Ron Paul Testimony to U.S. House Financial Services Committee
This guy seems to be one of the few Republicans who ever talks sense.
Tags:
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to my feed
Search Osterley Times or the Web
Tortured.
Click on picture to buy.
Obama '08
Awards
third Iraq Moratorium
War Child
Bloggers Against Torture
Out of Iraq Blogroll
Amnesty International
Get Involved
Site Meter
Web Stats
License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
"Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a perceived increase in security, deserve neither - and will eventually lose both." Benjamin Franklin.
| Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left |
by Bravenet.com
9 comments:
That was a dumb answer by Bernanke
RP is basically saying, how long can we continue living on borrowed money and BB simply says, well I think we can keep going while people want to buy the US dollar.
Err, isn't the reason Paul brought it up to do something now, rather than wait till it gets to a point where people no longer want the dollar?
Doubly stupid because what he's basically admitting is 'our dollar is cheap and getting cheaper every day'.
I still want to see Obama become Pres, but if this guy won the Republican primaries then I think it would be a good step. If he became Pres then I think it would be markedly different from the fool they have now and he probably wouldn't make a bad President.
Alex,
I, of course, would love to see Obama become President. Personally I always prefer a Democratic candidate to a Republican. But, although he has no chance in Hell of being chosen, Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate amongst the pack who shows any ability to think outside of those narrow Republican talking points.
He actually does understand the problem, which I find little short of miraculous considering the party he seeks to represent.
Seeing as you both would like Obama to be President of my country, then I must assume you agree with his positions (or do you think it would just be neat to have a young good looking black guy as our President?).
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
I disagree with Barak concerning humanitarian problems and agree with him that the Iraq situation is not being helped by US involvement. Indeed, as we have discussed before Jason, your country is now simply arming one side in a civil war. So you are not preventing genocide, you are simply trying to ensure that your side kill more than the other and you're doing it for reasons that suit your nation geopolitically, it's bugger all to do with helping ordinary Iraqis.
the Iraq situation is not being helped by US involvement
Would the Iraq situation be helped by precipitously removing the forces that are providing any semblance of security?
Indeed, as we have discussed before Jason, your country is now simply arming one side in a civil war
Which one side are we arming?
So you are not preventing genocide, you are simply trying to ensure that your side kill more than the other
I'm not clear which side "our side" is. Help me out.
and you're doing it for reasons that suit your nation geopolitically
Since I don't know which side you're referring to, I am also at a loss to guess which reasons that suit the US geopolitically that you might be referring to. Please explain.
You are backing the Sunni militias against the Iranian influenced militias of the government you helped create who you have now lost all influence over.
I find your confusion on this subject troubling as you did comment on this post where Michael Ware explained it all rather neatly.
When he said, "America is backing these guys as a balance against the very government that America created and has lost influence over. Ultimately, America or it's Arab allies are going to support one side or the other and you are looking at the side they are going to support" that he left very little to be confused about.
You are backing the Sunni militias against the Iranian influenced militias of the government you helped create who you have now lost all influence over.
Where is it said that we have lost all influence over the Iraqi government?
As far as backing the Sunni militias against the Iranian backed militias, that's more than a bit simplistic. We are encouraging Sunni militias primarily to work against Al'Qaida, and we are being demonstrably successful doing so.
Further, the side we are backing is the Iraqi government, as proven through our arming and training of the Iraqi national army and police forces, not to mention that the vast majority of our military operations have been carried out against Sunni groups. These forces are predominantly Shia. As many of the Shia police are loyal to JAM and Badr, one could make an argument (not a good one, but an argument nonetheless) that we are arming the Shia against the Sunni. We are also continuing to arm the Kurds as we have for quite some time now. So tell me, which side are we backing?
Where is it said that we have lost all influence over the Iraqi government?
It's blatant in the fact that they are dragging their heels over enacting the oil law that Bush and Co are insisting upon and in the fact that they are opposed to the US arming the Sunni militias.
And yes, I do think that - with the administrations recent decision to realign their support towards the Sunni states as "centers of moderation" - that a long term decision has been taken to oppose Shia regimes. The arming of the Sunni militias is, I think, indicative of a long term shift and shows which side the US will back when this failed enterprise collapses.
It's blatant in the fact that they are dragging their heels over enacting the oil law
The oil law has cleared the cabinet and was recently sent to the full assembly.
in the fact that they are opposed to the US arming the Sunni militias.
However they have (grudgingly?) signed on to the plan, although placing strict limits on the groups they are willing to deal with.
Post a Comment