Why both Parties are scared of Ron Paul!
I think Ron Paul makes the front runners on both sides look bad on the war.
The problem is the Democratic front runners want to make this election about Iraq, and how it’s all about the GOP and Bush.
The only problem is the NEI report proves that Bush and any lawmaker who voted for the Iraq war blew off the warnings from the CIA and Military intelligence.
While I do think Bush manipulated the intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq, many Democrats knew that, said nothing, and voted for the war anyway.
This is why I think Obama support grew after the last Democratic debate.
The GOP front runners are hoping for a pull out to start after this September. And they want the election to be about who can keep America safer.
This is why the GOP could still win the election because Edwards and Clinton will have a hard time gaining the trust of the American people on this issue because of their past votes.
Obama’s down side is his inexperience, but being an outsider could off set that problem.
As far as the GOP, I think America may be waking up to the fact that attacking countries creates high civilian casualties which is making the problem worse, as the CIA warned.
We need a strategy that uses our military in a special ops capacity, targeted at terrorists, with limited civilian casualties.
And if we ever invade again, it must be an overwhelming force with a large coalition component from the region, per the CIA report!
Ironically, if the GOP backed Ron Paul, it would win. The problem is, Paul flies in the face of the money interests.
BTW, watch both videos; they so a great job of making clear how lost RUDY is on IRAQ.
John, I just watched the video. It’s only 13:34 minutes long and I can’t imagine one spending their time in a more valuable fashion than to watch this video.
Thanks for posting it, John!
This website’s name (”Control Congress”) implies that the people do not control who sits in the US Congress. We elect people who will represent our district and our state. That’s the “system”. It seems that this website’s name implies that there is another way to accomplish that.
What is the website’s alternative?
John You said:”We need a strategy that our military force should be a special ops force targeted at terrorist with limited civilian casualties.”
This would work in third world countries but try it in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India or any developing country and such an action would be an act of war.Play the political game and by the time the operation gets off the ground the terror element is gone and moves in civilians.
“And if we ever invade again, it must be an overwhelming force with a large coalition of troops from the region ie CIA report!”
How do you do this if the region is the ME and the leaders are afraid of setting off a religious war?
History channel did a couple hour report on Bin Laden. What most people forget is he was treated as a hero in Saudi Arabia after the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan. It was because he became a threat to the Saudi government that they ultimately tossed his butt out. Why he choose the Saudis for 9/11 is because he wanted drive a wedge between the US and Saudi Arabia.Bin Laden wanted to bring in his army to push Saddam out of Kuwait and the Saudi government didnt want him on their doorstep so they basically said dont call us will call you.It was the Saudi government that wanted the US to invade Iraq because they knew that any coalition on their part would be seen as a start to a religious war.(Sunni/Shiite)
Now heres a question if the ME blows over into a full fledged religious war how will Americans who are crying the blues over 5 dollar gas feel about 10 to 20 dollar gas? You will have to answer for Ron Paul here but would he change his mind and rush troops into a no win situation for the sake of cheap oil?Americans arent likely to want to feel short time pain for long time gain because they have become a right now society.
John, I wonder if anyone other than you and I have watched the video you linked to?
MiKe
The reason why is much of the poor are people of color.
Videos
As I said I am more aggressive than Ron Paul. Yet on the other hand we did not get a large coalition of support like Iraq 1. Also Iraq did not attack us and the terrorist mainly came from our friends the Saudi Arabia.
Also Bin Laden and Sedum were enemies!
As far as oil we are only playing this game because of the oil companies. I do not buy American is not smart enough to get off foreign oil.
That is why I keep saying contain the situation and if it works fine, but get off the need of their oil!
Hugh is right both videos do a great job explaining the issue!
David M
That is great question you should ask on our radio show. The reason I set this up as a bipartisan town hall format for all sides is to show we have more in common.
The real solution is for all Americasn is to support the candidate and not the PARTY. The reason why both sides are upset is lawmakers report to special interest over Americans and take people for granted!
The immigration bill makes my point!
John says
As far as oil we are only playing this game because of the oil companies. I do not buy American is not smart enough to get off foreign oil.
==================
We need it to keep the dollar strong, not because we want foreign oil. As explained by Ron Paul and others, dollar hegemony is why we are doing many of the things we do.
Quote:
Because dollars can buy oil, exporters in countries that need to import oil — i.e. most developed countries — will accept dollars for their exports. Hence everyone who needs to buy from those exporters will accept dollars as payment for other things, and so on. To pay their bills, importers must have reserves of dollars. To prop up their currencies against speculative attacks, the central banks of all countries must have reserves of dollars. To get capital, poor countries must borrow dollars, and to service these debts they must export goods to obtain more dollars. About 2/3 of all currency reserves, more than 4/5 of all currency transactions, more than half of the world’s exports, and all loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are denominated in dollars. As these things create demand for the dollar and shore up its value, oil exporters are the more willing to accept payment in dollars. So the process is self-reinforcing; it’s called “dollar hegemony”.
In the late 1970s, falling oil prices reduced demand for the dollar while mounting third-world debt reduced confidence in dollar-denominated deposits. The U.S. Federal Reserve defended the dollar by raising interest rates to record levels. Heavily indebted poor countries are still paying for that episode. But the second oil-price shock (1979-80) restored demand for the dollar.
So America can export dollars, which cost nothing to produce, and receive real goods and services in return. When those dollars eventually find their way into foreign reserves, they can be invested only in American assets. This creates a demand for U.S. treasury bills without high interest rates, and inflates the U.S. property market and stock market — to the benefit of current owners of land and shares, and to the detriment of the working poor who live in caravans (”trailers”) on the fringes of American cities because they do not “earn” enough to buy or rent a home. Ordinary home owners may think they benefit from rising property values; but in fact, every time an owner moves to a new home, the higher sale price of the old home is offset by the higher purchase price of the new one. The real winners are the big investors.
But this continuous inflow of foreign investment (on the “capital account”) is needed to balance America’s mammoth trade deficit (on the “current account”). America’s imports now exceed its exports by almost 50%, or 5% of GDP. Its net foreign debt is more than a quarter of annual GDP, and its public debt is about 60% of annual GDP.
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
The main threat to the global hegemony of a single currency is the desire for diversity in investment. Dollar hegemony was secured by the size of the U.S. economy and the pricing of oil in dollars. But if a second currency were allowed into the oil market, it would soon become a general-purpose trading and reserve currency, especially if it were legal tender in an economy comparable in size to the USA.
http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html
========================
The dollar, not oil itself has been why we wanted to have “foreign oil” the dominate player. By the U.S. being the biggest user of foreign oil, we thought we had a “lever” we could use and at the same time, prop up the dollar. We needed to have the dollar based on something the world demanded. Oil was perfect and having OPEC selling to the world, and selling in dollars, gave us what we wanted, but not what was good for us.
Here is part of Ron Paul’s article on it
Quote:
Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.
This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo–gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.
During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”
Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
=============================
Many, many articles have been written on the value concerns over the dollar being the reason for our policy decisions and oil decisions.
Even before we resumed the war with Iraq, people who follow the dollar were saying we would invade Iraq because of Saddam’s switch to euro’s for the sale of his oil.
Jan
You are right about the dollar!
And, if we got on the air and told America the truth about the dollar, we would also risk other nations “panic selling” it.
It is one of those, “well, it is an issue, but we can’t talk about it,” things.
Jan Paul Interesting. If the panic selling of the dollar should happen wouldnt that mean a global depression?
Some say it will. Others say we have become too small to have it do more than cause a slowdown or mild recession.
Just about 10 years ago or less, we were the largest consumer nation on earth. Now we are 2nd.
We had a couple hundred million middle-class or more consumers and Asia had a handful. Now, India and China alone have 500 million middle-class consumers (not the same as standard of living). Those consumers are buying cars, cell phones, homes, furnitures, computers, diamonds, gold, suits, airline tickets, luggage, etc.
If anything, some say our hitting the skids would drop oil prices and give those nations even more buying power for their own cars, travel and goods. They also have savings to draw from in many cases that can keep spending drops moderated until they regroup due to our declining consumption.
I think that is an over-rosy picture but, hey, who would have thought they would have 200 million more middle-class consumers than our entire population just five years ago. And, it is also Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam etc. that are buying more from China and India and each other.
We are talking about 2.5 billion people in just India and China buying more as they rise out of poverty and with that many people, even a dollar more a month is a huge increase in spending power for things made by 8-30 cent an hour workers or the $1 – $2 wages in the economic zones in China or the $6 an hour in Hong Kong.
The businesses that would be hit by a recession here, don’t care that there are 2 billion poor in India and China from a profit standpoint. They only care that the 500 million that are buying are more than our entire population and are also only part of the rest of Asia and Africa and South America that is buying more with the resources they are selling Asia.
We may not be an economic “speed bump” yet, but many are saying we are rapidly becoming one. As the dollar declines in value and use, it will get worse, not better, too. As the other nations buy more and more from Asia, it will get worse. As our debt rises more and more, it will get worse. As 78 million leave the work force here and live on reduced incomes, it will get worse. As more and more draw from entitlements in retirement, it will get worse.
We have some time, according to Chairman Bernanke but, time is running out. When asked in his Congressional testimony when we had to start the reforms in order to prevent the coming crisis, he said,
“ten years ago.”
I don’t think the dollar will collapse though many are calling for it to do so. I think it will just be a continued decline unless we go to war and start a panic selling by some nation that doesn’t have that much to lose by panic selling it. The only other serious threat I see is that if we went to war and Russia, China, and OPEC suddenly refused to lend anymore to us.
They would take a serious hit but, some don’t believe the hit would be that bad in the long run. In other words, it is all speculation which means nobody knows for sure and that may be saving us. The other nations are afraid to act.
Just like until Saddam started selling oil in euros and successfully hurt the value of the dollar, other nations had only “threatened” to do that. Now one after another nations are moving away from pegging to the dollar with Kuwait the latest and UAE discussing a similar move.
Just have to watch what happens the next couple of years, I guess.
Jan Paul. OUCH!! Doctor can I get a different prognosis or are we that far in that there is no cure for our ailment?
For those who like Ron Paul and for those who don’t, here is the end of an article dealing with Giuliano and McCain skipping Iowa’s primary. It also covers Fred Thompson for those who like him and pits, Ron Paul as a potential winner against Fred and Mitt.
Quote:Ron Paul does have amazing chances in Iowa. Dr. Paul is the right man at the right time. He also has great chances in the New Hampshire Primary, after all NH is the “Life Free or Die” state.
http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/07/ron-paul-will-win-iowa-giuliani-and-mccain-skip-straw-poll/
Anybody from Iowa on here got a feel for the political mood in Iowa on the war, immigration?
I found this on Iowa
quote:
Anti-War States Up First
In New Hampshire, which has only two congressional districts, these anti-war primary voters represented half the state. So this unpredictable electorate will have a big say as to whom Democrats nominate for president in 2008. Republican candidates also have reason to take note of the 2006 results in a state where independent voters make up a plurality and can vote in either party primary.
Two months after Shea-Porter’s surprise win, lightning struck again in the general election contest against GOP Rep. Jeb Bradley.
Although the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $1 million in the weeks before the election to help Paul Hodes oust Republican Rep. Charles Bass in New Hampshire’s only other district, Shea-Porter was viewed as too much of a long shot to merit support. But on a shoestring campaign budget in a district that had twice voted for Bush, Shea-Porter won 52% of the vote to become the first Democrat sent to Congress by her district since 1982.
So far there’s no sign that the anti-war wave is abating, as Sen. Hillary Clinton has discovered in early campaign trips to the Granite State.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20070302
No wonder McCain and Giuliani are skipping it. I saw that there was a recommendation Hillary skip it too.
The independent voters being able to vote could make Ron Paul rise higher if those voters view him more “anti-war” than Mitt Romney.
If it was just GOP voters, I think it would be a lot different. Since independents are such a large force, it will be very interesting to see how this primary plays out, especially if Fred Thompson ends up in it.
Mike
Every theory from glory days yet to come, to total loss of our standard of living is out there and it is all speculation.
Everything from the debt is our friend to our enemy. Deficits in trade are better than not because it means we have more money to spend than the other guy.
Who knows? We can see a trend going on that the government itself will cause us to lose our standard of living. But, trends are only that, a trend. They can be stopped and reversed. But, that usually requires some type of action and currently our Congress isn’t acting. Will the act and will they act in time?
Those are some good videos. And I don’t think that addressing issues such as “blowback” and “cause and effect” thinking are signs of weakness. Lately our strategy has involved focusing on the militant aspects of Islam, our own “goodness” and our own superior weaponry. What’s missing is an analysis of the human factor, “minds and hearts” ect…
http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm
David S.
re: #
I think the best bet (for some folks) is the MSM and the voting booth. That’s it. We shouldn’t wast our time doing anything else. In fact comments on threads on political blogs are worthless.
[...] Why both Parties are scared of Ron Paul! [...]