Rep. Paul stands out in a crowd, he refuses to attack Pearl Harbor.
The Republicans annoy me. They stand up and argue about whether or not they would sneak up on Iran and hit them when they weren't looking. Or, maybe because they think it doesn't matter whether the world is looking at their criminal behavior, they just say it would be O.K. with them if we attacked the Iranians even though they haven't done anything to us, or are any threat to anyone.
The recent Republican debate got written up by the socialists, here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/repu-j07.shtml
They note that out of ten Republican candidates only one thought it was important to note that nuking another country, as his opponents had just recommended, was a moral issue. The socialists recalled the exchanges,
"...After some initial discussion on the Iraq war, in which nine of the ten candidates vowed to persevere in the effort to control the oil-rich country, Blitzer asked Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, about recent talks between US and Iranian officials in Baghdad. He asked Hunter whether it was correct to negotiate with Iran, given Iran’s alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. When Hunter endorsed the talks, Blitzer followed up with this question:
Blitzer: If it came down to a preemptive US strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
Hunter: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges.
Blitzer then turned to former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who currently leads in opinion polls of prospective Republican primary voters.
Blitzer: What do you think, Mayor? Do you think if you were president of the United States and it came down to Iran having a nuclear bomb, which you say is unacceptable, you would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
Giuliani: Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.
The same question was then posed to former Virginia Governor James Gilmore, and to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the candidate with the most backing from Wall Street and other financial interests.
Gilmore criticized “the desire for Iran to dominate that portion of the world,” adding that while he supported negotiations with Iran, “We’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.”
Questioned by Blitzer, Romney used the same formulation.
Blitzer: Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?
Romney: You don’t take options off the table.
These four candidates were the only ones directly asked the question, but five others—Senator John McCain, Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee—had ample opportunity to object or to distinguish their positions from this endorsement of mass murder.
Only one candidate chose to do so, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, the former Libertarian presidential candidate. Paul, a conservative politician who articulates the isolationist strain in American bourgeois politics, is a critic of the Iraq war. He finally addressed the issue of using nuclear weapons an hour after it was raised, in response to a question from a college professor in the audience, who asked what each candidate thought was the most important moral issue facing the country.
Several of the Republican candidates gave predictable responses, citing abortion and the “right to life,” a right which they are not prepared to concede to the people of Iraq, Iran or any other country that stands in the way of American imperialism. Congressman Paul’s response is worth quoting, since it demonstrates how far the “mainstream” of American bourgeois politics has gone in embracing mass killing as an instrument of state policy.
Blitzer: Congressman Paul, what’s the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?
Paul: I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition... And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!”
These remarks were greeted with considerable applause, an indication that even among self-identified rank-and-file Republicans there is growing unease over the escalating militarism of the American ruling elite..."
I don't want to watch something that's so painful. Here my Dad spent his war time years in the Pacific in the engine room of some kamikazee target, and the Republicans tell us they approve of sneak attacks.
They would not have argued with the Japanes Imperial staff, "Well, even though we know the United States is building nuclear bombs, we need to negotiate with them about our differences. We need to find a way to prevent a war that will only kill millions."
No, instead, I hear the Republicans, less the honorable Representative Ron Paul from Texas, say that they would recommend some kind of sneak attack when the Americans/Iranians weren't looking so we could get the best effect. Wouldn't want peace negotiators or weapons inspectors to get in the way of a good whooping now.
All this is to say, I believe, that the Republicans think my Dad was a fool to fight against the people that were only doing what they would now recommend if given half a chance.
Kudos to the candidate from Texas for being on my Dad's side.
I agree.
Ron Paul is America's clear and only choice.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...Voltaire
which prohibits any candidate to accept money for elections be it for senate or president. Its impossible to have fair and open elections if the only rich candidates bought by the different lobbying groups have decent presentations to the electorate. All western governments are duped into illusive multi party choices when they need to vote for their leaders. We all know that dems (damned) and reps (reptilians) are working for the same lobbying "magneto" master. I bet you if Ron Paul is elected new president, and he will never be, when faced with corrupt and bribed senate, hose, permanent gov agencies they will either make him do magneto's will or he will be done away in some black op accident. You need to dismantle electoral hierarchy from bottom to top to be sufficiently empowered to deal with shadow government that is not liable to any election. Until that happens US and western citizens will be just slaves with false tag of freemen. I know you need awesome divine intervention for this to happen because such cleanup is almost beyond comprehension due to the accumulated political corruption for the last 300 years. Yes corruption came to US with the settlers and their first financial politics. In Europe it is going on since the time of Romans and it never ceased. I guess that is why God decided to preserve Jesus to return and fix this abomination called "freedom and democracy". We don't need empty words but reality that they are meant for.
"Let there be Light!"
Truth Seeker--If either DR.RON PAUL, or MIKE GRAVEL don't become our next president this country and the sleeping citizens are doomed to third world status, an ex-superpower destroyed by the laziness and lack of care by it's three million citizens..