Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
The Science Delusion

The Science Delusion

By Curtis White
$23.95

more items

 
A/V Booth

Ron Paul: ‘We Occupy So Many Countries’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 14, 2011
"Democracy Now!" / Still

During Monday’s GOP presidential debate, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas drew boos from a crowd that was otherwise eager to cheer when he criticized U.S. foreign policy, saying “We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries.”

On Wednesday’s episode of “Democracy Now!” guest speaker Mahmood Mamdani, an author and professor at Columbia University, responded to Paul’s statements, saying that because of his message, Paul is now “obviously a fringe voice.”

The segment begins at 46:30 in the video below.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Korky Day, February 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

Vote in ranked-ballot fun-poll for Ron Paul’s vice presidential candidate!

http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, September 15, 2011 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

Paul’s election would not spur a ‘Libertarian Movement’. His Austrian School economics would not
survive the Congress - one could surely hope he’d be able to wrest the Fed from the hands of the
global finance oligarchs, and end the suicidal Global War OF Terror, but he’d probably be whacked
before much were done (e.g. JFK).

Now that Nader’s retired from running, who among those potential primary challengers to the Bomber
can one imagine mustering the support to do so?

But, this is probably all moot, for one can easily imagine the deus ex machina descending on the GOP
circus, leading them all to the Promised Land… none other than Generalissimo Patreaus, current
Director of the State Security apparatus, Victor of Mesopotamia, the Thinking Mans War Monger - he
won’t ‘run’ - far too vulgar - he’ll simply heed the calling and fulfill his duty and destiny -  lead
the Fatherland from the wilderness to eternal… whatever

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, September 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

The only sort of “Libertarian” movement that would change things is Libertarian Socialism in the tradition of Kropotkin, Bakunin or Rosa Luxemburg. Of course in this country that would be an insane proposal, people want to be saved Ron Paultard and his Ayn Rand playbook.

Report this

By Big B, September 15, 2011 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

Sorry to hurt your feelings “Progress”, but I was not specifically referring to you, but hey, paranoia takes many forms.

I am not a progressive, I am a LIBERAL. I refuse to use the gutless mantra that main stream democrats chose to respond to Ronny Rayguns admonition of their belief system.

As for you Paul fanatics and his libertarian views, the US has over the last 30 years, adopted nearly the entire libretarian play book, from de-regulation, to lowering and eliminating taxes on the most wealthy individuals and corporations, to applying free market principals to medicine. To our MIC, who uses its libretarian freedoms to continualy create enemies and lobby for more public money to fund the never ending american war machine. Under your train of thought, we should all be economic anarchists, to the few winnners go the spoils, while the majority are forced to wallow in poverty.

Here in the US, we are at our best when we are “We the People”. If our libretarian brethren really believe that “Rand-ian” bullshit, there are any number of nations out there that would better fit your belief system. Those would be Nigeria, Somalia, the Congo, ect, (you get the idea)

While I applaud Ron Paul’s anti-war stance, he and all those tea party meatheads are still REPUBLICANS.

I challenge every american to this experiment, try going a month without using any of the services provided to you with your tax money. Go without electricity or water or gas in your home. Go without all the products in your home that don’t catch fire when you plug them in. Go without a car that has no seatbelts, airbags, rollover cages, or windshields for that matter. But hey, your not gonna need a car anyway, cause you can’t use the roads or bridges or airports or railroads. Somebody rob your home, or you garage catches fire, tough shit, no cops or firemen either. Chinese libretarians decide to use their freedoms to invade your nation? Too bad. Well, you get the point.

Only through a government of the people, with a vigerous regulatory structure, and liberal taxation policy to maintain our commons and infrastructure, can we hope to meet the challenges of the coming resource and global warming crisis. The Biggest enemy of the people are the few uber wealthy corporations that have used their libretarian freedoms to infringe on ours and impose their views on us through the manipulation of the supposed “free markets”.

Report this

By Progress, September 15, 2011 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I used to think that the only idiots in the US that were one issue voters were conservatives.”

I don’t care if you call me an idiot. But don’t deny that you were referring specifically to my post, which, in passing, listed more than one issue.

“But I see from these and other comments that some ‘progressives’ are as well.”

I don’t claim to be a “progressive,” and certainly do not identify with those who identify themselves as modern progressives. Truthdig, and many of you, however, claim to be “progressives.” I use the term as a general reference to your standards, to which I feel the site and many of its readers do not live up to.

“Yes, paul is against american colonialism,”

Yup, and Obama is for it.

“but he is FOR completely de-regulating all businesses, including medicine.”

Some of Ron Paul’s proposed de-regulation happens to include withdrawing from the WTO, and opposing “free trade” agreements with the third world. Do you honestly think our current “regulations” HURT multi-national corporations, i.e. the drafters of said regulations? They don’t. However, high taxes, BS Obamacare requirements, etc. are in the process of wiping out the concept of a small business.

“For cutting or eliminating corporate taxes.”

See above. I don’t like big corporations either. But for those of us who oppose corporate favoritism, it’d be ideologically inconsistent cut taxes for small businesses and not big businesses. In any event, why leave it up to the government to put corporations in check? It’s pretty apparent that the Big Zero-your fabulous “progressive Democrat”-and his panel of CEO-advisers are doing the exact opposite. Vote with your feet, don’t support big corporations. I don’t. I don’t drive, I diligently try to purchase local products, etc. The only real change will come from the people. I don’t need a destructive government, why do you?

“For states rights, even when those states want to commit unconstitutional crimes.”

So it’s better for our Federal Government to impose and mandate unconstitutional crimes on ALL of the states? If you don’t like living in Texas, Utah, Kentucky, or wherever. Then move to a better state.

“What we need is a LIBERAL candidate, not a LIBRETARIAN.”

See above notions of grassroots change and self-determination versus passive, lazy reliance on a destructive government. Agree to disagree I suppose.

“Ron Paul is a one trick pony, a candidate of, by and for the rich.”

He receives the most funding of all candidates from active-duty military personnel, boy they’re pretty rich. He relies heavily on money bombs funded by the general public, I know we’re all swimming cash. Jeez, with all this support from the rich, why doesn’t he pay for more media coverage? Why doesn’t he buy one of the fake fluff polls that show him as the GOP front runner? Obama certainly wasn’t paid for by the rich, that’s for sure. Give. me. a. f’in. break.

“Like his son, he is a narrow minded moron.”

I don’t like Rand, either. Not many outside of Kentucky do. As to Ron being narrow minded? Compare Ron Paul’s stance on civil liberties and foreign policy with Obomber’s. How is giving the country back to the people narrow minded?

“Yes, the old man down the street from me is against the war, but he also goes outside with no pants on, firing a shotgun at small animals and thinks that aliens are going to destroy the world every new years eve.”

Aside from shooting at small animals, good for him. He sounds a lot more “progressive” than you.

Report this

By Independence Hall, September 15, 2011 at 9:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The fact is the US has military forces spread around the world, including significant numbers in a few countries where it acts as a surrogate force for the government in order to preserve that government. When you trade and talk with other nations it is unlikely you will foster resentment among the people of other nations. When you have a significant military presence in a country it is likely you will foster resentment.

Military intervention is only rarely effective in the long-term. Generally, the long-term effects can be negative and painful, and thus should only be an action of last resort or one that protects absolutely critical national interests.

However, whether you approve of maintaining large military forces around the world in both friendly and unstable or unfriendly countries or not, the US will eventually need to draw down its military presence overseas simply because it no longer has the financial resources to sustain such an effort. There are many people in the US that simply do not understand this or refuse to accept this situation.

On the other hand, there are those who believe the US can simply withdraw all it forces stationed outside the US. It is unlikely this will happen and would probably be short-sighted. As long as the US is a major power in the world it will need to maintain some small number of bases in various places in the world, if at all possible. The facility at Diego Garcia is a perfect example.

Thus I propose that essentially Congressman Paul is correct, that the policies he advocates are generally a wise course of action, and that he is also essentially correct that our policies are used as a pretext for the actions of the terrorists. This does not make their actions justified in any manner, just that we need to understand and anticipate how our policies and actions may be used by people unfriendly to US interests to motivate supporters to commit acts of terror.

Report this

By biiig brother, September 15, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

why do we have to register to comment freely?

Report this

By MT, September 15, 2011 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Ron Paul is a one trick pony, a candidate of, by and for the rich. Like his son, he is a narrow minded moron”

Big B, it is absurd nonsense like this that needs to be eradicated from the baseless accusations thrown at Paul.  No, I don’t endorse all his positions, but he has a better fundamental understanding about the real problems facing this country than any other candidate, including any “Liberal” politician you want to throw out there. 

The 2 core issues on his platform: end the wars and end the Fed’s destructive monopoly on our currency should be enough to elect the man.  But to say he’s a one-trick pony, I guess you don’t bother to support his policies of restoring civil liberties/privacy (ie reversing policies of warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prolonged detentions w/o due process, legalization of assassination… even on american citizens), eliminate corporate bailouts/cronyism, restoring sound money, etc.

Of and for the rich??  Really? Any reason why he gets no big corporate donors for his campaign and is almost entirely funded by grassroots? Unlike the other elitists… Obama and the other puppet Repub candidates?

Narrow-minded?? Because he’s open to alternative solutions in the free market rather than relying on the federal govt to take care of our every need?  Isn’t that the opposite of narrow-minded. 

Good luck with your continued liberal narrow-minded dependency on govt that feeds the rich at the expense of the poor while bankrupting the rest of us.

Report this

By Richard, September 15, 2011 at 6:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Most of these “bases” are small compared to
the host country population and to say we
“occupy” so MANY countries is just an outright
fabrication.
The largest bases are in Japan and
Korea(excluding Afghanistan and soon to be
leaving Iraq)..even Germany just has a small
garrison, the bulk of which are support troops.
There is only one heavy combat brigade..
Indeed, over 800,000 of our regular Armed
Forces are stationed in the states NOT overseas
out of a force of 1.2 million.

Report this

By Big B, September 15, 2011 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

I used to think that the only idiots in the US that were one issue voters were conservatives. But I see from these and other comments that some “progressives are as well.

Yes, paul is against american colonialism, but he is FOR completely de-regulating all businesses, including medicine. For cutting or eliminating corporate taxes. For states rights, even when those states want to commit unconstitutional crimes.

What we need is a LIBERAL candidate, not a LIBRETARIAN. Ron Paul is a one trick pony, a candidate of, by and for the rich. Like his son, he is a narrow minded moron. Yes, the old man down the street from me is against the war, but he also goes outside with no pants on, firing a shotgun at small animals and thinks that aliens are going to destroy the world every new years eve.

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, September 15, 2011 at 12:44 am Link to this comment

the clip opens with Panetta, obvious water-carrier for the global finance
oligarchy - a clear picture of what Paul targets in his anti-war position: the
most suicidally tragic endeavor since Tojo ran amok

let him run with his Austrian School economics - if that bothers left-lib-progs, so
what, he’d never succeed in pushing those economic policies through - I’d risk it
to take a chance on his anti-war position - unless Obomber gets primaried, I’d
vote for Paul over the Bomber… that is if I ever vote again

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, September 15, 2011 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Pretty funny how even a total Ayn Rand whack job like Ron Paul can articulate what’s wrong with US foreign policy than supposed “liberals” who would cheer Obama on even if he set an orphanage on fire.

Report this

By rumblingspire, September 15, 2011 at 12:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul can sit at this Comrades table anytime.  I understand him and can debate him.  He uses reason.

I especially applaud the mans courage.  I want to give him an award for valor!  A big purple heart!

Report this

By Timothy Gawne, September 14, 2011 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on many things, but he is clearly a person of integrity. 
His opposition to our endless stupid wars on the other side of the planet that only
serve to enrich politically-connected defense contractors should yield support
from all people of good spirit.  On the other hand, Obama, the bastard whore of
Wall Street, should elicit nothing but contempt.

This is what we are missing: we need to support politicians on our side even if
Rupert Murdoch dubs them ‘fringe candidates’, and we need to despise and - yes-
even hate, those candidates who say one thing and then stab us in the back.

To do otherwise is to be good little sheep, and little else.

Report this

By anonoped, September 14, 2011 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course those countries want us there with bases. The larger the better.  It’s a more efficient transfer of wealth from the American tax payer to their economy.

I remember when I was growing up, you can never respect someone that tries to buy your friendship.

Bring the troops home, spend the money on SS, and Healthcare.

Report this

By Progress, September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After months of ridiculing Truthdig for ignoring the only anti-war candidate (between either party), I just wanted to give the site a little ‘atta-a-way.’

In my opinion, Ron Paul should receive regular (mostly positive) attention from progressive sites. He may not be the quintessential progressive, but who is? Certainly he stacks up better than Obama at this point, especially in regard to foreign policy, civil liberties, corporatism, and DE-politicizing currency. Yet Obama is encouraged daily on Truthdig, if only because he is a Democrat. Likewise, bimbos like Perry, Bachmann et al are regularly criticized, which in effect reinforces the force-fed lie that they are legitimate candidates.

Case and point, I’m glad to see Truthdig draw some positive attention toward Ron Paul -though it should happen more often. I’m also glad to see him dominate any poll opened up to the public. The machine-funded fluff polls that portray Perry-Romney as the front runners are blatant vehicles of fascism that sites like Truthdig should make some noise over.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, September 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

Sounds like the deck was stacked against him in this Republican pantomime.They had to do something to throw water on his momentum.

Followers of Ron Pauls viewpoints know this is hardly a new position of his.

The U.S. should withdraw its military from all the other nations of the world.  We already have embassies there.

Report this

By Ryan, September 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900
overseas bases. Fact.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-
has-military-personnel-130-nation/

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook