The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Dharmaeye on September 08, 2007, 05:45:48 PM
-
Ron is more pro-constitution that any other candidate and thus wants to throw out all the laws that are unconstitutional.
This would eliminate the BATF and make life worthwhile for future generations. The only country in the world where individual freedom is stronger than the government.
-
No thanks. Don't need a truther, cut and run, lieing, moonbat who has stated that America brought 911 on itself and stated that the gov't investigation into 911 would be better now that the Dims were in charge, for a president.
-
Ron Paul's ideas are the ideas of the Republican Party and the Constitution - without exception.
The sad fact is that the altruistic neoconservative foreign policy on display in Iraq is far worse than the isolationist stance Paul takes. We should stay home from the sandbox until we find a leader willing to articulate a self-interested foreign policy that allows the U.S. to fight defensive wars without the delusional moral obligation to engage in nation building afterwards.
Our work is done in Iraq; the Iraqi people need to sort out their differences for themselves. Iran requires our attention.
-
Ron Paul is speaking Saturday night at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio (Fort Mitchell, KY actually).
If the opportunity presents itself, are there any questions you would like him to answer?
P.S.
I'm am supporting Fred Thompson.
-
Yeah, ask him why he asked for (and recieved) 400 million dollars worth of pork this year then disingenuously votes against it so he can say he's against pork.
Here's a link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
You can also ask Mr Blame America for 911 why he feels it was our plicy that caused them to attack us in light of the history of terrorist attacks on the US starting WELL before we "bombed them" (his words).
Here's another link. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
-
Hazcat - I respectfully disagree. Dr. Paul also wrote a bill that asked congress to follow the constitution and declare war if we were to invade Iraq and then voted no on his own bill. Does that also mean that he is actually for the "police action" in Iraq? If so I am appalled!
On the alleged 9/11 truther comment - nowhere does he claim to support the 9/11 truth movement. He has stated in the past that it was our agencies ineptness that should be investigated, not some silly notion that our government had any active role in the plot.
As to your question to him in regards to why he believes our policy contributed to the motivations that led to the attack on 9/11, you can pick up a copy of the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson, or for continued reading check out any of the books on the "Educating Rudy" list on Amazon.com.
But to save you the time, I will list a few of our policies that provided those sick individuals motivation for the attacks:
1) In 1953 our CIA installed the Shah of Iran covertly
2) In 1951 we established permanent military training bases on Saudi land (Their holy land)
3) During the cold war, we covertly supported Osama Bin-Ladin and arab forces in Afghanistan against the invading soviets. Once the soviet threat was no longer a concern, we backed out and failed to support the Afghans. (read: 'Charlie Wilson's war' for an inside account of this whole operation)
4) During the 80's, we supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war (which you can argue was an attempt to fix the problems we created in Iran with our meddling in their internal issues)
These are just a few. This is not "blame America first," this is looking honestly and objectively at the actions that transpired to get us to where we are today. We got to this point partially through our meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Even if we pulled out tomorrow from Iraq and every other country we "occupy" it will take decades for the shock-waves of our meddling to dissipate. However, continuing our foreign policy is just making matters worse - and severely impacting our financial situation.
I know I will never convince you - because you have already decided who you want to vote for and what issues are important to you. I only hope that a big enough percentage of voters turn out for the primaries and disagree with you - because as much as I like Fred Thompson - I cannot agree with him on several issues that are VERY important to me. (and the war is secondary but related to my more important issues)
-
Mostly for Hazcat's benefit: Being someone who has spent several years in foreign countries, in the military and diplomatic corps... I fully understand and agree with RP. What Ron Paul was talking about is Blow-back... He didn't say we "deserved" 9-11. he didn't even say that specific actions caused 9-11. He said that a series of events , representative of our foreign policies and willingness to intervene... ie. emplace pupet leaders, commit murder and other atrocities mkased as suicides and unsolved misteries, or even to blame opposing factions in order to alter the outcome... has fostered a hatred among many (specifically Islamic radicals) that does nothing more than give them an excuse to attack us. Now, I personally beleive that they would find an excuse to attack us anyway, but the "blowback" that Ron Paul is referring to is making a point about or interventionist foreign policies... which are in conflict with the constitution and Republican ideals.
We funded and encouraged the revolutionists in Cuba then abandoned them in their hour of need. We supported Usam Bin Laden in the Afghan war.. and now he's our enemy. We Supported Suddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war and now he's our enemy( well, was our enemy). We placed the Shaw in charge of Iran by murdering his opponents, then gave him assylum when the country ousted him. There are even those who say the Gulf of Tonkin was a staged incident ( lord knows it never made sense to me).
This kind of dual sided intervension seems to be a huge part of our history... and it shouldn't be. The Republican party was founded to preserve the republic and its ideals, part of which was not complete isolationism, but it was based on minding alot of our business. Ron Paul is right. our current foreign policy is bankrupting us. In truth this country is going down fast and he's the only one that truly gets it. I think Fred is great, I even have his bumper sticker is on my car and still think he can win. But Ron is the only one that can can truly save the country from the path its on. And in the end will probably get my vote. I tried to play the game of voting for "who can win" and got surprized with Bush. Now its time to vote the truth and vote who I think is right.
-
Kimbertac2,
Here's is some reading for your benefit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm and just to let you know I too have spent time overseas in the military.
I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?
Also RP has now flat out stated that there is NO reason to ever go to war and that no one would dare attack us because we a re so powerful. I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc.
-
Until we have a constitutional amendment that states that no person can be elected president unless they receive more than fifty percent of the votes cast (popular or electoral--either one), the best that you can do is to vote against the worst alternative. Please write/call your congress critters on this topic!!!
In the meantime:
We may not agree who we prefer but, as gun owners, we should be able to agree on who we don't want.
We really have only two viable choices in a national election: The Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. Which one are you going to vote AGAINST?
I didn't vote for George Bush. I voted AGAINST Al Gore.
I believe, as it is presently constituted, the Democratic party is the avowed enemy of the Second Amendment (and to a large extent, the Constitution in general). The Republican party is no great friend, but it IS currently the lesser threat. I choose to vote against the Democratic candidate. If you want to make a "statement", vote Republican and then write a letter to the editor.
Disclaimer: My opinion is not warranted suitable for any person, living or dead, except myself. Use with caution.
-
I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?
Actually, all, the Mooslims have been attacking anyone and everyone since they formed.
History shows us that long before the Barbary pirates, Mooslims were attacking eastern Europe - that's why Albania and Bosnia are so heavily Mooslim. There was a huge battle at the gates of Vienna in the 14th Century that the Mooslims lost mostly through disease attacks rather than western military might. Eastern Africa is predominantly Mooslim because of conquest, Central Asia as well.
In fact, you could make a very good argument that Islam is only advanced through military conquest. Their goal is a World Caliphate where everyone is Mooslim - or dead.
-
Until we have a constitutional amendment that states that no person can be elected president unless they receive more than fifty percent of the votes cast (popular or electoral--either one), the best that you can do is to vote against the worst alternative. Please write/call your congress critters on this topic!!!
I'll go with this on ELECTORAL votes only. If it was on popular vote our President would always be whomever NY, CA and a few other states want. We are a representative republic and NOT a democracy for a reason.
-
Kimbertac2,
Here's is some reading for your benefit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm and just to let you know I too have spent time overseas in the military.
I guess as far back as the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) it was or foreign policy that caused them to attack?
Also RP has now flat out stated that there is NO reason to ever go to war and that no one would dare attack us because we a re so powerful. I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc.
Hazcat, you posted that same link before. Yes, we understand there were terrorist events going back that far. Notice however that the first item that has anything to do with Islam is 1970.
As to your claim that he has stated there is NO reason to ever go to war - watch the video - at 5 minutes he is asked a question:
Interviewer - "Can you think of a military operation or a war that a Ron Paul administration would INITIATE - can you think of a reason if you were elected president that you would go beyond our current borders?"
RP- "In our current circumstances? In the world today? There should be no reason."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/10/11/VI2007101101200.html
In regards to your jab "I guess he has missed a few things like the 1st WTC and the USS Cole, etc."
Those events were the the result of Al Qaida - A terrorist organization and not a country. (some call them thugs) Ron Paul has supported issues Letters of Marque and Reprisal - a power authorized by the constitution - to deal with these isolated individuals where a standing army is too big and blunt of a weapon to combat them.
George Bush the other day GIGGLED while threatening Iran with the prospect of WWIII.
President Bush - "... we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/world-war-iii-is-going-to_b_68914.html
So, we have troops literally right over the border, and the leader of our country JOKES about World War III. Of course they are going to be nervous. Seriously - if Iran wants to get nuclear weapons more power to them. They have neighbors (all our friends) who have nukes - are we so daft as to assume that they don't have the right to defend themselves? They surely know that any missile launch would be suicide, and they know Israel won't hesitate to pull the trigger if provoked.
You mention the Barbary Pirate wars. I was steeped in that legend myself while in the Corps. Even back then there was debate on wither the President had authority to send the troops. I either watched a show on it or read a book about it (I forget) but the gist of it was that the only reason nobody raised hell about the unconstitutional use of power was because it was over so quickly and it was successful. (If I find references, you can be assured that I will post them as I have with all my other references)
You mentioned that they were Muslims - how is this relevant? If you look back to the history of Naval warfare, pirates came from every culture. Countries commissioned pirates (and called them privateers). Blackbeard wasn't a pirate unless I am mistaken... The reason we attacked the Barbary Pirates as opposed to others was due to the geography. The area that the Barbary Pirates held was too valuable to let them keep kidnapping our crews for ransom.
I personally am fine with war. Matter of fact, I joined the Active Reserve Marine Corps so I could go to Afghanistan following 9/11. But since then I have grown more particular, I require that it is declared. Wars that are not declared do not require objectives and reasoning. (If I can find it I will post a link to the addresses that were given upon us entering World War II.) Declarations of war impact treaties, alliances and have wide reaching ramifications. In this world we live in, there is no reason for us to INSTIGATE or INITIATE war. (defense is another thing, and it does not require invading a country)
EDIT: GREAT link regarding the constitutionality of the Barbary Pirate wars
http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm
-
:-X I MUST remember that I am a lady... ;)
But the more I listen to Ron Paul.. the more bizzare he sounds.
Just my opinion... but I think he is a whole lot of "out of control "talk..and when push come to shove.. he don't have what it takes to shove.
With that small amount said.. I'll stop ..and quietly bow out of this conversation. :)
-
:-X I MUST remember that I am a lady... ;)
But the more I listen to Ron Paul.. the more bizzare he sounds.
Just my opinion... but I think he is a whole lot of "out of control "talk..and when push come to shove.. he don't have what it takes to shove.
With that small amount said.. I'll stop ..and quietly bow out of this conversation. :)
Please understand the circumstances of the original constitution.
(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd48/shin-yu/UncleSam.gif)
-
Marshal'ette,
I am not trying to challenge you in a bad way per'se, but could you tell me what you refer to when you say "out of control" talk? I am a Ron Paul supporter - and honestly maybe there is stuff that I overlook because I agree with him on other issues. If there is some area where he really is out of line, I would like to understand why people believe that, because maybe I might be wrong.
Lets put it this way - in a way, Ron Paul is like the dude who said the emperor has no clothes. Now, the very idea that the emperor has clothes makes no sense to me, and I imagine likewise you see the very same things and can't believe someone is claiming that he ISN'T wearing clothes so to speak.
My example of this is foreign policy. I have read enough of the sources he lists in support of his policy of reducing our footprint on the world in order to reduce terrorism and to "save" our country financially. To me, this proves that our presence in Iraq is hurting more than helping (in general, not saying surge isn't making things better) and that it isn't just hate that makes them want to kill us. Other people believe that if we leave things will disintegrate and we will be less safe in the world.
My question is, are they looking at the same set of data, and are they seeing something completely different? Or, are they looking at a different set of evidence? What is the reasoning, what is the evidence, and how do you come to this conclusion? What makes the pro-war evidence more powerful than the CIA expert? I honestly want to know, because maybe I am misunderstanding things.
-
I guess my main problem with Ron Paul is that he thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11.
When he was ask what he thought of the term "Islamic fascism." he said it is a false term to make people think we're fighting Hitler, and that the war propaganda was designed to generate fear so that the war has to be spread." When I heard that I came unhooked!
When he says that the war in Iraq is a mistake and that it's bankrupting America, he's making a serious statement which I'm sure a majority of Americans agree with -- though how many Republicans..I'm not sure..
When he says 9/11 was the result of "blow-back" from decades of U.S. foreign policy abroad, he's still tiptoeing on thin ice .. but at least there is some small shred of intellectual basis for his statements.
But....when he said that the term "Islamic fascism" is propaganda designed to spread war...in my humble female opinion... ;) he has dropped over into the sort of paranoid off the wall bizarreness that makes me feel like he is a side-show act.
He sticks to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease. ..and we will all be happy in our own safe little part of the world. I couldn't disagree more.
More to the point, his willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists makes me question his ability to fulfill the constitutional duty of the President and Commander in Chief to protect our country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
So I guess ..although he has great ideas about how things should work..and I DO like some of what he talks of.. This particular one is just too much against what I believe is so. I don't like war any better than anyone else.. but to pull out now will leave us here like sitting ducks on a fence post.. Just waiting to be shot down and roasted for dinner. I think then , we will see war right here on our doorstep.
He might have some good points in other areas.. but this one sure ain't one of 'em.
I guess when the votes are finally in and counted ( for whatever that is worth) we will have the majority of the people's choice..whether I or anyone else agrees with it or not.
-
Marshal'ette,
Thank you for being honest and communicating what you feel clearly.
I can't speak for Ron Paul - but it is tough for me to sit by and let the same misinformation stand.
Saying that Ron Paul thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 is the (forgive me for saying it) neo-conservative spin on his stance regarding foreign interventionism. It is putting words in his mouth to discredit him and make him look like a loon. It is those of us who 'want' to simplify the reasons people hate us into simple terms when the issue is so much more complex. I used to feel this way too. But then I started to make friends with Australians, British, Germans, (dare I say it) and French. Common citizens around the world see our military reach, see the posturing and war-mongering of our government, and forgive me but, the stupidity of our fellow citizens, and it reflects on ALL of us. The arrogance of the few drown out us normal patriots.
As to your (and I imagine many other) fury when he termed 'islamofascism' a false term, first understand that words can have strong emotional ties, especially after the experience we as a country shared fighting REAL fascism.
Fascism is defined on dictionary.com as:
- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
- A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism)
Btw, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4) Feel manipulated yet?
What we face is not governmental in nature, it is the very opposite. There is no dictator, there are no socioeconomic controls, and there is no opposition through censorship. Hitler was a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. "Islamic Fascism" is at WORST extreme Islamic Fundamentalism. But perhaps we pulled away from that because it wasn't strong enough of a euphemism and did not incite as much hate. While the goals of Islamic fundamentalism might be a fascist state, that is not what we are fighting currently, and they are not the people who are trying to kill us.
This is where I may get some people thinking I am a conspiracy theorist - which I am not. If you have an open mind, please keep reading.
The power we project over the world is expensive. If we were to bring back our troops from bases we maintain around the world and instead maintain training relationships with various countries, as well as keep a fleet of ships patrolling the world in case anything really dangerous pops up, we would save a LOT of money. We as a country are spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year that we do not have. We are borrowing against countries like China, and it is devaluing our dollar. If we do not cut spending (and the biggest portion of the budget is Military) we will not be able to afford the INTEREST payments on our debt by 2050. Just like the drug companies lobby for more drug restrictions, and the HMO's lobby for more structured health care, the industries supporting the Military lobby to keep spending, to keep the machine of war rolling.
And guess what? I don't consider them evil - they are just protecting their jobs! When your paycheck comes from lets say, selling Hybrid vehicles - you tend to rationalize it so that you can do a better job at night and feed your family with a clear conscience. Nobody sets out in the morning to do evil (ok, serial killers, but they do random, not focused). Even Osama Bin Ladin believes in his heart that he is right! When in the case immediately above - the truth is that the extra cost of the Hybrid along with the cost of replacing and recycling the batteries (and overall impact of those batteries on the environment) outweigh in many ways the savings in gasoline over the typical course of a vehicles usefulness. But hey, when you depend on it for a living - you eventually start to believe the propaganda. (btw, I am not saying Hybrid is bad, I just think that in its current form they don't offer ME a good value in money or impact on the environment)
So what I am saying is this. There are a lot of good people who have sold themselves into the paranoia that is Islamic terrorism. Yes, its horrible, but in my opinion we are making things worse by being over there. And by 'over there' I don't just mean Iraq. Muslims may have odd traditions and regrettable history of repression of their own people, but they are people just like us that get angry, afraid, laugh and cry. When we do things that incite them it only distracts the people who want to bring change and democracy and inflames the hate in others and directs it outwards. And look at us, we are doing the same things. We look outwards at Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs instead of the loss of OUR rights, the invasion of OUR country by illegals, the disarming of OUR public, the overspending and irresponsibility of OUR government - all out of fear and anger.
By all means, lets handle those thugs. But lets do it constitutionally. Lets let our freedoms and rights work for us, and not give them up for the mirage of safety.
Ooh-Rah!
-
Forgive me for posting again, but I am inspired...
I don't want to post again so soon, so I want to touch on something that is my belief (because I don't have references to show that Dr. Paul stated it too).
You Marshal'ette stated (and I am sure many people feel this way):
"He sticks to the view that religious fundamentalism is not the driving force behind Islamic terrorism and that if we simply remove all of our troops from Muslim parts of the world, attacks against America and the West will cease. ..and we will all be happy in our own safe little part of the world. I couldn't disagree more.
More to the point, his willingness to so severely downplay the threat posed to America by Islamic fundamentalists makes me question his ability to fulfill the constitutional duty of the President and Commander in Chief to protect our country from all threats, foreign and domestic."
______________________
Islamic fundamentalism (in my opinion) is a VIEWPOINT shared by few Arabs. I say viewpoint because without a provocateur it has no direction. But, when followers of an extreme viewpoint see what they consider EVIDENCE of a transgression, it MOTIVATEs them and gives them direction to move against that transgression. Exampe: Timothy McVeigh.
Timothy McVeigh was a survivalist who's VIEWPOINT was that the government was evil and corrupt (simplifying a bit), but he was MOTIVATED by the government actions at Waco and Ruby ridge that gave EVIDENCE of this evil which backed up his world view. In his mind, he was a patriot!
Now, if the federal government had immediately started shutting down gun shows (a place he frequented), raided private militias and survivalists, and generally started making a mess - McVeigh would eventually be seen as a hero, because his view of the government would be adopted by more and more people that saw the evil that he did. If this were the case, people who's VIEWPOINT somewhat resembled McVeigh would see the EVIDENCE provided by the government that it was going overboard, and it would MOTIVATE them to do something about it.
My point is this. There are plenty of Arabs who have the VIEWPOINT that the USA is trying to occupy and control the region. Why do we keep using blunt force trauma to take care of the problem rather than handling it the way we handled McVeigh. All we are doing is creating more EVIDENCE and bringing more people in who's viewpoints are sympathetic and turning them against us too.
-
Marshal'ette,
Thank you for being honest and communicating what you feel clearly.
I can't speak for Ron Paul - but it is tough for me to sit by and let the same misinformation stand.
Saying that Ron Paul thinks we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 is the (forgive me for saying it) neo-conservative spin on his stance regarding foreign interventionism. It is putting words in his mouth to discredit him and make him look like a loon. It is those of us who 'want' to simplify the reasons people hate us into simple terms when the issue is so much more complex. I used to feel this way too. But then I started to make friends with Australians, British, Germans, (dare I say it) and French. Common citizens around the world see our military reach, see the posturing and war-mongering of our government, and forgive me but, the stupidity of our fellow citizens, and it reflects on ALL of us. The arrogance of the few drown out us normal patriots.
As to your (and I imagine many other) fury when he termed 'islamofascism' a false term, first understand that words can have strong emotional ties, especially after the experience we as a country shared fighting REAL fascism.
Fascism is defined on dictionary.com as:
- A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
- A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism)
Btw, check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4) Feel manipulated yet?
What we face is not governmental in nature, it is the very opposite. There is no dictator, there are no socioeconomic controls, and there is no opposition through censorship. Hitler was a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. "Islamic Fascism" is at WORST extreme Islamic Fundamentalism. But perhaps we pulled away from that because it wasn't strong enough of a euphemism and did not incite as much hate. While the goals of Islamic fundamentalism might be a fascist state, that is not what we are fighting currently, and they are not the people who are trying to kill us.
This is where I may get some people thinking I am a conspiracy theorist - which I am not. If you have an open mind, please keep reading.
The power we project over the world is expensive. If we were to bring back our troops from bases we maintain around the world and instead maintain training relationships with various countries, as well as keep a fleet of ships patrolling the world in case anything really dangerous pops up, we would save a LOT of money. We as a country are spending billions if not trillions of dollars a year that we do not have. We are borrowing against countries like China, and it is devaluing our dollar. If we do not cut spending (and the biggest portion of the budget is Military) we will not be able to afford the INTEREST payments on our debt by 2050. Just like the drug companies lobby for more drug restrictions, and the HMO's lobby for more structured health care, the industries supporting the Military lobby to keep spending, to keep the machine of war rolling.
And guess what? I don't consider them evil - they are just protecting their jobs! When your paycheck comes from lets say, selling Hybrid vehicles - you tend to rationalize it so that you can do a better job at night and feed your family with a clear conscience. Nobody sets out in the morning to do evil (ok, serial killers, but they do random, not focused). Even Osama Bin Ladin believes in his heart that he is right! When in the case immediately above - the truth is that the extra cost of the Hybrid along with the cost of replacing and recycling the batteries (and overall impact of those batteries on the environment) outweigh in many ways the savings in gasoline over the typical course of a vehicles usefulness. But hey, when you depend on it for a living - you eventually start to believe the propaganda. (btw, I am not saying Hybrid is bad, I just think that in its current form they don't offer ME a good value in money or impact on the environment)
So what I am saying is this. There are a lot of good people who have sold themselves into the paranoia that is Islamic terrorism. Yes, its horrible, but in my opinion we are making things worse by being over there. And by 'over there' I don't just mean Iraq. Muslims may have odd traditions and regrettable history of repression of their own people, but they are people just like us that get angry, afraid, laugh and cry. When we do things that incite them it only distracts the people who want to bring change and democracy and inflames the hate in others and directs it outwards. And look at us, we are doing the same things. We look outwards at Iran, Iraq, and a bunch of Al Qaeda thugs instead of the loss of OUR rights, the invasion of OUR country by illegals, the disarming of OUR public, the overspending and irresponsibility of OUR government - all out of fear and anger.
By all means, lets handle those thugs. But lets do it constitutionally. Lets let our freedoms and rights work for us, and not give them up for the mirage of safety.
Ooh-Rah!
Where to begin?
Your premise that we are causing our own sorrows by our military and cultural extensions int the rest of the world begs a huge questions. IF this were true, how then do you explain the hundred of years of Muslim attack against western culture and civilization? How can this explain Suleimon's presence at the gates of Vienna in the 13th century, or the muslim conquest of most of Spain that ended in the 15th century? Can we minimize these and hundreds of other events simply by ascribing them to just some form of fundamentalism - another term used to minimize anyone with a religious point of view, BTW, or the opinions of a few?
If you've read the Koran and seen the suras that state quite clearly - more than 2 dozen times in fact - that it is good to kill non-believers, you will begin to understand that it is not fundamentalism, or the few, it is part of the essence of the religion. Domination is the goal, the so-called world caliphate based on reason if possible, but death and destruction is perfectly acceptable too.
Your point has minor validity in that many, if not most, of the people we face (based on the ones we kill or capture) are not native Iraqis, but foreigners who have been smuggled into Iraq through Iran and Syria bent on killing the "infidel". Our presence in Iraq is drawing them into the fight. But that simple fact cannot be extended to cover the fourteen hundred years in which the world's civilizations have been faced with Muslim attacks.
In this you, and to the degree I have read his stuff, Ron Paul are at best dangerously naive.
-
I just have to say that this is the most inspiring and informative forum I've ever encountered. Its interesting too though, despite everyone's intense knowledge of history the evident vast differences in perception of historical cause and effect. And still, a significant fiber of respect remains. And despite the verbose nature of the responses, the reading is incredibly captivating in large part to the well written and obviously well educated responses. Nice to listen to folks who know how to "THINK" while entertaining opposing views.
Too bad our congress can't exhibit some of this outstanding character.
-
By the way Marshal'ette , great picture. When you pulish the calendar, count on me for several copies.
-
I just have to say that this is the most inspiring and informative forum I've ever encountered. Its interesting too though, despite everyone's intense knowledge of history the evident vast differences in perception of historical cause and effect. And still, a significant fiber of respect remains. And despite the verbose nature of the responses, the reading is incredibly captivating in large part to the well written and obviously well educated responses. Nice to listen to folks who know how to "THINK" while entertaining opposing views.
Too bad our congress can't exhibit some of this outstanding character.
That is why a return to the original constitution (that is being destroyed by those sworn to defend it) is so important. It was to prevent the federal government from having any real power over the people. We are starting to see the consequences of this with the looming financial disaster as a result of the federal government taking us off the gold standard (against the constitution) and other wise partisan politics. The elite are getting super rich from partisan politics. The true end and need to start another revolution will be when the federal government tries to take away our guns - this has already started. The constitution is meaningless piece of paper unless the people have the right to enforce it.
History is full of examples of this. The earliest example is in the bible were the Philistines prevented the Isrealites from having blacksmiths (to make weapons) to more recent Hitler who set up a situation to justify taking away arms and that allowed him to murder millions of his own people - Jews and the handicapped.
I personally will never find anyone guilty of a crime ,as a juror, of defending his constitutional rights against anyone.
The police, arm forces......have to know the constitution for as in the Neuronburg Trials, following orders is not a defense.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE not the f ing government.
-
Where to begin?
Your premise that we are causing our own sorrows by our military and cultural extensions int the rest of the world begs a huge questions. IF this were true, how then do you explain the hundred of years of Muslim attack against western culture and civilization? How can this explain Suleimon's presence at the gates of Vienna in the 13th century, or the muslim conquest of most of Spain that ended in the 15th century? Can we minimize these and hundreds of other events simply by ascribing them to just some form of fundamentalism - another term used to minimize anyone with a religious point of view, BTW, or the opinions of a few?
If you've read the Koran and seen the suras that state quite clearly - more than 2 dozen times in fact - that it is good to kill non-believers, you will begin to understand that it is not fundamentalism, or the few, it is part of the essence of the religion. Domination is the goal, the so-called world caliphate based on reason if possible, but death and destruction is perfectly acceptable too.
Your point has minor validity in that many, if not most, of the people we face (based on the ones we kill or capture) are not native Iraqis, but foreigners who have been smuggled into Iraq through Iran and Syria bent on killing the "infidel". Our presence in Iraq is drawing them into the fight. But that simple fact cannot be extended to cover the fourteen hundred years in which the world's civilizations have been faced with Muslim attacks.
In this you, and to the degree I have read his stuff, Ron Paul are at best dangerously naive.
Pathfinder - I appreciate your viewpoint, but I would like to explain the story you cite above and what it tells me. You cite several incidents to try and prove that muslims have been terrorizing the world for 1400 years - but when you look back at the history of Islam, the initial (till about 1000 AD) push of Islam was more of a land grab (because in those days, land was money and power) than a forced conversion and subversion. There are records of Christian and Jew communities existing within the Muslim Arab empire - and in some cases finding less restrictions than under Byzantine rule. Rather than force conversion, early Islam instead imposed a head tax on those who were not Muslim, and rather than convert by force, those in power in Christian regions converted mainly to free themselves from taxation and to gain favor with the Muslim state (if you will) which would let them keep more of their individual power.
So tell me, if Islam is a religion that is so intolerant of non-Muslims, why less than a hundred years after after Mohammed's death did the expanding Arab empires not lay waste to all Christians and Jews? Why in fact, were there laws against conversion (not just forced conversion, but conversion at all!) in those periods? If this is the time of the most purity in message, why was everything so non-violent?
The expansion of empires of that era was about land and power not the supremacy of a religion or a people. Before Mohammed, the Persians were advancing the empire - The Romans were fighting to increase their empire - and it was all about land, and the ability to TAX (money).
You reference the gates of Vienna - which was a land grab by the Ottoman empire under Suleiman not a holy war of conversion. (matter of fact, some argue that Suleiman saw Alexander the Great as a hero, and wanted from childhood to unit the East and West)
Forgive me for ending here, I need to get to work. If you would like be basis for my arguments, please reference:
Wikipedia: Muslim History, Byzantine Empire, Islamic Forced Conversion, Spread of Islam, Islamic Conquest of Persia, Suleiman the Magnificent, Ottoman Empire, and Siege of Vienna.
In writing this I have spent over three hours researching the alleged tyranny of Islam over other religions. If you wish to cite that the Qur'an states that it is good to kill non-believers (and I agree that it does http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/sina.htm (http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/sina.htm) - why don't they on a grand scale? Why didn't the Ottoman Empire lay waste to all Christians? Why didn't the Islamics murder the Persians? (indeed, this battle was waging while Mohammed was alive!)
My point is that in my and many historians opinion, your allegation that islamic fundamentalism was to blame in Spain and the Gates of Vienna is untrue. Also, while the Qur'an does say the things you allege - that doesn't mean that it is or was the justification used in those assaults. They along with just about every other invasion or subversion or siege was for military (border security) political, or money reasons. Just like they are today.
-
Just for clarification purposes, can you describe what you mean by this?
IF this were true, how then do you explain the hundred of years of Muslim attack against western culture and civilization?
I find it hard to research something if I don't know the era, the alleged good guys or bad guys.
Thanks.
(And to echo what Kimbertac said, I am very thankful that we can all discuss opposing viewpoints openly and respectfully.)
-
I am from Texas and embarrassed that this guy got elected. He is more doom and gloom as the democrats. Ron did say we deserved to be attacked on the first presidential debate and Rudy busted his butt for it.
Ron Paul is a whiner and he whines about how this war is costing us the ability to pay for more health care, social securty etc..
-
Hey Wheels,
Don't fret too much. He lies about that too, he was born and raised in PA. Greensburg I believe. His parents had a dairy farm.
-
First..( before I get on my LONG tangent) :) I want to say thank you to everyone for making this forum a great place to gather and talk and learn..whether it's about guns, politics/religion. We're pretty proud of Down Range and to have folks like you all as Down Range family make me even more proud.
Oh yeah.. and kimbertac2? Uhhh about the calendar? Don't hold your breath. I can just about guarantee that it's not gonna happen. HaHaHa ;D :D ;D But thanks for the compliment anyway.. ;)
Now....enough of all that .................. ;D
I read these posts with interest..as I don't know squat from sic-um about the long ago history of other world culture religions. I am totally ignorant on most of that kind of stuff. But what I do think..and I don't know if it coincides with this thread ( as it has gotten a bit off course) but..I do believe it rates merit among the top contenders...
I read an article the other day and it pretty much states my worries on the way I think.. I will try to explain it the best way I can and not drag it out anymore than I am famous for doing... :)
I have always said that this war is a religious war. I know that there are many things connected to it, but still.....it is a A Religious War. It's also time to call a spade a spade and name our enemy.
Israel seems to be/is the songbird in the depths of the world events. Well..It's time to open our ears and listen people...cause the canary is singing.
( *I quote*) The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States of America's Constitution, Jefferson writes
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."
"Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom originally written by Thomas Jefferson.. but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination
...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. *unquote*
The Left in our nation, who make government their religion, have formed ranks around separation of church and state as a bedrock. So ...you wonder how this relates to the current crisis between Israel and her enemies?
The inferno breaking out around the world like a forest fire out of control is religious.
It's not oil, it's not haves and have-nots, it's not Marxism versus Capitalism, it's not Globalists versus independent free thinkers.
It's religion.
It's a war to the death between those who stand for Religion as State, and those who will not live under their rule of religion as state policy.
Some say it's an Oil war... It's not oil.. Oil is just a bargaining chip. It's not Globalism. Globalism is only a sidebar. The deadly pieces of Marxism play a major role in money and state...sponsored support, but Marxism is not the name.
Our enemy... the enemy of civilization... and I dare say the enemy of mankind itself is a religion which will kill, brutally maim and terrorize any who will not accept religion as the State.
Which brings me back to the answer to the original question .......??
Islam.
Islam was founded as a religion that IS the state, where the state IS the religion. The ultimate theocracy.
There is no separation, no wall, no division. It is an endless seamless entity... and any behavior is allowed to maintain that power. No crime is too gruesome, no argument too convoluted, no terror too shocking, and no theology too cancerous to be off limits in conquering the world for "their god".
They mean to have government BE religion, and for religion to BE government. Jihad is the mechanism by which all of mankind will be brought into to ummah, the world community of Islam. And in their warped way of thinking... Only then will we know peace.
I am appalled and in shocked anger that those in America who believe and work so hard for the separation of church and state are not horrified at the Islamist threat. Those who passionately insist on the separation of church and state ought to be heard every day denouncing Islam and their global terror campaigns.... pressing for Islam to be destroyed.
But they aren't denouncing Islam. Oh no...Quite the opposite. They advocate eradicating Bush and the United States.
This is total and incomprehensible to me. Insanity at its best.
The very people inside our borders who work the hardest to see to it that America and Israel are ruined and kicked into the dust bin of history are the same people who take every opportunity to remind us about the separation of church and state. Are they not paying attention? Are they blind and deaf? Are they just so full of hate that they are stupid?
I am truly flabbergasted and appalled that these separation people seem to have no concept that if Israel is cast down and if America is driven to her knees, they're going to get a church that is the State in such totality it will defy description. And it won't do for America to simply refrain from international affairs as if a disinterested observer. It will be way too late for that!
This is the kind of annihilating threat that must be stopped before it grows any larger. Acceptance and diversity are nice sounding phrases, but not when we could be discussing the end of civilized man.
A word of warning to our citizens who live on the Left side of the aisle, the anti-war crowd, the anti-globalist crowd, the anti-America crowd .... Listen up!
You say you are as separation of church and state as can be .... but what you're going to reap is the soul crushing whirlwind of church AS state and state AS church if you don't get a grip and wise up. You're rooting for the worst kind of theocracy the world has ever seen! The kind that treats women as less than objects... who kill dissenters, and whose Friday evening fun is not drinks at Harry's Place ...but beheadings of those who have sex out of wedlock, or show too much skin in public. That is just a few of the many of their crimes you and I now take for granted as our liberties.
Islam is the zenith of religion as government, and government that is religion. Our friend Israel is on the front line of the war to determine the future of mankind. Religion as state, or secular freedom that guarantees religious freedom.
Do we REALLY want to bring to pass a murderous medieval theocracy? Is that the future we think we'll enjoy? Is that the outcome we're working for? Because if we keep tearing at our foundations and empowering this nation's enemies, if we keep heaping scorn and invective on our President, if we insist that America is evil and must be radically assimilated into a metastasizing United Nations global plan, that's exactly what we're going to get and there will be no wall of separation.
It will already have been torn down!
Thanks for listening to me spout off... but I get so frustrated with the whole dang mess! >:(
-
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)"
_____________________________
Understand and deserve are two totally different concepts. It is your (and Giuliani's) interpretation of what he said that leads you to believe that be thinks we deserved 9/11. Lets put it this way. Say your spouse was cheating on you and you killed them. When you go to court - the prosecution has to prove motive. By helping the jury to understand the motive, the prosecutor is surely NOT trying to tell the jury that the spouse deserved it!
Whatever happened to putting yourself in someone else's shoes? Looking through their eyes at the world? Understanding the enemy does not make you a sympathizer, or else thousands of analysts in the CIA would be traitors.
-
By the way Marshal'ette, I am quoting you because you are one of the few people talking - not as an attack.
It's not oil, it's not haves and have-nots, it's not Marxism versus Capitalism, it's not Globalists versus independent free thinkers.
It's religion.
It's a war to the death between those who stand for Religion as State, and those who will not live under their rule of religion as state policy.
What about Pakistan? Turkey? Are they part of that war, and if so, who's side are they on? They are Muslim countries. Last I heard they were our friends.
Our enemy... the enemy of civilization... and I dare say the enemy of mankind itself is a religion which will kill, brutally maim and terrorize any who will not accept religion as the State.
So its religion not people that does this? And guns kill people, right?
Islam was founded as a religion that IS the state, where the state IS the religion. The ultimate theocracy.
Guns were invented to kill or cause injury to living beings.
There is no separation, no wall, no division. It is an endless seamless entity... and any behavior is allowed to maintain that power. No crime is too gruesome, no argument too convoluted, no terror too shocking, and no theology too cancerous to be off limits in conquering the world for "their god".
They mean to have government BE religion, and for religion to BE government. Jihad is the mechanism by which all of mankind will be brought into to ummah, the world community of Islam. And in their warped way of thinking... Only then will we know peace.
I am appalled and in shocked anger that those in America who believe and work so hard for the separation of church and state are not horrified at the Islamist threat. Those who passionately insist on the separation of church and state ought to be heard every day denouncing Islam and their global terror campaigns.... pressing for Islam to be destroyed.
being satirical:
"I am appalled and shocked that those in America who love life and want to protect it are not horrified at the evil of guns in our society. Those who love life and want to protect it should denounce firearms and the bullets they fire... Pressing for all guns to be outlawed."
But they aren't denouncing Islam. Oh no...Quite the opposite. They advocate eradicating Bush and the United States.
I personally denounce, and most Muslims denounce - violence done in the name of Islam (or in my case, Christianity)
I am truly flabbergasted and appalled that these separation people seem to have no concept that if Israel is cast down and if America is driven to her knees, they're going to get a church that is the State in such totality it will defy description. And it won't do for America to simply refrain from international affairs as if a disinterested observer. It will be way too late for that!
This is the kind of annihilating threat that must be stopped before it grows any larger. Acceptance and diversity are nice sounding phrases, but not when we could be discussing the end of civilized man.
A word of warning to our citizens who live on the Left side of the aisle, the anti-war crowd, the anti-globalist crowd, the anti-America crowd .... Listen up!
You say you are as separation of church and state as can be .... but what you're going to reap is the soul crushing whirlwind of church AS state and state AS church if you don't get a grip and wise up. You're rooting for the worst kind of theocracy the world has ever seen! The kind that treats women as less than objects... who kill dissenters, and whose Friday evening fun is not drinks at Harry's Place ...but beheadings of those who have sex out of wedlock, or show too much skin in public. That is just a few of the many of their crimes you and I now take for granted as our liberties.
Exactly how is this going to take place? Blackmail? An islamic Navy? Invasion through South America or Canada?
And while I doubt you are putting me into the anti-America category - I have never myself, nor have I ever seen any "left leaner" rooting for suppression and objectification of women, beheadings, and other atrocities performed by those in extreme Islamic states. What I personally approve of is denouncing those very same practices and butting out of those countries internal affairs. It is my personal opinion that if we butt out of places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, instead of being afraid of external threats and provocations, the people will rise up against those internal oppressions far more effectively than we ever could.
It takes brave Iraqi's, Iranians, and other Arabs just as it took brave Americans to stand up to the British. When a people depends on its government for external security it tends to not struggle so hard against what is right and wrong in their own land. (ooh, thats us!)
Because if we keep tearing at our foundations and empowering this nation's enemies, if we keep heaping scorn and invective on our President, if we insist that America is evil and must be radically assimilated into a metastasizing United Nations global plan, that's exactly what we're going to get and there will be no wall of separation.
It will already have been torn down!
Tearing at which foundations? Right to privacy? Right to free speech? Right to habeas corpus? Right to defend ourselves with whatever arms necessary to protect ourselves from criminals and the theoretical threat of a tyrannical government?
Being critical of our government is our duty as Americans. It is the voting, the protesting, the discussion of this very sort (in this thread) that defines us as citizens and not subjects. While I disagree with people who believe that the United States are evil - I oppose the idea that we should turn off our brains and follow. Stupidity will be found out and ignored, but some things that sounded dumb turn out to be true. (IE: world is round, etc) Why get angry because someone says something you don't agree with. Instead ask (or look for) evidence.
Thanks for listening to me spout off... but I get so frustrated with the whole dang mess! >:(
Any time! Thank YOU!
-
_____________________________
Whatever happened to putting yourself in someone else's shoes? Looking through their eyes at the world? Understanding the enemy does not make you a sympathizer, or else thousands of analysts in the CIA would be traitors.
In your own words, Cogz, what should have the US government done in response to the 9/11 attack?
-
They should have investigated why these events happened, and go after the people who did it.
Which is what they did in Afghanistan. However, the time it took to bring our troops into the country gave Osama and company plenty of warning which allowed him to escape to the mountains of Pakastan (allegedly) where it is sticky politically for our military to tread.
The alternate possibility is to issue "Letters of Marquee and Reprisal" which is basically like a bounty on the heads of whomever we issue them against. It would allow us to deny involvement with individual acts of violence because we would only pay them once the job is done. Also, it would define the objective clearly so that both the 'hunters' and the areas they operate in know that once the job is complete, they will get paid and leave. Lets say we offered 5 billion dollars reward for wiping out the top 100 Al-Qaeda. That would be sufficiently enough to get the interest of many many bounty hunters and private armies. 5 Billion is less than one month's cost of our troops in Iraq. Plus, Al-Qaeda wouldn't know who to trust - anyone could turn on them for that kind of money.
Basically this gets back to objectives and the reason we have to declare war. Declarations of war have objectives. What is the objective in Iraq? How do we know when its done? Fight global terror? Where is the measuring stick that tells us how far along we are? The fact is that the "war on terror" can never be won, because its a fight against a tactic deployed by desperate men. There is no king or ruler to "surrender" or admit defeat.
I firmly believe in the principal of "Win it, and get out." But how do we know when we have won? When winning isn't defined, all you have left is various degrees of failure.
-
Oh yeah.. and kimbertac2? Uhhh about the calendar? Don't hold your breath. I can just about guarantee that it's not gonna happen. HaHaHa ;D :D ;D But thanks for the compliment anyway.. ;)
Now....enough of all that .................. ;D
Damn! I was just going to order at least two copies (office and workshop)!!! Deflating dreams here, M'ette . . . .
;D ;D ;D
-
Coqz........................
My god... I think I have met my match in the "talk dept". ;D ;D
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/earsoffmoose.gif)
Good points. REAL good points. Some of it I think is a bit stretched from the content I was talking about.. but points well taken.
I can't come back with anything..........wished I could, but my brain is tired. :D
I'll wave the white flag on this one.. Not that I think I am defeated..( I am not going to call Uncle all the way ;) ) but I think we have run the course of this particular subject.
((Still like poor old no financial $$ Mike Huckabee though)) (http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/tease.gif)
-
Trying to bring the thread back on topic...
I don't mean to talk anyone into submission - my overall point is that to call Ron Paul a kook or call his foreign policy naive you have to completely throw away the opinions of a lot of Islamic intelligence experts and historians.
Say you disagree with the evidence and what 'we' think it tells us, fine. But calling him a kook when there is real and credible evidence to support his views is a little offensive to me. I'd rather be called wrong than crazy personally...
-
My issue with Ron Paul derives from his statements on war and foreign policy and on the Patriot Act from his website:
"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information." Not necessarily true, as it was incorrect intelligence, supplied by the CIA, British Intelligence, the new KGB (scary thought, that), and IIRC, French intelligence. If he meant wrong or incorrect intelligence, well, yeah, he's right. But the phrasing makes him appear to say Bush lied, as well as Tony Blair and all the intelligence agents who collaborated to create the picture of Iraq's threat. Plus, there were about a dozen point besides WMDs, which few seem to remember.
"The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it." For whom? For the thousands killed by poison gas? Or perhaps the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam's regime and slain in combat with the Iranians and the rest for the world in two wars? The people killed by the funds provided by Saddam to terrorist grouped such us the PLO? Or perhaps the terrorists trained in Iraq, which Saddam was turning into a mecca if you will for training? From what I can see, the area has become much more stable now that we have figured out how to get the local Sunni sheiks on our side and won't deal with the Mahdi Army thugs, for a start.
"We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them." And killed many thousands of them, partially solving that problem. many, if not the vast majority of the terrorists now are foreigners, not Iraqis. Some were Iraqis, being members of the Ba'ath party, some were Mahdi thugs, and some were Sunnis. Operative word there is were.
"This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars." Yep
"We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again." We'll always have wars, but I suspect he means the way this was handled. Well, under most other President, we did nothing but bomb a few factories and AA sites. That didn't stop Saddam's activities, and the Oil for Food program filled his pockets while starving his people. Frankly, President Bush has made some mistakes. However, he tends to (finally) recognize what needs to be done and appointed Petraeus. What reamins to be seen is if that's enough.
As for the Patriot Act, acts such as this are passed in wars to enable intelligence to be gathered. Most of the hyperbole over it is unwarranted. Namely, you need to have some ties to terrorist orgs before your phone is tapped and your computer records are investigated. Such as contributing to foundations that then turn the money over to the PLO, Fatah, Falangiasts, or Al Queda, for example. Should the Act be repealed after the conflict is over? Yes. Which begs the question of when do we know when the conflict is over? My idea is when Iraq and Afghanistan can take care of themselves, most of the Islamic terrorists are hunted down, and jihadists are not supported by mainstream Muslims.
Tall order, there. We'll be in this one for quite some time to come, and we'll see what Islam does when it's tenets are truly espoused and followed, like they were from 621 AD to around the early 19th century.
-
As for the Patriot Act, acts such as this are passed in wars to enable intelligence to be gathered. Most of the hyperbole over it is unwarranted. Namely, you need to have some ties to terrorist orgs before your phone is tapped and your computer records are investigated. Such as contributing to foundations that then turn the money over to the PLO, Fatah, Falangiasts, or Al Queda, for example. Should the Act be repealed after the conflict is over? Yes. Which begs the question of when do we know when the conflict is over? My idea is when Iraq and Afghanistan can take care of themselves, most of the Islamic terrorists are hunted down, and jihadists are not supported by mainstream Muslims.
Part of the reason I disagree with the patriot act is due to addition of the Military Commissions act. (unless I am mistaken - I will do some research when I have time) According to the military commisions act, those that tap your phone lines can write their own warrants. They don't need to show evidence to anybody.
I want to do some research before I spout off to much more - I am not familiar with the specifics and I don't want to talk out by butt...
-
Cogz: I use the Patriot Act as one of two examples of where I disagree with Paul, so if you want to discuss it, feel free. Concerning the Act, my disagreement's more a matter of degree, in that I think some of it's necessary "for the duration," some of it breaks down artificial barriers prohibiting information sharing, and maybe some of it shouldn't exist. I say maybe because I've only read about 20 pages of the orginal several hundred from the original bill as it was passed, and don't plan to finish it any time soon.
-
My problem isn't the information sharing - its the changing of the rules that bind the CIA and Department of Homeland Security so that they can violate the rights we were given in the constitution. Maybe this might sound extreme to you, but I honestly believe that those that are willing to give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
Another provision that I do not agree with - the Sneak and Peak warrant. They are able to enter your house, look around for any evidence that they are looking for (on a warrant that THEY not a judge wrote) and leave without you knowing they were even there.
I am going to be working on a film for the next five days and I won't have much time to post - so I will sit on the wayside for now and watch.
-
My problem isn't the information sharing - its the changing of the rules that bind the CIA and Department of Homeland Security so that they can violate the rights we were given in the constitution.
My problem with you here is that it seems a bit difficult to share information without some binding between the two groups responsible for gathering ad using the intelligence. That said, I'm not a real big fan of Homeland security based on their track record so far.
Maybe this might sound extreme to you, but I honestly believe that those that are willing to give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither.
Depends. I view as a balancing test. If it allows for much better tracking and prosecution of terrorists, then great, but not if it hurts citizens more than it benefits them. Additionally, I have seen very few citizens , if any, that have been genuinely affected by the Act, but quite a few resident aliens.
Another provision that I do not agree with - the Sneak and Peak warrant. They are able to enter your house, look around for any evidence that they are looking for (on a warrant that THEY not a judge wrote) and leave without you knowing they were even there.
I partially agree with you here. If it's not a judge/magistrate issued warrant (for a Sneak & Peek or anything else) to search a citizen's property, then it's unconstitutional. If it is, then it's fine by me, assuming probable cause.
I am going to be working on a film for the next five days and I won't have much time to post - so I will sit on the wayside for now and watch.
Good luck. Don't feel you have to respond with any speed since you're busy. My major disagreement with Paul is the Iraq War points anyway. I really feel he misses the boat almost entirely there. Most of his other stuff I tend to agree with, but Thompson is much more my desired candidate, with maybe McCain as a running mate. Anything should be better than Senator Clinton...
-
Ron Paul on the Tonight Show: http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/105.html
We need a foreign policy of self-defense, not nation-building. Take a listen to this short clip: http://www.louisehartmann.com/clips/ConsNeoCons/TH-120805-CN.mp3
-
True enough. But, what happens when nation-building and self-defense converge?
-
But, what happens when nation-building and self-defense converge?
Example?
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson
An alliance can be one of mutual support, or it can be one of dependency. Nation building falls in the latter category. It seems to me that history has shown that imperialism does not create allies, but rather resentment. True stability in any region comes from within.
Consider the self-defense analogy in more detail: Do you pull a gun on an attacker and then proceed to give him a lesson in morality and personal finance? Or do you neutralize the threat and move on? A violent situation is not the context to do good.
-
Whether the decision to take Saddam out was right or wrong, one thing needs to be said. This battle in Iraq must be won. The reason is this: if we pull out without leaving a stable government in Iraq, it will become another Afghanistan. I.E.: Terrorists will have complete immunity to train in that state. Why would Jefferson state "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none"? Maybe because that when Jefferson was alive, America was not a superpower. Remember, America needed the help of France to defeat the English. It wouldn't take very much to entangle the US military back then. Second, we are not nation building in Iraq. The Iraqis are building their own nation, we're just giving them a safer arena in which to do it. Don't forget, we did the same with Germany and Japan after the second World War. Anyone want to guess how long that took? I'm also sick of people comparing the battle in Iraq to World War II. They say we won WWII in less than five years. We should have been able to win this one by now, so we must be defeated. This has got to be one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. What they conveniently forget is that we did not handcuff the military back then. The military didn't worry about what the compassionate back in the US thought, the just did what they had to. Remember the Japanese-American and German-American concentration camps? Firebombing? If someone was pointing a gun your way, whether they were wearing a uniform or not, you shot them. You didn't have to wait until they actually shot at you. If they were bird-dogging for the enemy, you shot them. Period. The anti-war folks also like to emphasize the casualty count in Iraq. Okay, so we've lost over 3000 of best and brightest since this began. I agree that every life is valuable, but don't compare wars if you're not gonna compare everything. We lost more in one day in WWII than in YEARS of fighting in Iraq AND Afghanistan. We lost about 500,000 soldiers, airmen and sailors in WWII. We fought for about four years or so. That works out to about 125,000 deaths a year. That's over 340 deaths per DAY.(http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/statistics.htm) Don't try to compare time lines from WWII to Iraq. Vietnam? We WON Vietnam. What happened was that after we won, we pulled out, leaving an extremely weak government that fell to the NVA and the VC very quickly. Why in the hell should we follow the same plan in Iraq? If we had stayed in Vietnam, there would still be a South Vietnam. I like the quote "If you forget the past, you are doomed to repeat it." I would change it a little though. I'd say if you forget the past, you will CHOOSE to repeat it. One last thing. The Islamic Radicals do not hate us for bombing them, for fighting in Iraq or stationing troops in Saudi Arabia. Those are just excuses like everything else they claim. They hate us because of who we are. They hate us because we are not like them and we don't agree with their world view. It's amazing when you meet someone who comes from other countries, especially middle eastern, because they are amazed that what they have been taught about Americans is mostly false. They think everyone is like the degenerates in Hollywood. They see that coming from the US and think that everyone here agrees with that. Part of the reason is that they live in a society where everyone does agree with what the media in their country says, or you die. Now, there are a few exceptions, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. To conclude, if we pull out of Iraq, we lose. If we pull out of Iraq, the Iraqis lose. If we pull out of Iraq, the extremists will still try to kill us. If we pull out of Iraq, we show that a few criminals can dictate policy to the US government. We MUST stay until the Iraqi government can run itself, whether the decision to begin was a mistake or not.
Statistic sources.
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq11-1.htm#anchor2118718
http://www.teacheroz.com/wwii.htm
http://www.teacheroz.com/Japanese_Internment.htm
http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html
-
In your opinion, if we stay in Iraq - how do we know when we have "won?"
Addendum:
Also, while you are correct that Iraq is "building its own nation" - we ARE involved with a new kind of nation building as defined by Wikipedia: "More recently, nation-building has come to be used in a completely different context, with reference to what has been succinctly described by its proponents as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy." In this sense nation-building describes deliberate efforts by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power but is often considered foreign and even destabilising. Nation-building is typically characterised by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-building
If you notice, we fit the bill for the entire description.
In regards to your fear of "another Afghanistan" - I imagine you are referring to the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Really the only thing they did to deserve our wrath was tolerate the presence of terrorists. Everything else (the way the treated women, the Islamic rule of law etc) is none of our business and best handled through good example.
-
Example?
Japan and Germany as phijord related.
An alliance can be one of mutual support, or it can be one of dependency. Nation building falls in the latter category. It seems to me that history has shown that imperialism does not create allies, but rather resentment.
The former British colonies are as a whole much better off than any other country's former colonies I can recall. (See Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order by Niall Ferguson ) Imperialism creates resentment due mostly to a bunch of scholars who like to bash Europe, and the media who promote them. For example, how many Austrailians, New Zealanders, Canadians, and Americans truly resent Britain and the civil society of law and custom it brought with it throughout the globe? Or, like my ancestors, scratching out a living in the Highlands?How many South Americans would truly rather be living in the jungles? What Indian truly wants to return to a divided India, constantly squabbling with itself? And so on. Imperialism is bashed now with little concious thought as to who brings the supposed grievance, and what benefits the "aggrieved" has taken advantage of.
True stability in any region comes from within.
Conversely, instability can and does come from abroad. Vietnam's instability was instigated and sustained by the Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh (Vietnamese Communist/nationalist) party at first, and after their split, by the North Vietnamese and their communist allies.
Consider the self-defense analogy in more detail: Do you pull a gun on an attacker and then proceed to give him a lesson in morality and personal finance? Or do you neutralize the threat and move on? A violent situation is not the context to do good.
True. But, you want to give the lesson to everyone else around, not the thug. You show others that self defense is good thing, and how to do it. After you stop the bad guy.
In your opinion, if we stay in Iraq - how do we know when we have "won?"
Yes, this wan't a question for me. But, my thought is that's when the Iraqis ask us to leave. The polls of Iraqis I've seen show that they don't want us there much, but realize they need external help to stabilize. They realize that we knocked out their former dictator, and then the thugs without the courage to fight him and his forces came in to make their own little caliphate and we've stayed to help them get rid of that vermin too. We would not like someone helping us to stabilize the US, but we would be foolish to turn down help we desperately needed. Kinda like the French help we accepted late in the Revolutionary War. Very late in the war, I might add.
This again shows my disagreement with Paul's (in my view) Pollyanna and contrarian approach to foreign affairs. We should "secure America and bring the troops home." When the people you need to secure from are in another country, you kinda have to go where they are. It seems as if he's saying "We should bring our troops home from around the world, but be ready to send them back to the same place." You are either ready to fight where needed to protect you country's interests, or you are not. You can't have it both ways. But, like I've said before, I tend to agree with Paul, even though I think he toned down his libertarianism to run as a Republican
-
In reference to the Afghanistan, yes Cogz, I did mean the Taliban controlled Afghanistan where terrorists were permitted to train with impunity. I also agree that to change somebody's religious beliefs (i.e. treatment of women, etc.) persuasion is the only way it can happen. We must be a good example and use reason. It is unfortunate that reason cannot resolve all of the worlds problems, but the world is imperfect. In an imperfect world, sometimes violence must be used, but it should never be savored or lusted for. That is the big difference between the terrorists and our soldiers, sailors and airmen. The best the military has never lusts for combat. Watch the terrorists videos, and it is clear that they do.
-
FYI: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/as-president-ron-would/