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

can i point out that ron paul seems to have barely any idea what he's talking about? [url]http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/[/url] [QUOTE]We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about [B]money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union[/B]? The State Department said yes. [B]"The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.[/B] Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries. About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include [B]military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction[/B], Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million). The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose. But even if it that were so, [B]the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate.[/B] And Obama was elected in 2008, so any connection between $5 billion and Obama also is inaccurate.[/QUOTE]

[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] There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. The Soviet Union would have still defeated Germany, it would just take longer without Western support. To put it plainly; Britain would be lost without American intervention. The Soviets would still win regardless of Western supplies or intervention. People like to assume that American and British supplies that were sent to the Soviets were somehow the deciding factor for the entirety of the Eastern Front, but this is false. The supplies sent were merely a political gesture that was meant to appease Stalin and get him to play-ball, they were hardly significant compared to the massive industrial complex of the Soviets, and they even failed to meet the agreed upon quotas.

The US' foreign policy goal of "promoting democracy" has always been extremely hypocritical. We've never promoted democracy for the sake of promoting democracy. We just do whatever the fuck looks most profitable for us. Looking back at our history there is no bias in favor of democracy, we just prop up or overthrow whatever system of government serves our interests best. We just tell ourselves we're standing up for democracy so we can sleep better at night while South American death squads working for US-sponsored dictators are murdering people.

[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.[/QUOTE] How do you know? I'm sure a lot of people didn't suspect Hitler would've done what he did either. [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] Oh ffs are you serious

[QUOTE=joes33431;44343290]can i point out that ron paul seems to have barely any idea what he's talking about? [url]http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/[/url][/QUOTE] The text you're citing is debunking the claim that [B]The United States spent $5 billion on Ukraine anti-government riots[/B]. Ron Paul didn't imply that but he questions what these billions of dollars really accomplished when Ukraine obviously isn't a functioning democracy. This is perfectly clear if you read the source or Ron Pauls original article. If anything your misunderstanding is due to my citation.

[QUOTE=Melnek;44343299]There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. The Soviet Union would have still defeated Germany, it would just take longer without Western support. To put it plainly; Britain would be lost without American intervention. The Soviets would still win regardless of Western supplies or intervention. People like to assume that American and British supplies that were sent to the Soviets were somehow the deciding factor for the entirety of the Eastern Front, but this is false. The supplies sent were merely a political gesture that was meant to appease Stalin and get him to play-ball, they were hardly significant compared to the massive industrial complex of the Soviets, and they even failed to meet the agreed upon quotas.[/QUOTE] The US, Britain and Canada supplied the USSR with roughly 20,000 armored vehicles and 17,500 combat aircraft. Most of these arrived during the critical stages of 1941 and 1942. The US also supplied the USSR with 500,000 of their 700,000 wheeled vehicles, hundreds of thousands of small arms, 15,000 artillery guns and 3,000 anti aircraft guns. Then there's all the [url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html]raw materials we sent them over the course of the war.[/url](Including, funnily enough, the necessary materials for them to launch their atomic weapons program.) Comparing the lend-lease shipments to the USSR's production during the entire course of the war is also silly, as the majority of lend-lease weaponry was delivered in 1941 and 1942 and lend-lease shipments dropped rapidly as the war turned in the Soviets favor. You also have to consider the specialty items we delivered to the USSR that they could not readily produce themselves - surgical instruments, telephone equipment, binoculars and radios, aviation machining tools, etc. It's not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it sound.

[QUOTE=Gordy H.;44343473]The US, Britain and Canada supplied the USSR with roughly 20,000 armored vehicles and 17,500 combat aircraft. Most of these arrived during the critical stages of 1941 and 1942. The US also supplied the USSR with 500,000 of their 700,000 wheeled vehicles, hundreds of thousands of small arms, 15,000 artillery guns and 3,000 anti aircraft guns. Then there's all the [url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html]raw materials we sent them over the course of the war.[/url](Including, funnily enough, the necessary materials for them to launch their atomic weapons program.) Comparing the lend-lease shipments to the USSR's production during the entire course of the war is also silly, as the majority of lend-lease weaponry was delivered in 1941 and 1942 and lend-lease shipments dropped rapidly as the war turned in the Soviets favor. You also have to consider the specialty items we delivered to the USSR that they could not readily produce themselves - surgical instruments, telephone equipment, binoculars and radios, aviation machining tools, etc. It's not as clear-cut as you're trying to make it sound.[/QUOTE] All the things you've mentioned make up fairly small and even insignificant portion of the amount of resources and machines manufactured by the Soviets themselves. The only help to the Soviets were the amazing Dodge and Studebaker trucks, which consisted nearly 2/3s of the Soviet Union's total truck strength, and the locomotive/railcar deliveries that were an absolute saver because the war had totally disrupted Soviet produce of anything that goes on rails. For example, the 17,500 combat aircraft you've mentioned equaled to just 15% of Soviet aircraft production during those 'critical stages of the war'. Throughout the whole period of 1940-1945, the Soviet Union produced [url=http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml]158,218 aircraft in total[/url], including military and non-military craft. The rest of the numbers you've thrown around are at worst - symbolic, and at best - sufficient. The Lend-Lease was helpful, but the point is that it didn't play a deciding factor in the war. Even without the Soviets doing much of anything besides retreating, the Germans weren't ready for the winter, were incredibly disorganized and lacked a functional logistical network because of the very famous Blitzkrieg doctrine, and had absolutely no moral by the time they crawled to Moscow's doorstep. Mind you, even if by some stretch of luck they had taken Moscow, that wouldn't change anything. The Soviets would simply burn Moscow down again at which point the exhausted and beaten German military would probably commit mass-suicide out of pure frustration. There is no feasible way the Soviets could have lost the war, they never even came close to such a prospect.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;44342096]The US doesn't even have a democracy anymore.[/QUOTE] You're right, US isn't a democracy at all it's a republic

[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;44343994]You're right, US isn't a democracy at all it's a republic[/QUOTE] How does that mean it's not a democracy?

[QUOTE]It is not democracy to send in billions of dollars to push regime change overseas.[/QUOTE] What? Why USA didn't pay me (and others)!? Where is my fucking money?

how can people seriously think the USA was responsible for the regime overthrow? personally i think far more of the onus is on yanukovychs corrupt russian-puppet regime imprisoning political enemies, kidnapping and torturing protestors and creating ridiculously tyrannical laws

[QUOTE=Swilly;44343025]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] I'll throw the first rock: Am I the only one being fascinated by this? I mean, sure, the whole situation is very shitty and lots of people are affected by it, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but... It's still amazing to see how the story is being created at every moment. The same history that, one day, our sons will learn and ask us about. I don't know, it's a weird sensation. Probably getting off-topic, though; ignore and keep reading.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44344102]how can people seriously think the USA was responsible for the regime overthrow? personally i think far more of the onus is on yanukovychs corrupt russian-puppet regime imprisoning political enemies, kidnapping and torturing protestors and creating ridiculously tyrannical laws[/QUOTE] A lot of people of Eastern descent seem to treat anything that goes wrong or violent in their own part of the world as a result of Western meddling. Either by direct meddling or as an extent of it. As the Ukrainian protests (at first) bared the clear and concise markings of liberal and 'progressive' movements, many seemed to believe that this was the doing of the U.S. Simply because democracy = American propaganda. These are old and outdated myths and stereotypes, relics of the Cold War, but they still persist in the East to the same extent that some Americans for example label anyone not thinking the same as them as 'commies' unironically. Unless of course you were referring to Ron Paul thinking this, in which case - well, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, is he? Just a tool, really.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44344086]How does that mean it's not a democracy?[/QUOTE] Bad joke, sorry

I used to like him, but when I saw how fucked up some of his policies are I stopped liking him.

[QUOTE=Soret;44344823]I used to like him, but when I saw how fucked up some of his policies are I stopped liking him.[/QUOTE] there's never been a good reason to like ron paul, the man's ideological platform is a complete farce he garnered support by trying to "take money out of politics" which got a bunch of completely uninformed idiots hook line and sinker

[QUOTE=Katla;44342800]Corporatism is a more suitable name for it.[/QUOTE] A system where the government works with business and union leaders to develop economic policy?

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44344893]there's never been a good reason to like ron paul, the man's ideological platform is a complete farce he garnered support by trying to "take money out of politics" which got a bunch of completely uninformed idiots hook line and sinker[/QUOTE] Do you have any libertarian ideals?

[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. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, [B][I][U]and more than 80 percent of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States[/U][/I][/B].[12] Japanese war planners had long looked south, especially to Brunei for oil and to Malaya for rubber and tin. The Navy was (mistakenly) certain any attempt to seize this region would bring the U.S. into the war,[13][page needed] but the complete U.S. oil embargo removed any hesitancy. Moreover, any southern operation would be vulnerable to attack from the Philippines, then a U.S. commonwealth, so war with the U.S. seemed necessary in any case. In addition to this, Japan looked to the Dutch East Indies. In the autumn of 1940, Japan requested 3.15 million barrels of oil from the Dutch East Indies, but received a counter offer of only 1.35 million barrels.[14] Therefore, the Japanese were interested in expansion to the East Indies, but Malaya and the Philippines had to have been cleared in order for the Japanese to secure the area. This meant inevitable U.S. intervention.[15] After the embargoes and the asset freezes, the Japanese Ambassador to Washington, Kichisaburō Nomura, and U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull held multiple meetings in order to resolve Japanese-American relations. But no solution could be agreed upon for three key reasons: Japan's alliance to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy through the Tripartite Pact; Japan wanted economic control and responsibility for southeast Asia; Japan refused to leave mainland China (without Manchoukuo).[16][/QUOTE] Do you know what are the 3 dimensions of power? Do you guys really think the US didn't meddle with the Ukrainian protests? That it all happend like yeah that's it fuck yanukovich? We all might as well believe those Russian self defense forces in Latvia or Ukraine were set up on their own without any help from the Kremlin. I mean, the government who put out through a coup a socialist president, put in power a guy who gave 0 fucks for its population in order to keep the oil under their control which would later backfire totally, trained military officers in anti guerrilla warfare techniques who would later topple governments and dictate economic measures which would ultimately destroy the industry of said countries, experimented with central American populations [B]and with its own population[/B], financed an invasion against the communist Cuban government which could have used false flags terrorist attacks on its own population and god knows what else, didn't put a finger on Ukraine, a vital asset of the russian geopolitical strategy?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44344102]how can people seriously think the USA was responsible for the regime overthrow? personally i think far more of the onus is on yanukovychs corrupt russian-puppet regime imprisoning political enemies, kidnapping and torturing protestors and creating ridiculously tyrannical laws[/QUOTE] something called south america

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44344893]there's never been a good reason to like ron paul, the man's ideological platform is a complete farce he garnered support by trying to "take money out of politics" which got a bunch of completely uninformed idiots hook line and sinker[/QUOTE] If its one thing I've learned from volunteering for the democrats its that politics is a game and you don't get as far as he does without playing it

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44345285]Do you know what are the 3 dimensions of power? Do you guys really think the US didn't meddle with the Ukrainian protests? That it all happend like yeah that's it fuck yanukovich? We all might as well believe those Russian self defense forces in Latvia or Ukraine were set up on their own without any help from the Kremlin. I mean, the government who put out through a coup a socialist president, put in power a guy who gave 0 fucks for its population in order to keep the oil under their control which would later backfire totally, trained military officers in anti guerrilla warfare techniques who would later topple governments and dictate economic measures which would ultimately destroy the industry of said countries, experimented with central American populations [B]and with its own population[/B], financed an invasion against the communist Cuban government which could have used false flags terrorist attacks on its own population and god knows what else, didn't put a finger on Ukraine, a vital asset of the russian geopolitical strategy?[/QUOTE] this is my favorite kind of argument. C'mon guys you know they did it. You know they did. How? You know how. When? You know. What's my evidence? Why do I need evidence when we all already know? After all, what reason would the economically starved Ukrainian people have to resent a convicted criminal ruling over their country from a lavish pleasure mansion full of yachts, cars, gold, and hovercrafts? Please. You know who was really behind it. [I]You know.[/I]

[QUOTE=CyberHawk;44345183]Do you have any libertarian ideals?[/QUOTE] nope because libertarianism is an inherently flawed philosophical and ideological viewpoint that cripples itself and simultaneously requires every single human being on earth to have the same mindset in order to work and ron paul is a perfect example of just that

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44346287]nope because libertarianism is an inherently flawed philosophical and ideological viewpoint that cripples itself and simultaneously requires every single human being on earth to have the same mindset in order to work and ron paul is a perfect example of just that[/QUOTE] Being socially liberal is technically a libertarian view. Conservatives have pretty much hijacked "Libertarian" to mean "Corporate Anarchist"

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44346286]When do I need evidence of the referendum being rigged when it's being run by freedom hating Russian untermensch and that's all I need to know?[/QUOTE] because there are literally gunmen at the poll boxes because there was no option to stick with ukraine haha i kid who cares if dissidents and journalists are being picked up by 'pro russian miltia' forces and tortured and mutilated. what is that compared the as-of-yet-unidentified hand of the west orchestrating the uprising in the first place? I mean, we KNOW that happened, but we only have physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that armed gunmen went house to house to collect votes for the referendum.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;44346324]Being socially liberal is technically a libertarian view. Conservatives have pretty much hijacked "Libertarian" to mean "Corporate Anarchist"[/QUOTE] social liberalism and economic conservatism are mutually exclusive it is effectively impossible to hold the belief that the state should not tax / regulate the economy while simultaneously desiring the elimination of discrimination they're two intertwined processes. a libertarian, as they are currently articulated, would not have supported the civil rights act given that it imposes state restriction on the operations of small businesses. the entire philosophy has a massive internal contradiction. [editline]24th March 2014[/editline] the only way to maximize individual liberty for all is to impose regulations on individual liberty for all

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44346364]they're two intertwined processes. a libertarian, as they are currently articulated, would not have supported the civil rights act given that it imposes state restriction on the operations of small businesses.[/QUOTE] i remember hearing somewhere an interesting argument (i'm still not sure of it in full) that the civil rights act caused problems when it came to black and white businesses. before desegregation, black people would go to black businesses, and generally help keep money within the black community and support local businesses. now while the act was well intentioned, the immediate effect of desegregation was obviously to open up white businesses to black patrons. black people started visiting white businesses and longterm this caused black businesses to lose money and go into decline. eventually it caused a lot of black communities to start collapsing in on themselves because they kept hemorrhaging capital towards whites in other words, some people who largely benefited from the act were white business owners, while many black communities fell into poverty [url]http://www.stanford.edu/~write/papers/THE%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20CIVIL%20RIGHTS%20REVOLUTION.pdf[/url] like most political reforms, it went halfway with fixing problems

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;44346286]When do I need evidence of the referendum being rigged when it's being run by freedom hating Russian untermensch and that's all I need to know?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44346344]because there are literally gunmen at the poll boxes because there was no option to stick with ukraine haha i kid who cares if dissidents and journalists are being picked up by 'pro russian miltia' forces and tortured and mutilated. what is that compared the as-of-yet-unidentified hand of the west orchestrating the uprising in the first place? I mean, we KNOW that happened, but we only have physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that armed gunmen went house to house to collect votes for the referendum.[/QUOTE]And the non-Russian minorities who were not given ballots. And the disappearance of opposition leaders.

[QUOTE=Coment;44344165]I'll throw the first rock: Am I the only one being fascinated by this? I mean, sure, the whole situation is very shitty and lots of people are affected by it, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but... It's still amazing to see how the story is being created at every moment. The same history that, one day, our sons will learn and ask us about. I don't know, it's a weird sensation. Probably getting off-topic, though; ignore and keep reading.[/QUOTE] Its almost up there with the fact that I could actually see us going toward a Fallout(Without the vaults) like scenario with China one resource wars really start. Its that hanging thought, a lingering twang of pain and a strange odor that is tasteless with no scent but you can still sniff it up. Shit is going to hit the fan very soon if we don't use more diplomacy and I can easily see this getting dragged into a war.

well as far as china goes, its more like asia is about to explode into one giant naval battle, with our fleet sitting right in the middle of it all. china, phillipines, indonesia, south and north koreas, japan,tiwan and even vietnam are all embroiled in one giant territorial dispute over one or two undeveloped gas fields out in the ocean, the heart of the matter is if one can successfully claim ownership of 2-3 islands they can claim ownership of the entire gas field. unfortunatly asians never forgetting, everybody has owned the islands at one time or another, (they are litterally digging up 500-600 year old records to justify their claims) still ron paul is an idiot to think american isolationism is the right step. it seems like the republicans are really reverting back to 1930's politics anymore, and those did not work out at all. i don't however think right now there's any real chance of a shooting war presently though it seems like asia and eastern europe are big powder kegs ready to go off at any moment. tiwan's riots are making me nervous though, if the tiwanese goverment falls the next goverment could be super-anti china, but if they crush the occupation with military force it'll just kick off a civil war which china will move into because they are just off their coast.