Ron Paul is still right, and you are still wrong.

[Richard Masters]

Profile in Courage

Ron Paul was the sole vote in the House against a resolution that condemned the Palestinians for shooting rockets at Israel, and supported Israel's attacks on the Palestinians. Paul was brief and eloquent on the floor:

I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the U.S. and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the U.S. attack on that country.​

The vote was 404-1. Some day this vote will be in history books, as evidence of the miserable imbalance in our foreign policy.

 

[mortimer]

Are you asserting that the following passage "support Israel's attacks on Palestinians"? Or am I missing something?

(3) supports the sovereign right of the Government of Israel to defend its territory against attacks;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.951.EH:

 

[ZenFountain]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

Whereas these deliberate cross-border rocket and mortar attacks on civilian populations constitute a blatant violation of human rights and international law;

Whereas those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields;

Whereas intentionally targeting civilian populations and the use of human shields violates international humanitarian and human rights law;

(1) strongly condemns--

(A) Hamas, which controls Gaza, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations for the ongoing rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and continued human rights violations;

(B) state sponsors of terror, such as Iran and Syria, for enabling Palestinian terrorist organizations to carry out attacks against innocent Israeli civilians; and

(C) the use of innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields by those who carry out rocket and other attacks;

(4) expresses sympathy and support for innocent Palestinian civilians who reject all forms of terrorism and desire to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors but who continue to be utilized as human shields by terrorist organizations;

 

[NeoRicen]

Yeah because firing rockets at Israel was such a nice thing to do.

Israel has its problems, but the actions and words of its opponents are quite often outright absurd. Just because Israel has done bad things, doesn't mean attacks on it shouldn't be condemned. Condemn Israel's attacks too, don't avoid condemning these attacks too.

 

[Richard Masters]

Are you asserting that the following passage "support Israel's attacks on Palestinians"? Or am I missing something?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.951.EH:

I believe the author of the article was referring to a different line in which Congress excuses the civilian deaths.

Regardless, the resolution is very one-sided.

 

[Richard Masters]

If Mexican rebels were launching rockets supplied by Iran and Syria on Paul's district he better show the same courage to stand up and say no to defending our sovereignty. Read the text of the legislation and try again.

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.

Israel is not the United States. Standing up for Israel has little to do with defending our sovereignty. There is no reason to believe Ron Paul would not defend our sovereignty. Unless you can't read a map.

 

[Richard Masters]

Yeah because firing rockets at Israel was such a nice thing to do.

Israel has its problems, but the actions and words of its opponents are quite often outright absurd. Just because Israel has done bad things, doesn't mean attacks on it shouldn't be condemned. Condemn Israel's attacks too, don't avoid condemning these attacks too.

I've noticed you've become a lot more reasonable lately.

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

 

[HereticHulk]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

I think IF represents the lameness of your reply.

 

[LibraryLady]

Because this does not directly address the U.S. Presidential election, it has been moved to Politics.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[davefoc]

While I tend to have Ron Paul like views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I am not sure I agree with his vote here.

The rocket attacks from the Gaza strip on Israel seem to have little purpose other than killing Israelis and escalating violence. They ensure the death of hundreds of Palestinians and the destabilization of the lives of thousands of other Palestinians, they work to reduce world sympathy for the Palestinian cause and of course they serve to buoy up the idiotic policies of the US with regard to the dispute.

The Israelis voluntarily ended their immoral and ill conceived attempt to colonize the Gaza strip. That was a good thing and if Hamas had the courage to attempt good governance, the Israelis and the Paletinians might have both profited from the Israeli withdrawal. Instead, at least for the time being, Hamas has showed no such courage and just pushes forth with an agenda of mindless violence. And this is something that I think is reasonable to condemn them for.

Of course, Israel, pushes forward with its immoral colonial practices that are just as much of an act of war as the Hamas rocket attacks. And any American resolution that doesn't condemn Israel for this is just a piece of typical American duplicity on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and I can at least sympathize with Paul for not wanting his name on something like that.

 

[Richard Masters]

Actually, it's right on. Ron Paul's district was once part of Mexico, and taken in a war. Israel was also created during a war.

If Mexico decided to try to take back Texas, using guerilla militias to launch random attacks on civilian targets, what would Ron Paul do?

That's still not consistent with the analogy, at all. So it's not "right on".

How Ron Paul refuses to take sides unfairly in a third party conflict has little bearing in your hypothetical scenario.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Another reminder of why I didn't even consider Ron Paul let alone remember he was even running.

 

[Just thinking]

Another reminder of why I didn't even consider Ron Paul let alone remember he was even running.

And people call McCain a maverick??

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Seriously. I laugh at thy strawman.

 

[dudalb]

Just another reason why it is a good thing that Ron Paul will never get near the presidency.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sorry, but your response is non-sequitur and illogical.

Israel is not the United States. Standing up for Israel has little to do with defending our sovereignty. There is no reason to believe Ron Paul would not defend our sovereignty. Unless you can't read a map.

I seem to be hearing from you that the US has no role in the process by which the Pals and Israelis find a way toward dealing with each other in a less sanguinary manner.

If the US is too biased, which the US might well be, who do you suggest as a moderator, an honest third party?

The Japanese?

DR

 

[dudalb]

And has the OP ever started ONE Thread here whose purpose was not to sing the praises of Ron The Great?

 

[Checkmite]

Profile in Courage

Ron Paul was the sole vote in the House against a resolution that condemned the Palestinians for shooting rockets at Israel, and supported Israel's attacks on the Palestinians. Paul was brief and eloquent on the floor:

I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention – particularly when it appears to be one-sided – that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the U.S. and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the U.S. attack on that country.​

The vote was 404-1. Some day this vote will be in history books, as evidence of the miserable imbalance in our foreign policy.

Perhaps the only major political point of Paul's I ever agreed with is demonstrated by this statement of his; I also believe Israel owes some effort of action toward establishing peace with its neighbors.

However, I disagree with you. This vote will be forgotten and dismissed, as unimportant as most everything else Paul has "accomplished" (I use the term loosely). A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it is still broken and therefore useless.

 

[Just thinking]

... A broken clock may be right twice a day, but it is still broken and therefore useless.

A fact overlooked all too often after pointing out the first half.