Will someone please explain this to me...
- Thread starter rhgunguy
- Start date
Bear with me and I'll tie this back to the thread topic.
First, let's look at the attacks before the 1993 WTC bombing. Our government (yes, the same one that claims to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world) removed the elected president of Iran, who wanted to remain neutral in the US vs USSR cold war, and put an unelected prince that the Iranian people did not want into power. Remember, Iran is a Shiite country. Then our government armed a Sunni government (Saddam) in a conflict against Iran. Notice most, if not all, of the attacks in this period are Shiitte or Iranian. Also notice the targets are government/military in middle eastern countries.
Meanwhile, our government was arming Sunni groups to fight the Soviet army in Afganistan.
Then the Iraqi military, which our government helped build, invades Kuwait. For whatever reason, we must go liberate Kuwait. Suddenly we have a huge military presense in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country which also happens to be the origin of the Islamic faith. Not much later, the 1993 WTC bombing happens. The US military operations continued there (which I was a part of). Smaller attacks continued and then the big one came in 2001. We all know what happened from there.
Ron Paul's position is that overly aggressive foriegn can lead to really bad consequences for us. Neither Ron Paul nor I condone terrorism. The question is: do we want to minimize terrorism or do we want to use it as an excuse for more aggressive military action.
First, let's look at the attacks before the 1993 WTC bombing. Our government (yes, the same one that claims to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world) removed the elected president of Iran, who wanted to remain neutral in the US vs USSR cold war, and put an unelected prince that the Iranian people did not want into power. Remember, Iran is a Shiite country. Then our government armed a Sunni government (Saddam) in a conflict against Iran. Notice most, if not all, of the attacks in this period are Shiitte or Iranian. Also notice the targets are government/military in middle eastern countries.
Meanwhile, our government was arming Sunni groups to fight the Soviet army in Afganistan.
Then the Iraqi military, which our government helped build, invades Kuwait. For whatever reason, we must go liberate Kuwait. Suddenly we have a huge military presense in Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country which also happens to be the origin of the Islamic faith. Not much later, the 1993 WTC bombing happens. The US military operations continued there (which I was a part of). Smaller attacks continued and then the big one came in 2001. We all know what happened from there.
Ron Paul's position is that overly aggressive foriegn can lead to really bad consequences for us. Neither Ron Paul nor I condone terrorism. The question is: do we want to minimize terrorism or do we want to use it as an excuse for more aggressive military action.
applesanity
New member
Antipitas said:
I won't speak for the RP supporters.
As for FDT, why *not* announce your candidacy on a talk show? (it's certainly better than praising tax dodgers on a conspiracy theory website)
Not only does Fred know how to play to the camera, he knows when and where to do it. Consider one of the earlier GOP debates - while the candidates were struggling to get face time, FDT opted out. Later, he appears chatting with Hannity. The spotlight is alll on him; nobody else. He does it later with this Jay Leno thing... think about the politically minded person's thoughts (as in: the people who actually will vote)
"Did you see that debate the other night? That guy (whatshisname?) had some good points and that other guy just made a fool of himself. And FDT announced his candidacy finally!"
No matter how you put it, Fred Thompson's name will stick out more so than if he just merely appeared in the debate. The point is so evident even that the OP is guilty of committing it.
Leading to a bigger picture: it's not about the best candidate; it's about a tolerable candidate than can actually win. Furthermore, charisma counts considerably for a president. Hate or love him, FDT has it. (RP supporters would say likewise about RP, I suppose.)
Let it Bleed
New member
You beat me to the punch.
While ideas and principles matter, charisma is extremely relevant for successful leadership.
Jimmy Carter was intelligent and had the best of intentions but failed miserably at leading the country. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a great leader in large part because he was the "Great Communicator." Regardless of whether you supported Reagan's policies, he did get things done. Personally, I think Presidents receive more blame and praise than they usually deserve, but that is another topic.
However, I disagree with the idea that one should only support the candidate that can supposedly win. I think it is more important that people support the candidate with whom they most agree. Even if the candidate you prefer doesn’t receive the nomination, support for that particular candidate advances his ideas and forces the actual candidate to address particular concerns.
Additionally, party loyalty seems to have a stranglehold on all politicians. As I am no political historian, I may be completely wrong about this. But it appears to me that, in our countries past, coalitions were more frequently formed in response to different political issues. Setting aside the viability of 3rd parties, congressmen are coerced into voting the party’s agenda or lose campaign support for re-election. This has the effect of further polarizing the debate on almost every issue.
applesanity, that got a laugh out of me. I have supported Ron Paul since before I first voted for him for President in 1988, and I continue to be a big supporter, but he's the opposite of charismatic. In fact, what charm he does have comes from a blunt way of speaking that is far from charismatic. Just my opinion.
Wow! I was sure someone would call me unpleasant things after my last post. By no means am I defending acts of terrorism. Killing inocent people is wrong, but why give them an excuse to do it. I think Russia's problem with Chechnyan terrorist is a good example. If Russia would have let them go independent while the rest of the Soviet Union was breaking up; I seriously doubt the acts of terrorism against Russian civilians would have occured. While I agree with the Chechen cause, I am totally disgusted by the ones killing civilians. My point is; if our busybody government would get it's nose out of another culture's business, the evil radicals would become so marginalized within their own societies that they'd pose little threat to us.
I bet more Americans die each year from obesity related illnesses than have died in acts of Islamic based terrorism. But yet we have fat people who are more afraid of Al Qaeda than buffets and recliners.
I bet more Americans die each year from obesity related illnesses than have died in acts of Islamic based terrorism. But yet we have fat people who are more afraid of Al Qaeda than buffets and recliners.