Ron Paul: US 'democracy promoting' kills democracy - Polidicks

[quote]“That five billion dollars appears to have bought a revolution in Ukraine,” Paul wrote. “But what do the US taxpayers get, who were forced to pay for this interventionism? Nothing good.”[/quote] [quote]“It is not democracy to send in billions of dollars to push regime change overseas. It isn’t democracy to send in the NGOs to re-write laws and the constitution in places like Ukraine. It is none of our business,” he added.[/quote] [quote]“Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by US troops was called a ‘triumph of democracy’?” he asked.[/quote] [quote]“We can promote democracy with a US private sector that engages overseas. A society that prospers through increased trade ties with the US will be far more likely to adopt practices and policies that continue that prosperity and encourage peace,” he wrote.[/quote] [img]http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/24/1c/50/00/ron_paul.si.jpg[/img] [url]http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-democracy-ukraine-909/[/url] I know Ron Paul is a controversial figure on this forum put personally I agree with his stance on this issue, and western interventionism in general.

The US doesn't even have a democracy anymore.

Let Europe deal with Europe's problem in Ukraine.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342134]Let Europe deal with Europe's problem in Ukraine.[/QUOTE] Yes. That has always worked out. Yep.

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44342054][img]http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/24/1c/50/00/ron_paul.si.jpg[/img] [url]http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-democracy-ukraine-909/[/url] I know Ron Paul is a controversial figure on this forum put personally I agree with his stance on this issue, and western interventionism in general.[/QUOTE] notice how russiatoday is reporting this and how it seems to blame america as opposed to mentioning that russia occupied part of the country and annexed it spend a few minutes thinking it over

Ron Paul is my hero and he is a true american... well besides wanting a gold standard which is supposedly bad. Anyway he's not a senator anymore and we're still hearing from him? Anyway he makes a valid point.

[QUOTE=Thlis;44342145]Yes. That has always worked out. Yep.[/QUOTE] Because history repeats itself every single time. Putin isn't Hitler, he's not aiming to take over the world. Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342277]Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.[/QUOTE] Have you ever read a history book, or for that matter, a book?

[QUOTE=Thlis;44342296]Have you ever read a history book, or for that matter, a book?[/QUOTE] If I'm wrong, it's more useful to actually put out an argument than a dumb zinger.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342306]If I'm wrong, it's more useful to actually put out an argument than a dumb zinger.[/QUOTE] the way you worded this makes it nearly impossible for any replies to this to not be a zinger

ron paul is the greatest thinker of our time. i feel sorry for anyone who does not believe in ron paul; you will not be going to heaven in the upcoming rapture.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342277]Because history repeats itself every single time. Putin isn't Hitler, he's not aiming to take over the world. Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.[/QUOTE] Do you mean without US troops or without US supplies or what? Because without any non-European countries/colonies involvement at all (Including Canada, Australia, USA, etc.) then Russia might've lost against Germany.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342277]Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.[/QUOTE] The Japanese would have conquered China had it not been for America, and had it not been for China the Americans would have lost the war. This has huge implications when you consider the USSR.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44342518]Do you mean without US troops or without US supplies or what? Because without any non-European countries/colonies involvement at all (Including Canada, Australia, USA, etc.) then Russia might've lost against Germany.[/QUOTE] Or 2/5ths of the Normandy Landing beaches. Or the supplies sent across the Atlantic prior to entering the war. But no that would be "Imposing democracy" for the US to send military vehicles/ weapons/ and supplies to an overseas nation.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44342518]Do you mean without US troops or without US supplies or what? Because without any non-European countries/colonies involvement at all (Including Canada, Australia, USA, etc.) then Russia might've lost against Germany.[/QUOTE] Troops [editline]24th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44342548]The Japanese would have conquered China had it not been for America, and had it not been for China the Americans would have lost the war. This has huge implications when you consider the USSR.[/QUOTE] Japan attacked us, it wasn't really a choice for us to fight them.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342306]If I'm wrong, it's more useful to actually put out an argument than a dumb zinger.[/QUOTE] ok While you could argue the Russians did the bulk of the work over in the Eastern Front, you're an idiot if you say the US didn't Britain -- Winston Churchill was desperate for FDR's support but he couldn't stage a direct military intervention and retain support of congress/the public as well On September 2nd, 1940, he supplied the British with 50 American destroyers, which were desperately needed in Britain's naval front; this was known as the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. Before America's military intervention in 1941 (specifically March 11th, 1941), FDR's Lend-Lease policy supplied Britain with needed equipment (about 1/4th of British equipment was American) and other various resources against the Axis powers which pretty much ended any concept of American neutrality during the war but kept us out of a hot war. As soon as America entered the war, we wanted to take down Germany first so as to provide instant relief for Churchill (which we pretty much devastated Vichy French forces in Casablanca/the rest of Africa). Of course, we also had to allocate our resources towards the Pacific front so as to reclaim our islands which were critical at the time Then there was the invasion of Italy through Sicily and upward which provided more relief for the British as forced the Germans to reallocate their attention. Then of course D-Day much later on, blah blah blah Regardless, Winston Churchill himself stated that without the US, the UK would have fallen. A part of his strategy was literally a waiting game until FDR's support and for the Atlantic Charter of August 14th, 1941. Let me know if you want sources, I can do this shit all day.

[QUOTE=Thlis;44342549]Or 2/5ths of the Normandy Landing beaches. Or the supplies sent across the Atlantic prior to entering the war. But no that would be "Imposing democracy" for the US to send military vehicles/ weapons/ and supplies to an overseas nation.[/QUOTE] The Normandy landings weren't that important to the overall war effort of the Allies given that the USSR was already halfway through their steamrolling of the Nazis by that time.

I'm curious, why would anyone post any RT links here, what's with all these bullshit dodgy sources.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342569]The Normandy landings weren't that important to the overall war effort of the Allies given that the USSR was already halfway through their steamrolling of the Nazis by that time.[/QUOTE] Yeah so just ignore the point he asserted that kept Britain from being invaded.

At least do us a favor and quote/link Ron Paul directly from his website instead of RT so as to not feed views to a shit source. Unless you're Stroma of course :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342551]Japan attacked us, it wasn't really a choice for us to fight them.[/QUOTE] True on the attack, except the Americans had been anticipating war and preparing for it long before Pearl Harbour. Shit happened to escalate and the Japanese fired first.

Isolationism in the era of globalization and mass communication is retarded. Putin is a goddamn menace and only the economic powerhouse that is the EU and NATO can bring about the strict sanctions to get him to piss off. If Crimea wants to join Russia then they'll make the decision in a stable, calm environment, NOT at the point of a Kalashnikov.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;44342096]The US doesn't even have a democracy anymore.[/QUOTE] Corporatism is a more suitable name for it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342134]Let Europe deal with Europe's problem in Ukraine.[/QUOTE] I believe the US should help, but Western Europe needs to do the heavy lifting. After all, they will be most affected by the occupation of Ukraine. The US should just stay in a support role.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342134]Let Europe deal with Europe's problem in Ukraine.[/QUOTE] This totally won't back fire and Europe definitly has the ability to power project... Said no one ever. They needed US Aircraft Carriers to get over the fucking [B]Mediterranean.[/B]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342277] Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.[/QUOTE] The presence of the US in World War 2 could be part of why the Soviet advance stopped at Berlin. Not to mention troops, weapons and equipment, aid, technology...

I can see the misgivings about going to war, but we're watching history repeat itself. Right down to the fucking Olympic games trying to showcase Russia off, just like Hitler wanted to with Nazi Germany.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44342518]Do you mean without US troops or without US supplies or what? Because without any non-European countries/colonies involvement at all (Including Canada, Australia, USA, etc.) then Russia might've lost against Germany.[/QUOTE] [I][B]No. Fucking. Way. [/B][/I] [QUOTE]Isolationism in the era of globalization and mass communication is retarded. [/QUOTE] He's not talking about THAT isolationism, but about invading and using force against other countries when you could fuck them up or bring them closer to democracy via trade/economics means.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342569]The Normandy landings weren't that important to the overall war effort of the Allies given that the USSR was already halfway through their steamrolling of the Nazis by that time.[/QUOTE] Except instead of a split Berlin, potentially much of Germany would have been under USSR control. No Berlin Airlift, no West Germany. The Cold War would have been much more complicated without such American influenced leverage in central Europe. Lets not forget the Marshal Plan and the American-built economies of Western Europe.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;44342712]If Crimea wants to join Russia then they'll make the decision in a stable, calm environment, NOT at the point of a Kalashnikov.[/QUOTE] Too bad their democratically elected president was overthrown and the country is far from stable. Do you remember something called the Orange Revolution? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution[/url] The problem with having a revolution every term is that people lose faith in the democratic system. Will there be another revolution the next term, or the term after that? Hard to blame Crimea for wanting to join Russia.