Ratzinger_p38
Member
Ahem. I agree with what youre getting at, but it wasnt Palestinian land, it was British land - and before that Ottoman land. Please dont pretend that Palestine was a country on its own before 1947...it was a British colony.
Ron Paul taking Giuliani to the woodshed
- Thread starter Silver Bullet
- Start date
- Status
Ahem. I agree with what youre getting at, but it wasnt Palestinian land, it was British land - and before that Ottoman land. Please dont pretend that Palestine was a country on its own before 1947...it was a British colony.
samtechlan
Member
Lunchmeat,
Great overview. One could add the 4-5 Billion taxpayer dollars given to the state of Israel every year. Remember when conservatives were suppossed to be against foreign aid and the welfare state?
Great overview. One could add the 4-5 Billion taxpayer dollars given to the state of Israel every year. Remember when conservatives were suppossed to be against foreign aid and the welfare state?
TT said:
I nor you are in the position to state definitively what one "deserves", but common sense could easily - and correctly, I may add - what one "asks for".
Our foreign policy - which can be read in various gov't "white papers" and NGO papers - puts us (that is, YOU AND I) in the cross hairs.
Now you may not like reality, but there it is. Our elected officials do act in our name. It is a REPUBLIC afterall. If we choose to let "them" conduct our foreign affairs with no oversight then we end up doing what is often times "best" for Israel's interest. What's in Israel's best interest often times is NOT in OUR (we the people - the one's who OWN this nation) best interest.
Before you state the lie, "You're an unabashed Libertarian" I'll tell you that I despise ALL of the Parties. I do, however, have a love of the liberty espoused in the IDEALS of the Constution and Bill of Rights. All else is folly.
I nor you are in the position to state definitively what one "deserves", but common sense could easily - and correctly, I may add - what one "asks for".
Our foreign policy - which can be read in various gov't "white papers" and NGO papers - puts us (that is, YOU AND I) in the cross hairs.
Now you may not like reality, but there it is. Our elected officials do act in our name. It is a REPUBLIC afterall. If we choose to let "them" conduct our foreign affairs with no oversight then we end up doing what is often times "best" for Israel's interest. What's in Israel's best interest often times is NOT in OUR (we the people - the one's who OWN this nation) best interest.
Before you state the lie, "You're an unabashed Libertarian" I'll tell you that I despise ALL of the Parties. I do, however, have a love of the liberty espoused in the IDEALS of the Constution and Bill of Rights. All else is folly.
So taking hostages of embassy workers for over a year wasn't enough?
A better way to put it would be helping the enemies of Iran. The percentage of weapons sold to Iraq was very low.
Abandoned? What the....
We gave support to the Muslims fighting the USSR, gave them advanced stinger missiles, and you think they hate us because after the fight was over, we stopped giving them weapons?
What, after they wanted us to come over and help beat Saddam and prevent him from attacking again?
Saddam caused the suffering of his people, not the sanctions. Or should we give the benefit of the doubt to the ruthless despot?
How does maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq come anywhere near to justifying or excusing a bunch of Saudis attacking our civilians?
I hear a lot of the 'but we put the shah on the throne fifty years ago and sided with one Arab country in a war with another! Yet, when I look at Poland, Hungary, etc., countries that have really suffered for decades, I don't seem them launching terrorist attacks against Russia. I don't see them spitting forth hate in their local media, denouncing Russia as the great satan and praising suicide bombers. That makes me think there's an extra element that is being ignored here.
I think it's a symptom of people who want to believe that we can stop fighting and go back to blissful peace if we only leave and say we're sorry.
Guess what - we can't. Sorry, but however it happened the fanatics hate us, and they aren't going to stop. They are deeply involved in this, and they believe.
CR
Ratzinger_p38
Member
If by 'people of the world' you mean 'Europe' I could care less. I have much contempt for most of that place.
Everyone should be very familiar with this website and it's contents:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-doct.htm
We must also be well aware of PNAC. If you don't know about them it's time you do.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-doct.htm
We must also be well aware of PNAC. If you don't know about them it's time you do.
I know a lot of Muslims, and while a fair number do believe that 911 was an inside job (so do a lot of non-muslim Americans, BTW), I do not know any that consider 911 a "great victory for Islam". I definitely have never met even a single Muslim who has managed to pull off the feat of cognitive dissonance required to hold both beliefs simultaneously.
N Korea attacks S Korea, China attacks Taiwan. Good.
Why are those countries of interest to us? Trade.
Note he didn't mention Swaziland.
Now, what if Iraq invades and takes over Kuwait, another country with which we trade a good deal?
What if we drive them out, stop at their border, but set specific conditions for a truce, and they break them six ways from Sunday? What if their dictator enriches himself by bribing the leadership of France, Russia, the UN, and is considered by all of our allies and even our not-so-allies to be a serious threat on many levels?
Do we go finish the job? Is Iraq attacking Kuwait, breaking peace terms, and paying others to attack Israel, hugely different from N Korea attacking S Korea?
If it's different, WHY? Public opinion polls that say that people don't like the way things have been going in Iraq lately? Because anti-Bush sentiment animates a lot of people?
Do none of you see that it's really easy to criticize in hindsight, but that's not the President's job? The President's job is to make decisions NOW. Yes he needs to go to Congress, but Congress doesn't spontaneously declare war. The President gets Congress' authorization, but the President still initiates action.
What I see is that politicians find it easy to campaign AGAINST the unpopular policies of the other guy. Bush and his "no nation building" plank are a classic example. More recently, the Democrats' quietly failing to change anything they campaigned against in Congress is another. It's easy to point out the other guy's corruption and pork earmarks, but that doesn't mean that the new guy will do differently after the election's over.
When the chips are down, people of all political parties end up doing a lot of the same things. HOW they do it matters much, but reality never lives up to simple campaign promises.
BTW the answer to this is not Bush-bashing or critiques of the war in Iraq. There's plenty of that to go around.
I want to know what a candidate WILL do, and how as President, said candidate will deal with the REAL world, better than the others.
Why are those countries of interest to us? Trade.
Note he didn't mention Swaziland.
Now, what if Iraq invades and takes over Kuwait, another country with which we trade a good deal?
What if we drive them out, stop at their border, but set specific conditions for a truce, and they break them six ways from Sunday? What if their dictator enriches himself by bribing the leadership of France, Russia, the UN, and is considered by all of our allies and even our not-so-allies to be a serious threat on many levels?
Do we go finish the job? Is Iraq attacking Kuwait, breaking peace terms, and paying others to attack Israel, hugely different from N Korea attacking S Korea?
If it's different, WHY? Public opinion polls that say that people don't like the way things have been going in Iraq lately? Because anti-Bush sentiment animates a lot of people?
Do none of you see that it's really easy to criticize in hindsight, but that's not the President's job? The President's job is to make decisions NOW. Yes he needs to go to Congress, but Congress doesn't spontaneously declare war. The President gets Congress' authorization, but the President still initiates action.
What I see is that politicians find it easy to campaign AGAINST the unpopular policies of the other guy. Bush and his "no nation building" plank are a classic example. More recently, the Democrats' quietly failing to change anything they campaigned against in Congress is another. It's easy to point out the other guy's corruption and pork earmarks, but that doesn't mean that the new guy will do differently after the election's over.
When the chips are down, people of all political parties end up doing a lot of the same things. HOW they do it matters much, but reality never lives up to simple campaign promises.
BTW the answer to this is not Bush-bashing or critiques of the war in Iraq. There's plenty of that to go around.
I want to know what a candidate WILL do, and how as President, said candidate will deal with the REAL world, better than the others.
samtechlan
Member
The premise is completely wrong. An Iraq occupied Kuwait would have continued to trade with the U.S. at the same level as it always had. What was Hussein going to do with all the extra oil, hide it under his pillow? In fact we had been happily trading with and supporting Hussein all along in his conflict with Iran.
But he was a bad Dictator wasn't he?? I've got news for you the U.S. won the cold war in part by cooperating with many, many dictators: Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, minority govenments in Rodhesia and South Africa, Sadat and later Mubarak in Egypt, the military juntas of South Korea, the Chian Kai Chek dictatorship in Taiwan. As long as they were anti-communists and presented no threat to the U.S. we were more than happy to trade with them and not intervene in their internal affairs. That's NON-INTERVENIONISM not isolationism. That's Paul's policy.
Iraq under Saddamm falls under the same category. He paid the families of folks who attacked Israel? Is it our mission to attack the enemies of Israel? I thought Israel was an independent state (though of course with 4-5 billion dollars in taxpayer aid every year it is more like a Welfare state).
The great conservative Russell Kirk (by no means a Libertarian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_kirk once said that neo-cons mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the U.S. Why don't these neo-cons simply move to Israel and help defend the country obviously closest to their heart? That's what Golda Meir did.
But he was a bad Dictator wasn't he?? I've got news for you the U.S. won the cold war in part by cooperating with many, many dictators: Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Phillipines, minority govenments in Rodhesia and South Africa, Sadat and later Mubarak in Egypt, the military juntas of South Korea, the Chian Kai Chek dictatorship in Taiwan. As long as they were anti-communists and presented no threat to the U.S. we were more than happy to trade with them and not intervene in their internal affairs. That's NON-INTERVENIONISM not isolationism. That's Paul's policy.
Iraq under Saddamm falls under the same category. He paid the families of folks who attacked Israel? Is it our mission to attack the enemies of Israel? I thought Israel was an independent state (though of course with 4-5 billion dollars in taxpayer aid every year it is more like a Welfare state).
The great conservative Russell Kirk (by no means a Libertarian) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_kirk once said that neo-cons mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the U.S. Why don't these neo-cons simply move to Israel and help defend the country obviously closest to their heart? That's what Golda Meir did.
The first attack on the WTC was retaliation for Gulf War I. So sayeth our own intelligence:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm
What AQ has to say about the 10 years after Gulf War I:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=SP38802
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_mylroie.htm
Wow, Iraq and the Paki's must not have liked us much over that little incident.
What AQ has to say about the 10 years after Gulf War I:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=SP38802
So it's easy to see, from AQ's writing, where they percieve the injustice came from. There's some Israel stuff in there too, but the Iraq issue has numbers and payback assigned. That was written in 2002.
Thin Black Line
Member
13:34 long video --need something with shorter sharper soundbites for the
ADHD masses.
ADHD masses.
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
...there's a plank in yer eye there.Armed Bear said:
Ron Paul's course of action has been asked and answered, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it a non-policy.
You make an outstanding point!
What is different? The Russians are no longer there (unlike us in the ME).
When did we have "blissful peace" and left people alone? How far back do we have to go?
You may want to read what a 2-time Medal of Honor winning USMC Major General had to say, during the rampup to WWII on that matter. Read the whole thing before making up your mind if it's just "them mindlessly hating us or not"
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
TT
member
Absolutely. The motivation for Muslim terrorist attacks on the US is religious hatred. For example, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia is often cited as a motivator for Bin Ladin- but Bin Ladin didn’t complain because there were foreign troops in Saudi Arabia, he complained because infidels were in the ‘Holy Land’. If the US had been an Islamic country, Bin Ladin wouldn’t have said ‘boo’ about our troops in Saudi Arabia.
Hmm, I could believe your sources, or my own lying eyes. What to do, what to do? I’ve been following Muslim terrorism in various news sources for 30+ years now- when they’re burning the US flag or cutting an American throat they’re not waving a crumpled copy of the 2004 Libertarian Party platform, they’re shouting ‘Allah Akbar’; when they’re justifying their actions they’re citing the Koran, not the US Constitution.
What hurt your feelings, ‘smidge’ or ‘vitriol’?
jmtgsx
Member
Here's an idea: My litmus test.
Let's vote for the guy that THEY want the least. Insert the topic of your choice for the THEY. Middle East? Immigration?
Kinda like Reagan in 1980. The Iranians couldn't release the hostages fast enough after he was sworn in. Everyone said that Reagan was a Hawk and we would be at war his whole term.
That's how I know the Immigration reform bill is bad if TK likes it!
Let's vote for the guy that THEY want the least. Insert the topic of your choice for the THEY. Middle East? Immigration?
Kinda like Reagan in 1980. The Iranians couldn't release the hostages fast enough after he was sworn in. Everyone said that Reagan was a Hawk and we would be at war his whole term.
That's how I know the Immigration reform bill is bad if TK likes it!
[reality]Paul may be right, he may have secured his place in the pantheon of conservatives, and he may be the best candidate.
None of that changes the fact that he won't win. Period. No amount of platitudes on gun boards or money thrown to his campaign will change this.
He failed as the libertarian nominee and then changed horses to get some traction. I find that sort of dishonest, but its wholly irrelevant. He won't win anything. HE WON'T EVEN CLEAR 5%.
With that said I now return you to your regulary scheduled Paul love fest. [/reality]
.None of that changes the fact that he won't win. Period. No amount of platitudes on gun boards or money thrown to his campaign will change this.
He failed as the libertarian nominee and then changed horses to get some traction. I find that sort of dishonest, but its wholly irrelevant. He won't win anything. HE WON'T EVEN CLEAR 5%.
With that said I now return you to your regulary scheduled Paul love fest. [/reality]
TrybalRage
Member
You're right Stage 2, we should all just vote for the guy most likely to win, instead of voting for what we believe.
No thanks. Give me Paul, or give me Hillary so you can all suffer too. Mwahahah.
No thanks. Give me Paul, or give me Hillary so you can all suffer too. Mwahahah.
Flyboy
Member
Lashlarue:
I'm not saying your incorrect about it being used for terrorist training, just pointing out that there's an apparent factual error, and that makes the rest of the claim suspect. So, where did you get the info?
Where did you get that image, and your information? I ask because you make a claim--that it's used for terror training--but your factual statement--that it's a 707--doesn't appear to be accurate. Specifically, the placement of the wings appears to be too far aft to be in-balance for an aircraft with wing-mounted engines. If you'll look at the line drawing of the 707 at http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=87, you'll see that the wings are considerably further forward than the ones in your picture.
I'm not saying your incorrect about it being used for terrorist training, just pointing out that there's an apparent factual error, and that makes the rest of the claim suspect. So, where did you get the info?
I hate to interrupt the lemming mentality that Paul supporters have, but what about Thompson? After today its all but confirmed that he's running. The only person on the stage who's more conservative than Thompson is your wunderchild and he can't get elected.
As for Thompson being the "perfect" candidate its a whole bunch of bunk. The onlt perfect candidate is yourself, and since yourself ain't running there is going to be some compromise in their somewhere. Better a little with Thompson than everything with a Democrat.
Silver Bullet
Member
Are you talking about the vote in the Primaries, or the presidential election? What you're saying would be true if Dr. Paul was running as a Third Party and with no chance to win (and that isn't a given; Perot had excellent polling numbers, as I recall). In that case he would be siphoning off Republican votes.
The only ways I can think of offhand that what you're saying is relevant in the Primaries are
1) If there is a much more electable Republican in the Primaries with nearly as good qualifications, in which case a vote for Dr. Paul might tip the Primaries to a Giuliani/McCain/Romney. In this case, please identify the other Republican candidate with Dr. Paul's qualifications.
2) If you're saying that Dr. Paul might win the Primaries, but have no chance in the presidential election: I totally reject this. He might not have name recognition now, but after a year of campaigning everyone will know his name, and I think a very large portion of the voters will respond to his message.
Supporting Ron Paul sends a message all by itself. He doesn't have to win. I think it tells the politicians who will do or say whatever it takes to get re-elected that we are getting fed up and we're willing to put our money where our mouth is on election day.
- Status