In the same category

Once-Peaceful Canada Turns Militaristic; Blowback Follows

IMG Auteur
Published : October 27th, 2014
612 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 20 votes, 4.8/5 ) , 28 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
Category : Gold and Silver

In 1968 the government of Canada decided to openly admit Americans seeking to avoid being drafted into the US war on Vietnam. Before, would-be immigrants were technically required to prove that they had been discharged from US military service. This move made it easier for Americans to escape President Johnson's war machine by heading north.

Although a founding member of NATO, Canada did not join the United States in its war against Vietnam. The Canadian government did not see a conflict 7,000 miles away as vital to Canada's national interest so Canada pursued its own foreign policy course, independent of the United States.

How the world has changed. Canada's wise caution about military adventurism even at the height of the Cold War has given way to a Canada of the 21st century literally joined at Washington's hip and eager to participate in any bombing mission initiated by the D.C. interventionists.

Considering Canada's peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment. Who would doubt that today's Canada would, should a draft be re-instated in the US, send each and every American resister back home to face prison and worse?

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out this past week:

Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S.

Canada has also enthusiastically joined President Obama's latest war on Iraq and Syria, pledging to send fighter jets to participate in the bombing of ISIS (and likely many civilians in the process).

But Canada's wars abroad came back home to Canada last week.

Though horrific, it should not be a complete surprise that Canada found itself hit by blowback last week, as two attacks on Canadian soil left two Canadian military members dead.

Greenwald again points out what few dare to say about the attacks:

Regardless of one's views on the justifiability of Canada's lengthy military actions, it's not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That is the danger of intervention in other people's wars thousands of miles away. Those at the other end of foreign bombs - and their surviving family members or anyone who sympathizes with them - have great incentive to seek revenge. This feeling should not be that difficult to understand.

Seeking to understand the motivation of a criminal does not mean that the crime is justified, however. We can still condemn and be appalled by the attacks while realizing that we need to understand the causation and motivation. This is common sense in other criminal matters, but it seems to not apply to attacks such as we saw in Canada last week. Few dare to point out the obvious: Canada's aggressive foreign policy is creating enemies abroad that are making the country more vulnerable to attack rather than safer.

Predictably, the Canadian government is using the attacks to restrict civil liberties and expand the surveillance state. Like the US PATRIOT Act, Canadian legislation that had been previously proposed to give the government more authority to spy on and aggressively interrogate its citizens has been given a shot in the arm by last week's attacks.

Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of other people's wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.


Data and Statistics for these countries : Afghanistan | Canada | Iraq | Syria | Vietnam | All
Gold and Silver Prices for these countries : Afghanistan | Canada | Iraq | Syria | Vietnam | All
<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.8 (20 votes)
>> Next article
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
WebsiteMake a donation
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
Here's 24hrGold's comment policy, by the way:

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Rate :   0  5Rating :   -5
Attacking me, attacking my family, etc,. Still smarting over being proven wrong on the WMD issue I see. Just take a breath and relax. You'll get over it. ;)
Rate :   1  6Rating :   -5
Incorrect, I never attacked your family, I merely suggested that based on your ramblings they must wonder what was fertilizing the family tree before you came along.

As for WMD. As was stated many times, if the US gov had any actual proof other than a few stories that were made up and repeated by people such as yourself they would have had this proof splashed all over every newspaper. As I recall you said something to the effect "I never saw the WMD but I know someone who knows someone who said they knew someone that did see the WMD's the world was told existed." Now if there is any real evidence, call it physical, that has come to light after all these years please do share. Until such evidence is brought forward I and those like me stand correct, there were no WMD in Iraq.

As for the topic of this thread, Canada should never have gotten involved in any middle eastern slugging matches that the US decided to start. Canada has lost much of the respect nations around the world had for the country simply because it's leaders allowed themselves to be bullied by the US gov. Canada should have stood by it's commitment to be one of the worlds top nations to provide aid to countries and people in need, which clearly does not include the US government.

Rate :   5  2Rating :   3
It is clear from your very first sentence that you are insulting, attacking, and being far from civil as is required by the comments policy. Clearly 24hrGold agreed with me.

Secondly, you remember in error. All I ever said on WMD was that I was there and I saw it--not that I know someone who knows someone who knows someone. So you're wrong there also.

Thirdly, you're the one that said there was NO mustard gas in Iraq--none whatsoever. That is YOUR claim, that I told you was false. The New York Times as well as wiki-leaks have now published stories (since you refuse to believe someone like myself that was there) demonstrating that, once again, you were WRONG. As I have always clearly stated, we may not have found new labs and an thriving new nuclear program, but Saddam did indeed have WMD in violation of UNSCR 687. That's a well established fact even in the open press, but--as I told you--I knew that from first-hand experience. Those claiming there were no WMD in Iraq whatsoever now need to defend that claim by specifying how the WMD mentioned in the NY Times article and as reported in wiki-leaks were weapons Iraq maintained in complete compliance with UNSCR 687. Good luck with that one. Bottom line: Those who stated there were WMD in Iraq no longer have to defend that claim; those who said there were none now have to prove that the weapons reported satisfied the requirements of UNSCR 687, subsequent resolutions, and the terms of the destruction protocol and inspection regime.

On those three points, you are just plain wrong. As for the issue of Canada, we just disagree.
Rate :   1  4Rating :   -3
Sorry, your comment is hard to read as English may not be your first language. As for my being insulting or attacking you, far from it, it’s my opinion of you and as such I have a right to express it. How you interpret my comments is up to you and as you are not judge and jury your objections have no meaning.

WMD in Iraq. I’ve done a little research in the archives and gone through your ranting’s. Let’s dissect the crap you posted. Below is the ONE article you brought forth as evidence of media coverage, and at best it’s sketchy. You also mention wikileaks, seriously? You’re going to use wiki leaks as a defense, which has had questionable info (as stated by your own government) in an effort to convince us of something even POTUS said didn’t exist? From

US did find Iraq WMD
By Don Kaplan

October 25, 2010 | 4:00am

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.

Let’s go through this little piece of trash propaganda.
“The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.” So where is the imagery? You may want to reread that again, “that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion” small amounts, no statement of what is meant by small, was it 2 ounces, was it truck loads, they don’t define small meaning it could have been less that a teaspoon full. Since when has Wired Magazine been a source for definitive details on military actions?

The third line “The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons arsenal — most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. “ It’s pretty clear here that they found remnants of a chemical arsenal. REMNANTS, in other words nothing that could be pulled out and used to kill off all those nasty civilians that didn’t like Saddam. Recall that he was accused of using this stuff against his own people, evidence for which has never seen the light of day but apparently if the US gov says it’s so we should all just believe them.

Here’s a painfully obvious and purposeful omission on your part “most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.” THEY WERE DESTROYED FOLLOWING THE GULF WAR. In other words what little they might have found was destroyed after papa Bush’s invasion of a sovereign country. This can only mean that when Dubbya decided to invade again there was nothing Saddam could have used as a WMD.

This is a real doozy “In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.” American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard”. THOUGH being the operative word, then it states “The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.” And nowhere does it tell us what the labs in these secure sites found in the containers the troops THOUGHT contained liquid sulfur mustard. So I ask again, where’s the evidence???

The last line, well this must be what should convince us is real proof that Saddam had WMD “Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.” So the troops kicked in the door of some poor family and found they were cooking up nasty things on the stove. Since I understand you have no ability to think outside of what DC tells you is the truth I can see where you might have missed the significance of this, the general population of Iraq who the troops were supposed to be liberating but instead were killing decided to fight back with any means they could MUSTARD (not a typo) up. They were prohibited from defending themselves with any guns they might have recovered as having guns would automatically make them targets of the US military and much more likely to be killed or worse, have a drone drop a bomb on their house killing the whole family.

So this is the extent of your PROOF that the US was justified to invade Iraq? Where’s like postings from news outlets such as, oh say the Washington Post, MSNBC, LA Times, you know the big newspapers who are concern about their reputations, ugh, typing that almost make me vomit , as if these outlets have any morals and care about truth but even they were mute on the subject at hand.

The fact remains that if any such items were found Bush would have had every talking head in the media reporting on it 24/7, I mean every main stream media outlet would have shown blown up images and spent copious amounts of white space to demonstrate that the invasion of a sovereign country was justified... But they didn't because there was no evidence. Even Dubbya (Bush mini-me) stated that they never found WMD.

Now if you go and redefine what WMD represents then yes of course Saddam had them, this also means that any army or para military group has WMD. Since it appears your willing to accept a new definition of WMD, such as RPG's since they kill more than one, two, or three people at a time there are those like you who would label them WMD's.

And even is they would have found Mustard gas in Iraq? Who the hell do you think would have sold him such things? The US! Yes while Saddam played along with the DC morons they would sell him almost any kind of armament, and they did. Don't forget (unless it fits into your dream world bubble) that Saddam was a poster child for the DC mob, right up until he decided he didn't want to play DC's dirty little games any longer.

Now let’s dissect this little gem from you:
“(P.S. We found WMD in Iraq--I was there [see Wiki-leaks if you wish]. We just didn't find Saddam's VX, which is likely part of Syria's arsenal now. Also, instead of pretending that it was a big 'lie', do your research and learn that every single major intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had VX stockpiles, and the Democrats to include Hillary and Bill Clinton also were completely convinced by the intel of the time, and supportive of the actions taken in 2003. To now, in hindsight, claim otherwise and that it was 'lie' concocted by Bush and Cheney IS the true lie in all of this, but an effort that--with the full support of the media--has become the false narrative of the day.)”

You state “I was there”. So what so were thousands of military personnel, I happen to knows some. Does that make you or them experts on this topic, no. So now the question must be asked, what do you mean by you were there? Were you part of the team that found the mythical WMD’s? If so you violated your oath by telling us what you did as you have provided no proof that you are authorized to disseminate such information. If by you were there you mean you were stationed in Iraq your story means nothing more than, well any other DC shill who still wants to cover up a massive screw up by the US and international intelligence (what a misuse of the word) community. In fact you even go so far as to use circular reasoning to cover your lack in real intel. You state “do your research and learn that every single major intelligence agency in the western world believed Saddam had VX stockpiles” So just because other intelligence agencies believed Saddam had VX stockpiles it must be true. No where do you think these other spy agencies got their intel? Feet on the ground in Iraq? No, they got it from the great misinformation dissemination machine in DC.

So, back to you, provide the proof that no one else has had access to which demonstrates unconditionally that Saddam had WMD, it’s up to you to back the claims you make as factual. So far all you’ve provided is a lot of hot smelly air. You used school yard deflection “You're not listening; you're just ranting. Your mind is made up and it is quite clear you have only a mild surface-level understanding of foreign policy and warfare. To miss the Polish example is key, since it is clear to all who aren't on some sort of anti-American crusade as you clearly are that I was pointing out that the US has treaty obligations agreed to by the Senate that are binding, and that many of them support our interests. Yet you claim I have weak understanding. That is laughable, since it is clear you have no understanding whatsoever. You're just venting your hatred. I'm done with this topic. I'm obviously casting pearls amongst swines.” And other like statements wherein you avoid any real discourse where your require to provide details.

So to sum it up, you come in here, slander Ron Paul, provide no real argument to any subject you comment on, in other words you’re a good little lap dog for the DC morons.

Rate :   3  1Rating :   2
You're so far behind the curve that it is hardly worth responding to. Read some recent news for goodness sake. The burden remains on you to prove that:

1) The weapons found by Staff Sgt Eric J Duling in August 2008 near Taji, Iraq, were maintained and/or scheduled for destruction in accordance with UNSC 687 and subsequent resolutions;
2) The sarin from a shell near Baghdad’s Yarmouk neighborhood that injured two soldiers was from a legally held weapon of Saddam's regime;
3) That in the summer of 2006, the over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets found at a former Republican Guard compound were not WMD and were legally maintained and held by Saddam IAW UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions;
4) That the six Marines exposed to he mustard agent that YOU said was not in Iraq whatsoever were not really exposed at all;
5) That the five American soldiers exposed to mustard agent (again, that YOU said was not in Iraq at all) while destroying a weapons cache as noted above were injured by weapons held by Saddam in complete compliance with UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions.

That is some of what is out there if you do even the most rudimentary search, and more will likely come out in the future as people who were there (such as myself) continue to be proven correct when we say, "There were WMD in Iraq." No new weapons, no new labs, and no thriving nuclear program--but WMD that Saddam was obligated to destroy in accordance UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions. UNSCR does NOT say, "only destroy weapons made after 1991," or "feel free to obstruct the mandated inspection regime at will for over a decade," in case you're hoping to use that dodge.

Again the burden of proof is no longer on those of us who have long said there were in fact WMD Iraq. That train has left the station. It is on those who now must back up and prove that all the reports now coming to the surface about weapons buried here, there, and everywhere are only about weapons that do not constitute WMD held in violation of the UN resolutions that ended the 1991 war.

Good luck with that....
Rate :   1  3Rating :   -2
So the question still remains, if indeed what you say is true, there were WMD in Iraq, please enlighten us why the Dubya crew didn't crow it from the roof tops, instead they were mute on the subject after destroying the country for years and not finding a thing.

Again, you link one story, sketchy at best and so short with subjective verbiage, as the proof that WMD were found, that it is laughable. Yes I've done search's. Did I find anything that vindicates you? No. Did I find conspiracy theories and US gov propaganda, yes. Did I find anything that would "vindicate" you, no. So if you think that's vindication your feeling I can only suggest that you've been wrong for so long that you no longer understand what it to feels like.

The only reason you come in here is to slander Ron Paul, spew a few DC lies and then scurry off to whatever bubble universe it is you live in. Petulant childlike arguments are the order of the day when you show up. Please, if you come back do so with a basic understanding of what it takes to prove a point, not simply "I've given you circular reasoning so now you need to provide proof I'm wrong". In a court of law the judge would have you removed for insulting the intelligence of everyone there.

By the way, I've talked with friends who collectively did 11 tours of duty in Iraq. Their response to you and those like you who keep propagating this DC propaganda results in a firm response that goes something like "I wish these a*****s would shut up already, they don't know what they’re talking about".

So do I take the word of someone like you who has shown himself to be unreliable in matters pertaining to WMD in Iraq and US foreign policy or do I go with people I know who have done their duty and provide contrary information and have much firmer grasp on what US foreign policy is because they've lived through it? Hmmm which do I believe?
Rate :   3  2Rating :   1
You still can't prove that the WMD found (some of which was reported to Congress in 2004 in an open hearing) as reported from by abundant sources in the open press were not violations of UNSCR 687, can you? Of course not. Remember, I'm not someone who 'knows somebody who said,' as you volunteer to being yourself--I was there. Once again, all you can quote is what you hear; I can attest to what I saw. More and more people are coming forward all the time.

I'm not here to answer for the Bush administration. Perhaps since they did not find new weapons, new labs, and a thriving nuclear program--all reasons they gave for going into Iraq--they simply didn't want to deal with the fact that the munitions we did find and continued to find during our entire stay were in and of themselves violations as well. It doesn't matter to me since my ONLY point from the beginning was, as has now been verified through open sources, that we indeed found WMD in Iraq--weapons maintained in violation of UNSCR 687 and all subsequent resolutions. You haven't been able to even open your eyes to that fact, and I understand your embarrassment since you stated that there wasn't even any mustard gas in Iraq. You should be humbled, but it may not be in your character, such as it is.

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated and you've ignored, I LIKE much of what Ron Paul says. I disagree completely with the Libertarian stance on foreign policy. That's all.

Third, I am about as anti-DC as a person can be. You just won't listen.

I will admit that I am self-satisfied now, that I've reduced you to being able to do nothing but hurl insults. In addition to being proven right over and over on the things I told you, it warms my insides to know I've reduced you to sputtering insults.

Yes, vindication feels GREAT!
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
Also, if you'd go back to the beginning, I NEVER said what was found justified the invasion of Iraq. All I EVER said was that we found WMD in Iraq, and that it was a lie to say we had not. I've even pointed out repeatedly that we did NOT find the new labs, new weapons production, and a thriving nuclear program that the world intelligence agencies (including ours) thought we'd find.

You're the one that is claiming that I said the WMD we did find justified the invasion. I never said that. I only said, which is now being clearly demonstrated to the world as true, that we did indeed find WMD.

My point was, and I'm so happy to be publicly vindicated by all the information coming out now, that those who were saying there was no WMD in Iraq--and as YOU stated, no mustard gas whatsoever--were not telling the truth.

Now the world knows, and yes--vindication feels really, really good! :)
Rate :   1  3Rating :   -2
So Canada deserved to be attacked--so says Ron Paul. The ONLY bad actors in the world are the Americans...and now those vicious Canadians. Sure.... Paul is always good for a laugh when he starts talking foreign affairs! Good one! Oh, wait a second...I said that out loud on the Ron Paul Worshiping Site--24hrGold. Let the rain of down arrows begin! Like I said, always good for a laugh!
Rate :   0  10Rating :   -10
wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

Your comment fills perfectly the definition. You ARE a troll. I suggest you learn to make critic comments.
Rate :   3  8Rating :   -5
Josu O.

Might I suggest that you are, in this case, as much a troll as you claim I am. You step in when you are not part of the discussion. You act like an internet policeman where none is required. As indicated by BDB, his post showing the 24gold Comment Policy, my statement contained no profanity, slanderous comments, or name calling (last one could be argued either way).

You may want to have a look at the comments BDB regularly makes regarding Ron Paul. In each comment he attacks Ron for telling the truth. You see BDB seems to be very passionate about the US, so much so that his understanding of US foreign policy runs parallel to the trash coming out of DC. Independent thought has not be shown and by the way, that's not an insult it’s an observation of published comments.

Think of it this way, if you go into the woods with a sharp stick and keep poking a grizzly bear what are the chances it’s going to retaliate and attack you? This is exactly what the US has been doing for decades, going into other countries and poking the bear (people) till they respond in a manner that now (this is laughable) threatens the US. As if a bunch of guys in jeeps with a couple of RPG's are a threat to the people of the United States, but it makes great liberal news which is spun till the average US citizen believes these guys (loads of scary images with stern looking malnourished men) 6000 miles, and an ocean away, threaten their ability to keep shopping at Walmart.

End result is that Ron Paul is correct again. The Canadian government along with many other nations are pushing the TPP which will ensure all people of (put a country name here) will be monitored through every medium, phone, mail, and internet as possible terrorist threats. Gee I feel safer already knowing that some jerk in Utah will know what my bank balance is or that I didn't "like" some post by a friend on facebook. Yes, we can all sleep better knowing the government is watching us.

Oh and by the way, the comment you made about the US provoking an international conflict "Putin adviser suggests Russia knows all about West's gold price suppression" is spot on so it makes me wonder why you seem to have a firm grasp of how the world is messed up but you still defend those like BDB who are purposely blind to such things.
Rate :   5  3Rating :   2
My comment was a reply to BDB, not to you, as you can see from the indentation level.
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
Hold up a sec Josu. You just violated the comment policy. You posted the wiki definition of a troll and you called Hart a troll, you stooped to name calling, slander. You there by violated the section provided by BDB "but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants". Slanderous Comments! Calling someone a troll, whether or not you believe it to be true is still a violation of the web site terms.

By the way, "I suggest you learn to make critic comments." should read "I suggest you learn to make critical comments." I would suggest you learn to read and write, then commenting on others would make you look less like a troll. Oops. Did I just call you a troll? Yup, I did so now you have me violating the terms. You started this, keep that in mind. Never walk into a word fight with a broken vocabulary and a lack of information on all the players involved.

As for Ron Paul, the man is the only politician with the morals to tell the truth and for that the liberal media has slandered (as has BDB and others on this site) and abused him to no end. If only the politicians (can't call them what I really want to because Josu might be offended) had half the understanding and morals that Ron Paul does the US wouldn't be in debt so far that 50 generations can never repay the debts. The US wouldn't be the target of every angry group on the planet. Since the Washington fools (oops) keep stirring up strife around the world, any violence that comes home to roost in the US is the fault of the Washington fools. Am I suggesting or advocating violence towards the US, no. I merely state what anyone with more than a kindergarten education can understand if they bother to look at what's causing all the unrest in the world.

BDB… Still pushing the DC lies to anyone interested enough to read them are you? Tell me, what’s it like to live in your bubble universe where truth and evidence are irrelevant?
Rate :   6  2Rating :   4
You've not been following what I've been saying over the years, which is clearly evident by your attacks and comment that I'm "pushing DC lies." I do not agree with Ron Paul or the Libertarians when it comes to foreign policy. I think both widely miss the mark. If you knew me, you'd know the details...but you don't, so insinuating that I "live in a bubble universe" is a comment you throw out there without any "evidence" or grounds.

I firmly disagree with the notion that there are no bad actors in the world other than an interventionist United States; that everyone else is pure as the driven snow, and if we'd just leave them alone all would be well. I've followed the Libertarian argument on that; I do not find it convincing.

It is not 'slander' to disagree. If you had been following my comments from the beginning, you would know that I agree with much of Ron Paul says on domestic politics, but firmly disagree with his (and the Libertarians) take on foreign policy. That is all. I have stated that I think he goes right off the rails when it comes to foreign policy, and that this will doom any prospects he might hold out for being President. When he becomes President, you can then say that I was wrong...but not before.

Those of you who like Ron Paul should become a little less touchy. None of the vitriol that has been flung at me has been warranted. I don't see where my disagreement has warranted the insults to my intellect, family, family tree, parents, etc,. It seems more like the writers are having a temper tantrum than responding to my views. Too much of that has typified straying from Ron Paul altar here.
Rate :   1  2Rating :   -1
My comment was directed to BDB, not to Hart (see the indentation level). I'm an admirer of Ron Paul.
Also, I'm not english native so I'm sorry for my poor grammar.
Rate :   1  2Rating :   -1
My apologies. I let the fact that I get attacked by people like BDB on a regular basis set the mood for what I read into your comment.
Rate :   3  3Rating :   0
If you'd been following along from the beginning you would have seen that I've been the one getting personally attacked from the start. None of these people know me, but have called me a 'poser', a 'liar', and on and on. I'm not a member of the Ron Paul mutual admiration society as I noted at the beginning--really only because of his foreign policy silliness--but to not be one his clique here on 24hrGold subjects you to all kinds of unwarranted personal abuse. Ron Paul has much to admire, but he's dead wrong on foreign policy and it holds back many from taking him seriously, as demonstrated every time he runs for President.
Rate :   1  3Rating :   -2
Wrong, what you call is abuse is simply others calling you out on the lies you distribute. Your not the only one here who isn't a Ron Paul fan but you are someone who purposely tries to devalue his posts by attacking his foreign policy yet everything you've posted would indicate that you have no idea what really goes on and the kind of pain and suffering the US foreign polices of today and for decades in the past has caused people unlucky enough to live in a county the brain dead in DC decide to mess with. What ire's people here is individuals such as yourself with no demonstrable understanding of the topic they comment on attempting to discredit someone who has a life time of experience, not to mention previous access to a bus load of information on US gov actions, that you cant access.

Why I'll bet you still believe the US was justified to wade into what was called a police action in Vietnam!
Rate :   5  2Rating :   3
As usual, you're just ranting. I have extensive direct foreign policy experience, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know me whatsoever. I've also been 'boots on the ground' in a wide variety of places where, had it not been for the United States, genocide would have continued unabated. I'll put my foreign policy credentials and experience up against Ron Paul's any day of the week.

We've disagreed, but I have NEVER lied. You call disagreements 'lies' because you have no depth of ability to respond. Also I've not been 'distributing' anything--just disagreeing with you, Ron Paul, and Libertarians on foreign policy. Disagreeing with Ron Paul doesn't constitute lying; just disagreeing. Why don't you just take a deep breath and relax, and stop personally attacking people for not being Ron Paul sycophants. You try to portray yourself as fair-minded and intellectual but then immediately disprove both notions by ranting, ranting, ranting.

You and your pals here need to get it through your heads that many of us out here know exactly what Paul and the Libertarians are and have been saying on foreign policy, and we find their assessment simplistic, historically inaccurate, and wrong-headed. If that frustrates you then prepare to be frustrated often. I intend to point out the failings of the Libertarian/Ron Paul foreign policy every time it rears its ugly head here on 24hrGold.

Try responding with something other than insulting, thoughtless rants.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
"I'll put my foreign policy credentials and experience up against Ron Paul's any day of the week."

I have to say, thanks for the laugh that produced. Take a deep breath, relax and realise that you're not the be all and end all for information on the Iraq war or US foreign policy.

I do not call statements I disagree with lies, I call lies created by DC politicians and perpetuated by individuals like yourself to what they are, lies.

So we're clear, I do not believe that everything Ron Paul posts (believes) is 100% correct, I have disagreed on a few occasions but I will take his outlook and action plan over that of the knuckle heads that run DC any day. Why, simple, the man has more real life experience (has Obama and crew ever had a real jobs?) than the DC morons and he most certainly has had far greater access to documents you or I will ever see so if I state that his understanding of US foreign policy far exceeds yours, I base this on what you've said vs. what his experience and inside knowledge is. His life time of service and accumulation of knowledge certainly far exceeds what you've shown you possess.
Rate :   2  1Rating :   1
You're entitled to your opinion, even when it is wrong and based on things you can't and do not understand.

You can rant at DC all you want; I am neither a spokesman nor a defender of the beltway. If you'd try listening instead of hurling insults, you might have been able to come to the conclusion a long time ago.

I let up on you now, since clearly you're not handling disagreement very well. I am quite satisfied with merely seeing the state to which this has reduced you to. Toodles! (Remember that?)
Rate :   1  2Rating :   -1
Thanks Josu O. I appreciate your comments and defense. I have found that most of the people here, such as Hart and his supporters, do not appreciate being challenged and certainly do not like even the slightest criticism of Ron Paul. In early comments, I have supported much of what Ron Paul has said on domestic policy, which the writers here ignore. I do not embrace Ron Paul nor the Libertarians view on foreign policy whatsoever, so for that I get insulted, slandered, abused, lied about, called a 'liar', and on and on and on--all by people who do not know me at all. I get called a shill for DC, which people who actually know me would find an incredibly amusing criticism! Down arrows here are a badge of honor.
Rate :   0  1Rating :   -1
There has been a mistake here. My comment was directed to you, not Hart.

I'm a big admirer of Ron Paul and, although of course I respect the criticism, from my european point of view I share most of his foreign policy. I think you have every right to oppose and be critical, but I think that to state "Paul is always good for a laugh when he starts talking foreign affairs" is trollish, because you don't make a point that other person can replay to. Your only purpose with such a statement is to offend Paul supporters, without adding anything to the discussion.
Rate :   0  2Rating :   -2
Well, the mistake is that your comment is directed at me and not Hart since certainly his comments are the most 'trollish' of all. However, I think troll is applied in general to those with whom one segment disagrees and is thus a meaningless critique.

As for Ron Paul, I've commented many times here before that I agree with much of his domestic policy, but that his and the Libertarian foreign policy views are laughably ridiculous. They are American centric and believe that the world rotates around what we do, and that if we do nothing everything will be just fine. That doesn't square with reality in any way, shape, or form. That certainly doesn't mean that I think the US does everything right--far from it. But the notion that our influence is entirely bad is silly.

While the bad Karma of foreign wars may come back to haunt you as Ron Paul suggests, I believe it's more likely that this attack on the Canadian Parliament was a false flag attack like 9-11 to provoke a power grab by the government. Are they not proposing new draconian laws in response - just like our own Patriot Act.
Rate :   7  3Rating :   4
I doubt it was a false flag, the coverage of the guy and the family background seemed credible and not staged.
9/11 is a totally different scale and cover-up.
I left the US for Canada because I did not agree with the war-mongering politicians. Hopefully, we can rid ourselves of the Harper government and attempt to think for ourselves again. Whatever injustices occur in the world, the US and their willing partners cannot intervene on every occasion. Certain people on this board with "experience on-the-ground" seem to think perpetual war is the way forward, pardon me.. we may be the minority/silent-majority these days, but Ron Paul is the only anti-war voice left in the Republican party, never mind the Democrats.
Rate :   6  1Rating :   5
Once you get a ZOG government it will only take a civil or revolutionary war to completely remove it. The Five eyes are all ZOG owned.
Rate :   1  1Rating :   0
Latest comment posted for this article
"I'll put my foreign policy credentials and experience up against Ron Paul's any day of the week." I have to say, thanks for the laugh that produced. Take a deep breath, relax and realise that you're not the be all and end all for information on the Ira  Read more
Hart - 11/10/2014 at 7:52 PM GMT
Rating :  2  1
Top articles
World PM Newsflow