Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest $iLk

Ron Paul injects some common sense into the RNC debates

Recommended Posts

*yawn*

Stupid RINO...

I find it absurd and I find it really pathetic that he basically claims that we had no real right to retaliate.. wow... the thousands of dead citizens would REALLY disagree with him.

This idiot just lost my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Retaliate for what? Iraq never attacked us. Iraq never threatened to attack us. Iraq didn't possess the capability to attack us.

We weren't retaliating for anything when we invaded Iraq. Ron Paul didn't oppose Afghanistan. Ron Paul offered a resolution in 2002 for Congress to actually declare war before invading Iraq. Something a lot of people won't catch because it put a lot of folks in Congress on the record.

I do have to agree with you somewhat on the RINO bit. Ron Paul is a Libertarian first and foremost - although he opposes abortion since first-hand he has delivered 4000+ babies himself. He also opposes open borders and wants to use our military to secure our country rather than police the world.

Ron Paul served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for a long time, and quoting from the 9/11 Commission report explained our government's own findings on why we were attacked.

Guiliani stood on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn. He is so damn liberal that he has to scream "9/11"/"September 11th"/"September the 11th" at least once per paragraph in order to stay in the Republican field.

I believe one of them may know what they are talking about. Guiliani tries to cast himself as the security expert - but his soundbites come from emotion, not facts.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for nor accepted Congressional Pay Raises. Ron Paul returns a portion of his congressional operating budget to the staff treasury. Ron Paul wants to abolish most of the government agencies, introduce the Fairtax, and basically trim government down.

Guiliani wants to scream "9/11" and basically carry on business as usual in Washington D.C.

So while he probably doesn't stand a chance of winning, I'd rather vote for someone who has some principle and doesn't deviate from what they believe in order to win friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Then again, if I'm expected to support a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, crossdressing New York liberal to be considered "Conservative" I guess the GOP tent has gotten a little too big for my tastes...

quote:

"I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different.
This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

...But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy."

- Ron Paul (R TX) October 10, 2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Institutionalized military preemption against perceived future threats presented by foreign states (in other words imaginary at the time the decision to preemptively attack is taken) is the MOST STUPID concept a leader could ever come with.

Yeah, I suppose it would have been a terribly stupid idea to preempt Nazi Germany thusly saving millions...

In case you haven't been paying attention, wars are almost always started through someone preempting something. They usually aren't fought following a friendly handshake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

Institutionalized military preemption against perceived future threats presented by foreign states (in other words imaginary at the time the decision to preemptively attack is taken) is the MOST STUPID concept a leader could ever come with.

Yeah, I suppose it would have been a terribly stupid idea to preempt Nazi Germany thusly saving millions...

In case you haven't been paying attention, wars are almost always started through someone preempting something. They usually aren't fought following a friendly handshake.


Can you point to me a "pre-emptive" war that turned out successful for the aggressor nation? Vietnam? Afghanistan?

Historically prior to (and in) World War 2 the United States of America only became involved in wars when it was attacked or provoked through an act of agression by another nation. Even during the Civil War the United States only began hostilities against the Confederate States when Fort Sumter was attacked even though the casualties consisted of one donkey.

Whether or not other nations begin open conflict for one reason or another is irrelevant. According to every treaty we've become involved in on the subject - we are supposed to follow the international rules of warfare. First and foremost being that you do not initiate hostilities unless you are attacked.

I've believed in this concept, and I despise warfare - but recognize that sometimes it is necessary.

That being said - I could go on for a little while espousing my beliefs on the subject - but can you tell me exactly what we "pre-empted" by invading Iraq? That (maybe) Saddam Hussein would develop WMDs again in the future, and that (maybe) he would conspire to use them or (maybe) give them to terrorists (even though Saddam Hussein was in opposition to the goals of Al Qaeda and vice-versa)?

We have lost 3000+ of our boys, and no telling how many Iraqi civilians have died. When we look for a justification - there isn't one. "Freedom"? The definition is pretty loose with what passes for it in Iraq.

We did get what we planned for though. "Democracy" i.e. "mob rule" in the Middle East. We allowed the Shiite majority to gain power, helped them to forge an alliance with Iran, and allied the Sunni minority with Al Qaeda - which now exists full-force in Iraq.

Democracy is chaos. No wonder it was never mentioned prior to the Great Depression as a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Can you point to me a "pre-emptive" war that turned out successful for the aggressor nation? Vietnam? Afghanistan?

If you're referring to a successful "preemptive war" as one in which the initial aggressor wins, there are countless examples: the Persians, the Romans, the Spaniards, the British, etc, etc... The list goes on and on.

If you're referring to a successful "preemptive war" as one from a modern POLITICAL standpoint, the question would be irrelevent as there is hardly enough modern history with which to serve as a precedent.

But, again, aggressors have been victorious many times throughout history.

However, none of this has much to do with Iraq.

quote:


That being said - I could go on for a little while espousing my beliefs on the subject - but can you tell me exactly what we "pre-empted" by invading Iraq? That (maybe) Saddam Hussein would develop WMDs again in the future, and that (maybe) he would conspire to use them or (maybe) give them to terrorists (even though Saddam Hussein was in opposition to the goals of Al Qaeda and vice-versa)?

Umm, the beauty of preempting something bad is that we don't have to find out.

Which is why we do it.

However, let's go with your "maybe" criteria. Since when is a nation that is OUTWARDLY hostile and uncooperative with us and has shown a HISTORY of WMD USAGE one that would not be a good target for preemptive attack? Should we have waited for something to happen first?

Sure, maybe nothing would have happened. But then again, maybe something WOULD have. I'd rather err on the side of protecting my nation, thanks.

In any case, I do feel that the Iraq war has run its course and is no longer truly necessary. But that does not mean that it was not necessary to begin with. I just don't think that there's anything left to accomplish there.

Oh, and by the way - to say that we weren't provoked is absurd and ignores the politics of the middle east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

The cold war ended peacefully exactly because both sides were adopting the opposite stance: mass retaliation leading to reciprocical anihilation in case of hostilities. Hence everyone decided not to be the first one to push on the button

I guess this is the same reason you wouldn't want to do a preemptive against Iran, you would wait for them to rain nuclear Bombs on us first right?

You see, there's a HUGE flaw in your thinking. The Soviets thought like we did, they're afraid to die. Not Islamist, they feel that if they die in the process of killing "Infidels" (that's US), then they'll go straight to heaven and will have 12 virgins at their beck and call. They REALLY believe this stuff and they also believe that the only way they could bring about the reign of the Twelth Imam, would be to destroy the "Great Satan", (Again, that's US, including all westerners and non believers.) So they would be PERFECTLY happy with MAD, (Mutual Assured Distruction), since they feel that we would remain dead, and they would all be resurrected, with 12 Virgins to boot! (Hey maybe I should convert.. anyone have a Belt for me???)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

I seriously doubt that "they" covers all Muslims or even the Iranian people. Iran is made up of individuals, many of whom protest their own government. Iran is made up of families, children, and such as well as hard-line Islamists.

If it got to the point where we were being threatened with nuclear annihalation every other day I would support turning Iran into a sheet of glass in response.

Right now we aren't. Although we probably had more reason to invade Iran than we had to invade Iraq hat would have at least been somewhat legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Yeah, it's a flaw. So let's move further in your thinking line. What about hindouism ? It's even worse than Islam since they believe that they keep coming back as long they don't behave like good lil boys...

How about Americans while we're at it? We have extremists too...

Oh wait - the difference is that governments aren't openly supporting said extremists. Hmm... easy difference to see.

Absurd comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

...Yeah, it's a flaw. So let's move further in your thinking line. What about hindouism ? It's even worse than Islam since they believe that they keep coming back as long they don't behave like good lil boys...

And they already have the nuke. And they also have their extremists. LMAO

Except that they're coming back to the same planet, so if they turn it into a radioactive wasteland, all of their future lives would be affected. So no, they wouldn't want to destroy the planet that they feel they will never leave.

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

... How about Americans while we're at it? We have extremists too...

Oh wait - the difference is that governments aren't openly supporting said extremists. Hmm... easy difference to see.

Absurd comment.

You're joking right? It's like Rosie said, "Oh here in America we have Christian Extremist". This is the biggest BS I've ever heard of in my life. A Christian might say that Homosexuality is a Moral sin equivalent to say Adultery. To Rosie, that person is an extremist. However, does that person strap a bomb on to his kids and tell that child to go and blow up a Homosexually oriented Church? The answer is no way, they would never do that. Muslim extremist however, do that on a weekly basis.

That's like saying that me shooting you in the face is the same as someone swearing at you. Not quite the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


You're joking right?

Ummm, no. Read my comment again.

quote:


It's like Rosie said, "Oh here in America we have Christian Extremist". This is the biggest BS I've ever heard of in my life. A Christian might say that Homosexuality is a Moral sin equivalent to say Adultery. To Rosie, that person is an extremist. However, does that person strap a bomb on to his kids and tell that child to go and blow up a Homosexually oriented Church? The answer is no way, they would never do that. Muslim extremist however, do that on a weekly basis.

That's like saying that me shooting you in the face is the same as someone swearing at you. Not quite the same thing.


And WHERE precisely did I say "Christian extremist"?

There are other forms of extremism present in the US. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

I agree with your premise but as a response to what *I* was illustrating you're way off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

...There are Christian extremists, that you like it or not. And they have existed in every century. What do you think the essenian christians of Massada were made of ?

Essenian Christians? You mean from the 1st century?? You're joking right? When you go back hundreds of years ago, there were a lot of people that took advantage of the uneducated to bend the Bible to their extreme views. Today, you don't see that in Christendom, precisely because of the fact that many, many, many Christian leaders went through great trouble to MAKE SURE that EVERY Christian knew exactly what was in the bible, so they COULDN'T be taken advantage of again. What's the excuse of the Muslims? Most of those who slammed the planes into the WTC had college degrees and were educated. The big difference, since you're too blind to see it, is that Christian Extremists that KILLED others for "The Faith" simply are no longer around, or at least in VERY small numbers. While the number of Muslim extremist ready to strap on Bombs is in the Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

What do you think crusaders were doing ?

Unless you're Muslim, you should thank the Crusaders. Around 800AD, all the areas that once belonged to the "Holy Roman Empire" were Christian. They had been that way for over 400 years. This included all of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, the Middle East, Europe, Jerusalem and all the surrounding areas. By around 1100AD, only Europe was left Christian. Do you think the Muslims came in and said, "Hi guys, We would like all of you to convert, pretty please!?!"... No, they came in killing, looting and basically made it VERY clear that those who didn't convert would be put to death. The remaining Christians in Jerusalem sent out a DESPERATE plea, for the Europeans to help out, and THAT my friend is how the Crusades were started. Oh and by the way, if it wasn't for the Crusades, all of Europe would be Muslim Today. That is why I say, if you're not Muslim, you should thank the Crusaders for that.

As for your other examples. Every time that something like this happens the ENTIRE Christian Community condemns such acts. Where the condemnation from the Muslim community when Muslim Extremist bombed the Marine Barracks in Saudi Arabia during the Reagan Administration, or the WTC Bombing, multiple embassy Bombings and Cole Bombing during the Clinton Administration, or the Bombings in the WTC, Pentagon and attempt at the White House at the beginning of the Bush Administration? The silence is defening, no instead we see Palestinians and others in the Muslim world CELEBRATING!!! BTW, I haven't even touched all the Terrorist attacks by Muslim extremist in Europe.

No sir, it's NOT the same thing. It's like we've moved on and tried to become more civilized, while they want a replay of the Middle Ages. How you can equate these madmen with Christians today that may have a different view from the mainstream is absolutely insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

There are other forms of extremism present in the US. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

While true that there are definitely extremists like McVeigh and the Branch Davidians, they don't represent the norm in the US, they're a very small Minority, while studies have shown that as much as 10% of the Muslim Populations sympathise with the Extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

@Darkling

You see, I live in an area in Spain, Andalusia (in arab Al-Andalus) which was under muslim rule for 700 years. ....

And do you know why they are no longer in power? It't BECAUSE of the fact that they wanted to live in peace with the Christians that the Middle Eastern Muslim Dynasties sent troops to destroy them. They felt that they had been "corrupted" by the "Infidels". The Christians were only able to take the area back when this infighting began, which was started by the more Radical Muslims. By the way, the Muslims didn't introduce many "New" technologies, they simply better preserved the knowledge of the old Roman Empire. The people in Europe were in awe when they brought in Plumbing to the area, but the truth is that the Romans had built much more technologically advanced structures over a Thousand years prior.

As for Negotiated agreements, they usually came to the barganing table with thousands of troops backing them up, so it's kind of like, "Your money or your life"

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

The problem is that the islamic Middle-East is captive of a vicious circle where

1) Resources & benefits aren't fairly shared among the populations, thus maintaining large segments of the populace as technically uneducated and financially unfavorised.

You're absolutely correct on this part, and this is where most of the hatred comes from. But here's the problem. In the US, when the Democrats want to blame someone for US Problems, they blame the Republicans. Especially when it's a problem they knew dammed well there was a solution to, but for whatever reason don't want to implement the soution. Same thing happens Vice Versa. Over there, there's only ONE guy, usually some sort of King or other "Almighty Ruler". So who do they blame when things go bad? Or when people are starving while they're robbing their populaces blind? Well the Good ol' US of A that's who. Instead of fixing the problems or figuring out a more equitable distribution of the vast oil wealth, they would rather point to the US and say, "It's because of the GREAT SATAN over there". Of course this helps no one and if you're going to sit there and tell me that it's because of our support for one group or another, PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!

Here in the US, when we didn't like our UK Rulers, we kicked their asses out and created our own country, with our own rules and in the process created and dealt with our own problems.

Muslims can't do the same? They can't overthrow these robbing Kings that steal all the Oil wealth for themselves? Please! If they're too stupid to see the problem right in front of their faces, they don't deserve Democracy, they deserve to live out their lives as meaningless serfs, working for their overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

ROFLMAO ! I don't want to enter in a futile debate concerning the scientific legacy the muslims brought to Europe.

Algebra is fantastic, and I'm not saying that the Muslims didn't invent it and introduce it into European Society. What I am saying is that a lot of the more practical things that they brought to the table, Like Plumbing, had already been mastered by the Romans a thousand years prior. I'm not trying to take anything away from the many contributions that the Muslims brought to the table though, because they were in fact many. Truth is though, practical use of Algebra didn't begin until more modern times.

However, that was more of a side note, and not really relevant to the conversation at hand, My point still stands, Scientific achievements came to a standstill once free thinking was clamped down on by the Muslim Extremist. Keep in mind that those Muslims in Spain were attacked NOT BY CHRISTIANS, but by the Radicals and extremists that wanted to destroy the Christians. Only AFTER was the area re-taken by Christians.

The Muslims in Spain had a FANTASTIC experiment going that invited EVERY culture to participate and contribute, and that is definitely to be applauded. If only the Radicals hadn't destroyed them, the future relations between Muslims and Christians might have been very different. Truth is though, that some Muslims won't tolerate other Muslims having anything to do with anyone of any other faith, and THAT is what poisoned their relationship with EVERYONE else. Nothing that ANYONE does can change that. If you think that you're now safe because you've somehow appeased these guys, you're wrong. The only thing that would appease them is your conversion or your death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, one of the prime reasons (if not THE prime reason) for the politic upheavel in the middle east is that there is a complete lack of a system regarding peaceful transfer of power.

As far as appeasement goes, ask yourself this: if a dog behaves badly to gain a steak and you give him the steak, how do you think he'll behave next time he wants a steak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Actually, one of the prime reasons (if not THE prime reason) for the politic upheavel in the middle east is that there is a complete lack of a system regarding peaceful transfer of power.

I don't think that's the reason at all. I think the reason is because of things like in Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family basically takes the Nations oil wealth for themselves. They treat the National Treasury as if it were their personal piggy bank and the U.S. Government supports them, just as they supported the Shaw of Iran, a HUGE mistake in retrospect, but one that we're repeating with Saudi Arabia. The biggest problem with U.S. Foreign policy is that we basically supported ANYONE who was against communism. While that made a bit of sense during the Cold War, while we were facing nuclear anialation from the Soviets, it doesn't make a dammed bit of sense in todays environment. The only nations we should be supporting and building alliances are nations were freedom is highly valued and multi-party systems are in place.

But of course, money talks and BS walks. The Saudi's have invested TRILLIONS in the U.S. economy, by some estimates, they own almost 10% of all U.S. assets. Of course, they say they have these investments for the day that Oil runs out, but to me, it's money that COULD have been invested in their own country. Just as thousands of U.S. Naturalized Chinese entrepreneurs went back home to China to help grow a booming Chinese economy, how many U.S. Naturalized Middle Easterners would have gone back home to help a region brimming with the economic activity of Trillions of dollars being invested at home? Instead they want to come here, because there is no opportunity back home. Of course, those who CAN'T come here or have no other hope, end up as Terrorists. They have nothing, and therefore nothing to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


I don't think that's the reason at all. I think the reason is because of things like in Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family basically takes the Nations oil wealth for themselves.

Correct. And if there were a process for transition of power, no government would be empowered long enough to do it.

Hence my point that the lack of said process is the root of the politcal upheavel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

... For example, the Israeli-Arab conflict is pure BS. This could be settled fast, provided there was interest in settling the issue. However, most ME governments aren't interested at all since it allow them to deflect the attention of the populace to external problems, and ditto with the Satanization of the West ...

True, look at what happened in Egypt. Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel, and immediately the populace turned inward to their own leaders, Killing Sadat and others. The lesson to other leaders? Make peace with Israel at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×