at democracy in Libya.

There are definitely some imperial considerations to this war, though. Germany and Italy together were getting about half of Libya's oil. They opposed the war. The UK, US, and France got comparatively less oil from Libya, and were the push behind NATO's offensive.

 

Google

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
499
Points
130
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
There is nothing horrible about that. There is, however, something repulsive about the way Obama went about it.
QW is right. I even supported the no-fly zone and even NATO's aggressive interpretation of it. But it boggles my mind why Obama chose not to seek Constitutional authorization.

So I half agree with Ron Paul: the war can be opposed purely on Constitutional grounds. As for cost, a few billion is worth the price for toppling Qaddaffi and the chance at democracy in Libya.

There are definitely some imperial considerations to this war, though. Germany and Italy together were getting about half of Libya's oil. They opposed the war. The UK, US, and France got comparatively less oil from Libya, and were the push behind NATO's offensive.


Does it boggle your mind why Obama chose the circumvent the constitutional authority of the US Congress for the approval from the United National Security Council?

Some imperial considerations to this 'kinetic military actions', no shit?

War? What war? The constitutional understanding of war was destroyed over a half century ago.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
There is nothing horrible about that. There is, however, something repulsive about the way Obama went about it.
QW is right. I even supported the no-fly zone and even NATO's aggressive interpretation of it. But it boggles my mind why Obama chose not to seek Constitutional authorization.

So I half agree with Ron Paul: the war can be opposed purely on Constitutional grounds. As for cost, a few billion is worth the price for toppling Qaddaffi and the chance at democracy in Libya.

There are definitely some imperial considerations to this war, though. Germany and Italy together were getting about half of Libya's oil. They opposed the war. The UK, US, and France got comparatively less oil from Libya, and were the push behind NATO's offensive.


Does it boggle your mind why Obama chose the circumvent the constitutional authority of the US Congress for the approval from the United National Security Council?
Why are the two mutually exclusive? In fact, under the War Powers Act, Obama was free to seek UN approval first, then come back to Congress, UN approval and NATO commitments in hand, say, "We cannot abandon the commitments made to our allies," and almost certainly get Congressional approval.

But he didn't even do that. This really infuriated me.
 
OP
LibocalypseNow

LibocalypseNow

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
12,337
Reaction score
1,361
Points
48
I just don't see how anyone Left or Right,can celebrate murdering the man's young Grandchildren. They found their dead burnt bodies a couple of days ago. Watching people jumping for joy over that stuff really is extremely disappointing & depressing. I just can't be proud of my Government supporting the needless slaughter of those kids. What was it all about anyway? Democracy?? Yea right. Those kids were slaughtered because of Europe and America's bloodthirsty lust for Oil. Shame on anyone celebrating this awful mess.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
I just don't see how anyone Left or Right,can celebrate murdering the man's young Grandchildren. They found their dead burnt bodies a couple of days ago. Watching people jumping for joy over that stuff really is extremely disappointing & depressing. I just can't be proud of my Government supporting the needless slaughter of those kids. What was it all about anyway? Democracy?? Yea right. Those kids were slaughtered because of Europe and America's bloodthirsty lust for Oil. Shame on anyone celebrating this awful mess.
Most people weren't jumping for joy over the dead grandchildren. They were jumping joy for the removal of Gathafi.

Obama's lack of congressional authorization mars an otherwise relatively successful (and lucky) model for regime change.
 

Google

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
499
Points
130
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
There is nothing horrible about that. There is, however, something repulsive about the way Obama went about it.
QW is right. I even supported the no-fly zone and even NATO's aggressive interpretation of it. But it boggles my mind why Obama chose not to seek Constitutional authorization.

So I half agree with Ron Paul: the war can be opposed purely on Constitutional grounds. As for cost, a few billion is worth the price for toppling Qaddaffi and the chance at democracy in Libya.

There are definitely some imperial considerations to this war, though. Germany and Italy together were getting about half of Libya's oil. They opposed the war. The UK, US, and France got comparatively less oil from Libya, and were the push behind NATO's offensive.

You know what baffles me? People that say bullshit like you. You admit that the military action is unconstitutional and done so for the interests of foreign counties, but it was worth it all so that Libyans can be 'free'. On what historical context do you believe that the result of this is going to be a free Libya?

Of all the countries in Africa that have committed sickening, disgusting, deplorable actions against their own people Libya is far down on that list. The only damned reason this happened is because of its significance to Europe, and to say otherwise just demonstrates your own ignorance. You give a damn about the people of Africa, bullshit.
 

Wacky Quacky

Gold Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
377
Points
130
Yeah how horrible it is that the Lybians will get a shot at freedom and Democracy.

It never fails to amaze how much some hate Democracy
That's the job of the Lybian people and the UN. We are not the police force of the world, nor can we afford to be given our financial and troop deployment situations.

It never fails to amaze me to watch a party hack defend one president and chastise another, when they both did almost the same thing.
 

Google

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
499
Points
130
QW is right. I even supported the no-fly zone and even NATO's aggressive interpretation of it. But it boggles my mind why Obama chose not to seek Constitutional authorization.

So I half agree with Ron Paul: the war can be opposed purely on Constitutional grounds. As for cost, a few billion is worth the price for toppling Qaddaffi and the chance at democracy in Libya.

There are definitely some imperial considerations to this war, though. Germany and Italy together were getting about half of Libya's oil. They opposed the war. The UK, US, and France got comparatively less oil from Libya, and were the push behind NATO's offensive.


Does it boggle your mind why Obama chose the circumvent the constitutional authority of the US Congress for the approval from the United National Security Council?
Why are the two mutually exclusive? In fact, under the War Powers Act, Obama was free to seek UN approval first, then come back to Congress, UN approval and NATO commitments in hand, say, "We cannot abandon the commitments made to our allies," and almost certainly get Congressional approval.

But he didn't even do that. This really infuriated me.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Are you F-ing serious? Why is the United Nations Security Council, comprised of such countries as Sudan, Iran, China, ect exclusive from the United States Congress.

Read the Constitution and perhaps you'll figure out why the two are mutually exclusive. What pure, unadulterated neo-conservative bullshit.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
Does it boggle your mind why Obama chose the circumvent the constitutional authority of the US Congress for the approval from the United National Security Council?
Why are the two mutually exclusive? In fact, under the War Powers Act, Obama was free to seek UN approval first, then come back to Congress, UN approval and NATO commitments in hand, say, "We cannot abandon the commitments made to our allies," and almost certainly get Congressional approval.

But he didn't even do that. This really infuriated me.

Why are the two mutually exclusive? Are you F-ing serious? Why is the United Nations Security Council, comprised of such countries as Sudan, Iran, China, ect exclusive from the United States Congress.

Read the Constitution and perhaps you'll figure out why the two are mutually exclusive. What pure, unadulterated neo-conservative bullshit.
You apparently don't even understand what I mean by mutually exclusive. You seem to believe that if a US President gets UN authorization he therefore can't or shouldn't get Congressional authorization as well. That's a logical fail.

But yeah, attack my motives and call me a neo-con. Continue to marginalize yourself from potential allies on issues.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top