Silkroad Online Forums

Ron Paul... Hope for America says it all. He acts like a signer of the constitution. He speaks for Freedom, liberty, prosperity, peace, morality, pro-life and a sound economic policy. The other canidates want more spending more war more welrare more counterfitting of the dollar by the government. If you dont believe he can win, you must not believe in much.

I lol'd. Being Canadian, i'm rather neutral on this issue which allows me to take a step back and look at the two sides. I find it halarious how a lot of the Ron Paul e-partisans are so zealous that, without them realizing it, they sound like christian fundamentalists.

They are blind and they cannot see it.

Well it's not to say that Paul's got totally bad views, there are some things that make him quite viable. It's just the fine details that some people don't see/want to see. But show me one candidate that has it all in one nice easy package.

If America didn't fight in wars around the world. The world would be taken over by people like Hitler and Sodom. America's the only one preventing that from happening.

I think America creates more wars than peace.
OT: Ron Paul can bring real peace, and I support him because his policies make America more America except less violent and annoying for other countries.
But if I was American, I'd definitely not vote for him.

People should just be thankful that it is America who is on top right now not the Ruskies or the Chinamen.
They look at us policing the world and start talking sh1t. It could be much worse.

Because America has done so much for this world by making the most pollution, conquesting for fuel, leaving pollutive aerosols in Vietnam, standing in the way of other countries unity (Korea prime example), leaving thousands of pregnant Vietnamese women after the way, throwing both the nuclear bombs ever used in history, filling the world with worthless junk 'food', the whole 'gangsters are cool' attitude in youth, THANK YOU AMERICA! /sarcasm

China's taken the first place in Asia for hundreds and hundreds of years never have in it's history attacked a country for colonizing or looting.

That's probably because most of the time China was too busy fighting within itself until it became one nation. And I wouldn't quite say that they never at any point attacked a country for "colonizing or looting."

Anyway, look at it like this: Paul is against having America policing the world, he believes it's not our business and he's absolutely right. Isn't that what you want?

I bet even if America dropped all its activities that related to this so called "policing" people would still bitch. That's just the way it is.

LOLOLOL YOU OWNED ME YOU HAVE SUCH INSIGHT ON CHINESE HISTORY /sarcasm

Dam it's annoying when people say shit that they don't know

So China's been led by one power since it has ever existed?

Mmkay.



Wikipedia power, activate!

Edit: And according to the same article, China didn't actually become China until what, 1912?

Ron Paul is an idiot.

If you look at his platform he basically wants to end the complaints of every conservative American while offering no solutions and completely ignoring the repercussions. If your the kind of person who sits around all day complaining about "They took our jobs" and "I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for <insert public service> if i don't use it." than by all means Ron Paul is your man.

If your the the of person who understand how much the cost of so many thing will increase without illegal labor don't vote for ron. If you understand the value of the public school system and realize that it offers ALL americans what people in other countries spend there whole life saving just to get here to have access to: an education, don't vote for paul. If you understand the constitution whole being the highest law of the land is not perfect, never has been, never was intended to be don't vote for ron. If you can see a die hard Christian in sheeps clothing don't vote for ron, our last President thought he was instructed by God, ron will actually try to find evidence to PROVE he was instructed by God.


and can someone tell me why he's encouraging fighting in the middle-east, ignoring genocide in Darfur, and thinks the people of south Korea need a leader like kin-jong-ill. His foreign policy is all kinds of f*cked up....but he'd make a great president, the face of America all over the world.

Its stupid if you think any politician should have all the right cards. They are politicians and most of what they say is a lie or an empty promise. The only thing your really voting for is a vague idea of what you think the person may or may not support during there term in office and i definitely don't want ron sitting in the white house twiddling his thumbs while the house, senate, and probably the supreme court bash every idea he has to pieces because they realize how impossible, irresponsible, and bogus his ideas are.

Just because he doesn't want us involved doesn't mean he wants Mr. Kim to take over. Darfur isn't America's business and Korea isn't America's business, leave that crap to the UN. Where did you read that Paul wanted to start crap in the Middle East? Everything I've read says exactly the opposite. The guy wants to keep America out of other nations' affairs which is what everyone keeps whining about right? Oh yeah, if we don't police the world who will? I'm sure if Paul got elected the first thing we would hear about is how irresponsible we would be to leave Iraq and focus on our own problems for once.

Since Paul is still the only person I've seen addressing the issue of our economy and the ridiculous inflation that's going on, I find it hard for someone to call him an idiot. Everyone else is focused on "threats" from "terrorism" in the Middle East. Before Guiliani dropped out he couldn't go a debate without mentioning 9/11. My point is, I can only see serious change occurring with Ron Paul. I'd rather have a guy promising me the world and delivering only a fraction of it, than to have a guy promising a fraction and delivering nothing.

He's supporting Israels decision to continue fighting rather than give some land back. Thats not exactly something a hands off politician would say. The inflation that your so worried about would only go up with the removal of our exploited foreign labor force. Cheap labor= cheap price. Also most of Rons platform is States Rights oriented. The only people who could fix the economy for the whole nation is the Federal Gov't. See the conflict of interest there. Smaller Federal Gov't means weaker powers means less influence on the states. He can't promise to fix our economic situation if he's also promising to weaken the federal Gov't.

I disagree...

The ghost of Woodrow Wilson, whose presidency encompassed the whole of the First World War and its immediate aftermath, has haunted world leaders from his day to ours. The message of Wilson's ghost is this: Beware of the blindness and folly that led Europe's leaders into the First World War, a disaster theretofore without compare in world history; and beware of the temptation to believe that sustainable peace will be maintained simply by plotting to achieve an alleged "balance of power," without a moral commitment to prevent human carnage and a strong international organization to enforce it.

Wilson's ghost haunts the U.S. and the world in three principal ways at the outset of the 21st century, threatening to make the 21st century far more lethal than the 20th. First, Wilson failed to bring defeated Germany "in from the cold," and instead punished and humiliated her, leading to Hitler's rise to power and the Nazi revenge in the Second World War. The West now risks a great power conflict due to its post-Cold War failure to integrate Russia and China into the international system. Second, Wilson failed to establish acknowledged guidelines for adjudicating claims of national self-determination and to give to his creation, the League of Nations, the capability to prevent conflict, both across borders and within nations. Today, the United Nations is unable to stem the tide of communal killing in many parts of the world. Third, Wilson was unable to convey successfully, either to the allies or to the American people, his personal conviction that war had become unthinkable, due to the interdependent nature of the emerging global society and the radical increase in the destructiveness of the weapons of war. We now enter the 21st century with the risk of catastrophic nuclear war actually increasing, chiefly due to the unwillingness of the U.S. to take seriously its own rhetoric about the horror of nuclear weapons.

...it is time for a radical approach to reducing the risk of human carnage such as Wilson saw in the First World War, a war which was but the harbinger of history's bloodiest century.

This part made me nod.

Warring States? Gwei Lo thats the best thing you throw at me? In the warring states period your European ancestors were barbarians only civilised people of Europe at that time were the Greeks and the Romans. If you had any idea of ancient history you'd know that in China's written surviving evident history most of it was under unity.

America has taken lead from 1945-2008 63 years so far and theres been 4+ wars they've participated
Lets just bring out the hundreds for China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty
206 BC – 220 AD Han dynasty the first united Chinese dynasty, do the maths its 400+ years and never in those 400 years did we invade another country. This is the dynasty that estabilished the silkroad.

618 – 907 Tang Dynasty (SRO set in this dynasty although with many inaccuracies) nearly 300 years, in those 300 years never has China invaded in conquest upon other country only widespread trade reaching Europe.

Song Dynasty 960 – 1279 another 300+ years, still no invasions this was an age of science, engineering, and technology.

Ming Dynasty 1368 – 1644 almost 300 years again, this dynasty was a dynasty of great expedition Admiral Zheng He's fleet being the largest
in recorded history, being the first Columbus "Zheng He's first voyage consisted of a fleet of 317 ships holding almost 28,000 "

I guess you think if it's against your own country then it doesn't count. War's war no matter how old it is. And I never said my ancestors were any better, conquest is the way of the world, or at least it was. Anyway it doesn't matter, I'm not here to argue about ancient history lol.

I was talking about when you said China was too busy fighting itself the whole time and at your example of the warring states which was only a portion of Chinese history.

But OT: I think it would benefit peace, and everyone if someone like Ron Paul becomes president.

It wouldn't benefit in places like Sudan, Kenya or Burma today, or places like East Timor in recent years...or Rwanda back in the 1990s.

Not that we have a good track record in these places either, but we have a better chance of taking on these tough issues with someone who is willing to go that route and help solve these problems...Paul is an isolationist and would never get involved. We must have a moral imperative to help, with the rest of the world community, to help end ethnic violence.

Even though I agree with you about helping others, Paul is taking the stance that we need to focus on fixing our own problems first before deciding to fix other people's problems for them.

What no one here seems to realize is that these two things are not mutually exclusive. By saying we need to fix our own problems first while avoiding problems in the rest of the world, you are showing the disconnect you have for the interconnectedness of the two. The globalization of the world economy, trade, communication and other areas means that what happens in other places DOES effect us in some way. Plus, doing one doesn't mean we can't do the other. What sort of lazy-ass or wuss thinks that we can't solve problems locally and globally? Here's something for you to think about, a hypothetical:

War breaks out between Pakistan and India (two nuclear powers). This fighting leads to inter-ethnic fighting within each country and within its neighbors as conflict refugees flee their homes into neighboring provinces and countries. Over time, tensions continue to mount, conflict increases and eventually we have large-scale, regional ethnic fighting and combat. All of a sudden the fighting in Sri Lanka between the gov't and the Tamil Tigers is no mere blip on the radar, as conflict is spreading throughout south Asia and engulfed many other locations. Economies tank, threatening US corporate interests and global economies. US Citizens in these places are put in harms way. The UN Security Council convenes to figure out what to do to help solve the problem. The consensus is to establish peacekeeping forces, but, the US under the Ron Paul presidency decides, it cannot support intervention using US troops because, hell, we have to figure out how to eliminate the IRS first!!!

Just a hypothetical, but you can see where I'm going

I can see where intervention with UN peacekeeping forces(mostly US but whatever) would be advantageous in this situation. But in the real life I don't really see the problems we are solving by sending US troops over to Iraq to be sitting targets while the US corporate interests and all the politicians that are lobbied by them get rich. There are more efficient ways to do these things and it appears that the current system just isn't working out. When you see something is not working out, why not stop doing it?

I'm not talking about Iraq here. That's a specific situation where I think most people with a brain would agree that we need to get out of there. However, we have to do so responsibly. I was protesting the invasion as a college student back in 2003. I remember being in DC the week we invaded and seeing all the protesters marching at the Mall and Washington Monument. It was great. However, like Powell said, if you break it, you bought it. We have broken Iraq, and although things seem to be calming down a BIT, it's still a screwed up country. We need to leave soon, but it must be a gradual withdrawal. We can't pull out, or that place will devolve into a chaotic mess, more so than it is now and it will destabilize the entire region.

your looking at america from a narrow-minded view. America has helped the world many times and they have helped china too. Do you think you guys would have self soverignty if america didn't help you guys out in WWII?

America isn't perfect and I don't think any country is. If your just picking out all the bad things america did then your really narrow-minded.

And I must agree with Stallowned on this one. I'm sure the world would want a democratic country instead of a soviet union or china.

If you think America is such a trouble causer, look into your own country and count out the problems you have in China. No country is all good or all bad so stop saying that America is violent or bloodthirsty

Blind Nationalism ftw.

its an american tradition

...that anti-americans have picked up in order to forge their identity and seperate themselves from the scum that is America! It only proves that those who hate America only hate America because they cannot accept that they are culturally American themselves.

Let us band together and reject our parents' morals and values, only to fall back on them at the end of our rebellious teenage angst.

your right, being Anti-American is one of the greatest American traditions, im pretty sure most of the people we've churned out who are worth knowing/studying/remembering had some major problems with this country. So whats your point....

You are the biggest damn hypocrite I have seen for a long time, your idea don't even have any factual information to back it up.

China would not have self sovereignty? Never have I heard such bullshit.
How much of the aid do you think America gave to China was used the Japanese instead of the communists, do you even know what kind of support was given? If you know at all any history on the Sino-Japanese war/ modern Chinese history you'd know America was hardly a help.

Sure China has problems, but do we make problems for others? Who's the one that is standing the way of the unification of another country, who's the one that's waged campaigns throughout the world in their conquest for fuel. Moreover I've never said any country was perfect, this was not about perfection in the first place.

I'm narrow minded because I criticize America huh, god damn instead of talking complete rubbish, go read a book. Facts is something you definitely lack hypocrite.

Though the situation's just hypothetical, I'm not sure it would be taken to that extreme. If the conflict had blown up to that scale I doubt anyone would sit back and do absolutely nothing. I'm sure there are other ways to help without becoming directly involved. It could be that people think we have an obligation to do so because we have the ability, but look at Iraq, the place is still pretty much a huge mess. Same goes for our image, we're the big bad bullies now and everybody hates us for it. The worst part is as soon as we talk about focusing on local issues instead of international ones, people flip out because they can't figure out what to do.

The way I interpret Paul's decisions to not become involved is like this: It sounds like he would prefer to let those who can properly help (like the UN) take care of it, while we keep a neutral-ish standing. At least I hope that's what he's implying. But I really think it's time for someone else to step up and handle these sorts of international issues. We've already kicked ourselves in the ass with Iraq, and now with Iran, let the UN do their jobs and handle things.