So yeah, Ron Paul, racist. He certainly did say some fucked up things a while back, but I still can't help but love his foreign policy. 
I don't much care for the fact that he's Republican, but if there were a democrat running with his ideas for the country (instead of his personal beliefs), I'd vote for said democrat.
My whole view on the United States and our place in the world in general changed after living in Germany and being in Iraq. I think that's why Ron Paul is so popular among the military. As it is, I received a book and DVD about him from a fellow soldier.
When I was stationed in Germany, I wasn't the typical xenophobic American in that I actually went out into the country and learned to speak German. I learned German well enough (and impressed the local populace) to change some European minds on Americans in general. What did that mean? I found myself defending our stupid foreign policy over and over. I didn't converse with every German person, but of the younger, more liberal generation, there was very little support for America's war in Iraq. And why do we always have to get involved, frequently taking both sides of every conflict.
Here in Iraq, my job is an interrogator/detective which puts me face to face with Iraqis who don't understand why we always sponsor Israel at the detriment of everyone else in the region. Again, I have no answer. America's two largest masters are in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and Israel. At least we get oil from Saudi. Saudi is so powerful and untouchable that despite the presence of Saudis on the 9/11 planes (and no Iraqis), we went into Iraq. Iraq, even under a dictator, was more secular than religious. The Iraqis have told me (and other soldiers who do this job) that under him, nobody cared who was Sunni, Shia, Christian or Jew. Now religion is everything because we came in thinking we already had all the answers. Meanwhile, the country with arguably the worst interpretation of Islamic law is Saudi Arabia, where a rape victim can be sentenced to 200 lashes and prison time. Was Saudi chosen for "democratization?" No! Saudi is untouchable. The two oil crunches in the 70s proved twice (once in the early 70s, and again in '79) that America can't handle an oil shortage or a threat to our way of life rationally.
Israel, despite our being bogged down in two endless wars, is pushing the hardest for us to attack Iran. They don't care that this is costing [future generations] of American taxpayers' money or that America now has to borrow money from China (of all countries).
During the election, the candidates will run on opposite sides of every issue except one, Israel gets what Israel wants. Hands down, no question. Only with a huge public outcry did Israel not get America to fight another of it's wars. They have a right to defend themselves, no question. They're the largest recipients of our foreign aid and we've given them (basically) our military and best warfighting technology. There's absolutely no reasoning behind our support of Israel regardless of their actions, but to question this relationship is "anti-semitic." Please.
Since joining the antiwar movement and really putting myself out there, I've had to go face to face with people from outside the US who congratulate me for realizing what the rest of the planet already knew about our foreign policy.
An isolationist approach to foreign policy will only get us - for free! - what we've been paying untold billions for already. Our country is not widely seen as a positive force in the world anymore.
It's not a Republican/Democrat issue either. The last administration got us involved in both Bosnia and Kosovo, two missions with still no end in sight.
I don't like that Ron Paul is Republican. I don't care for his views on abortion (though he said he'd delegate that down to the states to decide - which is what the Constitution calls for), but when every other candidate's foreign policy just calls for a different flavor of hegemony, well fuck.
No matter what aspect of our bureaucracy you look at, the solution is always the same. Throw tons of cash at it until it rights itself. It's the same thing with Iraq. Violence is down and it's only costing between 12 and 15 billion dollars a month (with no end in sight). Something's gotta give.
Does he have a snowball's chance in hell of winning? Doubtful. But look on the bright side, at least any vote for him will take away from a possible vote from another Republican when I'm writing that noise in.
I don't much care for the fact that he's Republican, but if there were a democrat running with his ideas for the country (instead of his personal beliefs), I'd vote for said democrat.
My whole view on the United States and our place in the world in general changed after living in Germany and being in Iraq. I think that's why Ron Paul is so popular among the military. As it is, I received a book and DVD about him from a fellow soldier.
When I was stationed in Germany, I wasn't the typical xenophobic American in that I actually went out into the country and learned to speak German. I learned German well enough (and impressed the local populace) to change some European minds on Americans in general. What did that mean? I found myself defending our stupid foreign policy over and over. I didn't converse with every German person, but of the younger, more liberal generation, there was very little support for America's war in Iraq. And why do we always have to get involved, frequently taking both sides of every conflict.
Here in Iraq, my job is an interrogator/detective which puts me face to face with Iraqis who don't understand why we always sponsor Israel at the detriment of everyone else in the region. Again, I have no answer. America's two largest masters are in the middle east, Saudi Arabia and Israel. At least we get oil from Saudi. Saudi is so powerful and untouchable that despite the presence of Saudis on the 9/11 planes (and no Iraqis), we went into Iraq. Iraq, even under a dictator, was more secular than religious. The Iraqis have told me (and other soldiers who do this job) that under him, nobody cared who was Sunni, Shia, Christian or Jew. Now religion is everything because we came in thinking we already had all the answers. Meanwhile, the country with arguably the worst interpretation of Islamic law is Saudi Arabia, where a rape victim can be sentenced to 200 lashes and prison time. Was Saudi chosen for "democratization?" No! Saudi is untouchable. The two oil crunches in the 70s proved twice (once in the early 70s, and again in '79) that America can't handle an oil shortage or a threat to our way of life rationally.
Israel, despite our being bogged down in two endless wars, is pushing the hardest for us to attack Iran. They don't care that this is costing [future generations] of American taxpayers' money or that America now has to borrow money from China (of all countries).
During the election, the candidates will run on opposite sides of every issue except one, Israel gets what Israel wants. Hands down, no question. Only with a huge public outcry did Israel not get America to fight another of it's wars. They have a right to defend themselves, no question. They're the largest recipients of our foreign aid and we've given them (basically) our military and best warfighting technology. There's absolutely no reasoning behind our support of Israel regardless of their actions, but to question this relationship is "anti-semitic." Please.
Since joining the antiwar movement and really putting myself out there, I've had to go face to face with people from outside the US who congratulate me for realizing what the rest of the planet already knew about our foreign policy.
An isolationist approach to foreign policy will only get us - for free! - what we've been paying untold billions for already. Our country is not widely seen as a positive force in the world anymore.
It's not a Republican/Democrat issue either. The last administration got us involved in both Bosnia and Kosovo, two missions with still no end in sight.
I don't like that Ron Paul is Republican. I don't care for his views on abortion (though he said he'd delegate that down to the states to decide - which is what the Constitution calls for), but when every other candidate's foreign policy just calls for a different flavor of hegemony, well fuck.
No matter what aspect of our bureaucracy you look at, the solution is always the same. Throw tons of cash at it until it rights itself. It's the same thing with Iraq. Violence is down and it's only costing between 12 and 15 billion dollars a month (with no end in sight). Something's gotta give.
Does he have a snowball's chance in hell of winning? Doubtful. But look on the bright side, at least any vote for him will take away from a possible vote from another Republican when I'm writing that noise in.
thanks kiddo!
Personally I cannot support any candidate who would leave it to the states to decide things that have to do with human rights, which abortion does. Individual states have proven time and time again that they will make the wrong decisions if the are allowed to decide what rights humans have. We need a national policy on abortion and right now that is what we have, just as we needed a national policy on segregation to be sure that one state or another wouldn't create a subclass of citizens. When Ron Paul says he will leave it up to the states, he is saying that abortion will be criminalized, because many states are already trying to criminalize it.
"States' Rights" is often code for "I want to let you have whatever sexist, racist policies you like because I will agree to anything to get your vote."