let me try to get caught up here...
Rob308:
On America bringing on 9/11 ourselves: I never said that Paul believed the American people were to blame; that's a straw man argument. What you say here pretty much squares with Paul's position, I agree; but I think the idea
that we should just stay in our little rooms and have no involvement in the mideast because we fear murderous retaliation is nothing short of cowardly. What Paul is advocating is basically "We'd better do what they say or they'll beat us up." I have very little patience for the notion that we deserved or invited 9/11 to ANY degree whatever. Taking that position reminds me of those who sympathize with street criminals because they are "poor and disadvantaged" and that rape victims were "asking for it". What you said and implied is just that, "that Ron Paul" said we (Americans) asked for the attacks of 9/11/2001.
That's abundantly not true on any level. That assertion itself is one of an organized attack.
"Who are the Jihadists?" Oh, please. Are you taking the leftist line that radical Islam isn't really a threat, just a "bumper sticker" hyped by the Administration? From some of your later comments, it seems so.
On Al Qaeda not attacking Canada, etc.: Yeah, just how many Balinese troops are in Iraq, anyway?
And in case you didn't notice, we weren't IN Iraq on 9/11/01. Any comment?
Well, that's not really true. As any Army member knows, and I was one until a point in 2003, the US governmetn had troops in Iraq all though the decade of the 1990's. I guess you didn't know that.
Counterpunch is a deceptive, hyperpartisan, far-left crypto-Marxist rag. Enjoy. If you're a devotee, it explains why you think radical Islam is no greater a threat than traffic accidents. To Counterpunch, there can be no greater threat to the world than George Bush. If that's your position, we have nothing to talk about.
Oooh,
cryto-Marxist. That's an interesting accusation considering your position as a neo-Conservative is the most Marxist position on this forum. A typical Marxist ploy, accuse those in opposition to you as being what you are.
The Nazis merely wanted to conquer the world: they didn't want to force conversion to their religion, impose repressive religious laws, and dictate every detail of every person's daily life. They did not use suicide bombers against civilian innocents in PREFERENCE to military targets, and they did not raise their children to idealize and admire mass murderers of women and children.
This is a joke, right? The NAZI's, aka National
Socialists (aka neocons of Germany) did everything to convince the public of the dangers posed by various entities opposed to their goals. It's surprising to see some JEWS take the samee positions as the NAZI's took with regard to foreign policy.
Al Qaeda had high-level contacts with Saddam from at least the early 90s;
No, that is an outright lie. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that proves this. Why are you lying about this?
he sponsored terrorist training camps, put up AQ leaders in luxury suites and paid for their medical care, and his Iraq was the first place AQ leaders ran when in trouble. Read the papers. Sorry--papers other than Counterpunch.
A silly post.
Yes, the Kurds are doing very well. Thanks to us. Or did you forget that?
Yes, all of that is already happening. Is your solution to let it get much worse?
True, AQ hasn't been doing well lately--because of the "surge", of course, but you wouldn't care to acknowledge that, would you? If we summarily leave--which even the Dems no longer advocate--do you think they wouldn't come back in force?
A silly assertion. Every summer the US government has had troops in Iraq has seen a diminished Freedom Fighter activity level in opposition to the US government. This fall, as has already been observed, the Freedom Fighter activity against the occupation has grown stronger.
Gosh, yes; all those laws could be abused. Can you document any actual cases of that? Sorry, alleged "abuses" of enemy combatants don't count. This is called a "war".
The court cases that have been files are documentation enough. Otherwise, why don't you volunteer yourself as a
test detainee for Gitmo?
I think I explained why total isolationism is madness. Odd that you didn't notice, or respond to my explanation.
Your assertion is not sustainable logically.
Car accidents? Are you serious? We should just treat terrorism as a nuisance and otherwise ignore it?
Er, no, it should be treated as a police matter unless otherwise dictated. If the national police, the
FBI, had acted responsibly, the 9/11 terrorists would have failed. Then where would your arguments be? On the street corner.
If you are consistent in your beliefs, you must not own a gun. The proper response to street crime is to hide in your house and not go out and "provoke" the criminals who have legitimate gripes about economic disparities in our society, right?
That's a non sequitur.
(Well, THAT was an hour I'd like to have back...)
Pat H:
"Solidly conservative"?? Cut and run? Abandon our allies? "Neocons" are socialists? Are you nuts?
How about you use facts in your rebuttal instead of teenagerist ad hominems?
Wait a minute--"Goad" FDR into WWII? You think we shouldn't have gone?
That's for another thread.
I think I'll skip over the rest, since you're basically ignoring my reasoning and saying "You're wrong because Dr.
Paul says so and he's real smart and would be a better President than Thomas Jefferson." As far as dissecting my post, you really haven't shown me much.
Reasoning? I'm waiting with bated breath for that.
Actually, one is inclined to dismiss you as a bit of an extremist, considering some of your remarks. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you might start by answering a straight question: Do you think we should have stayed out of WWII? If not, how does that square with your ideal of "non-intervention"?
Read the Constitution. Discussion of World War II are outside the scope of this thread.
I will stop to note that you DON'T explain how Paul would get his massive restructuring of the Federal government through Congress. Why is that? If there's a way, please tell us. I somehow don't think that his having served ten terms in Congress is going to do it. If he knows all about how Congress works, fine; how's he going to get it done? What's his legislative plan? I haven't heard him address that at all. Have you?
You merely need read his web site and his writings for the last 25 years. He's been prolific and consistent.
Why is Paul's pie-in-the-sky, trust-me agenda have a hope in Hell of ever being passed? If there's no answer to that but "He's right on principle," he's a waste of time.
His campaign is other than your description. That you feel compelled to state it in those terms speaks loudly of your ethics, only.