View Full Version : Is Ron Paul delusional?
Rooskibar03
08-27-2012, 08:59
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ron-paul-911-victims-would-still-be-alive-if-paul-people-had-been-in-charge/
9/11 would not have happened if RP was in charge? Seriously? How deep does ones head have to be in the sand to make a statement like this?
I know there are a lot of PaulBots here and while I agree with some of his postions, it's this line of thinking that demostrates why he won't be president, and frankly shouldnt be.
ChunkyMonkey
08-27-2012, 10:11
Unfortunately, many pacifists think that if we pulled out of the world politic and economy, we will be save and secured. Forget that the fact we tried that during the WWI and WWII. Forget the fact that we have invested somewhere around 3.3 trillion USD in other economies or 2 trillion USD in exports.
To me this is the same mentality as the liberal has - Gun Free Zone = SAFE zone! No such thing. I do agree the US has over extended itself and need to roll back its involvement. I dont agree that we need to disengaged completely.
Teufelhund
08-27-2012, 10:12
Paul's stance is that we have been forcing our own belief system upon the Middle East for decades, typically through military force. This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it.
What he meant in this recent comment is that if "Ron Paul-people" had been in charge, i.e. people who believe in different foreign policy, we would never have created in the mind of Islam a need to retaliate (9/11).
For those who like to deride Paul's foreign policy, I would like to point out that it is arguably the same policy of our founding fathers:
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.
– John Quincy Adams (1821)
10mm-man
08-27-2012, 10:26
Paul's stance is that we have been forcing our own belief system upon the Middle East for decades, typically through military force. This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it.
What he meant in this recent comment is that if "Ron Paul-people" had been in charge, i.e. people who believe in different foreign policy, we would never have created in the mind of Islam a need to retaliate (9/11).
For those who like to deride Paul's foreign policy, I would like to point out that it is arguably the same policy of our founding fathers:
Good point!
I cannot stand the people that think that if we just "stopped getting involved" suddenly everyone would forgive us and leave us alone. Do people not realize that in Islam they are urged (jury is still out as to if all Muslims follow this) to convert the world into one big caliphate. They won't "live and let live", there are [many/all?] who believe in "convert or die." Just "pulling out" won't solve anything... if anything, it'll make us appear weak at a time when it is in our best interests to appear strong. Even if we never did get involved in the M.E.- Post-Vietnam to now, they still hate us for backing Israel. If we go back further, say to Pre-WWII, they will still be mad at our involvement with the Saudis in the 1930's when WE discovered oil there and allowed them to become an economic powerhouse. So if we just had never gotten involved ever, at all, would we still have problems with them? You bet your ass we would! France never got involved with the middle east and they still got attacked in the 1970's. We would just take it laying down if we never got involved... but our policies for the last 40 years have been to not take it, but to get hit, then seriously mess the aggressors world up. [Beer]
yeah and if we weren't involved we wouldn't be the power that we are. come on people, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. we have been involved with the rest of the world for the main purpose of bettering our situation and furthering our growth and development. it has been successful. it has also created enemies (though anytime you are on top you have enemies). you can debate if it is/was worth it or not, but simply not being involved, even from the beginning, doesn't mean we would have the US as it is now but without people who hate us. we would be much weaker. perhaps a fair trade off perhaps not.
then the question comes up, what do you do if trouble arises there and we go in to help? kuwait loves us, but it pissed a lot of other mideast countries when we went into iraq in the 90's. so what do you do, let a maniac like saddam pick on smaller nations? obstruct our ability to get oil? sooner or later some idiot will do something that will FORCE you to go over there. then you are back to the original problem. even when we go over to help, people hate us to some degree, its impossible to escape. if we sit out, the world is controlled by egotistical dictators. thats a fact. rarely does anyone else do anything. this attribute of ours unfortunately creates a lot of enemies. but look who hates us. its typically radical, totalitarian regimes that we blocked from gaining conquest. is it really such a bad thing if such people hate us? ill be more concerned when the governments and general populace of free nations wants to fight us.
This skewed foreign policy is what caused 9/11 as a retaliation, not just some unjustified internal hatred that Islam harbors for Western Civilization. Does that hatred exist now? Of course. Paul insists that we created it:
Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.
And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.
If this is a war with Islamic states/people as has been pointed out.
There is no way the US will unconvert the people involved unless their killed. Fact is the soldiers are being out bred by the islamic people.
Keeping soldiers in such areas is a waste of money and lives.
Another poster mentioned France being attacked without cause in the 1970's. Evidently they forgot the French involvment in Algeria, Sudan/Mali, Somalia, Djbouti, Egypt and other North African nations. Ever think about the many French Mirage aircraft in the area?
Total Oil company is heavily involved in the Middle East.
Aloha_Shooter
08-27-2012, 11:50
I appreciate John Adams' philosophy as well as Madison's but I think Ron Paul's stance is a distortion of it. There is a big difference between not forcing yourself upon the world as we have been wont to do in the past 5 decades and withdrawing from the world as Ron Paul seems to want to do.
This isn't the nineteenth century and Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy was suspect even then when it took a minimum of 1 week and more like 2-3 weeks for anyone to journey to the US from Asia or Europe. Thomas Jefferson was excoriated for "adventurism" for sending Decatur to fight the Barbary pirates but it's important to note that one of the Founding Fathers and a close personal friend of Madison's did in fact find it necessary to send forces to fight them.
I like Paul's approach to domestic policy and spending -- particularly the emphasis on the Tenth Amendment which has never been repealed and should therefore be in primary force -- but his foreign and national security policy is as disastrous as BHO's.
Teufelhund
08-27-2012, 11:55
Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.
And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.
Let's assume for a moment that the M.E. hates us because we won't stay out of their lives and their country. If you are a government who needs to garner public support for a foreign war, do you tell them the truth, or tell them the foreign enemy is a country full of evil sociopaths who hate us just because we are who we are? Which would work, and which wouldn't?
What's with the assumption? What I stated in my earlier post is fact. My dad was told this by a Saudi when he was in the Navy and was playing war games with them. This particular Saudi was allowed on a US ship observing how they do things. He was called an infidel because he was not Muslim.
I'm not gonna play the what if game with you. Let's just stick to the facts shall we.
Teufelhund
08-27-2012, 12:17
It was a hypothetical for the sake of discussion. My point is it is much easier to gain support for a war if the public believes we're just putting down the monsters.
If you want to deal in absolutes, then your axiom is just dead wrong. I've had several Muslim friends, and none of them tried to convert me or kill me.
Rooskibar03
08-27-2012, 13:04
Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.
And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.
Bingo. Read the writings of these guys and it's say kill the Infidels because they invade our land and steal our oil. They want us dead because we don't conform.
The fight against Islam dates all the way back to "the shores of Tripoli" and I'm pretty sure we weren't occupying them then.
It was a hypothetical for the sake of discussion. My point is it is much easier to gain support for a war if the public believes we're just putting down the monsters.
If you want to deal in absolutes, then your axiom is just dead wrong. I've had several Muslim friends, and none of them tried to convert me or kill me.
Not too keen on the Quran are ya?
"When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest enslave."
Surah 47
"They desire that you should be infidels as they are infidels and that ye shall be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends till they have fled their home for the cause of God. If they turn back, then seize them, and SLAY them wherever ye shall find them; but take none of them for friends or helpers." Surah 4:90
"Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows."
Surah 66:2
"Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them."
Surah 4:142
"Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them."
Surah 5:41
"As for the disbelievers, it is the same whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts, upon their hearing, and a covering over their eyes. There is a great torment for them."
Surah 2:6
"Muhammad bin Maslamah said, 'O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.' 'Say what you like,' Muhammad replied. 'You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.'"
Ishaq:365
Basically, the Quran allows for Muslims to lie in order to deceive the infidels (that's us). There is even a verse, and I cannot find it, where they are instructed to appear to be friends with the infidels until they are strong enough to overtake and destroy them. Islam is also not a peaceful word- it means "Submit" or "to submit" and Muslim translates to "he who submits." I'm sorry, but I don't submit. [AR15]
Deuteronomy 17. Pretty much all those old fundamentalist books called for death to non-believers, the Quran isn't even slightly unique in that regard.
Teufelhund
08-27-2012, 13:58
I've read it from cover to cover, thank you. I've also read the Christian Bible from cover to cover, but I doubt anyone wants to talk about how violent that one is.
Do all Christians follow the Old Testament word for word?
I'll throw out the caveat that I'm not religious... too hypocritical, every last one of them.
Is Ron Paul delusional? Maybe.
He consistently fails to understand the nature of Islamic Jihad and its followers. 9/11 or an event like it was inevitable, just like a repeat is inevitable. Ron is just showing us his ignorance of foreign affairs.
10mm-man
08-27-2012, 17:19
Basically, the Quran allows for Muslims to lie in order to deceive the infidels (that's us). [AR15]
I am not up on the Quran, so don't take this wrong. Could you tell me were it says that we (Americans) are the Infidels the Quran talks about? I am not up on it, so I don't know. I have heard of people referring about us being Infidels but not sure were it came from. Thanks![Beer]
10mm-man
08-27-2012, 17:20
I'll throw out the caveat that I'm not religious... too hypocritical, every last one of them.
^^^^ Agreed!
I am not up on the Quran, so don't take this wrong. Could you tell me were it says that we (Americans) are the Infidels the Quran talks about? I am not up on it, so I don't know. I have heard of people referring about us being Infidels but not sure were it came from. Thanks![Beer]
I'm not up on it either but I do know the important parts. If you are not a Muslim then you are an infidel. One of the basic tenets of Islam is "convert or die" and if you look through history you will see overwhelming evidence of that tenet.
http://infidelsarecool.com/2006/12/overwhelming-evidence-of-i/
Alot of muslims are moderate, that is they do not participate in jihad nor do they openly support jihad. OTOH they do not denounce jihad either, I have determined for myself that their silence means they are complicit with jihad.
I'm sure someone will bring up the occasional Christian nutbar who murders an abortion doctor so I will beat you to it. Christians organizations will rise up and denounce this act, violence is simply not how Christianity works today and it is not something most Christians want to be known for. There is absolutely no comparison to Islam with either Christianity or Judaism. Christianity and Judaism celebrate life, Islam celebrates death.
Islam wants to convert you and they'll do anything to gain that conversion, intimidation is big with Islam. Why do you think 80% of the Muslims won't come out and denounce Jihad? Because some of their fellow Islamists will KILL them if they speak out against Jihad.
I am not up on the Quran, so don't take this wrong. Could you tell me were it says that we (Americans) are the Infidels the Quran talks about? I am not up on it, so I don't know. I have heard of people referring about us being Infidels but not sure were it came from. Thanks![Beer]
By definition- and I'll break it down:
Infidel: (early part of Mohammad's lifetime) A person not of the book (to mean Quran, Bible and Torah).
Infidel: (later part of Mohammad's lifetime, and most common definition) A non-believer aka non-Muslim.
Basically, it began as anyone who didn't believe in God (to which Islam, Christianity and Judaism all supposedly worship the same God). But Infidel, in Arabic means non-believer, to which was redefined by the majority of Islamic leaders as meaning "one who does not submit to the will of God and recognize Mohammad as his prophet."
I'm not up on it either but I do know the important parts. If you are not a Muslim then you are an infidel. One of the basic tenets of Islam is "convert or die" and if you look through history you will see overwhelming evidence of that tenet.
http://infidelsarecool.com/2006/12/overwhelming-evidence-of-i/
Alot of muslims are moderate, that is they do not participate in jihad nor do they openly support jihad. OTOH they do not denounce jihad either, I have determined for myself that their silence means they are complicit with jihad.
I'm sure someone will bring up the occasional Christian nutbar who murders an abortion doctor so I will beat you to it. Christians organizations will rise up and denounce this act, violence is simply not how Christianity works today and it is not something most Christians want to be known for. There is absolutely no comparison to Islam with either Christianity or Judaism. Christianity and Judaism celebrate life, Islam celebrates death.
Islam wants to convert you and they'll do anything to gain that conversion, intimidation is big with Islam. Why do you think 80% of the Muslims won't come out and denounce Jihad? Because some of their fellow Islamists will KILL them if they speak out against Jihad.
I will say this about the difference between the two, as I've learned about religion, hence why I cannot support or subscribe to any:
Islam- Preaches hate, intolerance, deception, and spreading of their religion. The Quran, if read from the early years of Mohammad, to later, steadily gets more and more violent, evil, and hateful. He started as a peaceful man, preaching tolerance and peace among the three religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). As he became a more and more powerful and well known man, even into later years as he became a warlord and conqueror, he began to denounce the other religions and stopped seeing them as worshiping the same God. That's where the Sword Verse comes in, and the correlation between non-believers (non-Muslims) and snakes, and how they must be destroyed.
Christianity- in it's modern form, meaning post-Christ era, uses lessons from the Old Testament (Torah) but expounds upon the peaceful Gandhi-like teachings of Christ as a more "updated" stance by God. Since Jesus died for "our" sins (I use our loosely because, again, I don't follow any religious belief) the old ways were the "old God"- before forgiveness- and now his son preaches for us to be peaceable, tolerant, and giving.
Islam, these days, and throughout history, has believed that any slight against a Muslim is a slight against the entire religion. True, they do not all participate in Jihad, but they don't renounce. Christianity, as a whole, denounces violence against the innocent and does not support radical or fanatical views and openly denounces their use. Mainstream Islam does not support the radical views, but fails to denounce a "jihad against the west."
I see I'm a little late to the party.....
I find it incredibly arrogant to think that we can go around the world and do as we please and not expect retaliation.
Muslims may hold us in contempt for not being muslim but they are also incited due to our foreign policy.
Blah Blah Blah... got anymore paulbot talking points? We bombed Germany and Japan into oblivion, you see them retaliating recently? They too have reasons to hate us. Vietnam has reasons to hate us, I could keep naming countries. It seems that only the Muslim Extremist nations are the only ones "retaliating" as you put it.
stevelkinevil
08-28-2012, 18:17
You folks are delusional if you think these unnecessary foreign conquests are worth one more of our sons lives. But sure keep sacrificing your sons in order to make certain people wealthy, while your at it keep crapping on the founding fathers ideas and attempting to trade your personal liberties for supposed safety, after all gotta stop all those pesky terrorists right? especially the ones in the guise of your friends and neighbors.
I truly believe that our kids and grandkids will look back at this time and say, "What were they thinking"
Well we're going to fight the jihadis, there is no way around it. Their philosophy is the opposite of our constitution. Their philosophy demands that they fight whether their opposition wants to or not. If we don't take it to them, they'll take it to us. This is a fact that some of you refuse to acknowledge.
The only question is where we're going to fight this war. Right now the war is being physically fought in Afghanistan, among other places. Do not forget that there are Imans here in this country doing recruiting right now under the guise of teaching Islam. Do not forget that they are trying to incrementally supplant/replace our code of justice with Sharia. We'll end up fighting it here too, not next year, maybe not this decade, but we'll fight it here on American soil.
Teufelhund
08-28-2012, 19:58
Islam has been around since about the 600s. I can't find reference to a Muslim attack on American soil prior to 1972. So are you saying they ignored their "philosophy which dictates they bring the fight to us" for the first 200 years America existed, or did it just take their boat that long to get here?
Blah Blah Blah... got anymore paulbot talking points? We bombed Germany and Japan into oblivion, you see them retaliating recently? They too have reasons to hate us. Vietnam has reasons to hate us, I could keep naming countries. It seems that only the Muslim Extremist nations are the only ones "retaliating" as you put it.
You and I are friends so please don't take this personal.
Assuming your proposition is correct, that muslims hate us and want to kill us for simply not being muslim, you will logically come to the conclusion that we will have to wipe out the entire religion.
If your gonna do it, then do it right. Nuke the bastards. That's right....Drop nuclear warheads on all their major cities and surrounding areas until they are basically wiped out. Its the only way. The way we're doing it now, we will never out kill the birth rate of a billion muslims. We will spend all our treasures and loose our children and children's children in an endless war. Can't do it. Won't ever do it even if we deployed 3,4, maybe 5 times the troops there. We simply can't beat their birth rate
So, I want you to say it to the world. I want you right here on this forum to openly advocate the nuclear bombing of all the muslim cities and nations for the sole purpose of wiping out a religion.
Its the only way to win against what you believe is true.
No I'm not at all.
You point out another difference between them and us. Americans have no patience, Americans want to do things RIGHT NOW. Islam is very patient, they are in no hurry to come over here, 9/11 may have been a mistake because it happened before they were really ready.
Imagine having a plan for world domination that takes 5000 years to accomplish. I think Islam is kinda like that. The current crop on leaders knows they'll be dead but their dedication to Islam supersedes their own lifespans.
No I'm not at all.
You point out another difference between them and us. Americans have no patience, Americans want to do things RIGHT NOW. Islam is very patient, they are in no hurry to come over here, 9/11 may have been a mistake because it happened before they were really ready.
Imagine having a plan for world domination that takes 5000 years to accomplish. I think Islam is kinda like that.
Ohh I get it. Muslims had a secret conspiracy for thousands of years to start attacking America in 1972. Riiiiiiight
Teufelhund
08-28-2012, 20:24
No I'm not at all.
You point out another difference between them and us. Americans have no patience, Americans want to do things RIGHT NOW. Islam is very patient, they are in no hurry to come over here, 9/11 may have been a mistake because it happened before they were really ready.
Imagine having a plan for world domination that takes 5000 years to accomplish. I think Islam is kinda like that. The current crop on leaders knows they'll be dead but their dedication to Islam supersedes their own lifespans.
That would be some scary stuff indeed right there, buddy. I don't see the evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean I'm not making ammo. [Beer]
I love the irony in this thread... it is called "Is Ron Paul Delusional?" and most posts are tin foil hat worthy.
That would be some scary stuff indeed right there, buddy. I don't see the evidence to support it, but that doesn't mean I'm not making ammo. [Beer]
LOL, I love ammo.[Beer]
It is frightening, their entire religion is about making sure their religion is the dominant force on the planet. They don't care how long it takes. They've been working on it since 600AD and they'll be working on it after I'm dead and gone. They teamed with the Nazis during WWII to advance their religion. They suppress Judaism and Christianity in their own countries and then they come here and use our open society to their advantage.
The little bit of history of Islam that I know and the things I've read lead me to these conclusions.
LOL, I love ammo.[Beer]
It is frightening, their entire religion is about making sure their religion is the dominant force on the planet. They don't care how long it takes. They've been working on it since 600AD and they'll be working on it after I'm dead and gone. They teamed with the Nazis during WWII to advance their religion. They suppress Judaism and Christianity in their own countries and then they come here and use our open society to their advantage.
The little bit of history of Islam that I know and the things I've read lead me to these conclusions.
Since they think that way, then what is it that you do to beat them?
Since they think that way, then what is it that you do to beat them?
You tell me smart guy.
You tell me smart guy.
I already told you back a few posts ago. So lets hear you say it out loud.....
I see I'm a little late to the party.....
I find it incredibly arrogant to think that we can go around the world and do as we please and not expect retaliation.
Muslims may hold us in contempt for not being muslim but they are also incited due to our foreign policy.
we don't go around doing as we please, we do what we think is right. sometimes we have our own personal interests in mind sure, but what nation with this kind of power have you ever seen or heard of through history use it to defend weaker nations and NOT conquer those it easily could? look at world war 1, world war 2, korea, vietnam, and the gulf war. all situations where if we really wanted to we could have conquered other nations. instead our stance was always that of freedom for everyone, including our enemies. compare that to russia's historical stance on the subject. look at afghanistan. look at east germany. look at us in iraq and afghanistan. we are trying to get out of there as fast we can, always have been, we just could never get it stable. we aren't rolling out of iraq with barrels of oil for free. we aren't confiscating all of their natural resources for ourselves. how many countries would pay such a price and still give the nation to its own people?
considering how russia has carried itself, and how we have carried ourselves, wouldn't one think the world would hate russia? and yet, you don't see much russian hate. why? ill tell you why, because they lie in bed with the dictators and totalitarian governments, particularly in the mideast, that hate us because we don't do the same. we are supposed to be upset and worried because clear evil in this world hates us? please. bring it on. i want those types to hate us, to hate us means we are counter to their philosophy which is exactly where i want us to be. it comes at a cost but standing up for what is right often does. we have made mistakes, no doubt, and there are always collateral damage, but history will forever remember america as standing up for freedom and what is right.
I already told you back a few posts ago. So lets hear you say it out loud.....
You're not going to defeat Islam with a bomb, don't be ridiculous.
Islam is more than a religion, it is a social, political and economic system. We'll never completely defeat Islam but we can diminish it greatly.
We, as These United States will win the war against Islam by promoting our Constitution globally. Not by force but through reason, knowledge, and understanding. We can win by promoting the fact that all men, regardless of religion, color, nationality, are equal under the law.
We can win by promoting the fact that all men have God given inalienable rights. It'll take a LONG time because we have work through the adversity to the constitution and our inalienable rights in our own country first but it can be done.
The good guys always win, These United States are the good guys.
You're not going to defeat Islam with a bomb, don't be ridiculous.
Islam is more than a religion, it is a social, political and economic system. We'll never completely defeat Islam but we can diminish it greatly.
We, as These United States will win the war against Islam by promoting our Constitution globally. Not by force but through reason, knowledge, and understanding. We can win by promoting the fact that all men, regardless of religion, color, nationality, are equal under the law.
We can win by promoting the fact that all men have God given inalienable rights. It'll take a LONG time because we have work through the adversity to the constitution and our inalienable rights in our own country first but it can be done.
The good guys always win, These United States are the good guys.
So in other words you think like Ron Paul. Promoting freedom through example and not through a barrel of a gun. And I wasn't advocating the idea of nuking them, I was merely challenging people to think past the "They just want to kill us" mentality
.
we don't go around doing as we please, we do what we think is right.
Those are the key words right there. "what we think is right"
The problem is we force our "righteousness" onto other nations which may fly in the face of what they think is right.
When we do that, we incite them.
the new testament actually has more verses speaking on judgement. the problem is humans, especially non-believers, read about physical pain and suffering and that sparks emotional distrust more than reading about spiritual pain and suffering. makes sense, if you aren't a believer speaking about the spiritual consequences really don't mean squat even though they are far worse and obviously long lasting than physical consequences. jesus' message wasn't as much about peace as people think. don't get me wrong, it was about peace in terms of person to person, but even the old testament is, the problem is that as a believer you recognize there is real spiritual warfare going on in the world, always has been. in that regard jesus' message was very much about pain, suffering, judgement, and consequences. in the old testament, this spiritual warfare was met by God with a vengeance in order to secure the survival of His people. therefore, entire groups of people were eliminated. sounds mean, but when you have an enemy that wants nothing else but to destroy you, there isn't really any other option.
one problem we have as humans reading the bible is that we assume we know what ultimate right and ultimate wrong is. we believe we know what is best. if there isn't a God, then i agree. if there is a God, what a foolish way to view these writings.
we are also terminal beings, we see birth and death not much more. God transcends both of these, and it is logical to see how his closest followers would also be able to see past these (which is why many of the prophets and most of the disciples gladly met brutal and horrible deaths with open arms).
as much as i don't agree with islamic teachings, i think they try to look past death as well. when you do that, your priorities change.
people read spiritual texts and scoff at them when they don't meet their world view standards and ethics/morals. i never understood that. even if you don't believe at all, to view these texts in an intellectually honest manner you have to read them ASSUMING what they say is truth and is real. of course it will seem wrong if you view it as no God in the first place.
I will say this about the difference between the two, as I've learned about religion, hence why I cannot support or subscribe to any:
Islam- Preaches hate, intolerance, deception, and spreading of their religion. The Quran, if read from the early years of Mohammad, to later, steadily gets more and more violent, evil, and hateful. He started as a peaceful man, preaching tolerance and peace among the three religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism). As he became a more and more powerful and well known man, even into later years as he became a warlord and conqueror, he began to denounce the other religions and stopped seeing them as worshiping the same God. That's where the Sword Verse comes in, and the correlation between non-believers (non-Muslims) and snakes, and how they must be destroyed.
Christianity- in it's modern form, meaning post-Christ era, uses lessons from the Old Testament (Torah) but expounds upon the peaceful Gandhi-like teachings of Christ as a more "updated" stance by God. Since Jesus died for "our" sins (I use our loosely because, again, I don't follow any religious belief) the old ways were the "old God"- before forgiveness- and now his son preaches for us to be peaceable, tolerant, and giving.
Islam, these days, and throughout history, has believed that any slight against a Muslim is a slight against the entire religion. True, they do not all participate in Jihad, but they don't renounce. Christianity, as a whole, denounces violence against the innocent and does not support radical or fanatical views and openly denounces their use. Mainstream Islam does not support the radical views, but fails to denounce a "jihad against the west."
So in other words you think like Ron Paul. Promoting freedom through example and not through a barrel of a gun. And I wasn't advocating the idea of nuking them, I was merely challenging people to think past the "They just want to kill us" mentality
.
I forgot to add that when that we diminish them and they are all in Mecca we snatch their fucking lives right out of them and nuke their fucking temple.[Muaha]
of course. no one doubts we should have enemies. stop evil and they usually hate you. should we have stopped iraq from invading kuwait and murdering their citizens? most would argue that was the right move. kuwait is likely thrilled we forced our "righteousness" on saddam. sometimes there are shades of gray, but generally there is clear evil and clear good. israel and iran comes to mind. israel has done wrong here and there sure, but one nation is calling for wiping the other off the face of the earth while the other has the ability to do so and yet refuses to. pretty clear cut whats right in that case.
the only times we have stepped into the gray areas and possibly pissed off good people is when we have supported less than savory characters that control nations and do so ruthlessly, but we support them to hopefully stabilize a region. thats a difficult decision. our direct military actions have almost always been clearly in support of the good.
Those are the key words right there. "what we think is right"
The problem is we force our "righteousness" onto other nations which may fly in the face of what they think is right.
When we do that, we incite them.
as far as muslims go, it is actually a very small number in the world that actively want to see us destroyed. i have met a lot of muslims that live in turkey and that isn't even a remote thought in their heads. much of the middle east is the same. especially the smaller nations, they tend to like americans and don't hate christians or jews. the problem is that nut cases just are so loud and get so much air time that it seems they are all like that. i still don't believe it is a peaceful religion, but in general the followers don't actively desire people wiped out.
as far as muslims go, it is actually a very small number in the world that actively want to see us destroyed. i have met a lot of muslims that live in turkey and that isn't even a remote thought in their heads. much of the middle east is the same. especially the smaller nations, they tend to like americans and don't hate christians or jews. the problem is that nut cases just are so loud and get so much air time that it seems they are all like that. i still don't believe it is a peaceful religion, but in general the followers don't actively desire people wiped out.
I work with a Muslim, he is fine with the gals he works with. He is a nice person but I'm still wary around him. Remember Major Hussan and a few others who killed their fellow soldiers.
There are over 1 billion Muslims on the planet, what percentage are radicalized? 5% - that is 50 million people, 2% still 20 million people. It only took 19 to carry out 9/11, granted there were many more involved with the planning.
of course. no one doubts we should have enemies. stop evil and they usually hate you. should we have stopped iraq from invading kuwait and murdering their citizens? most would argue that was the right move. kuwait is likely thrilled we forced our "righteousness" on saddam. sometimes there are shades of gray, but generally there is clear evil and clear good. israel and iran comes to mind. israel has done wrong here and there sure, but one nation is calling for wiping the other off the face of the earth while the other has the ability to do so and yet refuses to. pretty clear cut whats right in that case.
the only times we have stepped into the gray areas and possibly pissed off good people is when we have supported less than savory characters that control nations and do so ruthlessly, but we support them to hopefully stabilize a region. thats a difficult decision. our direct military actions have almost always been clearly in support of the good.
Starting since after WWII we have been in numerous wars, conflicts, installing dictators, taking down dictators, yada yada yada.
Lets start with some of the big ones.
Fought a civil war for Koreans and we end up with Kim Jong pecker head.
Installed the Shaw in Iran and we end up with Achmid dick head.
Fight a civil war for Vietnam and end up with 58,000 dead Americans and countless maimed and disfigured physically and emotionally.
Supplied WMDs to Saddam and then we had to fight him TWICE
Supplied and financed the Mujahadeen(spelling) in afghan to fight russians and we end up with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
Install numerous bases in the middle east and we piss of Bin Laden in doing so.
Not to mention all the other little B.S things that we do to other countries that we never hear of..
My point is this.... that we like to stick our nose in other peoples business and we usually end up with stupid dick heads later on that we have to bomb, or sanction, or over throw, or rebuild their nation, or install a base in the next country over, or install a no fly zone over their country, or maintain a DMZ for 50 years at their southern border, or fly drones over, or supply weapons to their enemy, or what ever...
If we just used the Golden Rule of treating others like we would want to be treated we just might live a peaceful and prosperous life, instead of wasting trillions $$$$ on foreign policy and maintaining such a large military to fight other peoples wars..
I'm not saying that we wouldn't have to engage in warfare ever again, but maybe we could reduce it by some and also save a little money.
as far as muslims go, it is actually a very small number in the world that actively want to see us destroyed. i have met a lot of muslims that live in turkey and that isn't even a remote thought in their heads. much of the middle east is the same. especially the smaller nations, they tend to like americans and don't hate christians or jews. the problem is that nut cases just are so loud and get so much air time that it seems they are all like that. i still don't believe it is a peaceful religion, but in general the followers don't actively desire people wiped out.
Wait a minute.. I thought all muslims want us destroyed because we are all infidels and have a secret plot to take over the world. (End of sarcasm)
Your right. Some of those guys really want to kill us. We incite them and make them really want to kill us with our foreign policy.
When they see U.S planes flying over their heads or they see a portion of their country taken by the U.S to use as a military base, they get pretty pissed..... and I can't say I blame them.....
the ones that truly want to kill us are radical fundamentalist and it has little to do with our foreign policy and more to do with our culture and religious beliefs. the governments are the ones that don't like us based on our foreign policy, and again most are totalitarian. the more peaceful nations generally don't mind us being in the area because they know the stability we bring.
Wait a minute.. I thought all muslims want us destroyed because we are all infidels and have a secret plot to take over the world. (End of sarcasm)
Your right. Some of those guys really want to kill us. We incite them and make them really want to kill us with our foreign policy.
When they see U.S planes flying over their heads or they see a portion of their country taken by the U.S to use as a military base, they get pretty pissed..... and I can't say I blame them.....
the point you are missing is that those things happen all around the world without us being involved whatsoever. the world would not be a peaceful place if we simply butted out. again, sooner or later we would HAVE to go in and do something (like we usually do) and there are always negative consequences. however, to think we can sit wth our thumbs up our butts and do nothing, and thus have no problems, is incredibly naive. the aftermath of both korea and vietnam are unfortunate, but especially in the case of korea you could easily argue the consequences of doing nothing could have been much greater. same with installing dictators and doing business with them. although it is typically unfortunate, it is often done with the intent to avoid much larger and catastrophic consequences. the ron paul stance is that none of these things would exist without us being involved. there is proof all over other pockets of the world that this is false, they would still exist just in different forms, with different people and for different reasons. in the end we would still be required to act and in the end the result would be the same.
world war 1 and world war 2 have a lot of historical lessons we need to learn from.
Starting since after WWII we have been in numerous wars, conflicts, installing dictators, taking down dictators, yada yada yada.
Lets start with some of the big ones.
Fought a civil war for Koreans and we end up with Kim Jong pecker head.
Installed the Shaw in Iran and we end up with Achmid dick head.
Fight a civil war for Vietnam and end up with 58,000 dead Americans and countless maimed and disfigured physically and emotionally.
Supplied WMDs to Saddam and then we had to fight him TWICE
Supplied and financed the Mujahadeen(spelling) in afghan to fight russians and we end up with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
Install numerous bases in the middle east and we piss of Bin Laden in doing so.
Not to mention all the other little B.S things that we do to other countries that we never hear of..
My point is this.... that we like to stick our nose in other peoples business and we usually end up with stupid dick heads later on that we have to bomb, or sanction, or over throw, or rebuild their nation, or install a base in the next country over, or install a no fly zone over their country, or maintain a DMZ for 50 years at their southern border, or fly drones over, or supply weapons to their enemy, or what ever...
If we just used the Golden Rule of treating others like we would want to be treated we just might live a peaceful and prosperous life, instead of wasting trillions $$$$ on foreign policy and maintaining such a large military to fight other peoples wars..
I'm not saying that we wouldn't have to engage in warfare ever again, but maybe we could reduce it by some and also save a little money.
the ones that truly want to kill us are radical fundamentalist and it has little to do with our foreign policy and more to do with our culture and religious beliefs. the governments are the ones that don't like us based on our foreign policy, and again most are totalitarian. the more peaceful nations generally don't mind us being in the area because they know the stability we bring.
I somewhat disagree. I think it swells the ranks of the radicals when we act the way we do.
And when the muslim governments don't like us, it trickles down to the inhabitants.
Its a multi faceted problem but I think a more humble foreign policy will save us a lot of money and incite a lot less enemies.
also, you can argue the validity of the lives lost in korea and vietnam, but in the end the action on our part was a noble one. we were trying to stop the spread of communism, which we saw as a failed philosophy that enslaved the people for the betterment of a few, and also were trying to stop the likely slaughter of one group of people by another. was it worth the american lives lost? debatable. but especially in the case of south korea, i think you would find most people there happy we "butted in". look at them compared to the north.
the point you are missing is that those things happen all around the world without us being involved whatsoever. the world would not be a peaceful place if we simply butted out. again, sooner or later we would HAVE to go in and do something (like we usually do) and there are always negative consequences. however, to think we can sit wth our thumbs up our butts and do nothing, and thus have no problems, is incredibly naive. the aftermath of both korea and vietnam are unfortunate, but especially in the case of korea you could easily argue the consequences of doing nothing could have been much greater. same with installing dictators and doing business with them. although it is typically unfortunate, it is often done with the intent to avoid much larger and catastrophic consequences. the ron paul stance is that none of these things would exist without us being involved. there is proof all over other pockets of the world that this is false, they would still exist just in different forms, with different people and for different reasons. in the end we would still be required to act and in the end the result would be the same.
world war 1 and world war 2 have a lot of historical lessons we need to learn from.
Again, I partially disagree.
Do you really think N. Korea just made nukes for the hell of it? He made them because he's had the most powerful military the world has ever known at his southern border for more than 50 years. If I were in his position, I'd do the same thing. Maybe we could be trading with Kim Jong pecker face if we didn't provoke him with our military....
If you look at Vietnam we completely pulled out, they're still communists, we trade with them. Why didn't we just let them have their little civil war and far less people would have died on both sides and we could trade with them like we currently are?
And WWII was an extension of WWI. Again it was a treaty that was forced down the throats of the Germans that gave rise to Hitler.
I just fail to see the problem with trying something way different because the current system is screwing us big time...
If I remember right the U.S spends more money on defense than the next 10 countries combined. Thats pretty ridiculous.
HoneyBadger
08-29-2012, 09:03
IIRC, Ron Paul doesn't want isolation and he doesn't realistically plan to never have to fight another war. He has clearly stated numerous times that most countries would make better trade partners than warring enemies, but if truely necessary (using Just War theory) he would ask congress to declare a state of war... the way it ought to be done.
You folks are delusional if you think these unnecessary foreign conquests are worth one more of our sons lives. But sure keep sacrificing your sons in order to make certain people wealthy, while your at it keep crapping on the founding fathers ideas and attempting to trade your personal liberties for supposed safety, after all gotta stop all those pesky terrorists right? especially the ones in the guise of your friends and neighbors.
I have to address this... It sounds sadly unamerican and flat out Alex Jones-esque. Conquests? We haven't conquered anything since the establishment of our 50 states. Did we take any land after WWII? How about Kuwait? We liberated that country- but oh yeah, we don't have a territory (outside of a US base at the invitation of the Kuwaiti Government) there.
If I remember right the U.S spends more money on defense than the next 10 countries combined. Thats pretty ridiculous.
Question... are you a liberal? We are the most powerful nation in the world. We have the most advanced military which sets the standard for other nations. We have the most technologically dependent and advanced fighting force. We also have the most military bases and highest military operating costs. That is why our defense budget is high- do you think being the best comes without a high cost?
I have to address this... It sounds sadly unamerican and flat out Alex Jones-esque. Conquests? We haven't conquered anything since the establishment of our 50 states. Did we take any land after WWII? How about Kuwait? We liberated that country- but oh yeah, we don't have a territory (outside of a US base at the invitation of the Kuwaiti Government) there.
Basically you have just made your case by semantics, by pointing out the literal definition of "conquest". That isn't gonna work. You can conquer something with out actually occupying it. Occupation by proxy so to speak. The US has done plenty of that with 800+ foreign military bases.
Question... are you a liberal? We are the most powerful nation in the world. We have the most advanced military which sets the standard for other nations. We have the most technologically dependent and advanced fighting force. We also have the most military bases and highest military operating costs. That is why our defense budget is high- do you think being the best comes without a high cost?
Yes I am a liberal.... In the classical sense.
Do you really think we need hundreds of foreign military bases for our "defense"???
Let me make a proposition to you. Why don't we cut and dismantle about 600 foreign military bases, save billions of $$$ and take half of that saved money to pay off the debt and half of it to upgrade and install new defense and weapons systems inside this country..
Question to you is can you wake up in the morning and not hyper-ventilate over the fact that we have only 200 foreign military bases???
Wake up man....
Basically you have just made your case by semantics, by pointing out the literal definition of "conquest". That isn't gonna work. You can conquer something with out actually occupying it. Occupation by proxy so to speak. The US has done plenty of that with 800+ foreign military bases.
Yes I am a liberal.... In the classical sense.
Do you really think we need hundreds of foreign military bases for our "defense"???
Let me make a proposition to you. Why don't we cut and dismantle about 600 foreign military bases, save billions of $$$ and take half of that saved money to pay off the debt and half of it to upgrade and install new defense and weapons systems inside this country..
Question to you is can you wake up in the morning and not hyper-ventilate over the fact that we have only 200 foreign military bases???
Wake up man....
Not counting Iraq and Afghanistan- there are 89... But I agree, we are the only military in the world that has foreign bases. However, bases like the ones we have in Italy, Germany, Spain and Turkey allow for rapid deployment to troubled spots. We have SF units stationed in Europe because they are rapid deployment units that need to be able to move on a tasking in a moments notice.
The reason we have bases in locations like Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and South Korea is because of our history with those locations and some of them were nation building and security efforts after conflicts. Guam because they're a territory. Saudi Arabia and UK due to our promises to them. Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain because of our deployments.
Have you ever been to Fort Benning? How about Fort Huachuca, Fort Polk, Fort Irwin? There are other nation military there that we provide training for. We are a global force and require global troop/operational distribution because of our capabilities. Also our presence in other nations helps their economy, not just from us paying to use their land, but our troops spend money in those areas. The military is a rare breed that gets paid no matter what, so they have money to spend. It also helps foreign relations with our allies as we are more swiftly able to send aid to parts of the world.
Not defending our actions, not saying they are wrong, just trying to provide some explanation. [Beer]
ETA: To answer your question, it doesn't really affect me anymore- but I did like the idea that we were able to deploy at a moments notice when war broke out when I was still in the service.
sure, lets remove the bases. question: what would you do when the dictators in said regions start to then encroach on their neighbors? are you going to send a military force? if so, its going to cost a lot more and its going to take longer. the bases aren't there for no reason. its awfully hard for a smallish nation to attack another when the strongest military in the world has a base down the road. its not for just our good, its for the world's good. you can claim the world doesn't need a police force, but sadly history has shown it does. to some degree we have an obligation to protect the weak. the easiest and cheapest way to do that is to prevent things from happening by being present. withdraw that presence and it won't be long before we have to send more over there to put down conflicts.
Basically you have just made your case by semantics, by pointing out the literal definition of "conquest". That isn't gonna work. You can conquer something with out actually occupying it. Occupation by proxy so to speak. The US has done plenty of that with 800+ foreign military bases.
Yes I am a liberal.... In the classical sense.
Do you really think we need hundreds of foreign military bases for our "defense"???
Let me make a proposition to you. Why don't we cut and dismantle about 600 foreign military bases, save billions of $$$ and take half of that saved money to pay off the debt and half of it to upgrade and install new defense and weapons systems inside this country..
Question to you is can you wake up in the morning and not hyper-ventilate over the fact that we have only 200 foreign military bases???
Wake up man....
I somewhat disagree. I think it swells the ranks of the radicals when we act the way we do.
And when the muslim governments don't like us, it trickles down to the inhabitants.
Its a multi faceted problem but I think a more humble foreign policy will save us a lot of money and incite a lot less enemies.
no. what creates more radicals are the horrible conditions in which most of these people are raised, partially due to oppressive governments that take the money for themselves and don't give it to the people. as such, terrorist networks are easily able to recruit young people with no future. look at iraq. saddam and his government HATED us and for understandable reasons, we beat their ass in the gulf war. so why don't average muslim citizens hate us? why didn't even their military forces hate us? part of our world effort is to better other nations. most iranian citizens also don't have a problem with the US even though their government despises us. now, lobbing cruise missiles and bombs over the borders and causing collateral damage i agree is not a good idea. its one thing to have troops on the ground. its different to be striking targets without warning in countries we claim to be at peace with.
Again, I partially disagree.
Do you really think N. Korea just made nukes for the hell of it? He made them because he's had the most powerful military the world has ever known at his southern border for more than 50 years. If I were in his position, I'd do the same thing. Maybe we could be trading with Kim Jong pecker face if we didn't provoke him with our military....
If you look at Vietnam we completely pulled out, they're still communists, we trade with them. Why didn't we just let them have their little civil war and far less people would have died on both sides and we could trade with them like we currently are?
And WWII was an extension of WWI. Again it was a treaty that was forced down the throats of the Germans that gave rise to Hitler.
I just fail to see the problem with trying something way different because the current system is screwing us big time...
you are aware that kim jong il was a well known nut job right? look what he did to his people, we kept them in the dark ages so we could be rich and build a big military. he also indoctrinated his people to hate the US and south korea. hes a nut. they exist. they cannot be reasoned with. so your grand solution is to let them fight it out, let oppressive regimes conquer democratic ones and let thousands die eh?
as far as vietnam, if i had the ability to tell the future i probably wouldn't have gone in either. unfortunately most of us are human and can't predict the future, therefore we act how we feel is best in the moment. first, we expected to win vietnam. second, as expected, a lot of south vietnamese were slaughtered after the take over. third, we didn't know we would crush communism economically 20 years later. fourth, we didn't know whether vietnam, backed by china and russia, would continue to expand and take over small nations around them. its better to nip things in the bud early than sit on your ass and have to deal with it later. they made the best decision possible going into vietnam, they unfortunately ran it like a bunch of freaking idiots.
i would hope we would have learned from world war 1 and 2 that sitting around doing nothing until things get out of control isn't a very good foreign policy. getting involved sometimes doesn't go how we expect and is sometime too costly, but in the moment it is more often better to stop aggression before it grows to an unmanageable size. if the rest of the world would ever sack up and do something maybe we could butt out. unfortunately the UN is worthless and no one is willing to make the sacrifice but us. thats the world we live in. china and russia wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone. europe is about the same.
Again, I partially disagree.
Do you really think N. Korea just made nukes for the hell of it? He made them because he's had the most powerful military the world has ever known at his southern border for more than 50 years. If I were in his position, I'd do the same thing. Maybe we could be trading with Kim Jong pecker face if we didn't provoke him with our military....
If you look at Vietnam we completely pulled out, they're still communists, we trade with them. Why didn't we just let them have their little civil war and far less people would have died on both sides and we could trade with them like we currently are?
And WWII was an extension of WWI. Again it was a treaty that was forced down the throats of the Germans that gave rise to Hitler.
I just fail to see the problem with trying something way different because the current system is screwing us big time...
by the way, we trade with germany now, why didn't we just let hitler conquer europe and then trade with them then?
WW2 is a prime example that crap happens when we don't get more involved. we didn't want germany to be saddled with the debt and blame for the war, but in the end we let it happen. we completely pulled out of there and forgot about the whole region. instead we let hate brew in europe until it erupted with WW2. had we established a base in the region and taken a more active approach in helping germany rebuild and protecting it from outside forces, as we did after WW2, would WW2 have happened? maybe not. would some germans hate us being there? sure. but again, only you can tell the future, the rest of us unfortunately have to make tough decisions in the moment and hope for the best.
And WWII was an extension of WWI. Again it was a treaty that was forced down the throats of the Germans that gave rise to Hitler.
Please explain, I'm having a hard time seeing how WWII was an extension.
WWI started with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
Please read how Hitler came to power:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
Please explain, I'm having a hard time seeing how WWII was an extension.
WWI started with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
Please read how Hitler came to power:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
Only if you read post #30 and respond to my request.[Beer]
You and I are friends so please don't take this personal.
Assuming your proposition is correct, that muslims hate us and want to kill us for simply not being muslim, you will logically come to the conclusion that we will have to wipe out the entire religion.
If your gonna do it, then do it right. Nuke the bastards. That's right....Drop nuclear warheads on all their major cities and surrounding areas until they are basically wiped out. Its the only way. The way we're doing it now, we will never out kill the birth rate of a billion muslims. We will spend all our treasures and loose our children and children's children in an endless war. Can't do it. Won't ever do it even if we deployed 3,4, maybe 5 times the troops there. We simply can't beat their birth rate
So, I want you to say it to the world. I want you right here on this forum to openly advocate the nuclear bombing of all the muslim cities and nations for the sole purpose of wiping out a religion.
Its the only way to win against what you believe is true.
Did I mention the nuclear option? NO, I didn't. You just assumed that when I brought up Japan. I also never mentioned wiping out an entire religion. I feel religion is a cause of wars. Be it Christian, Muslim, Satanism, etc, etc, etc.
Did I mention the nuclear option? NO, I didn't. You just assumed that when I brought up Japan. I also never mentioned wiping out an entire religion. I feel religion is a cause of wars. Be it Christian, Muslim, Satanism, etc, etc, etc.
Your missing my point and yours...
If Muslims believe we are all Infidels and should die, then your only logical conclusion to beat them is to wipe them out.
Wrong. The Muslims hate us because we are not MUSLIM! They have a severe hatred for the "western civilization". Always have and always will.
And because we aren't Muslim, we are infidels, it's that simple.
What I'm doing is forcing you to have a conclusion to your assertion.
How do we beat Islam since it is the cause of their hatred towards us? Like I said you can't beat the birth rate of a billion people with conventional warfare.
Make a choice. Nuke them or figure out a way for them to stop hating us so much? Which one?????
That's like telling the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland to stop hating each other.
I'm done with this topic.
You can keep your precious Ron Paul. Meanwhile I'll keep having less and less trust in our politicians, no matter what party they belong to. This country is FUCKED and there is not a damn thing we can do to change it's course without violence.
Fought a civil war for Koreans and we end up with Kim Jong pecker head.
Installed the Shaw in Iran and we end up with Achmid dick head.
Supplied WMDs to Saddam and then we had to fight him TWICE
Supplied and financed the Mujahadeen(spelling) in afghan to fight russians and we end up with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
Install numerous bases in the middle east and we piss of Bin Laden in doing so.
I had to address some flaws with this... One- What we did with the Korean war has nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill... Same with the Shah of Iran- who was exiled after the revolution, perhaps in that case we could have acted to prevent Ayatollah Komeni (that's the result of the Shah, not Ahmadinijad). Supplying the Mujahadeen had nothing to do with the creation of AQ or the entrance of Bin Laden into the terrorism game. In the words of Sen. Charlie Wilson: "We did good by the Afghans, and then we fucked up the long game by leaving them high and dry." Our shortcomings in rebuilding and assisting the Afghans after 10 years of warfare led to a power struggle and eventually a civil war, which the Pakistani-backed Taliban were able to come out on top and were supporters of AQ's mission. It was actually our support of our strong ally (something we counted as a blessing) Saudi Arabia after Saddam Insane invaded Kuwait. At that time, the Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the world, the Kingdom was afraid they'd be next and so they asked for our aid, in turn turning down Bin Laden's offer to send his Mujahadeen that had just had victory in Afghanistan. That's what pissed off OBL- the decadent, depraved westerners in the holy land and fighting their battles for them.
Of course, anyone who remembers, that war only lasted about 100 hours... I'm willing to bet (and I didn't go to a war college, but I have studied warfare my entire life) the Muj would have been fighting Saddam's army well into the 21st century. The Ruso-Afghan war was fought away from Soviet Russia (home advantage: 0), they were no longer backed by the U.S. after defeating the Russians, and guerrilla tactics count for shit in open, desert terrain.
So, bryjcom, you're making inaccurate conclusions based on very faulty conditional logic. That'd be like saying "We lost Vietnam, that's why Obama is president now."
Rucker61
09-05-2012, 18:52
Good stuff, the rest, but can you explain more on this?
I had to address some flaws with this... One- What we did with the Korean war has nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill...
I had to address some flaws with this... One- What we did with the Korean war has nothing to do with Kim Jong Ill... Same with the Shah of Iran- who was exiled after the revolution, perhaps in that case we could have acted to prevent Ayatollah Komeni (that's the result of the Shah, not Ahmadinijad). Supplying the Mujahadeen had nothing to do with the creation of AQ or the entrance of Bin Laden into the terrorism game. In the words of Sen. Charlie Wilson: "We did good by the Afghans, and then we fucked up the long game by leaving them high and dry." Our shortcomings in rebuilding and assisting the Afghans after 10 years of warfare led to a power struggle and eventually a civil war, which the Pakistani-backed Taliban were able to come out on top and were supporters of AQ's mission. It was actually our support of our strong ally (something we counted as a blessing) Saudi Arabia after Saddam Insane invaded Kuwait. At that time, the Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the world, the Kingdom was afraid they'd be next and so they asked for our aid, in turn turning down Bin Laden's offer to send his Mujahadeen that had just had victory in Afghanistan. That's what pissed off OBL- the decadent, depraved westerners in the holy land and fighting their battles for them.
Of course, anyone who remembers, that war only lasted about 100 hours... I'm willing to bet (and I didn't go to a war college, but I have studied warfare my entire life) the Muj would have been fighting Saddam's army well into the 21st century. The Ruso-Afghan war was fought away from Soviet Russia (home advantage: 0), they were no longer backed by the U.S. after defeating the Russians, and guerrilla tactics count for shit in open, desert terrain.
So, bryjcom, you're making inaccurate conclusions based on very faulty conditional logic. That'd be like saying "We lost Vietnam, that's why Obama is president now."
If you honestly think that our actions in the ME and around the world don't have negative consequences then I can't help you.
If you honestly think that our actions in the ME and around the world don't have negative consequences then I can't help you.
I never said that- I simply said that you're making false connections between things. For one, WE discovered oil in Saudi Arabia, which is what led to the western "invasion" of the Middle East in the 1930's. WE helped them set up their own oil industry and exchanged a protective agreement with the Kingdom in exchange for favor in oil trading. WE freed Kuwait. WE were the aid needed for the Mujahadeen to defeat the Soviets. But they never look at the good we've done for everyone, they see only our missteps (US Troops stationed in Kuwait and SA, our drawn out campaigns in the ME, and expansive influence in the region).
And Rucker- Kim Il Sung became leader of North Korea in 1948, following the end of Japanese Occupation after WWII, and the division of the Korean peninsula. Kim Jong Il became "supreme leader" in 1995 after his father's death. The Korean war began when NK invaded SK in 1950. Unless we completely took over NK at the end of the war (referred to as the Korean Civil War) Kim Il Sung would have invaded anyway... Wouldn't make a lick of difference if the Korean War happened or not, unless Sung was removed from power and thus cutting the line between him and his son as ruler.
I never said that- I simply said that you're making false connections between things. For one, WE discovered oil in Saudi Arabia, which is what led to the western "invasion" of the Middle East in the 1930's. WE helped them set up their own oil industry and exchanged a protective agreement with the Kingdom in exchange for favor in oil trading. WE freed Kuwait. WE were the aid needed for the Mujahadeen to defeat the Soviets. But they never look at the good we've done for everyone, they see only our missteps (US Troops stationed in Kuwait and SA, our drawn out campaigns in the ME, and expansive influence in the region).
And Rucker- Kim Il Sung became leader of North Korea in 1948, following the end of Japanese Occupation after WWII, and the division of the Korean peninsula. Kim Jong Il became "supreme leader" in 1995 after his father's death. The Korean war began when NK invaded SK in 1950. Unless we completely took over NK at the end of the war (referred to as the Korean Civil War) Kim Il Sung would have invaded anyway... Wouldn't make a lick of difference if the Korean War happened or not, unless Sung was removed from power and thus cutting the line between him and his son as ruler.
I don't think your seeing my point. You keep going off into these little tangent history lessons that don't prove your point(What ever that point may be, I haven't really figured it out yet). If anything your tangents prove my point.
Our involvement and militarization of the Korean Penninsula is why the North Koreans hate us and why they actively sought out nuclear weapons.
Can you blame them? If we were a small country and had the most powerful military at our southern border for 50 years, you would want nukes too. Simply put, we are the catalyst for their aggression. I referred to their "behavior" as Kim Jong Il. Your too caught up on "who" instead of "what", hence your improper analogy of Obama and Vietnam and your insistence to keep "informing" us with your history lessons.
Your tangent about the middle east really proves my point as well. We involve ourselves in their shit and we end up spending metric fucktons of $$$, getting our guys killed, and still end up having them pissed at us.
They use that hatred as their fuel for their vehicle, with their vehicle being Islam....Can't go anywhere with out the other one.
you need to go back to school and pick up on some world history as well as a bit of psychology. the connections you draw are not even close to that black and white, there is a lot of history involved and a lot of nut jobs that certainly weren't elected by the people and have their own destructive agendas. if you look at the history in all of the unstable regions you will see that it wasn't as if the place was a utopia until we walked in. in many cases it was a choice between this tough decision or that tough decision, and which one produces the most negative situation is impossible to guess. furthermore, the leaders of many of these nations aren't good guys who just happen to hate america or just simply want to defend their tiny nations. the majority are dictators who took power by force and lived out their days trying to feed their egos with unneeded threats to their neighbors as well as purposely holding their people in poverty to help build their personal wealth and military might.
ron paul's genius, simplistic view of the world is going to run into some problems when complicated situations inevitably arise where you have to decide between right and wrong, protecting the weak and standing up to the strong, and if nothing else protecting resources or nations that are vital to the well being of america. it all sounds good on paper, but it isn't realistic because these complicated conflicts come up all the time and as the strongest nation it puts us in a tough spot. would ron paul have gone into kuwait to stop the lunatic saddam hussein? what would he do if israel was attacked by syria, egypt, iran and saudia arabia? what would he do if venezuela invaded surrounding south american neighbors? news flash for the naive, it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do, someone is now pissed at america.
and best yet, would his policy be to never leave a base in areas on instability? if so, we are going to be right back over there. thats the whole point of the bases, keep a small but visible show of force in areas where there has been conflict to help ensure there won't be any wars breaking out. and guess what, its got a pretty damn good track record.
either way, being the strongest means we have to make tough decisions where there is no clear right or wrong. inaction is going to cause as much american hatred as action, you are just going to be pissing off other people for other reasons. you can't make everyone happy, there are too many different motives and beliefs out there to not piss someone off.
I don't think your seeing my point. You keep going off into these little tangent history lessons that don't prove your point(What ever that point may be, I haven't really figured it out yet). If anything your tangents prove my point.
Our involvement and militarization of the Korean Penninsula is why the North Koreans hate us and why they actively sought out nuclear weapons.
Can you blame them? If we were a small country and had the most powerful military at our southern border for 50 years, you would want nukes too. Simply put, we are the catalyst for their aggression. I referred to their "behavior" as Kim Jong Il. Your too caught up on "who" instead of "what", hence your improper analogy of Obama and Vietnam and your insistence to keep "informing" us with your history lessons.
Your tangent about the middle east really proves my point as well. We involve ourselves in their shit and we end up spending metric fucktons of $$$, getting our guys killed, and still end up having them pissed at us.
They use that hatred as their fuel for their vehicle, with their vehicle being Islam....Can't go anywhere with out the other one.
I don't think your seeing my point. You keep going off into these little tangent history lessons that don't prove your point(What ever that point may be, I haven't really figured it out yet). If anything your tangents prove my point.
Our involvement and militarization of the Korean Penninsula is why the North Koreans hate us and why they actively sought out nuclear weapons.
Can you blame them? If we were a small country and had the most powerful military at our southern border for 50 years, you would want nukes too. Simply put, we are the catalyst for their aggression. I referred to their "behavior" as Kim Jong Il. Your too caught up on "who" instead of "what", hence your improper analogy of Obama and Vietnam and your insistence to keep "informing" us with your history lessons.
Your tangent about the middle east really proves my point as well. We involve ourselves in their shit and we end up spending metric fucktons of $$$, getting our guys killed, and still end up having them pissed at us.
They use that hatred as their fuel for their vehicle, with their vehicle being Islam....Can't go anywhere with out the other one.
First off, I figured you're clueless about the actual history, and it's almost as if you didn't even read anything I posted... comprehend this- the conclusions you drew, with faulty logic, are wrong. There I said it. Not saying your head or heart is in the wrong place, just that you drew conclusions that are false. You also act like it's 100% our fault, we're the big bad American bully out to spoil everyone else's lunch. We are not solely to blame for the world's problems, while we're not completely innocent, it really does take two to tango.
I don't think you are seeing my point. We didn't create all of our enemies, like you would have us all believe. Bin Laden would still exist if we didn't piss him off (he would have found another reason to go to war with us). Again, reading comprehension here (I'll bold the important part for you): North Korea hates us because we sided with the South. THEY invaded SK which is what started the Korean war. THEY were the aggressors. It was MacArthur, when he was the military governor of Japan, that received the call from the South Koreans that the North had crossed the 38th Parallel and had engaged in hostilities... they asked for our help and we went to help our friends.
I keep "informing" you with these history lessons because it's a little annoying when people get it wrong and try to pass off false or inaccurate information as truth. Hence why I hate democrats.
Rooskibar03
09-07-2012, 10:35
I keep "informing" you with these history lessons because it's a little annoying when people get it wrong and try to pass off false or inaccurate information as truth. Hence why I hate democrats.
Ronin I have to commend your knowledge and history. Its to argue facts and history, which is why the progressives continue to re-write it leave out the bits that contradict there agenda.
I know you take a lot of crap for being a winey little girl here ([Coffee]) but you seem to be a stand up guy IMHO.
Ronin I have to commend your knowledge and history. Its to argue facts and history, which is why the progressives continue to re-write it leave out the bits that contradict there agenda.
I know you take a lot of crap for being a winey little girl here ([Coffee]) but you seem to be a stand up guy IMHO.
Thank you! [Beer]
History has always been my favorite subject... now if we can just get the History Channel to cool it with the reality shows and get back to the connections between Ancient Aliens and Hitler! [LOL]
This thread was a good read thanks everyone.
Lets take North and South Korea since it's been made an example of.
North Korea has something like 1.5 million troops.
South Korea has something like 20,000 marines and whatever South Korea has 650,000 troops
South Korea has a kick ass economy. They don't live in the dark starving to death like their brothers in the North. I belive South Korea is the 12th largest economy in the world. South Korea is a developed modern country.
Why don't they defend themselves? It's expensive and they don't have to when we will do it for them. Must be nice not having to cover that bill right?
Lets face it...South Korea can handle their own. If they want our 20,000 marines right there to die first if the North acts up...they need to pay for it. South Korea of 2012 is not the South Korea of the 1950's.
Also talking about history lets bring up Great Britain. Remember how the sun never set on the British Empire. Sound familiar to what were doing now? Guess what happened..they couldn't afford it over time. We stepped in took over and now we suffer the same fate.
Not only do we have too many on welfare here, but we have too many still clinging to the tit around the world.
Whew diarrhea of the mouth sorry.
I'll second with the props for Ronin. I think someone with your mindset will make a good cop. Good luck with Jeffco.
Also talking about history lets bring up Great Britain. Remember how the sun never set on the British Empire. Sound familiar to what were doing now? Guess what happened..they couldn't afford it over time. We stepped in took over and now we suffer the same fate.
Not only do we have too many on welfare here, but we have too many still clinging to the tit around the world.
Speaking of GB, anyone else here know anything about the Falkland Conflict? From what little I do know, it was a sovereign British Territory that was invaded by Argentina in 1980 claiming it was theirs and they were taking it back. Rightful owner aside (although there were British citizens there that were held hostage), in 2016 Dinesh D'Souza makes a good point that Obama sides with Argentina and not our closest ally... huh? I wonder where Ron Paul would go on that issue. We committed nothing, lose nothing, gain nothing, but it is our friend and aren't we at least supposed to back up our friends, at least with moral support?
I'll second with the props for Ronin. I think someone with your mindset will make a good cop. Good luck with Jeffco.
Thank you, I appreciate that!
Speaking of GB, anyone else here know anything about the Falkland Conflict? From what little I do know, it was a sovereign British Territory that was invaded by Argentina in 1980 claiming it was theirs and they were taking it back. Rightful owner aside (although there were British citizens there that were held hostage), in 2016 Dinesh D'Souza makes a good point that Obama sides with Argentina and not our closest ally... huh? I wonder where Ron Paul would go on that issue. We committed nothing, lose nothing, gain nothing, but it is our friend and aren't we at least supposed to back up our friends, at least with moral support?
Ron Paul probably doesn't know where Great Britain is, much less The Falkland Islands.
Ron Paul probably doesn't know where Great Britain is, much less The Falkland Islands.
[ROFL1] I think I peed a little!
Thank you! [Beer]
History has always been my favorite subject... now if we can just get the History Channel to cool it with the reality shows and get back to the connections between Ancient Aliens and Hitler! [LOL]
I know right?
I assure you south Korea would have no problem defending itself against north Korea. It's not all about numbers. When you can outrage your opponent, have air superiority and better radar you can make short work of numbers. We are there for one reason, to keep Russia and china out of any potential conflict. Lest we forget the real problem in the Korean war want the north Koreans, it was the Chinese. Same goes for Vietnam with Russian pilots flying their migs. It's never been just about stopping the aggressors but stopping the communists of china and Russia from exerting their sphere of influence on that side of the world. Keeping them at bay in Korea and Afghanistan, and especially western Europe after ww2 was instrumental in defeating communism on a grad scale. Those evil bases play a critical role.
This thread was a good read thanks everyone.
Lets take North and South Korea since it's been made an example of.
North Korea has something like 1.5 million troops.
South Korea has something like 20,000 marines and whatever South Korea has 650,000 troops
South Korea has a kick ass economy. They don't live in the dark starving to death like their brothers in the North. I belive South Korea is the 12th largest economy in the world. South Korea is a developed modern country.
Why don't they defend themselves? It's expensive and they don't have to when we will do it for them. Must be nice not having to cover that bill right?
Lets face it...South Korea can handle their own. If they want our 20,000 marines right there to die first if the North acts up...they need to pay for it. South Korea of 2012 is not the South Korea of the 1950's.
Also talking about history lets bring up Great Britain. Remember how the sun never set on the British Empire. Sound familiar to what were doing now? Guess what happened..they couldn't afford it over time. We stepped in took over and now we suffer the same fate.
Not only do we have too many on welfare here, but we have too many still clinging to the tit around the world.
Whew diarrhea of the mouth sorry.
First off, I figured you're clueless about the actual history, and it's almost as if you didn't even read anything I posted... comprehend this- the conclusions you drew, with faulty logic, are wrong. There I said it. Not saying your head or heart is in the wrong place, just that you drew conclusions that are false. You also act like it's 100% our fault, we're the big bad American bully out to spoil everyone else's lunch. We are not solely to blame for the world's problems, while we're not completely innocent, it really does take two to tango.
I don't think you are seeing my point. We didn't create all of our enemies, like you would have us all believe. Bin Laden would still exist if we didn't piss him off (he would have found another reason to go to war with us). Again, reading comprehension here (I'll bold the important part for you): North Korea hates us because we sided with the South. THEY invaded SK which is what started the Korean war. THEY were the aggressors. It was MacArthur, when he was the military governor of Japan, that received the call from the South Koreans that the North had crossed the 38th Parallel and had engaged in hostilities... they asked for our help and we went to help our friends.
I keep "informing" you with these history lessons because it's a little annoying when people get it wrong and try to pass off false or inaccurate information as truth. Hence why I hate democrats.\
I see your point. We actually agree...I also think that you think I have no idea on world history.... Your wrong. I still think your missing my point though.
I understand that we would still have enemies in the world. Thats not my point. My point is that even though we screw around with the countries, its seems to do no good......For us at least. And in the middle east it tends to just inflame them even more.
I understand that South Korea asked us for our help and from what I understand also is MacArthur wanted to use nukes as well but the was told no, I also know that we were about to win that war but we started bombing bridges on the Yalu river which pissed the Chinese off which ultimately ended in us getting pushed back to the 38th parallel in stalemate.I know who engaged in hostilities first. (And no I didn't just google that shit either. I actually knew that stuff.[ROFL1])
My point is that we involved ourselves in a civil war and we ended up with a bunch of dead GIs, lots of money spent, and my wife's Grandfather with nightmares every night. And at the end of all that??? We still have a crazy fucker running things in N. Korea and we still are spending shit tons of money there. Make sense on what I'm saying????
You originally took offense to a post where I generalized some problems that we face at this current time to prove a point, that we shouldn't have even wasted our time and money in the first place, because where has it gotten us??
I wasn't trying to establish a historical timeline or rewrite the history books.
HoneyBadger
09-07-2012, 19:44
Ron Paul probably doesn't know where Great Britain is, much less The Falkland Islands.
1st rule of politics: only resort to the ad hominem attack with you don't have an actual argument.
There's a couple million south Koreans that would dispute it was for nothing. Many Iraqis and afghanis, despite what you see on television, are glad they have more freedoms now, even with the conflict that still exists. I know for a fact the kuwaiti people are pretty gracious towards Americans, I've seen it first hand. Perhaps the American lives aren't worth it to save theirs in your opinion, but morally that's an awfully hard line to draw. Furthermore it gives us an advanced and fairly powerful ally in south Korea where today there could be a much larger and more dangerous peoples republic of Korea. Kuwait allows us a base and staging point for possible conflicts as well as secures a source of oil that otherwise would be in the hands of saddam. Probably the biggest advantage it gave us, in both of those as well as other conflicts, is that it stopped tyrannical regimes in their tracks. What if saddam successfully took over Kuwait, or the north conquers the south? Then what? Do they stop there or press on? What did you expect out of these conflicts, truck loads of gold? Doing what's right isn't always what's easy. Our boys died and that's sad but I for one don't think it was for nothing. It brought peace and security to many good people and weakened our enemies as well as strengthened our allies.
\
I see your point. We actually agree...I also think that you think I have no idea on world history.... Your wrong. I still think your missing my point though.
I understand that we would still have enemies in the world. Thats not my point. My point is that even though we screw around with the countries, its seems to do no good......For us at least. And in the middle east it tends to just inflame them even more.
I understand that South Korea asked us for our help and from what I understand also is MacArthur wanted to use nukes as well but the was told no, I also know that we were about to win that war but we started bombing bridges on the Yalu river which pissed the Chinese off which ultimately ended in us getting pushed back to the 38th parallel in stalemate.I know who engaged in hostilities first. (And no I didn't just google that shit either. I actually knew that stuff.[ROFL1])
My point is that we involved ourselves in a civil war and we ended up with a bunch of dead GIs, lots of money spent, and my wife's Grandfather with nightmares every night. And at the end of all that??? We still have a crazy fucker running things in N. Korea and we still are spending shit tons of money there. Make sense on what I'm saying????
You originally took offense to a post where I generalized some problems that we face at this current time to prove a point, that we shouldn't have even wasted our time and money in the first place, because where has it gotten us??
I wasn't trying to establish a historical timeline or rewrite the history books.
There's a couple million south Koreans that would dispute it was for nothing. Many Iraqis and afghanis, despite what you see on television, are glad they have more freedoms now, even with the conflict that still exists. I know for a fact the kuwaiti people are pretty gracious towards Americans, I've seen it first hand. Perhaps the American lives aren't worth it to save theirs in your opinion, but morally that's an awfully hard line to draw. Furthermore it gives us an advanced and fairly powerful ally in south Korea where today there could be a much larger and more dangerous peoples republic of Korea. Kuwait allows us a base and staging point for possible conflicts as well as secures a source of oil that otherwise would be in the hands of saddam. Probably the biggest advantage it gave us, in both of those as well as other conflicts, is that it stopped tyrannical regimes in their tracks. What if saddam successfully took over Kuwait, or the north conquers the south? Then what? Do they stop there or press on? What did you expect out of these conflicts, truck loads of gold? Doing what's right isn't always what's easy. Our boys died and that's sad but I for one don't think it was for nothing. It brought peace and security to many good people and weakened our enemies as well as strengthened our allies.
I don't doubt that we've done good for other people and their nations, but at what cost to us?
We can't afford to be the police men and the "liberators" any more. Its just too damn expensive and we will ultimately sacrifice our security for theirs.
I believe S. Koreans are capable of paying for their national security just as easily as the Israelis, and the Germans, and the French, and the British and so on, and so on...
Its not just gonna take cuts to entitlement spending that's gonna save this nation fiscally... Its gonna take cuts to our "empire" spending as well.
Teufelhund
09-08-2012, 10:40
I don't doubt that we've done good for other people and their nations, but at what cost to us?
We can't afford to be the police men and the "liberators" any more. Its just too damn expensive and we will ultimately sacrifice our security for theirs.
I believe S. Koreans are capable of paying for their national security just as easily as the Israelis, and the Germans, and the French, and the British and so on, and so on...
Its not just gonna take cuts to entitlement spending that's gonna save this nation fiscally... Its gonna take cuts to our "empire" spending as well.
I second all of this. Not to mention they all hate us regardless of all the "good" we do for them. Remember when we liberated Kuwait from the evil bastard knocking down their door? I was in country shortly after, and I can tell you every Kuwaiti I met absolutely despises us. Show me a foreign country that loves having Americans on their soil to bring them involuntary freedom and democracy, and I'll show you some bullshit you just made up.
well if you are that deluded to call it an empire and can't see the complexities of keeping evil in the world at bay then this really is a waste of time debating. sitting in south korea isn't just to protect south korea, and especially not to just protect them from north korea. sitting in kuwait isn't just to protect them from enemies, and certainly not just iraq. having bases in europe, particularly eastern europe, isn't just to protect them from their neighbors. we keep a small show of force all around the world so that the big dogs don't get the itch to march into a neighboring nation to take their resources as history has shown they often get the itch to do. if you want to save the money by removing all the bases, fine, but don't sit there and be unrealistic to act as though there will be no whirl wind from that. the world won't sit by and play nice if we remove ourselves from the equation. perhaps that is acceptable to you. fine. but you, and your dear friend ron paul, better have it already planned out as to how you are going to react when the shit inevitably hits the fan.
this is about as bad as the gop and democrats on the economy. no one talks about what they WILL do, they instead act holier than thou and say what they won't do with no plan whatsoever to take care the problems that exist out there. to think removing ourselves will solve all problems is incredibly naive and childish. if ron paul would like to lay out how he would deal with all of the geopolitical problems as well as current terrorists threats, id be all ears. saying he will simply disengage isn't a plan.
I don't doubt that we've done good for other people and their nations, but at what cost to us?
We can't afford to be the police men and the "liberators" any more. Its just too damn expensive and we will ultimately sacrifice our security for theirs.
I believe S. Koreans are capable of paying for their national security just as easily as the Israelis, and the Germans, and the French, and the British and so on, and so on...
Its not just gonna take cuts to entitlement spending that's gonna save this nation fiscally... Its gonna take cuts to our "empire" spending as well.
Delete. I owe you a better response
well if you are that deluded to call it an empire and can't see the complexities of keeping evil in the world at bay then this really is a waste of time debating. sitting in south korea isn't just to protect south korea, and especially not to just protect them from north korea. sitting in kuwait isn't just to protect them from enemies, and certainly not just iraq. having bases in europe, particularly eastern europe, isn't just to protect them from their neighbors. we keep a small show of force all around the world so that the big dogs don't get the itch to march into a neighboring nation to take their resources as history has shown they often get the itch to do. if you want to save the money by removing all the bases, fine, but don't sit there and be unrealistic to act as though there will be no whirl wind from that. the world won't sit by and play nice if we remove ourselves from the equation. perhaps that is acceptable to you. fine. but you, and your dear friend ron paul, better have it already planned out as to how you are going to react when the shit inevitably hits the fan.
this is about as bad as the gop and democrats on the economy. no one talks about what they WILL do, they instead act holier than thou and say what they won't do with no plan whatsoever to take care the problems that exist out there. to think removing ourselves will solve all problems is incredibly naive and childish. if ron paul would like to lay out how he would deal with all of the geopolitical problems as well as current terrorists threats, id be all ears. saying he will simply disengage isn't a plan.
I understand the hesitation of doing something totally radical to what the norm is. Trust me. I get it.
But I'm only going to focus on one part of your post where you said:
the world won't sit by and play nice if we remove ourselves from the equation.
My question to you is this. What will the world do when the U.S collapses due to fiscal insolvency? What then? What type of "whirlwind" will occur from that?
You have to have a end to the game somehow.
Great-Kazoo
09-08-2012, 19:45
95 post and this is still alive? RP is out of the running could we do the same with this?
Teufelhund
09-08-2012, 23:58
Good idea, jim.
Gary Johnson 2012! A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama!
[Pot]
Great-Kazoo
09-09-2012, 00:29
Good idea, jim.
Gary Johnson 2012! A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama!
[Pot]
BBQ what BBQ?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.