The Ice Blog

by Ice

My Final Response re: Agree to Disagree

How many times has the U.S. armed BOTH sides of a conflict?  This policy brings little gain and lots of trouble.  It is not rational or intelligent.

Over the last few years 10 Billion American Taxpayer dollars has gone to Musharraf. Musharraf has promised to look for bin Laden.  He is unpopular and seen as a power hungry, brutal military dictator.  It seems to most that the U.S. is propping him up. The anger of Pakistani’s towards Musharraf’s regime may be turned towards those that enable him: the U.S.  Ron Paul points out that this is one of the problems with U.S. Foreign Policy.  “Our friend one day is our enemy the next. And all our friends enemies become our enemies.

The Pakistani’s almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing others to pursue him.  Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders.  Bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistani’s.  More members of al Qaeda probably live in Pakistan than any other country. North Korea developed their Nuclear program with technology sold to them by Pakistan.  Has the 10 Billion Dollars been a good investment?  The U.S. remains friends with Pakistan while Saddam, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat for 9/11.

There are hundreds of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The justification for these wars is that they both supported terrorism and posed a risk to the U.S.  These two impoverished nations, neither of which had any real military, posed little threat to U.S. National Security in comparison to other Middle Eastern nations.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s have proven connections to al Qaeda.  Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic Terrorist groups. Yet, Saudi Arabia is referred to as a “good partner in the war on terror.”  Successive administrations have continued to treat the Saudi’s as a reliable and honest friend in the ME.  And they are not.

Pres. Bush struck a deal with King Abdullah (2005) to allow 21,000 more Saudi men into the U.S. on student Visas.  It isn’t my opinion that all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorist but we should place a higher premium on American security than convenience for citizens of a hostile country.  Why make it easier for would be terrorists to accomplish their goals? Student Visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still too easily obtained.

The U.S. has troops in 130 countries and too few defending American soil.  As Ron Paul says: “It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is unlocked.” We must physically secure American Borders and Coastlines.  Visa rules must be enforced and those who overstay their visit or otherwise break American law must be deported.

Darren Gilbert made the statement that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq came after 9/11.  This is an error which needs corrected.  In the early 90’s the U.S. invaded Iraq.  It placed sanctions on Iraq.  The U.S. organized and funded coups in Iran and elsewhere.  The U.S. was in Afghanistan before the first bombing of Iraq.  If these things are all true then his statement is in error.

What I cannot comprehend is why, even with disagreement on the issue of Foreign Policy, any other candidate would seem a better choice when, in fact, the position of Ron Paul on so many other issues is agreed upon?  The most important of these issues, other than securing American borders are National Sovereignty, States Rights and Individual Liberty.  Should we give up our Liberty for the promise of security (a promise which we can see with our own eyes is not being fulfilled)?  Should we vote into office any of the candidates that supports globalization?  Should we vote into office a candidate that will continue to whittle away at the founding documents and destroy the American way of life?

Here is Ron Paul’s position on American Independence and Sovereignty.  Ask yourself which of the other candidates would stand on this position and follow through.  I believe there is not one, other than Ron Paul.

“So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”

It amazes me that any other candidate would seem viable in regards these issues.  And anyone that believes the U.S. should continue funding BOTH sides of a conflict between or within other nations and engage itself in the politics of other nations through attempts to buy cooperation, threat of force or funding and supporting dictators all while making the claim to be spreading “democracy” should seriously consider the consequences of such actions.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will protect your Freedom and Liberty right here at home.  Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an economic plan that will solve the economic problems Americans face today while insuring those that have become dependent on government will see an increase in their purchasing power and an end to the taxation of their benefits.  Ron Paul is the only candidate that is serious about securing American Borders and dealing with Terrorists as evidenced by his introduction of “The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007” (H.R. 3216) and the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act” (H.R. 3217).  These are logical steps in the right direction.

However, if anyone believes that U.S. Foreign Policy should continue as it has, is ready to give up National Sovereignty and Individual Liberty, and is solidly behind a Global governing body then they SHOULD vote for anyone other than Ron Paul.  This is an election of 2 choices: Freedom or Slavery.  Ron Paul is a vote for Freedom.  A vote for any other candidate will have its day of regret.

Americans are responsible for the actions of those they elect to power.  Choose carefully.

Advertisements

January 24, 2008 - Posted by | Constitution, Economy, End of America, Freedom & Liberty, Law, Politics, Ron Paul |

4 Comments »

  1. I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.

    Mike Harmon

    Comment by Mike Harmon | January 24, 2008 | Reply

  2. […] The Ice Blog wrote an interesting post today on My Final Response re: Agree to DisagreeHere’s a quick excerpt And anyone that believes the U. S. should continue funding BOTH sides of a conflict between or within other nations and engage itself in the politics of other n… […]

    Pingback by Politics » My Final Response re: Agree to Disagree | January 24, 2008 | Reply

  3. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe anger of Pakistani’s towards Musharraf’s regime may be turned towards those that enable him: the US Ron Paul points out that this is one of the problems with US Foreign Policy. “Our friend one day is our enemy the next. … […]

    Pingback by Ron Paul » Blog Archive » My Final Response re: Agree to Disagree | January 24, 2008 | Reply

  4. […] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe anger of Pakistani’s towards Musharraf’s regime may be turned towards those that enable him: the US Ron Paul points out that this is one of the problems with US Foreign Policy. “Our friend one day is our enemy the next. … […]

    Pingback by My Final Response re: Agree to Disagree | January 24, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: