Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

[BenBurch]

Ben, are you an American?

Yes, and a former Libertarian. (Starting with Roger McBride.)

 

[SpitfireIX]

That is a deranged thought process.

Again, I'll leave it to the readers to decide. Anyone else who thinks this is a deranged thought process, please speak up.

 

[SpitfireIX]

double post

 

[Lonewulf]

Nope, seems like a logical process to me. If motive were enough evidence alone, then that would make police work rather messy.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Richard Masters: No, it's done because the people who promote Ron Paul are INCREDIBLY ANNOYING. :|

Anyway, it makes sense.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The same general reason the Germans attacked a vessel known to have Americans on it, because we were supplying the British with war supplies.

No. See here.

Schwieger had watched the liner come over the horizon but had thought that it was unlikely he could get close enough to attack.
Nonetheless, he had prepared his boat, ordering the forward torpedo room to load one G-type torpedo. He also confirmed with his pilot that the new target was either LUSITANIA or MAURETANIA, both of which were listed in the boat's copy of Brassey's Naval Annual as armed merchant cruisers. . . .

There, thus, appears to have been no causal connection between the events in New York and the sinking. Although the German newspaper warnings give the impression that the sinking was part of a well-coordinated plan, the submarine that sunk LUSITANIA was not hunting her. Rather, it was just a matter of luck that LUSITANIA encountered her. Furthermore, the justifications offered for her sinking are clearly post-hoc rationalizations. Even assuming arguendo that there was a basis for the German charges and that German agents had reported this information home, there is nothing to show that Schweiger had any such knowledge or that it was why he decided to attack. Instead, the evidence indicates that he attacked because he thought that LUSITANIA was an armed merchant cruiser.[emphasis added]

What would your reaction be if your parents cut you off and you had to fend for yourself? Now, consider your parents funding your ex-girlfriend at the same time. What would your reaction be?
Would your parents be goading you?

I'd kill them, of course. Actually, this is irrelevant. My point about a motive to kill my parents was in reference to the British having had a motive for wanting the American public to become angry with Germany, and had nothing to do with Japan.

 

[ronpaulisright]

I renew my question; what was Britain supposed to do; suspend all imports? Britain was a net food importer; her population would have starved.

I'll answer this question with another question. Why were american civilians on that ship?

Exactly how do you feel that the United States violated international law? By aiding China?

By taking sides. They should have remained neutral. I must again go back to henry stinson, the key instigator.

Japan went to war with the US because the US tried to force Japan to end its brutal war of aggression in China. Are you saying that FDR should not have done this?

Yes.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I'll answer this question with another question. Why were american civilians on that ship?

Because they wanted to go to to Great Britain. You still haven't answered my earlier question: what should the US government have done to prevent them from traveling aboard the Lusitania?

By taking sides. They should have remained neutral. I must again go back to henry stinson, the key instigator.

Trade embargos were not violations of international law. Neither were arms shipments to belligerents. Please explain what specific actions of the Roosevelt administration you believe to have constituted violations of international law, and what specific principles those actions violated.

I'd also like to know in significantly more detail why you feel that Henry L. Stimson (Henry Stinson is a painter) was "the key instigator" of FDR's China policy.

Yes.

So, do you believe that prominent American isolationists opposed Roosevelt's actions toward Japan?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes.

Why?

 

[ronpaulisright]

Because they wanted to go to to Great Britain. You still haven't answered my earlier question: what should the US government have done to prevent them from traveling aboard the Lusitania?




Trade embargos were not violations of international law. Neither were arms shipments to belligerents. Please explain what specific actions of the Roosevelt administration you believe to have constituted violations of international law, and what specific principles those actions violated.

I'd also like to know in significantly more detail why you feel that Henry L. Stimson (Henry Stinson is a painter) was "the key instigator" of FDR's China policy.




So, do you believe that prominent American isolationists opposed Roosevelt's actions toward Japan?

1.) education. Again war was not just after lusitania.

2.) Taking sides and breaking agreements.

3.) This, Sir Edward Grey:What will americans do if germans sink an ocean liner with american passengers on board? Colonel Edward House: I beleive that a flame of indignation would sweep the united states and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war. This pertains to lusitania and WW1

here is what stimson said on Pearl harbor; "The question was how should we manuever them into firing the first shot... it was desirable to make sure that the japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors."

so Those are quotes from stimson, sir edward grey and colonel edward house.


I would like to add, "there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself".

 

[Thunder]

america was wrong not to join the war the day germany attacked poland. what happens in europe effects the usa. had we joined england in fighting the nazis in 1939, many military lives would have been saved, russia would not have had such a foothold in eastern europe, and millions of jews would have not been snuffed out.

we picked the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong war, to become isolationist.

 

[ronpaulisright]

america was wrong not to join the war the day germany attacked poland. what happens in europe effects the usa. had we joined england in fighting the nazis in 1939, many military lives would have been saved, russia would not have had such a foothold in eastern europe, and millions of jews would have not been snuffed out.

we picked the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong war, to become isolationist.

There's a difference between non intervention and isolation.

 

[SpitfireIX]

1.) education. Again war was not just after lusitania.

Are you saying the US government should simply have attempted to persuade all Americans not to travel on British ships?

2.) Taking sides and breaking agreements.

Frankly, RPIR, it's painfully obvious that you lack even a minimal understanding of international law. You appear to believe that "international law" required all nations to observe a policy of "nonintervention." Also, could you please explain exactly what agreements you believe the United States violated.

3.) This, Sir Edward Grey:What will americans do if germans sink an ocean liner with american passengers on board? Colonel Edward House: I beleive that a flame of indignation would sweep the united states and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war. This pertains to lusitania and WW1

And you still haven't given a coherent explanation of how the United States should have stopped this from happening.

here is what stimson said on Pearl harbor; "The question was how should we manuever them into firing the first shot... it was desirable to make sure that the japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors."

Yes--after it was clear that war could not be avoided. From the warning message sent to all Army and Navy Pacific commands on November 28, 1941:

[N]egotiations with Japan appear to be terminated to all practical purposes with only the barest possibilities that the Japanese Government might come back and offer to continue. Japanese future action unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities cannot repeat not be avoided the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act. This policy should not repeat not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense. [bolding mine]

so Those are quotes from stimson, sir edward grey and colonel edward house.

Quotes that add little or nothing to your argument, such as it is.

I would like to add, "there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself".

Handwaving. What proof do you have of this purported "power behind the throne"?

 

[Tippit]

Yes, I have been reached by Ron Paul and I accept him as my savior. I am now free of my sins, such as believing that the gold standard is incapable of supporting our economy and that fractional reserve banking is responsible for all our progress. I am guaranteed a place in heaven, where I can smoke as much crystal as I want and pay for it in gold!

Sarcasm,when it's effectively employed, is a wonderful rhetorical tool. Unfortunately in your case it only displays your profound ignorance of the fractional reserve banking system, and it's effect upon our society. Implicit in your post is that the gold standard is incapable of "supporting our economy", which is patently false, and that we have FRB to thank for "all our progress", which is absolutely, positively untrue.

The truth is that progress occurs in spite of FRB and fiat money systems, and is in no way shape or form dependent upon them. The problems inherent in gold standards aside, the idea that our economy is dependent on perpetual inflation and would not function given a static supply of money, is similarly ridiculous.

I've made numerous posts about the Federal Reserve System and FRB on this forum, and I will attempt to explain why this is so. At its heart, the Fed is nothing more than system of institutionalized counterfeiting. It has the power to create and destroy money by decree, which is exactly what it does, usually the former. Whether it is monetizing US government debt through its open market activity, whether it is subsidizing artificially low interest rates with fiat money, or whether it is bailing out large banks, bankrupt cities, hedge funds, or Wall Street investment banks, the result is the same: more money created out of thin air.

Prosperity and wealth creation don't come from increasing the money supply, they come from technological innovation and productivity gains. We cannot print our way to prosperity. If we were to double the money supply and somehow equitably distribute this new money, all we would be left with are nominal gains in people's bank accounts. But this illusion of wealth would disappear upon the realization that prices would similarly double, and we would see no real gains in wealth.

In effect, what the Fed does is far worse, because the benefactors of its money creation scheme are an elite few bankers and politicians, and the associated corporations they represent. The money creation is continual and is absolutely and completely inequitable. Apologists and supporters of the status quo will attempt to argue that monetary stimulus is good for the economy, by providing much needed capital. This ignores the fundamental problem of the equitability of the distribution of this new capital, and when viewed for what it is, the Fed is nothing more than a thinly disguised, transparent form of economic control.

The Fed's easy money, far from being an economic boon, is a disaster. It subsidizes the worst innovators, it grossly distorts risk and reward, and it results in widespread malinvestment and greedy speculation (see the housing boom/bust). This again is apart from the fact that the primary beneficiaries of the new money are the moneyed elite, and that the entire system is completely fradulent and inequitable.

The idea that the Federal Reserve's legitimized counterfeiting is somehow different from criminal counterfeiting, is as morally and intellectually bankrupt as the idea that state sanctioned murder under the auspices of war is any different than what the common murderer does.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Tippit: I wish you would learn what it is yourself.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Care to explain that again, this time not in ideologue-speak? Is that even possible?

 

[ronpaulisright]

Are you saying the US government should simply have attempted to persuade all Americans not to travel on British ships?




Frankly, RPIR, it's painfully obvious that you lack even a minimal understanding of international law. You appear to believe that "international law" required all nations to observe a policy of "nonintervention." Also, could you please explain exactly what agreements you believe the United States violated.




And you still haven't given a coherent explanation of how the United States should have stopped this from happening.




Yes--after it was clear that war could not be avoided. From the warning message sent to all Army and Navy Pacific commands on November 28, 1941:







Quotes that add little or nothing to your argument, such as it is.




Handwaving. What proof do you have of this purported "power behind the throne"?

Proof? just look around you. Quasi-secret societies like bilderberg and the CFR , bohemian grove, trilateral commission, skull and bones etc.

Didn't the US help Britain when they were enemies of japan?

Look, there is prominent evidence that Roosevelt whose uncle was on the board that created the federal reserve, wanted to get into this war. They wanted pearl harbor to unfold. That is the argument being made.

As for Lusitania, I meant exactly what I said educate the american civilians. In all aspects of the word. Educate the American civilians.

 

[ronpaulisright]

At its heart, the Fed is nothing more than a system of institutionalized counterfeiting

THANK YOU!!!!

:big clap

Exactly man!

 

[Lonewulf]

Getting into a war by having much of your navy get smashed in one offensive doesn't really sound like a good plan to me, personally.

 

[ronpaulisright]

Getting into a war can be prevented. Getting into a war is stupid in the first place.