Will someone please explain this to me...

R

rhgunguy

Moderator
I was reading another post in L&P and became curious, if not confused by the support the both Ron Paul and Fred Thompson enjoy here on TFL. I have listened to many of the current canidates speak at the Ames Straw Poll and have been impressed by three of them-Huckabee, Brownback and Hunter-in no particular order.

While at the straw poll I met Brownback, spoke with(and was impressed by)a Huckabee staffer and had a nice talk with Mr. Hunter's wife(after the raffle for a shotgun). The message of each canidate was to secure the border, complete the mission in Iraq so our children do not have to clean up the mess and various other planks that seem to fit right into the conservative platform that our politicians have been striving for mediocrity with for a while. Plus that guy Brownback wants to go Apollo-program on cancers rear end(ie, dedicating a sizeable percent[5%] of our GNP to defeating cancer in 10 years or so).

I guess my question is what do Thompson-who just announced on the Tonight Show of all places-and Paul-whose strategy for Iraq may send my unborn children back there if it does not kill me before I get to that chore-have to offer that these more traditonal(in the good sense)canidates do not?

For the record I have yet to decide to support a particular candidate for president. I am still in the beer-drinking fact-finding on the internet phase of the American electoral process; ah, technology!
 
I would vote for Hunter in a second if I thought he would get the nod. I know him quite well since hes a local congressman. However, since he hasn't put up any numbers that suggest he's going to pull out of the 2nd tier, I'm going to vote for thompson.

This better to have some type of conservative in the whitehouse than none at all.

As for Paul, you'll find that a great deal of his supporters lack both logic and reason (not unlike the man himself), so I can't begin to speak for them.
 
But Hunter put up such good numbers in Texas! Considering his camp at the straw poll included an old-fashioned two-cylinder icecream maker, hay bales, an Elvis impersonator and a raffle for a shotgun I think he did well in Iowa also.
 
rhgungo said:
I guess my question is what do Thompson-who just announced on the Tonight Show of all places-and Paul-whose strategy for Iraq may send my unborn children back there if it does not kill me before I get to that chore-have to offer that these more traditonal(in the good sense)canidates do not?
Click to expand...

as far as thompson, hes shaping up to be a good 2nd choice for me, but hes not there yet. he hasnt really done anything yet of any importance (debates, taking detailed stances on a lot of major issues, etc).

as far as paul goes, im more worried about whats happening with this country domestically than whats going on in a bunch of places halfway around the world. the "traditional" candidates havent done much for us at all. the previous generation got us into this mess (world police or w/e) and it has to end at some point. the longer we draw it out the worse its going to get, so lets just end it now. thats my simplified view anyway. even if i didnt agree with paul's foreign policy, i would still be voting for him, as the benefits of his other positions far outweigh the supposed negatives of his foreign policy. we've allowed the government to usurp way to much power that it was never given. i dont think paul is going to be able to do much in the way of reversing that trend, but i think he'll do a wonderful job of slowing it down. and who knows, maybe congress will get with the program and a few steps in the right direction will be taken.
 
When I speak of traditional canidates I speak of true conservitism, I should have clarified.

Unfourtunately what is going on half way around the world effects us(such is the nature of globalism) because we are a beacon of hope for capitalism, democracy, human rights, womens sufferage, mom and apple pie. There are people who HATE us for all that and more. Those things are things we have grown to love and possibly take for granted, that is a shame. If we care that much about them we have to take a pro-active stance on killing those who would kill us for loving those things.

I can not vote for a man that whould run away from a problem that will either cost American lives in a future terror attack or the lives of future generations of American soldiers when a strategy of winning a war by hearts and minds rather than body counts will suffice.
 
I am personally a strict constructionist.

In brief, I believe The Constitution means what it says. We have three branches of government, and I do not believe that our court system should legislate from the bench. The Framers were very specific in enumerating our rights. They designated The Bill of Rights to explain the rights we already had, not grant them by privilege.

In effect, the government that governs least, governs best.

Imagine if that concept was truly practiced in our America. There might be fewer hand-outs, but people would find out just how dear utilizing our freedoms sets us apart in this country, simply by setting your own course.

And we would start bowing our heads when soldiers marched by. And embrace them when their service was done.

If a hole was blown into your levee, you'd help your beloved neighbors to higher ground, not wait for a constable to arrive with sandwiches.

In short, the application of these views would become so precious to you that planks, speeches, spin and money would mean nothing in your choice of a candidate.

I believe Fred Thompson to be an honest man with these same ideas. I believe our Constitution points me to him.
 
Unfourtunately what is going on half way around the world effects us(such is the nature of globalism) because we are a beacon of hope for capitalism, democracy, human rights, womens sufferage, mom and apple pie. There are people who HATE us for all that and more. Those things are things we have grown to love and possibly take for granted, that is a shame. If we care that much about them we have to take a pro-active stance on killing those who would kill us for loving those things.
Click to expand...

You are seriously confused. "They" don't hate us for our freedom, democracy, and human rights. "They" hate us for our actions in their countries. Turn off Fox, quit believing whatever Bush tells you, and check out reality. I'd suggest reading "Imperial Hubris", but obviously you don't read anything that doesn't support comforting fantasy.

And by the way, Ron Paul seems like an honest, intelligent guy who knows what's what and tells it like it is. He doesn't spout the sort of baloney so many people love to hear; hence, Paul isn't what most Americans want or expect in a president, unfortunately.
 
Put down the kool-aid buddy. We did not go into their countries until we were REPEATEDLY attacked. We finaly had enough on 9/11 and decided to do something about it.

They do not think in the same terms as we do. They have a moral concept that is quite different from anything that we know:lying to advance Islam is actualy encouraged. Now if you accept the fact that bin laden was a student of history, specificaly our political defeat in Vietnam you will see that he knows he has to turn our people against the war. He also knows that we do not care for war as Americans and many will look for the easiest way out. So he lies and says that he attacked because we were in the middle east. His real objective is to spread Islam all over the world.

BTW, I don't get my opinions from Fox, I get just the news, strip away the bias and do my own leg work.

If you care to take off the blinders, here is an excellent article on the subject of lying to further Islam:http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lyingprint.htm

I would suggest that you read Legacy of Ashes and see just how well equiped the CIA is to carry out the "stealth warrior" concept that Dr. Paul has.

Now for my part I do like a lot of the things that Paul has to say. However we are involved in a war right now and we cannot just pull up the tent stakes and leave. To do so would have disasterous consequences for the region. Iran has not forgotten the scuffle that they and Saddam got into. They want Iraq and they will take it. If Saudi looks good to them, they may take that as well.
 
Put down the kool-aid buddy. We did not go into their countries until we were REPEATEDLY attacked. We finaly had enough on 9/11 and decided to do something about it.
Click to expand...

When did they attack us repeatedly before our military was sent into their countries?

Just for asking this I know that some will label me as un-American. I don't care about insults, let's talk facts. So tell me about all the attacks upon us before we finally went into their countries.
 
As for Paul, you'll find that a great deal of his supporters lack both logic and reason (not unlike the man himself), so I can't begin to speak for them.
Click to expand...

We may lack logic, but at least some of us have been paying enough attention to know that Rudy wants the Congress to pass a law saying I have to prove a need for it before buying a pistol.

I had to inform some of the mainstream folks of that fact recently. Oh, and you're welcome.
 
Last edited:
rhgunguy said:
Iran has not forgotten the scuffle that they and Saddam got into. They want Iraq and they will take it. If Saudi looks good to them, they may take that as well.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the old "domino theory" of the Vietnam War era. Basically, if one country fell to communism, then one after another would also tumble..and then Idaho.

Personally, I kind of like the idea of having our enemies bash each other to death. It might make it easier to sweep up the debris.

And frankly, the deaths of American soldiers is wearing on me.
 
When did they attack us . . . .
Click to expand...
Irrespective of the war in Iraq, if by "they" you mean Islamic terrorists, then I would submit we Americans were attacked on November 4, 1979; April 18, 1983; Oct. 23, 1983; Dec. 12, 1983; Sept. 20, 1984; Feb. 26, 1993; Nov. 13, 1995; June 25, 1996; Aug. 7, 1998; Oct. 12, 2000; and Sept. 11, 2001.

Of course there were other incidents of Islamic terrorist activity in which Americans were killed, but these were the dates in which Americans were directly targeted.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they hate US for not being Muslim.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, they should hate China 5 times as much. After all, for every one non-Muslim American, there are 5 non-Muslim Chinese in the world.
 
"By his own account, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel."
Click to expand...

- p.147, 9/11 Commission Report
 
Irrespective of the war in Iraq, if by "they" you mean Islamic terrorists, then I would submit we Americans were attacked on November 4, 1979; April 18, 1983; Oct. 23, 1983; Dec. 12, 1983; Sept. 20, 1984; Feb. 26, 1993; Nov. 13, 1995; June 25, 1996; Aug. 7, 1998; Oct. 12, 2000; and Sept. 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

Thank you for giving some dates. For the point I am trying to make, I should have asked: when and where. Would you or someone else kindly give the locations corresponding to the dates.
 
Not sure how this relates to OP's original question re:
I guess my question is what do Thompson-who just announced on the Tonight Show of all places-and Paul-whose strategy for Iraq may send my unborn children back there if it does not kill me before I get to that chore-have to offer that these more traditonal(in the good sense)canidates do not?
Click to expand...
but here is a partial list.

Nov. 4, 1979: Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

April 18, 1983: Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Oct. 23, 1983: Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Marines were part of an international peace keeping mission after a disastrous civil war.

Sept. 20, 1984: Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

Feb. 26, 1993: New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

Nov. 13, 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Two truck bombs killed five Americans and two Indians in the US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda is blamed for the attacks. One of the Americans killed was an enlisted U.S. soldier. The other four were civilians. The building targeted by the bomb was headquarters for a $5.6 billion multi-year program to help the Saudi military be better prepared to defend the country, one of several Pentagon projects accelerated after the Persian Gulf War.

June 25, 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: a terrorist truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers, a facility housing US and allied forces supporting the coalition air operation over Iraq called Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen and injured hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

Aug. 7, 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden.

Oct. 12, 2000: Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Sept. 11, 2001: New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

June 14, 2002: Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

May 12, 2003: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

Dec. 6, 2004: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

Nov. 9, 2005: Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Sept. 13, 2006: Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.

Jan. 12, 2007: Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
 
And in that time, there should have been 5 times that number of attacks on China. Dates and places of those attacks, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top