Ron Paul and The Courage of Conviction (Dr. No!!!)
Ron Paul and The Courage of Conviction (Dr. No!!!)
|
Submitted by: deadfoot  Subscribe to this Author |
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/ron-paul-warns-burma
Type of Content: Article I ran across this little story on the Web. Of course, I compleatly disagree with the author. But the comments are rather heartning. Read »
Created 9 weeks 6 days ago
Made popular 9 weeks 5 days ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 71 reads
From badunit posted in the comments sections where the above article resides.
Posted 05/14/2008 08:34pm with +1 vote
"Happens all the time…sometimes you are right and everyone else is wrong. I was listening to talk radio the other day and there was a guest talking about how all the street cameras recently installed in the city were so good because everyone would be paranoid and not drive fast anymore thus reducing accidents and making driving safer…hmmm…wouldn’t it be safer still to stop everyone from driving in the first place… don’t let them on the road,kidnap them all and tie them up …restricting freedom is not the solution to the problem … it’s just a crime…interfering with other peoples business might make them safer from thier own goverment … but that interference is criminal too, however slight… Ron Paul was right…410 little dictators wrong."
__Please take the time to read__
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/3000-3999/CIM_3010_14.pdf
Can anyone quote or link the text in question? I'm a bit confused as to how a non-binding statement with no threat of force backing it can constitute "interference in internal affairs of another nation". Ron Paul himself says we should be "talking with other nations", so I guess I just don't see the problem in telling another nation we think what they're doing is wrong (although I do think non-binding Congressional resolutions are not the proper channel to be using).
the story is factual. and it clearly reflects Ron Paul's principle of non-interference. what do you disagree with in the story?
the only problem i can see as having with the article is the title which insinuates, to the untrained eye, that Ron Paul's logic is flawed. however, non-interference in other nation's affairs is most damaging to the oppressive government in question, not the oppressed people. this is backed up with history. rather than quoting people on this particular subject, i would again recommend a good dose of the great Chomsky who goes about the effects of interference at great length in many of his speeches.