WWRD (What would Ron do)

So my husband presented me with the question :

Husband:“What would Ron Paul do today about the Strait of Hormuz? You can’t answer that, Kelly. What would Ron Paul do about the troops in the Middle East? You can’t answer that either because he hasn’t stated a plan. He’s not a leader.”

Kells: I hate to beg. But guess the hello what? I beg to differ! I suppose a “leader “is someone whose plan is “hope and change”, huh? Yeah, that plan is working out really well!

[After showing my husband Ron Paul’s site, he still insists that Ron Paul is not answering key questions. One of his biggest claims is that without the oil from the Middle East, we could suffer a national disaster. I could swear we get most of our oil from Canada, but that point is moot because I believe Ron Paul would actually go through the Legislature before he took any sort of military action. (e.g. pulling out troops)]

And my husband continued:

Husband:“That’s what you believe, Kelly. Where does he say that? You’re still not answering my question. Herman Cain explained in a page what he would do. Ron Paul could take 2 minutes and explain what he’s going to do, but he hasn’t. You get all emotional and cry at seeing a little girl being reunited with her dad, but wait in 10 years without troops over there, and you’ll see some crying. All I’m asking for are some intentions and he hasn’t given any. A big part of being a leader is explaining what you’re going to do and how you’re going to accomplish that. I’m trying to help Ron Paul out. Who knows, maybe he’s holding out information until it’s time. He is old and experienced. But if Palin comes in, all bets are off. She’s an effective communicator which is another important quality in being a leader.”

[Welcome to another show down at the Kells Corral. Hmmm..I guess I’m not answering his question. Perhaps I’m throwing the die. I’m just going by the guy’s voting records and principles. I did find a press release explaining his position in a little more detail. I think of it as a plan. I think he makes a lot of sense. I suppose if I must, I’ll just have to sit in a corner, suck my thumb and be a good little voter, though. But for now, you can slap my ass and call me Sally, cause I’m still voting for the nutter.]

42 thoughts on “WWRD (What would Ron do)

  1. Ron Paul HAS given us some idea of what he would do about our military presence in the Middle East: PULL OUT and come home! He has said so.

    Ron Paul HAS given us some idea of what he would do should there be trouble in the Straits of Hormuz: NOTHING! We know because he has essentially said so.

    As for oil: it does not matter where WE get our oil from, what matters is the FREE FLOW of oil on the GLOBAL market. If the flow of oil from the Middle East is interrupted, then the price for the oil we get from Canada and Mexico will skyrocket. This WILL have a profound, likely crippling effect on the U.S. economy and, given the leaders currently running our govt., this would be a blow from which I seriously doubt the nation would EVER recover.

    HOWEVER, there is one thing we can be reasonably sure of: Ron Paul WOULD ask Congress for a declaration of war before committing U.S. troops to combat, and he would ONLY do so if HE thought the U.S. was threatened. The problem is Paul doesn’t see the events in other parts of the world as presenting a threat to the U.S.

    There is another reason to reject Ron Paul, and it is even more pressing that the oil issue. Ron Paul does not understand Islam or the threat Islam presents to our nation. Part of this is probably born of Paul’s apparent issues with Israel. Paul has openly sided with the Palestinians in the current Israeli-Arab conflict. The problem with this is simple: the Arabs took the land that was given to the Palestinians at the same time Israel was established, so the Arabs are the ones at fault for the Palestinians not having a homeland. Paul is wrong to blame Israel – PERIOD! Furthermore, Paul does NOT understand Islam. He has spoken of the Middle East as though their religion is irrelevant. It isn’t. The Middle Eastern nations ARE Islam. What’s more, Islam has chosen ALL infidel nations as its enemy, not the other way around. It has been this way since before Washington was President. Now, Islam is inside the U.S. and, even if Paul closed our borders, that threat would still remain and he would NOT fight it because he does NOT recognize or understand it.

    THIS issue is singularly enough to reject Paul as a candidate for President. Sorry.

  2. The problem with this is simple: the Arabs took the land that was given to the Palestinians at the same time Israel was established, so the Arabs are the ones at fault for the Palestinians not having a homeland.

    I am not arguing the point, as I am woefully uninformed on the exact details, but why don’t the Palestinians see it the way you do? It happened to them, they ought to know who effed ’em.

    • Simple: if anyone will bother to look into it, they will learn that the Arabs REAL goal is the eradication of Israel – PERIOD! So they see no use in attacking other Arabs, they prefer to attack their religious enemy instead. But the fact remains that Palestine was given a larger piece of land than Israel and it was immediately seized by the Arabs.

      Here is the best, most accurate and easily understood explanation I have found:

  3. You see my problem here, right? The Palestinians are giving the Arabs a pass for taking their land, because they hate the Jews so much, that it matters not that it was their Arab brethren that impoverished them in the first place? Not that Palestinians are paragons of logic, but that is hard to swallow. Still, when religion is involved, passions overwhelm the reality.

    I am about to watch the video, if my questions are answered, or if they are not, I will get back to you

  4. I watched the debate rerun for breakfast this morning – I know, pathetic, right? But Ed Morrissey captures a Paulian moment:

    Ron Paul isn’t ever a model of eloquence, but the exchange between Paul, Bret Baier, and Newt Gingrich may have set a new record for incoherence in a presidential debate. Paul starts off badly in this colloquy by attempting to reverse a statement he made in Iowa about the illegality of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden as a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, and by the time Gingrich gets involved, Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein — who was captured after a full-scale military invasion that hardly worried about Iraq’s national sovereignty, in a war that Paul opposed then and opposes now.

    There’s video

    • As I’ve said, Paul has forced me to back-pedal on my initial support for his policies. He does have inconsistencies, and I believe they stem from his attempt to hide the full scope of what he really believes – just as the rest of the candidates contradict themselves for the same reason. Paul’s foreign policy IS a mess and I admit it.

      STILL, much of his domestic policy is sound and those of his opponents who dismiss this are treading on thin ice as Paul’s domestic/economic policy appeals to many “conservative”/TEA Party members.

      Just a thought we should keep in mind in doign to Paul what we’re complaining about Newt doing to Romney 🙂

    • Newt is the choice of many of my friends and family. I take it that you would go this route if need be. It’s interesting to me that you boys all point out Paul’s flaws, but not the others. Guess you’re all on that “leadership” bandwagon.

      • Then you have not been listening (paying attention to what you read): at least, not in my case. I have dismissed BOTH Romney and Newt as PROGRESSIVES!

        Are you DELIBERATELY being obtuse? Or is there a purpose behind all of this willful ignoring of what has actually been said?

  5. Even flawed, the man still best fits my idea of what the country needs. And no, I haven’t watched the whole video yet, I am taking notes. But the real world intruded, so it will be a bit later before I can get back to you.

  6. Great. While the cat’s away…

    Geez, why do I suddenly feel like a Mormon husband with five wives? Am I the only one who sees his solutions — that would be Paul — as thinking within the within? I mean B’s video is great and if you go back even farther, there is some very interesting Jewish history. But, please; tell me where Ron Paul has stated that he will attack the Jews?

    • “But, please; tell me where Ron Paul has stated that he will attack the Jews?”

      AGAIN?! Tell us where anyone suggested he would attack Israel because I must have missed those words.

    • “Paul says he isn’t an anti-Semite, just anti-Israel.”

      More PROOF that Paul doesn’t understand the Middle East. Saying you are not anti-Semite, just anti-Israel is like saying you are not anti-Muslim, just anti-Iran. Sure, you can convince yourself your nuance makes a difference, and it may – TO THOSE IN THE WEST! The problem is the Israelis and Iranians will not see any difference between the two as their faith IS their nation. We do not understand this because of our heritage, and we refuse to accept/understand it because of our arrogance.

    • M., you know I’ve read that and watched all those videos. I will concede that he doesn’t quite get his point across as effectively in the “communicator” role, but I do think that one should look beyond that particular skill.

  7. That is my point!!! From Netanyahu’s own mouth the words were uttered that Israel didn’t need the help of the U.S. and yet you boys call Paul an anti-Semitist for wanting to pull troops??? He’s being fiscally logical!

    Thank God that I have errands to run because this is not the first time today that I’ve lost my temper!

    Breathe in, breathe out……

    Surely you see where I’m coming from, G.?

    • I call Paul an anti-Semite because he has shown a consistent history of making disparaging remarks against Israel and, therefore, against the Jewish people. Were he to confine his attacks to the foreign aid, he “might” escape this condemnation, but he doesn’t. He goes farther. He condemns Israel as being at fault for the intifada (btw: does that sound familiar?) AND because he has said he sides with the PLO. That is an attack against more than Israel, it is a declared alliance with those who want to kill ALL Jews. THAT is the very definition of anti-Semitism, and he can try to spin it all he wants, but he cannot escape the reality of what I have seen and heard him say with his own mouth on video. Try looking for it and not only for those things he says that we agree with.

      At the same time, this same criticism applies to people like Mitt and Newt. If they are going to declare allegiance to Progressives and the Progressive agenda and you vote for them, STOP ATTACKING THE LEFT! You are supporting them! Trying to claim otherwise is the exact same thing Paul is trying to do to get away from his antisemitism.

      PRINCIPLE matters – not the “nuance” of how you describe it.

    • I do, kells. If Israel needs us, we will be there, but they don’t. Netanyahu is playing a game, he knows Obama said the same things his own cabinet have been saying. And Israel is far from blameless.

    • Very true. But when there is a record of DECADES supporting one consistent conclusion…

      Paul’s consistency is one of the primary reasons for the strength of his support. Unfortunately for him, it is a double-edged blade and it cuts both ways.

  8. So M., why don’t you do a litlle poll? I promise to only vote once. Because Guy and I are Lutherans, we won’t pull any of those Baptist shenanigans of stuffing the ballots or voting for dead people. I know reality hurts, my little hot tamale, but you know and I know that we’ve got you pegged!

      • Of course I was only joking. Tee-hee. I do, however, believe some honest people should be in control of the ballots. Not that they’re not honest, per se. Hmmmm… how can I say this with some nice Christian tact? Let’s get the Atheist to count the votes!

  9. Even Netanyahu has said that there must be a Palestinian state, although he wants it demilitarized. Can’t blame him for that.

    In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hizbullah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel. It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized. On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed

    If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

    Abbas backs you up, B, he says the Arabs made a mistake rejecting the 1947 agreement. So did the Palestinians, it seems, but their leaders were later repudiated for failing to effectively govern.

    But no one in power now was active then, and we don’t want the dead to rule the living, eh? There is only 5% of the land in contention, maybe less. It’s time we told these people to go into conference, and not come out without a treaty.

    • Ah, but you need to look closer at that 5%. First, they want what Israel will NOT give them – and they will not agree to accept 99% of their demands in return for that one stumbling block. This makes THEM “the problem,” NOT Israel! And it points clearly to the Palestinians’ true intentions: the eradication of Israel.

      Also, no one “backed me up” my friend, I just reported historically accurate information based on my efforts to go look for the true record. You say it yourself: I do my best to follow and accept the truth – as best I can determine it and no matter where it takes me. 🙂

  10. So Ron Paul’s stated (in the South Carolina Republican debate) official middle east policy is “Do Unto Others”?? WTF?

    • FL; you and the boys really need to read up on “blowback” which he refers to. This is the communication problem with him because I had to research it. Very interesting…
      Maybe I can find that CIA operative that talks about blowback…

      • To be sure, there is some merit in Paul’s argument about blowback, but he is also wrong at the same time. Had we NEVER gone to the Middle East, the Middle East would – sooner or later – come to us. It is in their religious doctrine and has been since Islam began. Ron refuses to acknowledge this, and I refuse to support him as a result.

        One cannot defend against an enemy one refuses to admit exists. In this sense, Ron Paul is the nearly naked chick in the latest teen slasher movie telling himself he will make it just so long as he doesn’t turn and face the slasher, thereby being FORCED to admit the slasher IS real and he IS about to be killed. Or, if you prefer, Paul is a little child with his fingers jammed in his ears repeating to himself “Islam doesn’t want to kill me. Islam doesn’t want to kill me.” Now, if only he would – or rather, COULD – do this in the shadow of the World Trade Center.

      • Sorry kells, I ain’t buyin’ the “blowback” theory. Sounds good (if you’re a RP supporter) and gives you an excuse to ignore the fact that he is anti-Semite or anti-Israel, whichever way you choose to look at his recent statements or the spin being put on them. Why would Israel be subject to any “blowback”? They haven’t attacked Palestine or anyone else who hasn’t attacked them first. Why is it the stated policy of Palestine and other middle-eastern countries to destroy Israel? Why is the Daniel Ortega spouting his nonsense about Israel to destroy it’s nuclear weapons to “foster peace in the middle east” while Iran is doing all they can to develop long range nuclear missles and bombs? What does “blowback” have to do with this?

        • You sound just like my husband.
          Believe me, FL, I agree with Israel’s plight and I know the intent of the enemy. What I don’t know is what the hello our purpose is unless you boys are proposing another Christian crusade.
          Were we to obtain our resources locally, why would we need to be involved over there?
          And yes, I cried at the surprise return of the soldier to his daughter’s class.(reunions have that affect on me)
          It’s not fair. It’s not fair that we should we put our men and women on the line, give these countries a crapload of money (when we’re broke) and just give a wink and a smile as if it as business as usual.

          • “Were we to obtain our resources locally, why would we need to be involved over there?” Another of RP’s wacko theories of isolation. It’s called “allies”, kells. If we hadn’t got involved in WWII all of Europe would be speaking German now. While I do not promote the U.S. as the world’s police force, there are strategic and humane reasons to be involved “over there”.

          • FC,

            Have to disagree with you here – but perhaps only slightly. I agree with the idea of allies, but NOT to the extent of monetary/military aid unless it rises to the level where we will declare war.

            As for foreign aid: again, there is president for richer nations to help poorer nations, but here again, we tend to do nothing more than use money to influence our desires and NOT provide aid – especially in cases where we KNOW the aid will NEVER get to the needy because of corrupt govt.

  11. black – I don’t disagree with you (but just a little :-)). Had you rather suppor Israel or other allies (and I do agree with you about the level of money/support given) or had you rather give it to Pakistan? I also agree with you about aid to corrupt countries. Do we continue to give money or supplies to Somalia where it is guaranteed to go to warlords or pirates who do not hesitate to attack us?

    • I prefer to support Israel in the sense that Jefferson would have had us do: any and every way possible that does not require a treaty, money or U.S. troops in combat. But, in the event of war, I could and would support assisting Israel however we could, up to and including a declaration of war to assist them. But my reasoning is likely not going to ever meet with more than a 35-40% approval in this nation – at least, not in the foreseeable future anyway. 🙂

      I think you may find my most recent post interesting 😉

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.