Ron Paul speech What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?

[GoRon]

OK, so several Middle East leaders are playing nice--for now. How much ill will have we spread in that region? Lots. Now, remember, that region of the world isn't known for letting bygones be bygones; look at the millennia-old feud between Islam and Judaism. These people carry a grudge, in ways most of us can't imagine. A grudge that runs through the entire society, from generation to generation.

Ill will??? We are the great Satan for goodness sakes!! We are the protectorate of the evil Zionist entity.

I am not worried about the Arab street, I saw how they reacted in the streets of Iraq this weekend.

 

[Art Eatman]

Rabbi, if even ten percent of the horror stories coming out of airports are true, I'd have to say there's been a wee tad of restrictions on liberties...

If you have to give all manner of personal information and provide positive proof of identification before you can transfer any notable amount of money in the form of cash, I call that a restriction of your liberty.

If you have to give all manner of personal information and provide positive proof of identification in order to buy a car from a dealer, I call that a restriction of your liberty.

Any law with that can allow a mistaken or wilfully false accusation to deprive you of the right to an attorney is a restriction of your liberty--as in the Patriot Act.

In other words, any law that forces some new action on your part that was not before required is a restriction on your liberty. It matters not that there is some improvement in your security; the restriction on your liberty is still there.

Enough.

Art

 

[The Rabbi]

Art,
I asked what specific rights have YOU had abridged?

I bought a car maybe a year ago. I dont recall anything different from the last time I bought one, maybe 15 years earlier.

What inherent right do you have in an airport? If you dont like the screening process, dont fly. I haven't since before 9/11.

If you have to give all manner of personal information and provide positive proof of identification before you can transfer any notable amount of money in the form of cash, I call that a restriction of your liberty.

I havent seen any such regulation. You do have to provide some kind of proof when you open a bank account. Is that really a specific right being abridged? When you went to get a driver's license umpteen years ago you had to do the same thing.

Any law with that can allow a mistaken or wilfully false accusation to deprive you of the right to an attorney is a restriction of your liberty--as in the Patriot Act.

And where does the Patriot Act provide for this?

In other words, any law that forces some new action on your part that was not before required is a restriction on your liberty

Last time I was in the supermarket and bought beer the clerk asked me for ID (I am a very old 43). I guess that was a restriction on my liberty in your view.

 

[beerslurpy]

If radical islam is such a threat, why dont we go after its sources in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?

People keep talking like the answer to the problem of us funding countries that fund terrorists is to invade other countries and anything less is defeatism.

I have no problem intervening when we are threatened and striking those that threaten us. But lately we seem to attack everyone but our true enemies.

 

[PaleRyder]

I'm Libertarian, so I've pretty much been thinking along Mr Paul's lines for years.

And I do firmly believe most of those nations hate us because of our policies. To me it's obvious.

 

[GoRon]

And I do firmly believe most of those nations hate us because of our policies

What policies? Buying their oil? Dealing with their governments? Giving aid to their governments?

So we shouldn't buy their oil, not deal with their governments and not give them any aid.

I never hear any realistic options, just that we are doing it all wrong.

Oh, I know, we must throw the only free nation in the region under the bus, Israel. Its all the Zionists fault.

 

[PaleRyder]

Buying their oil does not give us the right to send the CIA into countries and "order" them to do things our way or face recriminations. And that's exactly how our government does things.

 

[Flyboy]

Rabbi:

What inherent right do you have in an airport? If you dont like the screening process, dont fly. I haven't since before 9/11.

Modern jurisprudence generally recognizes a right to travel freely about the country. I can't drive without a license (government permission). I can't walk, ride a horse, ride a bicycle, or take other forms of transportation on the major roadways (interstates). That leaves airplanes.

Quote:
If you have to give all manner of personal information and provide positive proof of identification before you can transfer any notable amount of money in the form of cash, I call that a restriction of your liberty.


I havent seen any such regulation.

Oh? Well, I have. When I bought my truck, I paid cash (the seller wanted either that or a cashier's cheque, and besides which, it's none of anybody's damned business how I pay, save for me and the seller). I paid $5500. The bank asked why I was withdrawing that much cash; I challenged, and they said they were required to ask about anything over $5000 (though that may have been bank policy). Transactions over $10,000 are required--by law--to be reported to Federal authorities.

For more information, go visit http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch26s05.html . Please note that it's an official government site, and is probably pretty close to authoritative on such things. Choice quote: "Suspicious activity report requirements were enhanced. All nonfinancial trades and businesses were required to report receipt of coins or currency greater than $10,000 under BSA as well as under IRC 6050I."

By the way, I found that in about six seconds, using nothing but a standard web browser and Google. The cool thing about web boards is that since, by definition, you have access to the web, you can investigate the veracity of others' claims, then refute with actual evidence. Or possibly not, in this case.

 

[ceetee]

They hate us for lots of reasons, not least of which is that we keep on mucking about in their own internal politics. They also hate us because we're infidels, and because we want to occupy their holy lands. They also hate us because they've been brainwashed to hate us, regardless of what it actually says in the Koran...

Rather than spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting overseas, we could easily spend those trillions doing something useful, like, I don't know... maybe hire some folks to actually inspect the containers that come in off the cargo ships...?

Maybe hire a few more Border Patrol Officers? A couple hundred billion-with-a-"b" dollars would go a long way towards our own border security, I'd think.

Rabbi...

Regarding the money transfers... the wife and I just had the good fortune to be able to afford a down payment on our first house. As a part of the transaction, we had to prove not only that we were who we said we were (with photo ID and birth certificate) but we also had to provide complete bank records to prove where the deposit money had come from... Which meant actual hard-copy account summaries on bank stationery showing month-by-month deposit records, coupled with our own letter indicating that we had saved the money up ourselves by not ordering Pizza Hut more than twice a month for the past few years...

I don't know how much you have in the bank, but try to justify to someone how you saved it up...

I don't remember the exact Statute, or Federal Code number, or whatever, but I'm pretty sure it was in the N.Y.Times-sized stack of crap we had to sign in order complete the purchase. If it'll make you feel any better, I'll try to look it up.

 

[GoRon]

They hate us for lots of reasons, not least of which is that we keep on mucking about in their own internal politics

Like telling them to stop invading nieghbors and killing their own people.

They also hate us because we're infidels, and because we want to occupy their holy lands

If they stopped attacking us an our allies they wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Rather than spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting overseas, we could easily spend those trillions doing something useful, like, I don't know... maybe hire some folks to actually inspect the containers that come in off the cargo ships...?

Maybe hire a few more Border Patrol Officers? A couple hundred billion-with-a-"b" dollars would go a long way towards our own border security, I'd think.

Known as the defensive fetal position response.

I am all for homeland security but going into an isolationist stance isn't going to make the fanatics hate us any less.

 

[whoami]

Regarding the money transfers... the wife and I just had the good fortune to be able to afford a down payment on our first house. As a part of the transaction, we had to prove not only that we were who we said we were (with photo ID and birth certificate) but we also had to provide complete bank records to prove where the deposit money had come from... Which meant actual hard-copy account summaries on bank stationery showing month-by-month deposit records, coupled with our own letter indicating that we had saved the money up ourselves by not ordering Pizza Hut more than twice a month for the past few years...

I don't know how much you have in the bank, but try to justify to someone how you saved it up...

How is any of this a rights issue?

I just went through the same thing.....actually, I closed last Friday on a condo, and put down 20% of the purchase price....total down of over $32,000 dollars. Of course, I didn't have to show a birth certificate, just drivers license, W-2, one month of check stubs, and an account statement showing an available amount to cover the closing costs. All pretty standard, and it has much more to do with the mortgage company performing a financial assessment of you and forming their judgement on your ability to handle the loan. They pull your credit report in order to see if you have any issues or difficulty with making payments, or have any outstanding finacial responsibilites that might affect your ability to repay. They want to see check stubs, and verify employment, to establish whether or not you have a stable job, and would be in a position to repay. They want you to explain where the down payment money came from because they need to factor in to their risk assessment whether or not that money is in a form where it must be repaid.
Does not the mortage company, who is agreeing to loan a large amount of money, to determine whether or not you are a risk for repayment of that loan? If you don't like providing the information they need, you have a choice of not providing it....just as they have the choice to not float the loan.

When I was at closing, there was ONE additional form that they specified was federally required (the term Patriot Act was mentioned). All it said was that I swear that I am who I stated I am, and the information provided to the mortgage company is accurate.

 

[The Rabbi]

Regarding the money transfers... the wife and I just had the good fortune to be able to afford a down payment on our first house. As a part of the transaction, we had to prove not only that we were who we said we were (with photo ID and birth certificate) but we also had to provide complete bank records to prove where the deposit money had come from... Which meant actual hard-copy account summaries on bank stationery showing month-by-month deposit records, coupled with our own letter indicating that we had saved the money up ourselves by not ordering Pizza Hut more than twice a month for the past few years...

Ceetee,
I worked in the mortgage business from about 1993 to 1999. What you describe is exactly standard procedure, as laid out in FNMA regs. It has nothing, zero, zilch-nada, to do with 9/11, the US government, or freedom. The theory is that someone who has worked and saved that money will be more reluctant to allow the house to go to foreclosure than someone who was just given the money. The theory is correct, in my experience.

Modern jurisprudence generally recognizes a right to travel freely about the country. I can't drive without a license (government permission). I can't walk, ride a horse, ride a bicycle, or take other forms of transportation on the major roadways (interstates). That leaves airplanes.

Flyboy,
you lost me on that one. So because gov't regulates other modes of transportation they have no right to regulate airlines?

Buying their oil does not give us the right to send the CIA into countries and "order" them to do things our way or face recriminations. And that's exactly how our government does things

What's wrong with doing that? I think that comes under the Constitutional injunction to "provide for the general defense and promote the common welfare." Every nation tries to influence every other nation in ways that are favorable to it. They always have. It is an accepted part of international relations. Other countries resent the US only because the US, being the biggest, wealthiest,and most powerful country on the planet, has the resources to influence greatly all over the world.

 

[gc70]

The Rabbi:
I asked what specific rights have YOU had abridged?

When the AWB was enacted, I didn't want an AK-47, I didn't own any pistols that used "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" and I lived in a state that already had more stringent firearms purchase requirements than the AWB imposed. Maybe I should not have cared about the AWB because it did not affect ME directly, but I am ornery enough that I was against the AWB because it did abridge people's rights.

 

[Kaylee]

What is the industrial base of the Moslem world? Who is gonna build the troop transports for them? How many airborne divisions are available and how many transport planes?

Spoken like the generals using Napoleonic tactics in an age of minie balls and rifled muskets.


The nature of armed conflict fundamentally changed on August 6, 1945. The moment Little Boy went off, victory stopped being about who had the biggest army and the most tanks. The collapse of the Soviet Union only speeded that change.

Terrorism, particularly terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists, has been a steadily growing thorn in our side since the 70s. Up until 9/11 we treated it simply as an LE problem, and it kept getting worse. The Bush Doctrine of taking the entire movement on as a military problem, and declaring war not only on the attackers but on the states that harbored them is without question a dicey move. I wan't at all sure about it to start with.

Now... I still don't know how it will turn out, but I've been convinced it's worth the effort.

All that said, I'll agree that abridging domestic freedoms is not the answer. Aside from being against our most basic principles as a nation, I don't believe it's half as effective as simple common sense at airports and the like (otherwise known as "profiling") and a little hutzhpah on the part of our citizenry (Way to go Beamer and Team 93!!)

But wiping it out at the source by offing the active terrorist cells and removing the source of their support makes sense to me.

-K

 

[Henry Bowman]

Now... I still don't know how it will turn out, but I've been convinced it's worth the effort.

Amen!

All that said, I'll agree that abridging domestic freedoms is not the answer. Aside from being against our most basic principles as a nation, I don't believe it's half as effective as simple common sense at airports and the like (otherwise known as "profiling") and a little hutzhpah on the part of our citizenry (Way to go Beamer and Team 93!!)

Amen again!!

But wiping it out at the source by offing the active terrorist cells and removing the source of their support makes sense to me.

Standing O!!!! The opponents will almost certainly, again, turn out to be on the wrong side of history. Events of the last few days tend to support this belief.

 

[longrifleman]

The nature of armed conflict fundamentally changed on August 6, 1945. The moment Little Boy went off, victory stopped being about who had the biggest army and the most tanks. The collapse of the Soviet Union only speeded that change.

Exactly. The specific isotopes used in the uranium and plutonium in nukes can be used to determine where they came from. If Iran was stupid enough to set off a nuke here, there would be no doubt where it came from. As soon as the origin was determined, the country would exist only as long as it took to program the missiles and launch them. They know this. The nuclear threat is a propaganda ploy.

But wiping it out at the source by offing the active terrorist cells and removing the source of their support makes sense to me.

I don't disagree, but burning down the house to get rid of the wasps under the eaves seems a bit ...extreme.

Many people, Ron Paul included, don't feel that global Islam is a credible threat to American soil.

So, is your solution the extermination of all Muslims, or just enough of them to reduce the threat for a few generations?

Russia,France, China, Pakistan, North Korea...et al are the industrial base of the Moslem world, all paid in petro-dollars.

So, how about we have some discussions with them about not selling weapons to our enemies, instead of invading half the world.

My larger point was that terrorist attacks can't conquer the country, only an actual occupation can do that. Even some nukes, as horrible as that would be, wouldn't destroy the country. We can destroy ourselves by the destruction of every principle this country was founded on in the vain search for perfect "security". That is much closer to being a reality than any invasion.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Exactly. The specific isotopes used in the uranium and plutonium in nukes can be used to determine where they came from. If Iran was stupid enough to set off a nuke here, there would be no doubt where it came from. As soon as the origin was determined, the country would exist only as long as it took to program the missiles and launch them. They know this. The nuclear threat is a propaganda ploy.

All the isotope analysis tells you is what reactor/country produced the nuclear material. It doesn't tell you what country (or independent coalition) detonated the nuclear device. You're jumping to a conclusion that is inconsistent with US policy. What do you do if that material happens to come from Germany or Russia?

So, is your solution the extermination of all Muslims, or just enough of them to reduce the threat for a few generations?

Again with the jumping to conclusions! Answer this question: which of the 9/11 attackers were NOT muslim?

So, how about we have some discussions with them about not selling weapons to our enemies, instead of invading half the world.

Good luck proving the sales were officially allowed by the governments. Are you going to hold half of the world responsible for weapons sales? Again, good luck. Sounds a lot like suing Bushmaster for crimes committed with their guns to me!

My larger point was that terrorist attacks can't conquer the country, only an actual occupation can do that. Even some nukes, as horrible as that would be, wouldn't destroy the country. We can destroy ourselves by the destruction of every principle this country was founded on in the vain search for perfect "security". That is much closer to being a reality than any invasion.

You just proved my earlier point about people not believing that this is a credible threat. However, as with the ideals of the LP, I don't think many Americans are willing to buy that.

Believe me, I'm pissed about the Homeland Security excesses too, but too few people who are complaining about it are willing to propose any good solutions. Everyone's afraid to start fighting based on ideas of group culpability-holding the many responsible for the actions of the few in their midst. It's a historically proven way to end resistance (see "firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo" for reference).
Curtis LeMay, where are you??

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, Rabbi, when I bought a truck from a dealer last year, it was the first time I'd ever had to provide information that they specifically told me was related to new federal requirements in the WOT.

Not 9/11 related, but having to tell the feds you cashed a check for over $10K is a reduction in my right to privacy.

Being subject to all the problems involved in "arrest the money" is definitely a reduction in my right to carry legal tender in an amount of my concern, not that of law enforcements'.

There was a time when nobody was concerned that I had my Swiss Army pocket knife in my pocket when I flew on a commercial plane. I could go through the terminal without having to at least partially disrobe. This is a reduction of my freedom to travel freely.

Regardless of one's view as to the practical necessity of these things, they are indeed restrictions on freedoms.

Art

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right, Art.

Signing a statement about cashing a check. Having to leave your pocket knife in the luggage rather than keeping it with you. Stalinist Police State here we come!

FWIW, long prior to 9/11 any retail business making deposits would have to declare if a certain amount of the deposit consisted of $100 bills. Friends of mine ran an "urban clothing store" much frequented by people with large amounts of cash and no apparant occupation. They filled out the required info and that was that. No one ever questioned it further.

 

[ceetee]

whoami and Rabbi......

I understand what you're saying about mortgages and all. This isn't the first time I've ever bought real estate. This is just the first house I've bought. This is also, however, the first time I've ever had to document a month-by-month history of how I actually saved up the cash. This was NOT a "standard procedure" that's practiced by anybody I've ever dealt with before.

I also understand why the mortgage company wants to know how you make a living, and what kind of risk you are. Trust me... I'm not stupid. I'm not a young street hood, nor do I drive a Hummer with no visible means of support. I closer to middle-aged than teen-aged, and my wife and I have both been employed in our respective fields for more than a decade. Our credit score isn't the best, nor is it horrible. Middle-of-the-road all the way.

I was shown a paper (Dang! I've gotta make time now to dig it out!) with "PATRIOT ACT" all over it, and a bunch of other verbiage, and that was that. Get the paperwork done, or no mortgage.


GoRon

Known as the defensive fetal position response.

I am all for homeland security but going into an isolationist stance isn't going to make the fanatics hate us any less.

Lemme go brush my teeth real quick so I can get the taste of your words out of my mouth...

I never said we should be isolationists. We shouldn't. We SHOULD be world leaders. We should be ahead of everyone else when it comes to quality of life. We should be first at taking care of our own citizens, as well as giving the helping hand up to a fallen neighbor. Our factories should produce more goods, of higher quality, at lower cost than anybody else. If the Iraqi citizenry had come to us and asked, "Will you please help us get rid of that nasty tyrant Saddam?" we should have been leading the pack, beating every drum, building up an irresistable international movement of ouster, and all the other countries should have wanted to join, just to be like us.

That's what should be happening. That's exactly what did happen, for a short while, under George the Elder. Even most of the Muslims cracked a smile at us for that one, since they had no love for Saddam, either. Then what happened? We decided we needed a permanent base on Saudi holy land, which made one of the more devout of the royal clan have a hissy fit and declare another jihad, starting the whole mess up again.

None of this has anything to do with my point, which was I'd rather have a full-strength military guarding us and the world, rather than use them kicking over anthills to see what crawls out. I'd rather use the anthill-kicking budget to strengthen our own, rather than use it rebuilding what we've just blown to hell. Spend part of it finally finding Bin Laden, he's had it far too good, for far too long. Spend it on crap that really matters, not crap that's gonna erode in months.

 

[longrifleman]

All the isotope analysis tells you is what reactor/country produced the nuclear material. It doesn't tell you what country (or independent coalition) detonated the nuclear device. You're jumping to a conclusion that is inconsistent with US policy. What do you do if that material happens to come from Germany or Russia?

Immediate and overwhelming retaliation has been the policy of the US since the beginning of the nuclear age. I haven's seen any change in that policy. Maybe they just forgot to send me my copy of the memo.

Perhaps that's the American way though-allow ourselves to be backed into a corner to near death, so we have the moral ascendancy completely on our side and can go forth and crusade...errr...conquer our adversaries.

I always thought that crusadin' and conquerin' involved a bit of killin'. How much is enough?

You just proved my earlier point about people not believing that this is a credible threat. However, as with the ideals of the LP, I don't think many Americans are willing to buy that.

Propaganda is very effective. Fear is easy to generate with the understanding of mass psychology the media and govt have today. The radical fringe of Islam is a real threat, but the numbers and resources are nowhere enough to be a serious threat to the country. Should we ignore them the way Clinton did? No, that would be stupid.

It's a historically proven way to end resistance (see "firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo" for reference).

Again with the jumping to conclusions

I don't think I jumped too high!

Are you going to hold half of the world responsible for weapons sales?

Bush said "you are either with us or with the terrorists". Selling weapons to our enemies seems a bit tilted towards the terrorists to me.

which of the 9/11 attackers were NOT muslim?

Which of the attackers were Iraqis?

Now, if you want to discuss invading Saudi Arabia go right ahead.