A couple of questions for Paul supporters

Given Ron Paul's absolutely bizarre take on US foreign policy, here's a couple of serious questions for his supporters.

How would Ron Paul have reacted after the attacks on 911?

How would Ron Paul react if Iran blocked traffic at the Strait of Hormuz?

 

1. 9-11 wouldn't have happened had Ron Paul been president.

2. He'd most likely say 'drill at home..we have enough oil here'

 

That wasn't what I asked. How would Paul have reacted to the 911 attacks?

In other words, he'd do nothing to protect US shipping interests in the Gulf, correct? He would not use the US Navy to enforce the right to free passage through the Strait?

 

Well, he introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and he voted for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan. It's safe to say that Paul would have dealt with the terrorists but not gone to war unless totally needed.

I'm not sure what he would do about Iran, but I'm sure it would involve diplomacy but he would say that it has to do with foreign policy. There is a reason they would want to block the oil. They don't want sanctions. Ron Paul is against sanctions. I can't tell you exactly what he would do - I can't read his mind - but I'm sure he wouldn't bomb the crap out of Iran.

 

1. Sensibly rather than using it as an excuse to invade other nations that were on the neo-con to-do list long before 9/11 ever happened.

2. If we weren't putting sanctions on Iran they wouldn't be talking about blocking the Strait of Hormuz so it wouldn't be an issue.

 

Sensibly isn't an answer. America has been attacked. Exactly how would he react and what would he do?

Nevertheless, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz violating the right of free passage by US flagged vessels. How would Paul react and what would he do?

 

In other words, you support his foreign policy even without knowing how he would react to crisis involving the CONUS and US oveseas trade interests.

 

Sorry that I don't know everything about Ron Paul. If you're so curious, why not look it up? It seems to me you already have your decision made that Paul has a terrible foreign policy and you're just here to provoke people.

I gave you exactly what Ron Paul voted for after 9/11. It didn't seem bizarre that he voted to take out these terrorists. Perhaps you were looking for something that you could tear apart.

He hasn't voted or said anything (as far as I know) about Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

Presidents say stuff during their campaign and don't follow through. Bush was a non-interventionist before 9/11, that sure changed quickly. Obama did great at shutting down gitmo.

 

For one our borders would be defended. That is infinitely superior in and of itself to any and everything every President has done since 9/11. Secondly, based on what he's said and what he's voted for I would say he would have gone after the network responsible in a way that killed or captured them without bankrupting the nation. You refer to Ron Paul's foreign policy as "looney" while advocating our nation spend trillions of dollars going after one terrorist?

The Strait wouldn't be closed because he wouldn't have imposed sanctions.
Hasn't he said a thousand times we're more likely to go to war with nations we have imposed sanctions on? Isn't this question just proof that he is right?

 

Let's just clear the air and be honest (if you're even capable). You like sanctions on Iran. You want Iran to close the Strait. You want the U.S. military to bomb Iran into submission for Israel. Let's just stop pretending otherwise.

 

Given that you start your post with a gratuitous ad hominem, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is no combination of words possible in the English language to construct an answer you'd accept.

He'd treat it like a police action. Ask Congress to issue letters of marque, possibly authorize him to pursue the air pirates as a police action against the laws of nations. If Congress declared war on somebody, he'd fight and win it.

However, probably none of that would have been necessary because, right after 9/11, the Taliban offered to have Bin Laden extradited to a neutral third country:

President Bush rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to a neutral third country Sunday as an eighth day of bombing made clear that military coercion, not diplomacy, remains the crux of U.S. policy toward the regime.

"They must have not heard: There's no negotiations," Bush told reporters...

Ron Paul, of course, would have been more interested in pursuing justice in the most peaceful and least destructive manner possible and less interested in pursuing his own lust for war, war, war.

Diplomacy. Going to war if Congress declared it. Advocating a free market in energy, which would make it less of an issue for the US. Other than that, not much. But that almost certainly wouldn't happen if Washington wasn't already doing its utmost to antagonize Iran with its own spate of hostile and militaristic actions and thereby push us into yet another war, war, war.

 

You're avoiding the question. America has been attacked on 911. Ron Paul is the President. How does he react and what does he do?

Regardess, Iran has closed the Strait unlawfully restricting the right of free passage to US flagged vessels. What is Ron Paul's reaction? What does he do.

 

Thank you for your response which boils down to Ron Paul would do next to nothing.

 

That's already been answered. He would do what he said he would do, what he voted to do. Take out the terrorists responsible and get on with life. No years of war, no nation building.

Plus, Ron Paul would have a stronger national security and this likely would have been prevented. In the unlikely case that it did happen, read above and read previous posts.

 

How would he "take out the terrorists responsible" without entering the sovereign territory of another country?

Exactly how would Paul have a stronger national security?

 

I did answer the question. Try going back and reading it.

Regardless? So you want to kill a million Iranian civilians and possibly start WWIII over the (*)(*)(*)(*) Strait of Hormuz? Ron Paul isn't the one with a crazy foreign policy here... No sanctions, no war. Russia and China get along fine with Iran. So can we.

 

So "treating it like a police action" and "going to war if Congress declared it" equates to "next to nothing"? It's just as I figured. No combination of words in the English language would provoke a significantly different response from you because the point of this thread isn't to have an intellectually honest discussion, now is it?

 

Have a look:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

Have a read on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

He would have used the Letter of Marque and Reprisal
Have a stab at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

 

This is either the case of a little mini-Zionist that wants to see everyone who looks at Israel wrong turned to glass...
Or someone who has been so saturated in media garbage for the last ten years that he's unable to compute anything that doesn't involve invading multiple nations and spending trillions of dollars because 19 individuals pulled off a terrorist attack.

Perhaps if we completely ruin ourselves and our currency we'll really, really show those terrorists we mean business...

 

Well, that's because their eeeevil too. Don't you know evil bad guys always get along with each other just because they're all eeeevil? They cackle and twirl their mustaches, even.

 

So what?

Far and away most of America's oil doesn't even come through the Strait.

Let the locals and/or Europe deal with their own problems for once.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

 

Exactly right .

 

I never said that. So what you're saying is that another country can violate our maritime right to free passage and Ron Paul should do nothing but try to negotiate with a government which has called for our downfall.

In other words, Paul is a pacifist who's willing to allow other countries the option of violating US rights under international law.

Ok, thanks for that unique take on what Paul would do.

 

US flagged vessels regularly transit the Strait. From what you've said you'd have no problem with Paul taking no action when a foreign power unlawfuly interferes with the US's right to free passage and trade.

Thanks, I appreciate your opinion.

 

So you are against other countries violating 'US rights under international law'?

So then I assume you are against it when America violates other countries rights under international law?