Well said; this is the reason why I like to distinguish myself as a "neo-libertarian" (thank you Wikipedia).

Don't know about this one though: "Conversely, W is only moderately supportive of this policy..."

How so?

Harvey, you're right. There are some good points made by him. My problem with the guy is more or less what you said. Also, the damn Libertarian Party can't seem to go 2 days without wanting pot legal. At least at the local level.

We, as a country, can not stick our heads in the damn sand and hope the evil people out there wont see us. I would *love* to see someone running right now say "If you are a terrorist we WILL kill you. If your country helps terrorists in any way, shape or form. We WILL kill your country. There will be nothing left. And, if anyone tries to stop us, they will also pay the price. Because the life of 1 American IS worth going to war over."� (O.K, I stole that last part from RHs starship troopers. At least that was in the book.) I would also LOVE to have anyone running right now say every guy that is overseas now fighting, or already did 1 or more tours, can get a bonus for every terrorist he kills. That would really send the message that we are't playing games, and Mr. Nice Guy has left the building. Of course I won't be holding my breath for any of this to happen.

Hell, they won't even bother to do anything productive about the borders. Or all the illegals already here. I guess being the only super power left still doesn't give us the juice to offend the 3rd world. And Ron Paul just does not have a snowballs chance in hell.

So what do we do now?

Don't know about this one though: "Conversely, W is only moderately supportive of this policy..."

How so?
Cozying up to Saudi Arabia, Fatah, etc.
Excellent post, Harvey

bgrx, off the top of my head, the amount of money given to the Saudis in aid. The problems in the Sudan. Iran playing games and helping terrorists. Also, the Philippians are more or less Christians surrounded by Islamic countries and terrorists. I *believe* they were fighting al quada long before 9/11 happened.

Then there's treating the bastards better then they deserve. They are NOT POWs. This should help explain why. Quick history background...
During WW2 the Navy made the Seabees because "Under international law civilians were not permitted to resist enemy military attack. Resistance meant summary execution as guerrillas." http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq67-3.htm

Here is the Geneva Convention site:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In a nutshell, it seems to me that the people running the show are more worried about 'looking good' then winning.
also #2 was me.

If what you're saying is true, why invade Iraq?

AQ's base of operations was in Pakistan and we left the job unfinished in Afghanistan.

W fed you a fake story about freedom and safety when he was just serving the interests of Saudi princes.

If you want to make Americans safer, killing terrorists isn't going to do it. Hello, they're SUICIDE bombers. Killing 10 of them isn't going to make the next 100 hesitate to join the jihad.

Attack their funding source (oil profits) and their motivations (individual economic disadvantage caused by corruption). That the smart and effective way to do it.

The Israelis have been trying to use hard power to force the Arabs to submit for 60 years now. How's that working?

The Preamble to the Constitution says to "provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare." The Democrats have it backwards, as is displayed in how the "support the troops": they go to provide the general welfare and promote the common defence. Republicans seem to want to provide for the common defence and provide the general welfare. I dunno, maybe they think that General Welfare is the theatre commander.

The Libertarians tend to ignore the Declaration of Independence as a founding document; particularly the inalienable rights of ALL mankind. A case can be made for that, under a strict observance and adherence to law, because the Federal Government does not exist outside of the Constitution. But a house will not stand with only half of its foundation.

The biggest problem with the Libertarian party, though, is the difficulty that so many have in distiguishing between being a Libertarian and being a Libertine. A true Libertarian recognizes the participation and obligations that an individual has toward community, and what can in turn be expected from the community. A Libertine merely wants his or her own unfettered hedonism, with no debt owed to society. That is not a society, and that is not a philosophy. That kind of thinking will result in tribalism, ruled by the local strong-man because it by itself is defenceless. Think Somolia.

"If what you're saying is true, why invade Iraq?"

Harvey gave my answer for this -

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

If you want to make Americans safer, killing terrorists isn't going to do it. Hello, they're SUICIDE bombers. Killing 10 of them isn't going to make the next 100 hesitate to join the jihad.

Our purpose isn't to make them hesitate. Our purpose is to kill 'em. If we can, great.

The Israelis have been trying to use hard power to force the Arabs to submit for 60 years now. How's that working?

See, lately, not really - or, at least, not as much. I'd argue that the Israelis were in a much better situation when they were relying more on hard power. Negotiations weren't a bad idea, but given the way they went about it, they gave the Palestinians the impression that they were worn out and tired of fighting - which led the other side to conclude that if they just upped the violence, they'd have more leverage. Disengagement over there has also left what could of been the more moderate and sane Palestinians in a position where they get all their news from the wackos and have to count on them for their livelihood. Now they're being run by the feckless opportunist that is Ehud Olmert and god knows what's going through his head.

ss396 - "General Welfare is the theatre commander." LOL that was good one. Another problem is, about the ONLY thing the Dems and Reps can agree on, would be that they don't want 3rd parties around. Can we even be sure the Libertarians will/will not be any good if they're never given a chance? The deck is stacked against them too much.

#5 - "Attack their funding source (oil profits) and their motivations (individual economic disadvantage caused by corruption). That the smart and effective way to do it."

All of which can be solved by killing their leaders. Then setting up a new government. One that knows that the whole world IS watching. One that will treat their people better, such as letting girls go to school. No more "honor killings", no more marrying girls off at an early age. No more telling kids blowing themselves up is something all the "kewl kidz" do.

And in the fullness of time. Do everything they can to piss us off. (See France)

Also, Israel is still around because they aren't afraid to use force. Having a nice cuppa tea, talking about feelings and group hugs won't stop any terrorists. A bullet to the head will.

I agree, Harvey. Heck, that's the reason I read 11 Republican blogs and only 1 Libertarian one.

The Israelis have been trying to use hard power to force the Arabs to submit for 60 years now. How's that working?

WAL's spot on.

I don't believe that Israel was trying to get the Arabs to submit to anything. Rather, it was more like the other way around. Ariel Sharon expelled 21 Jewish settlements in Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank. The result? Muslims all over the world patting each other on the back & saying "Look! Our barbaric terrorism worked!"

And that's what happens when you negotiate with terrorists; you lose ground after losing so many lives. That's also why Dr. Paul should not be the leader of the free world because he'd negotiate with people who, instead of being reduced to their biological components, will once again have the opportunities to make "peace" deals they have absolutely no intention of keeping.

But maybe he's not as bad as, let's say, Barry-O. Among his first acts as President would be traveling to hostile nations (mostly Muslim ones...like himself) and negotiating right off the bat. Now that's just a little worrisome.

I think we should negotiate some more with people who want to kill someone for naming a teddy bear! Sarcasm now off...

I think Hitler would agree with this right you speak of to invade other countries.

Its not fascism when we do it!!

...which is why you are an idiot...but then again, we see Pajamas Media over there on the left, that should tell it all. Website is run by two 12 year old boys....

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once 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 standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...." President Adams

What bothers me most when I read pieces like this is not that people misunderstand Dr. Paul's position on non-interventionism, but that they completely ignore his brilliant solution to the terrorist problem. Either that or people have bitten into the falacy that nothing short of continual pre-emptive war can end terrorism; a notion which is peculiar and without shred of supporting reasoning or evidence to say the least.

Ron Paul is all for going after the terrorists using the Constitutional tools that were created to attack non-state actors; letters of marque and reprisal. What he is not for is the wholesale invasion, occupation, and nationbuilding operations under the color of the UN banner for the purported reason of "spreading democracy." He is also for closing our borders which is the most important thing we can do to prevent terrorists from smuggling in weapons or personnel to visit violence on our own shores.

Here's your war on terror. We were attacked by 19 guys with $4 worth of weapons. 19 guys. Half a bus, almost a row in a movie theater. 19 men with $4 worth of weapons. This was not a war. We made it a war. Instead of realizing it was 19 guys with $4 worth of weapons, we made it against countries. We turned an organization with a few hundred members into thousands who now have a reason to hate us. Bring our troops home, secure our borders and nobody can touch us. 19 guys, $4 worth of weapons.

Yeah, 'cuz Hitler was all about fighting dictatorships and setting up democracies.

-

P.S. The Baathist Party started out as overtly fascist. Not an accusation, but something they openly proclaimed. Those were the people in power. Those are the guys we overthrew. And those are the guys you're pissed we attacked.

P.P.S. Godwin's Law

"Here's your war on terror. We were attacked by 19 guys with $4 worth of weapons. 19 guys. Half a bus, almost a row in a movie theater. 19 men with $4 worth of weapons. This was not a war."

Bin Laden officially declared war on us in 96 and attacked us for years before. Apparently you missed that.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mohandas Gandhi

"Bin Laden officially declared war on us in 96 and attacked us for years before. Apparently you missed that."

Which just illustrates why a non-interventionist foreign policy is better. We helped create Bin Laden with huge sums of money and equipment from the CIA during the Soviet-Afghani war when we decided to foment radical islam against our enemy. One can only wonder what enemy we're creating for ourselves right now (Pakistan?) in our rush to fight the last enemy we built up.

There are a couple of reasons why you are wrong:
1. You assume that the US is always correct when identifying enemies and tyrants. This is of course wrong. As far as I'm concerned the US shuld be attacking its own govt for it tyrannical tax and economic policies.
2. You have gotten the libertarian position confused. We do not have a duty, we may have a right, but only if we can make things better. I'm not sure we have in any part of the world we have interefered in, including Iraq and Somalia.
3. Attacking dictators and such in the name of "self-defense" or democratization misses the point and doesn't stop the problems at their source. The reason we are attacked is because we meddle in the affairs of others, justly or unjustly. Our foreign policy causes hated and sustains it by allowing tyrants to demogogue the presence of the US in their country. Tyranny is not sustainable unless you have a common enemy. The middle east has a common enemy that they call the US Govt.

This is a satire site like The Onion, right? Please tell me it is.

"Bin Laden officially declared war on us in 96 and attacked us for years before. Apparently you missed that."

Bin Laden is no position to declare wars any more than I am. Unfortunately, he can do damage occasionally but that doesn't make it war.

What he declared is irrelevant until he becomes a president of a country. Then, we will nuke that country.

"Which just illustrates why a non-interventionist foreign policy is better. We helped create Bin Laden with huge sums of money and equipment from the CIA during the Soviet-Afghani war when we decided to foment radical islam against our enemy."

No, we did not help create Bin Laden. We gave money to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban, the former of which Bin Laden's most prominent role was not completely getting his ass kicked during an attempted retreat.

Either way, Bin Laden's absolutely loaded and hardly needed anybody's money, much less what little he got from us.

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

You have no clue about international law...Such a statement is extremely frightening.

"Bin Laden is no position to declare wars any more than I am. Unfortunately, he can do damage occasionally but that doesn't make it war."

Yes, he is and he did far more than you could ever do.

You are not the head of a major terrorist organization. He is and was before 9/11. You also are not tied in with the leadership of a country which is protecting you and letting you operate. He was.

"You have no clue about international law...Such a statement is extremely frightening."

You should call the international police to come arrest us.

"No, we did not help create Bin Laden. We gave money to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban, the former of which Bin Laden's most prominent role was not completely getting his ass kicked during an attempted retreat.

Either way, Bin Laden's absolutely loaded and hardly needed anybody's money, much less what little he got from us."

The money we sent, the supplies, the training, it all went to radical islamic fighters for the most part and it was those types of individuals who made up the bin laden movement. We aided his movement however you look at it regardless of where the physical dollars went. When you start tossing money around it ends up in all kinds of unexpected places.

Hey Folks,

The Get Them Before They Get Us Thing Only Goes so Far.

Once you have cleaned out the collective and you run out of large targets things go south as a military option.

The trick is to look at it from the shoes of the country you are "helping".

I saw a lot of smiles when we came in and tore up a bunch of dominating jackasses. those smiles have diminished as we stay and kill more civilians due to "wrong place wrong time" or "bad intel".

If I were in a country that had an oppressive arangement I would laud those that allowed me to not have to continue under it.

However when my neighbors and my family began to die in the "Heavy Handed" tactics that Soldiers use; I would think twice about their benevolence.

As A Soldier I know this to be Fact => Soldiers Do Not Make Good Police And Police Do Not Make Good Soldiers. Their Job Descriptions Are Completely Different.

If you refuse to look from the vantage of "what if my situation was theirs" you will continue with veiled understanding of situation and will bring war to our own shores.

Cleaning Out Of Evil I Agree. Long Term Embedded In The Populous As Peace Keepers I Do Not.

We Are Bankrupting the country with this quest to continue Empire. Your Proposed "Cure" Is Becoming Worse Than The "Disease".

Do Not Base Your Decisions On The Emotion Of Fear. Emotions Do Not Allow For Logical Conclusion.

"No, we did not help create Bin Laden. We gave money to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban, the former of which Bin Laden's most prominent role was not completely getting his ass kicked during an attempted retreat.

Either way, Bin Laden's absolutely loaded and hardly needed anybody's money, much less what little he got from us."

The money we sent, the supplies, the training, it all went to radical islamic fighters for the most part and it was those types of individuals who made up the Bin Laden movement. We aided his movement however you look at it regardless of where the physical dollars went. When you start tossing money around it ends up in all kinds of unexpected places.

You can't get out of it; we aided and funded the people who are now our enemies. It didn't begin or end with just the radical islamic fighters either. We aided Iraq for years. We aided Iran for years. Its time to stop the madness of all these unintended consequences.

"The money we sent, the supplies, the training, it all went to radical islamic fighters for the most part and it was those types of individuals who made up the bin laden movement."

No, it did not. It went to those who opposed the Soviets. Those are the people who came to power after the Soviets left and those are largely the people Bin Laden toppled when the Taliban came to power. Opposing the Soviet Union and supporting radical Islam even in the Middle East is not one and the same. Bin Laden did also oppose the Soviets, but 1. According to everybody who knew him at the time, his hatred of the West and the United States was already ingrained and he had little interaction with our guys, 2. The Taliban comes for word "student." The bulk of its members weren't even old enough to fight when the Afghan war was occurring, much less were people we were involved with.

They're afraid someone will worship the Teddy Bear.

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

Exactly right! Our founding fathers started from the premise that freedom is a right bestowed by our creator - or for the atheists among us - that freedom is the rightful, natural state for mankind. If you accept that premise then spreading that freedom to others is an act of restoring their natural and deserved place in the world. It is a good and righteous thing.

If you believe that people in less fortunate countries should simply accept their status as slaves to those who run the machinery of the state or that they undeserving of our help in attaining the freedom that is their birthright - then you are a sad and sorry excuse for a human being.

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

I don't think Ron Paul would disagree with that statement. However, Iraq never threatened our existence and Al Qaida lacks the ability to terminate our existence (even if the set off a dirty bomb). We detonated two nuclear devices over Japan after about four years of rigorous conventional warfare. Yet, Japan was still in existence. If we had invaded the mainland and launch an indiscriminate genocidal campaign to kill and conquer, then it could have been erased from the map. You think Al Qaida can do that?

What is a far more potent in unraveling America is the mindless prosecution of the War on Terror. The American free republic has suffered more damage in the name of freedom than from the stated enemy.

#29 - Posted by: Pliny on December 1, 2007 04:27 PM

Every action anybody takes has unintended consequences. I appreciate the inclination to stop taking any action, but with America's size and power and, more importantly its being the only one both willing and able to topple dictatorships - taking no action on our part has as many negative consequences as taking action. (When's the last time any other Western countries toppled a dictatorship?)

Furthermore, it's not helpful to discuss our past actions among dictatorships (for the record Hussein got the bulk of his armaments from the French and the Russians) without bringing the Cold War into it. It's nice to Monday morning quarterback, but the Soviet Union and spread of communism was a bigger threat to freedom both in the world than anything else going on and if it wasn't for us, they would have succeeded.

"$4 worth of weapons"

4 passenger jets costs slightly more than $4.

But you may be right, they were just good old boys, never meanin' no harm.

Wal,

I did miss that. What is this, "The Mouse That Roared?" Who cares that he declared war on us? If we weren't over there, and we protected our borders, then 19 guys with $4 worth of weapons wouldn't have be able to do what they did. If we didn't have bases in the Middle East, we wouldn't have an enemy. They have to be laughing at us. They spent a couple thousand dollars and look what they've done to us. We have a political civil war, we're going bankrupt, we sent them another 5000 American lives, 40,000 wounded, 600,000 Iraqis killed. What has changed for Osama? He's still alive, still operating and now they're in a country they weren't in before. We've made them powerful. We've exceeded their expectations. I don't want to see any more Americans die. Let them come home, let's take care of our finances, and protect ourselves here. Why isn't America first

"No, it did not. It went to those who opposed the Soviets. Those are the people who came to power after the Soviets left and those are largely the people Bin Laden toppled when the Taliban came to power."

This is simply wrong. We supported Muslim fighters. We're fighting Muslim fighters. There have been some changes in leadership, but the fighters we armed and trained, not to mention the movement in radical religious warriors that we helped sustain, is directly relatable to the group we're fighting now (and who fought in other places like Bosnia).

"Opposing the Soviet Union and supporting radical Islam even in the Middle East is not one and the same."

It was in our case. The Mujahideen, whether your talking about the Afghani Mujahideen or the foreign fighters Bin Laden supported they were all radical islamic fighters. The notion that the radical islamic fighters under bin laden are wholly separate and distinct from the other islamic fighters and thus our aid to one group had no impact on the battles we fight now is absurd.

I notice you had no comment on our years of aid to Iraq and Iran.

You must not understand one thing about human nature to label people as good and evil. You're probably more evil than all the suicide bombers combined. Maybe you don't go blowing yourself up because you're too much of a chicken but you have no problem supporting oppressive regimes and policies (read Israel against the Palestinians for the past 60 years). You're living in a dream world if you think the Palestinians don't have a right to defend themselves and return to the land they were living on before the Western backed nations decreed Palestine a land for the Jews.

And you've definitely been smoking some pot to think that we as Americans have a right to build army bases on other people's land and not expect retaliations. We are feeding fuel to the fire and the sooner we realize it the better. We can kill 100 "terrorists", 1000, 10,000 and then what? How do we get rid of the hatred in their heart? Are you ready to exterminate all Arabs so that 7 Million Jews may live under the delusion that they have returned home and you can rest knowing that you supported your Judeo-Christian values?

Wake up! It is our policies that have driven these peoeple to do what they did. No one enjoys blowing themselves up. It's a last course of action. When will arrogant people like you listen and heed reason? This problem is not going away unless the aggressors back down and we and Israel are the aggressors. All you have to is study some history and quit listening to your white redneck neocon friends who rattle on about Zion and Armaggedon and good and evil. People are just people. There is some good and evil in each one of us. All we have to do is remove the motivation for hatred from people's hearts by acting as true Christians for a change (do unto others what you would have others do unto you).

Peace,
Josh

Question: I was under the impression that war is declared by Congress, not the President. If Congress declares war won't President Paul have to react?

He is not opposed to war, by the way. He just likes the wars to be declared and won. He did vote for our action in Afghanistan.

If you read the comments on this post you can see how confused our foreign policy is.

What would the climate of the world be today if we wouldn't have meddled with Iran in 1953 and our only policy with ANY middle eastern country was to trade with them?

They took over the plane with box cutters. They were able to take over a plane, with boxcutters.

REmember,,,, RON PAUL voted to go into afganiatan to root out terrorist....

He voted against attacking Iraq for the reasons that were being presented.. If there is a logical and factual reason for invading a country-- and CONGRESS is behind it.... HE WILL DO IT!!!

I asked him that question myself......

He is only against the President doing it without the Congress's approval (as stated in the constitution)

He is not against attacking tyrants --- However... The UN can do that if it is the right thing to do... and if the UN sanctions it... we can send a small force of ours along for the ride instead of leading the force and making it our crusade...

It's just LOGIC--- it's thinking things out with rational deduction as apposed to feeling with the heart..

ROn PAUL is a smart guy to speak as he does--- while having a thought process that speaks about his resolve---- ROn Is an enigma in politics....

Dont take the campaign 30 second sloguns for his absolute stance.... listen to him talk on a radio show--- go to one of his speaches--- this allows you a more endepth look into the personality of RON PAUL....

"Every action anybody takes has unintended consequences. I appreciate the inclination to stop taking any action, but with America's size and power and, more importantly its being the only one both willing and able to topple dictatorships - taking no action on our part has as many negative consequences as taking action. (When's the last time any other Western countries toppled a dictatorship?)"

Since when did toppling a dictatorship becoming an unmittigated act of goodness? Why should we take the children and hard earned money of Americans to spend on toppling someone else's dictator? This government was created by the people to protect our liberities, not the liberities of people somewhere else. The Constitution authorizes and demands that elected officials defend our laws, not international law. My Constitution doesn't authorize taxing the people to topple dictators.

"Furthermore, it's not helpful to discuss our past actions among dictatorships (for the record Hussein got the bulk of his armaments from the French and the Russians) without bringing the Cold War into it. It's nice to Monday morning quarterback, but the Soviet Union and spread of communism was a bigger threat to freedom both in the world than anything else going on and if it wasn't for us, they would have succeeded."

Communism is a failed ideology that cannot sustain itself. The spread of communism (remember the domino theory) in asia, which was herlded by predictions of doom, worked no ill on us. What we need to do is protect ourselves from tyranny at home, not try to babysit those abroad. If you're worried about freedom then the size and scope of our current government, which has a lot in common with communism these days, should be your primary concern. We're in far more danger of being taken down from within that we ever could be from without.

Guys, stop taking this seriously. As I said earlier, it's obvious satire.

Satirist said...

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

Since the satirist advocates this position by suggesting that another country be turned into a slave state (since the money for the invasion has to be taken from people against their will to pay for someone else's freedom and soldiers have to be forced to fight for someone else's freedom), it's obvious satire. No one that truly advocates freedom would suggest making a free country less free in a futile attempt to make another country more free. Obvious satire.

And this...

"No, it did not. It went to those who opposed the Soviets."

Not according to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates (Secreatry of Defense). They even admit that the US set up the first madrassas and used them to recruit and radicalize muslims to fight the soviets. Brzezinski even admits that radical Islam had been dead for so long that it was difficult to revive it. Now we can't put it back in the box. Why don't you read Gates memoirs or any of Brzezinski writings. You can find them on Amamazon. This isn't hidden information. How do you think I would know this is satire. If it wasn't satire and the author was arguing against publicly available information that high ranking Bush admin members confirm, that would make the author an idiot. I'm pretty sure it's satire.

Brzezinski interview

"No, it did not. It went to those who opposed the Soviets. Those are the people who came to power after the Soviets left and those are largely the people Bin Laden toppled when the Taliban came to power."

This is simply wrong. We supported Muslim fighters. We're fighting Muslim fighters.

----

Look, lemme try to explain this - not every Muslim is a radical Islamist just like not every Irish Catholic is a member of the IRA.

People who opposed the Soviet Union in Afghanistan had one thing in common: they opposed the Soviet Union.

Most were not **complete** wackos. The ones who were not complete wackos came to power when they defeated the Soviets. These were our guys and the bulk of those we supported. Then the Taliban toppled these guys.

"I notice you had no comment on our years of aid to Iraq and Iran."

Yes, I did have a comment (and this is the thing that annoys me the most about you guys - I have to refute every single damn thing, because if I don't you'll take it as me acquiescing to it) 1.) the bulk of Hussein's war machine came from France and Russia. We contributed an infinitesimal fraction of it. 2. If your solution to us not supporting guys like the Shah during the Cold War is "the Soviet Union winning" that's just not much of a solution.

So why have we not invaded Cuba or Zimbabwe? They are both third-world dictatorial hell holes far worse then Iraq ever was. Is it perhaps because they don't have oil? Or was it because they could provide long-term opposition? Iraq wasn't about oil (oil prices have gone up, not down), it was about arms. Without a Soviet Union, the American weapons industry was hurting badly. They needed a long-term bogeyman to justify military spending increases, and in Iraq they found one. Cuba or Zimbabwe could never have provided for more then a few months worth of opposition. What the weapons industry needed was a reliable long-term insurgency, a war that was inherently unwinnable. Their model? Afghanistan for the Soviets? Of course, Afghanistan was largely responsible for bankrupting the Soviet Union. (Reagan was only to glad to take credit for it though.) Iraq will bankrupt America in a similar fashion, however the weapons corporations, and their profits, will be long gone by then, relocated to off-shore havens.

"Look, lemme try to explain this - not every Muslim is a radical Islamist just like not every Irish Catholic is a member of the IRA."

That's true, but the muslims we supported WERE radicals who first fought the Soviets, then each other, and now us.

"Yes, I did have a comment (and this is the thing that annoys me the most about you guys - I have to refute every single damn thing, because if I don't you'll take it as me acquiescing to it) 1.) the bulk of Hussein's war machine came from France and Russia."

Irrelevant. We supported Iraq against Iran. Of course we didn't fund them enough for a quick victory, but instead for a prolonged conflict that served to destablize the region and entrench our enemies in Iran. Iran's people rallied around a government they hated because of an outside threat. The same thing is happening right now.

"If your solution to us not supporting guys like the Shah during the Cold War is "the Soviet Union winning" that's just not much of a solution."

It was impossible for the Soviet Union to "win" and nothing we did in the middle east caused them to lose anymore than they were already going to lose because of their bankrupt ideology.

Great post, Harvey

Nineteen men and so on, look at the damage they did dumbass. Wow, forget about the years planning. recruiting and training, that was some bargain basement terrorism. One person armed with a lack of concern for jail time can shut down an airport for hours, evacuate buildings or neighborhoods or any number of destructive acts with just a few words spoken for free. They don't have to kill anyone to destroy us, they just have to outnumber us or take away our freedom by taking away our resolve to fight for it.

Blowing up the moon would be a fascist enterprise. I am not surprised of all the other stuff you've written.

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."

Uh, no. Nobody has the right to invade anybody except when under threat or who can prove, with legitimate evidence, a threat is coming. The amount of "freedom" another nation may have is not a legitimate excuse to invade them. As long as the other government is civil toward other nations, there is no reason to go into some other nation. What one nation considers "freedom" isn't of consequence to an invasion This isn't a "free nation". You can not protest on public property without "permits", you cannot show whatever you want on television because it goes through "public airspace". You cannot own land without being given money and it being taken away. We're a "slave state" to "public" interests when not doing harmful or totally disruptive things. By your logic, the United States should get "invaded" by a nation that is even freer than us.

"In 2001 we put the world on notice that they would either have to root out the terrorist organizations in their midsts, or we would do it for them."

A bunch of tough-talk from a nation that has been nation building Iraq for the last 4 years. Any nation can talk tough and do nothing but bluff, where's the "can do" attitude? Ron Paul has that attitude, minus the bluffing.

"Ron Paul is against this policy, which is why I'm against Ron Paul."

You're for this policy, so Ron Paul is against you. Two can play this game.

"Conversely, W is only moderately supportive of this policy, which is why I'm only moderately supportive of W."

No, George W. Bush was 100% supportive of the above. What happened was reality bit W. Bush in the hinder. We can not be overseas policing the world, nation-building, and helping allies that are rich enough to help themselves. What we can do is secure our borders, eradicate real threats, and stop occupying other people's lands. What is so hard about that? Nothing. It's great to be all tough-guy and threaten all of the nations that we find fault with from here to the ... moon, but in actuality, we are just another nations with domestic needs that should only pass our borders for morally justifiable reasons. None of this playing fascist ruler of the world.

"Hopefully the next president will understand that the War on Terror doesn't just need to be fought, it needs to be won."

I hope every nation that digs up false and fallacious cherry-picked evidence against non-urgent threats loses. Fortunately, under Ron Paul, the United States will never be that kind of tyranny again.

Might Makes Right

It is inherent as humans to rationalize our fears. The fear of being invaded by foreign countries in uniform or not, is unthinkable. Here in the USA we enjoy the safety of a supreme military and the fortunate long standing record of not being invaded. The attacks of Pearl Harbor and 911 are isolated in the fact that they were attempts in provocation. No one can consider these attacks trivial but at the same time they must be brought into prospective to our present day global scale.

Ron Paul has stated that interfering with other countries have instigated groups to attack the USA as a means of sending a message to stop interfering in their region of the world. On the surface this seams simplistic and defiant; to strike back at a superpower. If one rationalizes that we in the USA were attacked and thus we must strike back with a mighty force; Sock and Awe, does this not strike a chord to the same rationalization. The difference being the superpower is organized, in uniform and with the proclaimed slogan; Might Makes Right.

I agree, “Might” usually wins except when misused and abused beyond human endurance and reasoning. Our losses in the attacks on US soil are grave but indistinguishable to the losses abroad on foreign lands in the context of human suffering. We must as a people open our eyes to see the misery of others. Their desire is to be free from the domination of a dictatorship or democracy whenever sighted through the barrel of guns.

Throughout history wars have been fought and kingdoms have come and gone…but what has endured is “Right”…even without the “Might”.

Ayn Rand may actually be your problem here. Although her name may grant you free passage in certain libertarian circles, it doesn't add to your clout among Rothbardians (Paul is a Rothbardian).

Rand's intellectual failings stemmed from the fact that she advocated a materialist approach to liberty. Once you've abandoned the idea of Natural Rights and substituted the idea that the end justifies the means, then liberty is no longer your priority. I guess that's okay, though...as long as you no longer refer to yourself as a "libertarian" (BTW, I'm not a libertarian either). So, what's "neo-libertarian," then, someone to whom liberty isn't a big priority?

Those who advocate a materialist approach to political philosophy buy into the idea that they must prove the superiority of outcomes of their ideals. I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, but doing the right thing does not always guarantee an immediately beneficial outcome: it won't always make you richer, healthier, and happier. Sometimes doing what's right is downright painful and costly -- which is precisely why so few of us choose to do what's right.

To coercionists who argue that their way will make everyone richer and safer, I simply say, "so what?" Even if that were true (and I don't necessarily believe that it is), whether or not one benefits materially from an action has zero relevance as to the action's rectitude.

Beyond all the other political labels, there are only two basic ways of viewing the world: 1) coercionism 2) voluntarism. You either believe you have the right of free association and self determination or you don't; there's no middle ground. It isn't okay for some people, but not for others. Right and wrong are not situational.

Life is hard, then you die -- all of us. Make sure you choose the right path.

"Since when did toppling a dictatorship becoming an unmittigated act of goodness?"

Where did I say it was unmitigated?

"Why should we take the children and hard earned money of Americans to spend on toppling someone else's dictator? This government was created by the people to protect our liberities, not the liberities of people somewhere else. The Constitution authorizes and demands that elected officials defend our laws, not international law. My Constitution doesn't authorize taxing the people to topple dictators."

And this is the new libertarian position, which is why even though I've been a libertarian for years, I've really come to detest a lot of guys in the party:

Essentially,

"Totalitarianism for other people is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't affect me"

Freedom and the founders' intent (at least some of them - trust me you'd consider a decent amount war mongers) do sometimes differ - when they do, I care more about freedom and democracy. You don't.

"Not according to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Gates (Secreatry of Defense). They even admit that the US set up the first madrassas and used them to recruit and radicalize muslims to fight the soviets. Brzezinski even admits that radical Islam had been dead for so long that it was difficult to revive it. Now we can't put it back in the box."

Brzezinski ought to be more familiar the Shah, the invasion of Afghanistan happened a year before he was deposed (and for that matter madrassas have existed since early Islam). If he's arguing radical Islam sprung up that quickly in the area, the man is mistaken.

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence."
- Harvey

I have never agree more with someone in my life... In fact I believe my ideology must be almost perfectly in sync with Harvey's.......

Oh and someone said something about the war in Iraq destroying the country financially... strange, last time I checked the national deficit was retreating at a pretty fast rate....

"I agree, Harvey. Heck, that's the reason I read 11 Republican blogs and only 1 Libertarian one."
#9 - Posted by: Hazel on December 1, 2007 01:33 PM
I don't read any upper case Libertarian blogs, but of the 9 blogs I read, 4 or 5 are lower case libertarian.

Oh and to stupid PaulBot josh, I don't normally criticize people for being religious but, in your case, I'm making an exception. Its really annoying when Christians insist all we need to do is believe in Jesus. Thats completely ridiculous, how can anyone actually believe that? I got news for you, you're on your own, and you have to solve problems yourself. I thought Christians believed that god would only help you if you took the effort to try yourself, or something like that? No?

I am with Clayton (#12) and Brad (#28). Harvey, you personify the "Ugly American". (Book & Movie ca. 1960) You guys always know what's good for everyone, regardless of culture or country. You love to bestow our half baked ideas upon them without being invited and then at the point of a gun. After you intervene, things get worse. What did we accomplish in Vietnam, Haiti or Somalia? Look what we did to Iran? How come we supported Saddam till he stopped kissing our ass? How ofter did we "help" in South America? And now they and half the world hate us.
Ron Paul follows Jefferson's and Washington's priciple of non-intervention. You on the other hand, are an Imperialist and you are bankrupting this country.

Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube Presidential Debates

30 seconds says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALpnSTGAQs

Any American that believes

Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence.

should use that exact logic when any other country invades US because they don't agree with our system.

The back-assward logic of this statement just shows that intelligence and common sense are lost on those who propose pre-emptive war.

I have a friend who want to make a parking lot of the Middle East and no amount of logic will ever change his opinion. I suspect that many of you who espouse violence in the name of security use emotion and not logic to spread your fears.

Ron Paul supporters have an intellectual grasp on reality not based on fear tactics.

Satire confirmation...

"strange, last time I checked the national deficit was retreating at a pretty fast rate...."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........ hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... hahahahahahahahaha....

That one was good! See, they're now dropping obvious hints that it's satire. No Republican or Libertarian would use Bill Clinton accounting (makes Enron look honest) to talk about the economic state of this country. And, no one stupid enough to believe something like that would know how to use the internet.

"Freedom and the founders' intent (at least some of them - trust me you'd consider a decent amount war mongers) do sometimes differ - when they do, I care more about freedom and democracy. You don't."

Freedom and democracy are not the same thing, nor have we succeeded in bringing either to Iraq. The people have to want freedom, you can't just "give" it to them.

You don't fight tyranny with tyranny either. Our government is not authorized by the Constitution to tax people and draft their children to go die liberating someone else. If you want to spend your own life and money that's fine, but don't coerce others to do so.

Irrelevant. We supported Iraq against Iran. Of course we didn't fund them enough for a quick victory, but instead for a prolonged conflict that served to destablize the region and entrench our enemies in Iran. Iran's people rallied around a government they hated because of an outside threat. The same thing is happening right now.

Pliny, your whole argument is consequences - if that's your argument, it makes a big difference whether it's a fraction or a lot - and once I bring something up if you're going to switch the argument to "we didn't fund them enough" wtf?

When was the last time the Middle East was stable? The Ottoman Empire? The British? You want to bring back that? (And if you long for those times, do you still want to say you oppose imperialism?)

"If your solution to us not supporting guys like the Shah during the Cold War is "the Soviet Union winning" that's just not much of a solution."

It was impossible for the Soviet Union to "win" and nothing we did in the middle east caused them to lose anymore than they were already going to lose because of their bankrupt ideology.

so if the Soviet Union had gained controlled of most of the world's oil supply, it wouldn't have affected the Cold War at all - cool, gotcha. It's not like dictatorships ever hang around when they have bankrupt economic systems.

Li'l josh said, "Wake up! It is our policies that have driven these peoeple to do what they did."

No matter how many times I hear that, it never ceases to be funny! Yeah, because they were such a peaceful, loving people before we came along...it's not like they had a cheap hardcover brochure commanding them to kill in Allahlaladingdong's name or anything.

Now josh, this is a site geared more for big people. Next time, have your mommy post for you & that way, she can help you spell those big words, like "people".

Then Linda Sue quoted Gandhi. Wow, I am awe stricken. That's the first time a Pauldroid posted that quote here. Ever.

And I believe the smartest thing Andrew (#'s 21 & 43) ever said was "Don't tase me, bro!"
Why do I get the feeling it's the same 'tard?

#26 - Posted by: WAL
"You should call the international police to come arrest us."

As long as they get the Dream Police to back them up.

"Freedom and democracy are not the same thing"

When did I say they were? All I'm saying is that if one of the founders intended something a couple hundred years ago that a ran averse to freedom and democracy (a few did) you guys will see that as trumping spreading freedom and democracy overseas today. I don't.

As much as I love both - libertarianism is not something that's tied to the intent of the founding fathers.

"nor have we succeeded in bringing either to Iraq"

We haven't? There's not a parliament? People don't engage in elections?

Sorry, I missed that -

"The people have to want freedom, you can't just "give" it to them."

And given that only a third of this country supported the rebels during the revolution, we'd still be ruled by the British if that was the standard.

"You don't fight tyranny with tyranny either. Our government is not authorized by the Constitution to tax people and draft their children to go die liberating someone else."

The government can go to war for anything - Good reasons and bad. Most of these same founding fathers didn't have a problem with us attempting to liberate Canada in the War 1812 -- given how that turned out, you can make a good argument it was a bad move--As far as authorization, though, whether you or I like it or not, as far as the Constitution's concerned we can fight for whatever reason we want to.

Lets picture a situation:
Lets imagine our city as earth and our homes as independent countries.
We leave from each other several miles away.
One day you drive by my house and you see something you do not like. It bother you so much that you decide to go on my property and fix the problem. What do you think i would do to you? Do you have right to go on my property and do what you think is right?

Even if you are right you have no moral right to go into my property and do something.
You can stop by ask negotiate etc. but never ever use your power to change something only because you think is right or even more people think is right.
If what I do does not hurt you or any one psychically you do not have right to go on my property ...

And this is what you think that any free country can invite other country just because you think you are better and you should liberate this country? No wrong!
You can only negotiate, ask, do non innervation things.

I'm an immigrant from Poland and as you know Poland like many close by countries where under Soviet power. Why America did not attract USSR that time to liberate Poland and many countries that where occupied by USSR? Well probably many we would have 3 world war a catastrophic war. Instead, us used it's diplomacy and money to support solidarity movements in Poland and guess what happen? USSR does not exist now. All the countries are free and innervation was not needed !!!

Hope by this example you will understand what non innervation means.

Regards to all.

God bless Ron Paul

Hey BBQ Alan - sweetie - all you have to do is look at some history and see when the hostilities and hatred starting forming.

"Yeah, because they were such a peaceful, loving people before we came along...it's not like they had a cheap hardcover brochure commanding them to kill in Allahlaladingdong's name or anything."

You're living in a dream world to make such a statement. Resentment against Americans started forming by Arabs against America in the seventies and eighties when we started showing favoritism towards Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Wouldn't it have been much better if we had not stuck our noses in that problem to begin with. Maybe the Israelis and Palestinians would have worked something out long ago.

What evidence do you have to prove that before the formation of the State of Israel they were such radicalized warmongerers? Have you ever traveled to the Middle East? Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt? Have you talked to those people, tried to understand them, their culture? their background? It's just easy for you to kick back in the good ole US of A and come up with spoonfed statements about cultures thousands of miles away. It's easy for you to watch all those kick-ass American heroes like Rambo where we're just gonna f* everyone up cause we're the shit.

Wake up man! We can't go around bullying people and not expect blowback. It's just that simple. So you're either willing to expand your horizons, travel the world and interact with other cultures to avoid making stupid generalization as your apt to do or just go back to your apple pie and highschool sweetheart and leave the rest of the world alone!

well said Harvey, well said...

#60 - AlanABQ
Ok, at this point I think we should all take a deep breath, just step back and ask ourselvs "WWBD?"

(what would Buffy do)
Then go find some hot blondes in leather...It may not help this thread. But on the other hand, as long as they don't tase me, its all good.

You have no clue about international law...Such a statement is extremely frightening.

No need to be frightened: we're going to run out of money before these armchair hawks can do much damage; we'll be a third-world country before the next Demoblican has finished their two terms.

Unless, of course, Ron Paul is at the helm (the only candidate with enough sense to talk seriously about monetary policies).

"So you're either willing to expand your horizons, travel the world and interact with other cultures to avoid making stupid generalization as your apt to do or just go back to your apple pie and highschool sweetheart and leave the rest of the world alone!"
#64 - Posted by: josh

um, wasnt that a "stupid generalization" on your part? tsk tsk tsk. This is I let Buffy decide. She won't hide like a Ron Paul. And looks way better in leather.

Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it,

When will it be Americas turn to be liberated...?

BTW, The Republicans are going to lose the Presidential Election based purely on the issue of invasianism and war mongering. Good job on developing a party plank that alienates 70% of the electorate. I suppose you will all be in denial up until the morning after the General election. Youre going to have to come up with something more to counter the Dems than 'me too' on domestic policy with the added bonus of bombing third world countries that dont do as we say.

#68 - ok that should be "this is WHY I let Buffy decide." Go figure, think about babes in leather and I cant type...WHATS YOUR FUCKING RON PAUL GONNA DO ABOUT THAT PROBLEM?????

My problems with Paul is that he is a social conservative not a libertarian. Where I think you miss the boat is when you leap from saying that Americans deserve protection abroad (everyone does) to arguing that the US govt. should thus provide it abroad. The implication of that is basically turning the US into a world government.

If you think you have problems with centralizing all powers from the individual states to DC now wait until this Objectivist view of foreign policy centralizes all powers from all governments everywhere in the world in DC.

You may be right that any free nation has the “right” to invade a slave state but it can’t do so without enslaving its own people. It requires coercive taxation to accomplish this and since it expensive it requires lots of coercive taxation. In addition there is plenty of history to show that domestic liberty suffers when the nation goes to war (even if it is has the right to do so but not the duty). That it has the right to invade does impact on the severe assault on domestic liberty that always accompanies war.

The case against the war on terror that Bush is fighting and which you support is that is doesn’t work and hasn’t worked and that it has done precisely what libertarian critics of the war said it would do -- harm freedom at home, destabilize the Middle East even more than before, fuel more terrorist groups which are decentralized and independent and thus not particularly open to military assault, bring theocrats to power in Iraq, and in general, make a messy situation worse.

You may think that the govt. can’t plan well enough to deliver mail or health care (and I agree) but you seem to go gaga at foreign policy thinking these same bureaucrats can plan the world. You sudden faith in government cental planning is almost funny.

While our air force was busy protecting South Korea, Japan, and Germany on 9/11, three hijacked airplanes flew into the WTC and the Pentagon, killing 3000 people.

The terrorists were over here, not over there.

Harvey -
No nation has any right whatsoever to invade any other area of the world, period. Especially if the military is built up through coercive taxation. It is imperative to my well being that the US leave other countries alone. It's the responsibility of people elsewhere to make sure they have the type of government they want to live under. Anything else is just plain immoral.

If the government can take wealth from me and spend it on a preemptive war I am not free.

"When will it be Americas turn to be liberated...?"

If I understand them correctly, there's an organization, La Raza or something, that wants to do that to the American southwest... though not the way you intended.

cls, I just don't think it's automatic. If, down the line, we're controlling the Iraqi government, I'll side with you. I just don't think this has to lead to world government, however. Out of the places we've been involved with, Croatia isn’t run by us, Bosnia isn’t, South Korea isn’t, and Iraq doesn’t have to be (though, yeah, it’ll be tougher).

The distinction Harvey makes is between a right and a duty and this is where I side more with him. I think Saddam broke his truce with us from 1991; I think a democracy has a right to topple a dictatorship and that also justified it. Having a right to do something and whether we should do something, though, are different. We can’t topple all dictators. We can’t liberate everybody. And you can make a good argument there’s better stuff we should have been doing. Like I said, though, we need to invent a time machine to go back in time and change this.

As it stands right now, pulling out will strengthen our enemies and damage us whether it was right or not. Regarding being forced to do it, it’s easy to blame the other people and the government (**and you could very well have been against it from the beginning**), but most people weren’t. Most Republicans weren’t. The Dems, even though they’re now saying they were misled by Bush (including, somehow, senators who had access to classified material on the intelligence committee) - weren’t. We authorized it. We wanted it. And, now, we’re going to leave people, who stuck their necks out for us, to fry and strengthen our enemies if we don’t take care of it.

----

“No nation has any right whatsoever to invade any other area of the world, period.”

#74 - Posted by: d on December 1, 2007 06:52 PM

Since Godwin’s Law has already been broken,

That’s the policy that European countries were following in the 30s before they got their ass kicked by Hitler. There are times where if you wait to be attacked, you’ll have your ass handed to you and have a dictator to show for it.

I don't read any upper case Libertarian blogs, but of the 9 blogs I read, 4 or 5 are lower case libertarian.
#53 - Posted by: AR on December 1, 2007 05:22 PM

I oughta find me some of those, then.

You did well to turn in your Libertarian card. You clearly haven't a clue what libertarianism is all about. I don't care if you want to go after every bad guy on the planet. I just object to you thinking you have the right to use my tax dollars to do it. Ron Paul doesn't object to you taking the income tax money that will no longer be coming out of your paycheck and using it to go after the bad guys. He does, as a libertarian, know that he has no right to take my money for that purpose. You may think that pre-emptive war fits the category of defense. I, and most of the citizens of the US, do not. Ron Paul recognizes our right to disagree, and the right of each of us to do what we want with what we earn by our labors. If, on the other hand, you think I am a bad person because I disagree with you, you need to grow up.

Thought about leaving a comment to the first couple of idiots in this line of comments...but fortunantly there are enough sane people still around to make almost every point I would have made...thanks guys...now let's get RON PAUL into a position where he can save our asses from the real looneys...

"One day you drive by my house and you see something you do not like. It bother you so much that you decide to go on my property and fix the problem. What do you think i would do to you? Do you have right to go on my property and do what you think is right?

"Even if you are right you have no moral right to go into my property and do something."

Rob, if I noticed that a dictator's taken over your house, enslaved you, taken away your right to vote, and installed rape rooms and human plastic shredders for everybody who complains about it - feel free to tell people not to do anything about it, but, for the record, if anybody ever finds me in that situation, you can feel free to come in and save my ass and I just think that most people would fall into that category.

Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence.

If that was how we actually behaved, that would be great, but it isnt. Look at Pakistan, with their un-elected dictator that oppresses his population with an iron fist, the same man we gave more than 11billion$ to. Your philosophy on intervention does not apply to our foreign policy, because we are attacking countries for political / economical gain, not for the well being of their countries. We propped up Saddam Hussein in the 80s to attack Iran and kill his own people, we didn't look twice, look at what we did to Iran in 1953, we DO NOT SUPPORT DEMOCRACY. WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. It is about oil, private companies profiting and so forth. I'm voting for Ron Paul because I despise our foreign policy and I think it's unfair to send any soldier to his death for political / economical gain. It's unjust, it goes against everything christianity teaches, and it's criminal. As an American I think our country has a lot of good intention we just don't critical think of what we are actually doing... please evaluate what you are doing and what you should tolerate people, they are getting ready to attack Iran and this is going to lead to more suffering for our soldiers and millions of people in the middle east.

How can you have a war on an ideology and expect to win?

We will never win this war, like we'll never win the war on drugs. "Declaring" wars on ideologies is just an excuse for the government to do what it wants.

Any sane person can see that.

#81 -- exactly, though not completely addressing the problem of what to do if the U.S. is the messed up nation.

Any recourse to war is an admission that the situation is really screwed up. I think where Harv went too far is that we'd MUCH rather use peace to topple dictators -- but strange, most dictators don't care to go quietly into the night. Some need to.

#83 -- you're right, Harv has an ideology, so you can't win. Be sane and give in.

Oh, that's not what you meant? You mean we CAN fight ideologies and win?

I grow weary of people saying "war iraq bad idea grub grub." Give me a better one -- or are you afraid your better idea on how to deal with, say, Iran won't actually work?

#82 - Posted by: Brandon on December 1, 2007 08:18 PM

If you can't stop all dictators, it doesn't mean we shouldn't stop any of them - the same way if you can't stop all murders, you shouldn't quit infringing on any of them either.

I don't like supporting a small dictator against a bigger dictator, or a smaller threat to our freedom and security against a bigger one - but when anybody brings up our support of dictators in the past, it would be helpful if they also mentioned at the time we were fighting much bigger threats.

Our position, and the position of freedom in the world, would not have been improved if communist sympathizers had taken over Iran in the 50s, nor by Iran defeating Iraq. It would not be improved if Musharraf had quit cracking down on the extremists in his country (up until his actions late this year, the guys he was fighting had no interest in a democracy - they wanted to replace a secular dictator with a Islamist one). (also, we are the ones who pressured him to step down as head of the army (he did last week), and have been trying to get Bhutto back as an elected prime minister.)

In 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia. Vietnam was a dictatorship. It was a brutal communist dictatorship. They didn't give a rat's ass about freedom or democracy. However, they did topple Pol Pot, who gave even far less of a rat's ass about freedom or democracy. If you were to ask me to back there, I'd support Vietnam in toppling a dictator. For the same reason, I support the United States.

I see you've been neo-conned. Too bad. Live in fear and give up your liberties for false safety. I choose to keep them and live in a more peaceful world toward the US.

BTW - I still haven't gotten my oil.

Fess up - Who's welching on me?

"We turned an organization with a few hundred members into thousands who now have a reason to hate us."

Excuse me sir, do you have a brain? Because if you did, you would know that Osama had ten of thousands of members before 9/11. It was after the invasion of Afghanistan he started to lose men. Also, Osama had plenty reason to attack us before 9/11. He made a freaking list of them.

Paulians seem to like the constitution. So I can assume their a fan of Thomas Jefferson. Does anyone here remember what he did when faced with the issue of foreign terrorism? And if you know the answer to that one, when was the last time you heard of underground Barbary pirates attacking US ships since he dealt with them?

The weakness evident in Harvey's essay is this: To date not even one person has gone to trial for the events on 9/11/01.

sorry to be a dick, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui

#82 You're right Brandon, we did prop up Saddamm to attack the peaceful, moderate, democratically elected, US-loving leader of Iran in 1980.

We also kept Musharaff in power so he could continue to oppress the brave freedom fighters who fight for nothing less than the establishment of the pro-western, human rights obeying, non-violent, non-imperialistic, not crazy caliphate.
/sarcasm

Seriously dude, the US does renegade on our toppling of dictatorships. But when we do, most the time it's because we need to get rid of a bigger, badder, more evil dictatorship. Than we take of smaller one. Just like with Iraq. Last I checked, Saddamm was dead and Iran was in terror of a US attack (that probably won't happen, but don't tell the Iranians)

reply to #89

Yeah, but a lot of them are dead. And a dead terrorist is better than a jailed terrorist.

Ron Paul would have sent assasans after them and not been side tracked with Iraq. You do not know what the hell you are talking about. 1st in a Paul administration the REASON they attack us will no longer exhist. 2nd we will have REAL DEFENCE and be DEFENDING our freedom at home not handing over our rights.
Ronald Reagan said it best "Ron Paul is a stron force fighting for our national defence" always has been always will be.

reply to #93
Of Course they wouldn't, because Ron Paul would use his constitutional powers to eliminate all American history in the middle East, therefore eliminating the problem of terrorism.

'Thought about leaving a comment to the first couple of idiots in this line of comments...but fortunantly there are enough sane people still around to make almost every point I would have made...thanks guys...now let's get RON PAUL into a position where he can save our asses from the real looneys...'
#80 - Posted by: badunit

Dude, I know what ya mean. That's why I'll let guys like bgrx, nyexpat, ss396, AlanABQ, WAL and the rest take care of the dirty work. You know, the kind of guys who would do something when trouble rears its ugly head. Rather than talk I mean. I said before. The man has some good points, but pretending things will be better if you just wish hard enough isn't one. You guys keep talking about the taxes. What the hell is he going to do? Just tell everyone to pay what they want? And who's to say what YOU think is a good use of money I won't think is wasting MY damn money?

We, as a country, have to send only ONE message. 'The U.S. can either be the best friend you'll ever have. Or the LAST enemy you'll ever have.' How is Ron Paul going to do this? Even if he did make it to the White House, he'll still have to deal with the House and Senate. Do you really believe any of them will say 'He's RON PAUL! We'll do whatever the hell he thinks is best!'?

Now having said all that, I'm happy you guys found someone you can really get behind. *Honest* I am. I, personally, just don't see him as the answer. Plus a word to the wise, the way some of you keep posting the same quote here is as bad as pouring steak sauce on yourself and jumping into a kennel. Also, this IS a humor site. So don't get too wrapped up in yourselves or arguments. It WILL bite you in the ass. Some of these guys will chew you up just for shits and giggles.

You're on your own now. I did my good deed for the millennium.

Well the problem is as Pliny said above and ill quote him. He said. "but with America's size and power and, more importantly its being the only one both willing and able to topple dictatorships"

The part about America being willing to topple dictatorships.....
who determines who is dictator? who are the terrorists and who are the hero's?. Are the regimes in Jordan and Saudi Arabia a dictatorship?? or a friendly government. Do their police torture their citizens...... or does it depend on the answer to the previous question? Does America actually have a set of core values? Do we actually live up to the constitution anymore. Is it OK for America to support governments that torture their citizens while ignoring the pleas of those who are unjustly tortured. Do we realize that other people see our actions and do not believe our words of freedom and justice but rather they see oppression and injustice?. Those are not American values. On September 11 we did not become at war with Islam or a strict conservative interpretive sect of it, but rather we became in open conflict with a group of people that attacked us, who advocate encourage and support those that would attack us. We also became at war with those that would come to their defense and fight against us on their behalf.

When we went to Afghanistan we should have went In with American forces in large numbers, and not become enmeshed in the politics of Afghanistan. Part of the reason the Taliban were respected was because they paid no attention to tribal affiliations and made no deals as they took power. It was shariah law all around for everyone. The people understood, respected and felt safe under it. Even if they didn't like it and many did not. We should have ignored their civil war and went right after Bin laden. Instead we supported the minority Uzbek's and Tajiks in their 10 year Civil war over the Taliban which consisted mostly of the more numerous Pustuns... and then installed the Uzbek-Tajiks into power.... anyone see a problem there for the future? How this imbalance hold? who will hold it? Well the obvious answer is that America will hold it but what is its value to us. We all know that if it was American forces at tora bora, Osama would be dead already. If he was able to slip into Pakistan we should have went into Pakistan right after him borders be dammed. Is Pakistan going to war over it?? probably not, but if they chose too the they are all going to die!! Its pretty simple. and we could/should make that pretty clear. Meanwhile the US needs to make the case among Arabs that we are only there for self defense--to get bin laden and his gang ONLY!! and then leave, for our actions were justified and the Koran and the world understood that. Many who even hate us understood. The key is not becoming bogged down in their politics....or becoming the "crusaders out to take their and life and religion" We should have only taken the fight to those who did or would take up arms against us. If they want to cut off hands for stealing and forbid the lending of money at interest that's their business. They can settle that among themselves. Take away the religious element and you remove the motivations for so many who rush to fight America in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You often hear the presidential candidates ( except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich ) say "They hate us for our freedoms" I used to think they were just mistaken. Now I think they are just lying. We are not hated for our freedoms nor are we attacked over them and they ( the politicians ) should know that. We are attacked and hated because there is a perception that America is attacking Islam and attacking Arabs. America supports the Russians in Chechnya the Chinese over the Uhgars when these have no link to American freedoms. We support Independence for christian East Timor but no freedom for Kashmir. There is a obvious double standard that is believed and perceived in the Muslim world. It doesn't matter if you don't share that perception..you are not the one fighting us and killing our sons and daughters in a perceived and therefore real defensive jihad. Bin laden has lured us into Muslim lands (Afghanistan) and is now letting western mismanaging of the war win over converts to the cause of the defensive jihad he has declared twice since 1996. How else can you explain why so many have taken up arms against America. You used to hear it said that Bin laden was not a scholar or Imam and had no ability to issue fatwas calling for jihad. Since the unprovoked invasion Of Iraq you don't hear that anymore. Imams have issued fatwas for Muslims to go to Iraq to defend Muslim lands from infidel crusader invasion. As we have seen, many have answered the call AND THE CALL WAS NOT BIN LADENS.

at the same time America must change its policies that are perceived to be so oppressive to Muslims... get American troops out of the middle east...stop the unilateral support for Israel and Arab tyrannical dictatorships that is the root of their issue to begin with.
These are not Isolationist views. These are Non-interventionist views.

Oil is the root of the problem for America. our dependence on cheap oil for our lifestyle has required our involvement in the middle east. Even though we don't get much oil from the middle east, any threat to the supply or flow of oil results in a major spike in prices which affects all barrels of oil, not just those pumped from the middle east. Instead of pumping trillions of dollars into supporting other nations that torture their citizens and invade their neighbors with our supplied weapons( how much does oil really coat us when you factor in all of that spending), America should concentrate on developing alternate sources of energy and develop the resources we have to their full potential, tree huggers be dammed ( sorry tree huggers). By making the demand for oil less, we can remove the pressure on demand and our need to interfere in other nations and the prices will drop. OPEC reaction would be to pump less oil to drive the cost back up. Let the Europeans worry about the flow of oil from the middle east and the politics of the region. Right now we are doing it for them because it affects us.
The government subsidies corn farmers. Of that we are all aware That wont be needed when the demand for corn for fuel is higher. California should be getting some of its drinking water from the ocean ( like Saudi Arabia does) and harnessing the waves for energy ( tidal farming). There is an infrastructure problem in America and the candidates are more worried about building bridges in Baghdad then figuring out why our bridges are just collapsing fromr old age. There needs to be a realignment of concerns and Americans need to realize that America should come first.
It may be safer to on fly airplanes today then on Sept 10, 2001 or it may be harder to use a fake passport to enter the nation but a open border to the north and south combined with a mismanaged war policy and foreign policy leaves the back door and windows wide open and makes a more dangerous world and creates an even more intense dislike of America abroad.This costs American lives. Who comments and takes note that more Americans have died at the hands of extremists since we gave up the search for bin laden ( remember when Bush said he doesn't think about Bin Laden much) than died on 9-11- 2001. These same people will tell you that there has not been a 9-11 since 9-11. Who are they kidding? Combine that with a lack of openness in political debate in America and it does not bode well for Americas near future.I find my fellow Americans have no real sense of history and don't understand that in other parts of the world terms like voting, freedom and democracy mean little when compared to words like respect, honor and tradition and tribal and religious loyalties.
The sooner we accept that other peoples and cultures have different values and motivations the better.
It use to mean something to be a Republican
Lower Taxes
Smaller Government
2nd Amendment/Gun Rights
Secure Border/No Amnesty
Private Property Rights
States Rights

What happened to my party? Rudy wants your gun, McCain wants amnesty and they all want bigger federal government.

Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave.

I think that the days of the Neo-conservatives are indeed numbered as people become either disillusioned to their vision or become aware of its costs and ineffectiveness

The Barry Goldwater/Taft wing of the republican party is alive and resurgent. Ron Paul is riding the wave of that revolution.

If people were really aware and even started to care, It would not too late for America to wake up and support Ron Paul for president. I don't think they will but I do have faith that eventually over time, my fellow Americans will pay attention to what is going on in the world and choose to skip an episode of Dancing with the Stars...Unfortunately I do believe it will take a 9-11 part II to make them wake up.

Sitting here asking myself WWBD? The answer came to me. Call it a night. And look for babes in leather.
play nice, or *nobody* gets any fishsticks.

I wonder who some of these people are sometimes....to really think that "those people over there are evil, and we are good" "they want to kill us because they hate us, and freedom" Hmmmm.....sounds a little suspect to me. Do you think that really the majority of people just want to live and let live...as long as were not over there bothering them, better yet, maybe even, oh my gosh, helping out in arab countries, goodwill to wards men, etc,etc,,etc....dont you think that the governements themselves would be in support of taking care of their own terrorists? I mean really....who would want to terrorize a nation thats actually helping other nations? Certainly there are expansionist, idiot countries out there(oh wait a mintute, maybe thats us? ) anyway....cetainly defense can be a bit proactive, but not to the point of preemptive strikes...come on people....time and time again, diplomacy has saved us alot of trouble througout the years....lets face it....war really sucks...nobody really wants to get into the trenches...when it really comes down to it....right? Man what would things look like if america was a beacon of peace and goodwill towards men, and we had a bitchin national defense to boot, who would really bother messing with us......think about it..why would they want to...they would have to be pretty stupid....

we are currently loosing this war....maybe the numbers are good, maybe there are really less deaths and problems in iraq every day....but we are in fact loosing.....terrorism will continue as long as we keep sticking our big fat noses in places it doesnt belong. The best way to bring down america is financially....and that is exactly what the war on terror is doing...and that is how we will loose this "war"

Why not just pull out all our troops from the Middle East? That will make the terrorists happy, and they'll have no real reason to commit terrorist acts.

There should be no troops in the Middle East anyway, because it's a waste of money.

The simple act of removing all our troops will stop terrorism and the need to go to war. Why not give it a shot?

If you agree with Rand, you would be for Ron Paul and against our intervention in foreign affairs. She talked about neo-fascism in this country so don't let the current crop of Objectivists who are really conservatives speak for Rand.

Here are some articles that discusses this whole issue:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Sciabarra/Understanding_the_Global_Crisis__Reclaiming_Rands_Radical_Legacy.shtml

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/7830.html

While I didn't take the time to read all of the previous comments, I wanted to address the article directly.

Ron Paul is against the executive branch waging foreign wars in the absence of a Declaration of War from Congress. If Congress declared war, it is assured that President Ron Paul would wage it. Otherwise, you can bet he would be advocating a foreign policy of peace, commerce, and travel as an incentive for countries to abandon their support of terrorism.

If you want protection from terrorists, allow for the full scope of the 2nd amendment. If that doesn't cut it, let Congress declare war. That is Ron Paul's message. Let the Freedom Bell ring!

> My disagreement with him ... is that he thinks
> that national defense stops at the border.

This is not entirely true. He voted for authorization of force in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda and capture Bin Laden. Remember Al Qaeda? They're the people who actually attacked us on 9/11, unlike Iraq, which had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

"I wonder who some of these people are sometimes....to really think that "those people over there are evil, and we are good" "they want to kill us because they hate us, and freedom" Hmmmm.....sounds a little suspect to me."

Where did anybody in this thread say that?

"Certainly there are expansionist, idiot countries out there(oh wait a mintute, maybe thats us? )"

?

???

Free Alaska?

"I mean really....who would want to terrorize a nation thats actually helping other nations?"

Given that we give far more in foreign aid than any other country - a decent amount of people. Bin Laden was pissed we helped out the people in East Timor, he's pissed countries are trying to help out the people in Darfur. He's gonna find a way to be pissed at an action that you see as purely altruistic.

"The best way to bring down america is financially....and that is exactly what the war on terror is doing...and that is how we will loose this "war"

The war has cost roughly $500 billion total, over four years. The United States had a GDP of $13 trillion last year. It has a government budget of over $2.5 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, our military budget reached as high as 13% during the Korean War and 9-10% during Vietnam. Today it's about 5%. We're not going broke from this anytime soon.

Its quite clear we are not in Iraq to "liberate it" from a terrorist dictator. Sounds like you are more committed to this endless war, constant bloodshed, the inevitable killing of innocent people including children and women than you are building friendships and working on our country's own problems. The current president keeps giving himself more power every day, we are not far off from having our own dictator. I guess you're ok with that as long as he's on your team. Even if your idea of winning this "war on terror" was good, which its not, we can't afford it. We can't even afford the empire we are trying to keep now. Are you gonna pay for it? I'm not willing to.. Would you like to force me to pay for it? Is that freedom? Are you pro-freedom?

So, let me get this right... you're willing to sacrifice everything that Ron Paul stands for, knowing that the other candidates stand for none of what he does... just so you can have a candidate that is okay with being Global Policeman? Call me crazy, but sounds like your's is the policy which will continue to paint a huge red bull's eye on this country. That is definitely something we do not need, nor should we continue on the path of being the world's policeman. The only way to achieve peace on a global scale is to set an example for it here.

Mankind has waged war on one another for 10,000 years. The idea that we are going to stop it any time soon is ludicrous in the extreme. Furthermore, we should beware our own military-industrial complex. We should all take a time-out from this war, foster our science & creative efforts domestically so that we are at peace with ourselves when the next inevitable war comes.

If that means we let the outside world fight against themselves, then fine. The objective here is to protect American lives and to keep Americans out of the line of fire. Listening to statements like your's, I feel like I'm listening to a foreign lobbyist and so I have to say No! to your brand of interventionism. Besides, there are advantages to having an anti-war candidate when there is a war. Advantages to having the Congress declare war, and advantages to having our troops here stateside when the nukes & missiles over there start flying.

The Globalist interventionist arguments have all been debunked and you can not subordinate foreign adventurism to putting American lives first. Humanitarianism doesn't stop at the border, but it begins here first. We have to set an example that will win the hearts & minds of people on the street. We should not give justification to fearful madmen who will only use it to keep their populations oppressed. See Ahmadinejad & Chavez for proof of this. They would have been toppled by their people long ago if there were no confusion over whether or not their anti-american rants had merit.

With Ron Paul in office, their rants will lose all meaning. The people will laugh in their faces, and these leaders will fall like a house of cards.

Reading the comments under this article I have to wonder, when is Frank going to come back? All we have without him are idiot commentator(s) who blame America for everything and think we should just give up and then the terrorists would lose. We need some good ol' head busting, terrorist shooting, pro-america Frank editorials to make this Paulians leave.

#103 Most of the comments you quote were made tongue in cheek( that's my read) you underestimate the cost of this war. How much will the care of these wounded vets cost? USA today just found another 20000 brain injured soldiers uncounted because their wounds were discovered out of theatre. Are you advocating skimping on their care. Judging by what we have seen at Walter reed we both know how vets will be cad for later. How many more wounded will there be?? I wonder if the 500 billion over 4 years is as accurate as the army figures of the number of wounded.

"Its quite clear we are not in Iraq to "liberate it" from a terrorist dictator."

Except for the fact that we toppled a dictator and set up a democracy, this statement is completely accurate

"Sounds like you are more committed to this endless war, constant bloodshed, the inevitable killing of innocent people including children and women than you are building friendships and working on our country's own problems."

We bail on Iraq, we don't topple anybody --> we're dealing with a Middle East run by a bunch of dictators. So, who exactly are you planning on building friendships with?

"The current president keeps giving himself more power every day, we are not far off from having our own dictator."

$100,000 bet, right now, that George Bush will leave office in the first couple months of '09

Wanna take it?

irebuke, feel free to toss in all the other stuff. If we spent (for health care) or gave full salaries of $100,000 to the 20,000 guys per year, that would amount to $2 billion. When we're dealing figures of $500 billion, $2.5 trillion, $13 trillion - that won't be enough to *literally* cause the U.S. to go bankrupt.

108 you are a fool. we dd not set up a democracy we set up a secular system and ave them limited choice. Most of the dictators in the middle east are supported by the united states. the comment about the president giving himself more power doesn't speak to George bush but to precedent for the use of greater power by presidents in future administrations IE executive power.

I support Ron Paul's anti-war position regarding Iraq and I'm also for bringing the troops home from our 700 bases in 130 countries. We simply can't afford it. The Dollar is becoming worth less every day. We don't save any money and we don't make much "stuff" anymore. There is nothing proping up the currency. It will go down the tubes if we don't get our foreign expenditures under control. Raising interest rates is not an option. Sorry, but the game is over. We either come home or go broke.

"With Ron Paul in office, their rants will lose all meaning. The people will laugh in their faces, and these leaders will fall like a house of cards."

Yep, just like non-interventionist, friendly Jimmy Carter made everyone love America, so too will Ron Paul cause all foreign dictators to fall, peace to spread throughtout the world, just by virtue of being Ron Paul.
Mahmoud Ahmadinijad will take one look at Ron Paul and say,"awww, Ron Paul is such a nice guy. The fact he was elected totally makes up for any history I had with the US."
Kim Jong Il will destroy all his nukes and peacefully leave power because he realizes just how nice Ron Paul is.
No one will ever attack America during Ron Paul's presidency because he's a swell guy.

Seriously Paulians, you honestly think dictators will fall simply because US troops return to the US? Any one with any sense of history knows that that is just feel-good bull**** said by war weary denziens who just wan't the world to like them. No country has ever become more secure because they hunkered down in their homeland. Countries become secure because they annihilate threats before they become enemies. Yes, I would like muslims to stop hating us to. But we can't just say it's because of Bush. It goes a lot deeper than that. It's a little something called HISTORY. You might want to read up on it.

The "evil people" some of you refer to are the "evil people" that the U.S foreign policy has "created" in the Middle East since the 1940's. Research it and you'll see why I think this way and why they hate us.

"108 you are a fool. we dd not set up a democracy we set up a secular system and ave them limited choice."

Apparently national elections, a parliament, and a prime minister no longer constitute a democracy - who knew?

"Most of the dictators in the middle east are supported by the united states."

Except for the ones we keep attacking right?

And all the other ones who hate us and keep making threats against us...

Outside of that, we support all the dictators in the Middle East.

"the comment about the president giving himself more power doesn't speak to George bush but to precedent for the use of greater power by presidents in future administrations IE executive power."

Cool...$100,000 bet, right now, that the next President will leave office in the first couple months of '19

Wanna take it?

"The "evil people" some of you refer to are the "evil people" that the U.S foreign policy has "created" in the Middle East since the 1940's."

Jews?

I also posted at #101. As an after thought to my earlier comment:

You wrote:
"In 2001 we put the world on notice that they would either have to root out the terrorist organizations in their midsts, or we would do it for them. Ron Paul is against this policy, which is why I'm against Ron Paul."

How incorrect an assesment this is. Ron Paul was pushing for Congress to declare war, and he authorized the use of force against Afghanistan. It was W that is not tough on terror, not Ron Paul. Your post, sir, is 180 degrees from reality and I am sad that in the age of information some people continue to subscribe to ignorance.

To #114,

The U.S. supports Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Just the other day it was in the news that a young girl was given a prison sentence in Saudi Arabia, because she was raped.

The U.S. supports Pakistan, a military dictatorship and nuclear power, that also harbors Al Qaeda and possibly Bin Laden (If he's not lounging around in a bubble bath at NORAD).

Don't forget that the U.S. also propped up Sadam Hussein to terrorize the Iranians, and Osama Bin Laden to terrorize the Russians.

Don't forget, sir, that the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected president in Iran and installed a ruthless dictator in his place (Remember Blowback?).

Don't forget, sir, that millions of dollars worth of weaponry is not accounted for in Iraq. Do you think those arms wound up in the hands of democracy loving Iraqi's to be used against terrorists hiding in their country? Or, more likely, that those very arms which we supplied are now in the hands of terrorists and using them to kill our troops?

The most campaign donations from active duty troops go to Ron Paul. The Grass Roots support Ron Paul. In this information age, the most amount of information ever before assembled in history is online. And what a coincidence that, it is online that Ron Paul gets most of his support. This is to say that, the people in the know, support Ron Paul.

I'm a yuppy that believes everything FAUX news says and I piss my pants anytime someone mentions terrorists in my presence. Forgive me, soaked myself already. Give me a break. I cannot believe there are so many people that fall for this terrorist bullshit. Does anyone know when the first time terrorists were blamed for something? I have read and researched a little bit of history and came across something interesting. Hitler used the term "terrorists" to describe the people, at the time, responsible for the burning of the Reischtag. It wasn't until historians investigated this event that it was found to be Hitlers own "brown coats" that set the blaze and strengthened the nation of Germany under a unifying cause. This in-turn made the Nazi party a real political party and soon establishing a fuhrer practically overnight.

Charles, these have already been brought up and argued out multiple times in this thread.

My guess is you're repeating this for the fourth time now.

Because of that, sorry but - for now - I'll cut and paste some stuff in response

-

We did not help create Bin Laden. We gave money to the Mujahideen, not the Taliban, the former of which Bin Laden's most prominent role was not completely getting his ass kicked during an attempted retreat.

Either way, Bin Laden's absolutely loaded and hardly needed anybody's money, much less what little he got from us.

1.) the bulk of Hussein's war machine came from France and Russia. We contributed an infinitesimal fraction of it. 2. If your solution to us not supporting guys like the Shah during the Cold War is "the Soviet Union winning" that's just not much of a solution.

Our position, and the position of freedom in the world, would not have been improved if communist sympathizers had taken over Iran in the 50s, nor by Iran defeating Iraq. It would not be improved if Musharraf had quit cracking down on the extremists in his country (up until his actions late this year, the guys he was fighting had no interest in a democracy - they wanted to replace a secular dictator with a Islamist one). (also, we are the ones who pressured him to step down as head of the army (he did last week), and have been trying to get Bhutto back as an elected prime minister.)

Does anyone know when the first time terrorists were blamed for something? I have read and researched a little bit of history and came across something interesting. Hitler used the term "terrorists" to describe the people, at the time, responsible for the burning of the Reischtag. It wasn't until historians investigated this event that it was found to be Hitlers own "brown coats" that set the blaze and strengthened the nation of Germany under a unifying cause.

Actually, that's bullshit (it's widely enough repeated that I don't blame you for citing it - but it's still bullshit). While Hitler used it as an excuse to crack down on leftists who had nothing to do with the burning, it's pretty widely accepted among a lot of historians now that Lubbe set the fire.

As far as the first time terrorists were blamed for something - not by a long shot. Whether it's through secretly spreading fatal diseases (the conquistadors and the Mongols), sabotage (Lawrence of Arabia), or trying to blow up the government (Guy Fawkes), terrorists have existed and been blamed for stuff for centuries and possibly as long as there's been war.

We've always backed dictators. We put the Shah in Iran, backed Saddam against Iran, backed Bin Laden against the Soviets. We're constantly pitting one against the other as our interests change. Read the 911 report. There's blowback and consequences from our flawed foreign policy, It's not about honor anymore. We're raising a generation of Americans who only know war. Twelve year olds on 9/11 are voting this year. I want to have children, and I don't want them to fight or die for any other country except America. How do you tell a middle class family that they worked all year for Pakistan? Walk through Detroit or Camden at night and see where we really need the troops. Let's get this country right and THEN help others.

"How do you tell a middle class family that they worked all year for Pakistan?"

The figure was cited above by a Paul '08 supporter that we've given $11 billion to Pakistan.

Now rich people obviously pay a greater share of it, but if you just split that up per person that comes to 300 million people out of $11 B = $36 to Pakistan -- total.

I have some sympathy for someone who joined before all this originally and didn't want to go to Iraq, but their initial time in the military has ended now. They've had a chance to either quit or re-enlist and know what they're getting into.

To #119,

Apologies, you are correct, I have not read all 119 comments. And to your credit, I enjoyed your informative response, even if it was just a cut and paste. I promise to investigate your claims.

What then, is your answer to Prescott Bush and the others who helped finance Hitler's rise to power in the 1930's? And their attempted coup against FDR? I know some people will shout 'Conspiracy!' but this is in the Congressional record.

And what about Woodrow Wilson (we should start with him)? He sold out the country to the Federal Reserve, the League of Nations (Now the U.N.), and led a huge propaganda machine that brought the U.S. into WW1. This propaganda machine spied, tapped telephones, and opened mail in an effort to ferret out "spies and traitors." The targets of these groups was anyone who called for peace, questioned the Allies' progress, or criticized the government's policies. For more on this please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information

My point is that, starting just after the turn of the last century, the U.S. government established a policy of lying to its citizens, focusing power within the central banks, and waging and even instigating foreign wars. WW1 was started by an arms race which amassed shortly after the establishment of the Federal Reserve here in the U.S. The result of WW1 was, inevitably, WW2, and these two wars should even be looked at under the same light. The result of WW2 was permanent U.S. military presence in Europe. Whether intended or not, the martyring of the Jews led the U.S. to later support Israel as its proxy in the Middle East. Furthermore, the contemporary wars have little or nothing to do with the governments and dictators in Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Iran. Because what happens when you have those three countries only sets up the stage for the big conflict, and that is that, those three countries lie underneath the belly of Russia, and holding that ground would be key in dividing Russia and China.

Conspiracy? Absolutely. Historical record? To the best of my ability (and free time) to do the homework. What does it all mean?

It means that regular, ordinary, democracy loving folks like you and me just don't have a place in our own government anymore. The place is run by the central bankers and the military industrial complex, to say the least. Wars feed this machine, so we can expect them to continue with or without just cause. In only one hundred years of this madness, the U.S. dollar has been devalued to being only worth four cents of its former value. We hard working, tax paying Americans have footed the bill for this all along.

Finally, we have arrived in the age of information and we can actually access allof this and put the pieces together. And thank god for George Bush (I hate saying that), he has trashed our civil liberties to the degree that ordinary Americans are now taking notice. And thank god for Ron Paul (I love saying that), now Americans have what they have not had in one hundred years. Hope for America.

Don't you under stand we are becoming a slave state in our own way?!?!?
The bottom line is if we Emplire build our lives will suck!

It's just not worth it... That's the most important thing you don't seem to understand.
It's not worth it! Iran will never attack anyone- And you know this..

I agree! I demand tax-payer funded military-style security next time I travel outside the country.

I think these comments about Ron Paul not defending the country are bogus. He understands that bankrupting the nation fighting undeclared wars with second and third rate dictators and trying to force democracy down their throats at the end of a gun barrel is just plain dumb.

We need to be ready to go in and take out terrorists when it becomes necessary, but we don't need to assist them in their recruiting efforts through dumb policies. Another great freedom lover Thomas Jefferson has a little trouble with terrorists. I guess you could call them pirates. He send the marines over to Tripoli, took them out, didn't try to occupy or create a republic there, got the hell out, and went home, problem solved. That is how one takes care of this sort of this.

Harvey said:

"Any free or semi-free nation has the right (although not the duty) to invade any dictatorial slave state for the purpose of liberating it, or to extinguish a threat to the free nation's existence.

Thomas Jefferson (whom I much admire) said:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Those kinda sound similar to me...

Thankfully my hero TJ didn't say "While I do oppose tyranny over Americans, I don't give a half-a-crap about others because my taxes will go up." 'Cuz if he did, he'd deserve the same disdain I have for isolationist look-the-other-way selfish blog-trolls

Thanks for falling for the trap!
#57 - Posted by: Andrew on December 1, 2007 05:29 PM

http://www.newsbusters.org/node/11368

Idiot, you are stuck in 2005. Just because no one reported it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, and by the way, calling me stupid? You are the one without enough brain cells to realize when you are being baited.

Anyway, thanks for playing.

#128 was me.

Ron Paul has some good ideas, sure. Now if he could come up with some of his own...

But if that happened, you Paullowers might have to follow suit & think for yourselves, rather than plagiarizing each other and rattling off "facts" from your little Dr. Ron cheat sheets.

I know that you think that you're being impressive with your multitude of words in your attempts at intellectual debate, but using weasel words, pacifist quotes, pre-masticated talking points, and a flurry of comment spammers does little more than reinforce the notion many other people, myself included, have that either you're surreptitious phonies trying your best to divide the conservative voting base or you really are just that easily indoctrinated.

And I am not saying you're all dumb; I'm willing to bet that a good deal of you have above average intelligence. The interesting thing about that is that while many people think that individuals drawn to fringe groups & cults are loners, losers, or mentally unstable, most of the time just the opposite is true. The fact is that most of these people getting drawn into the cult trap are intelligent and idealistic young folks who feel a need to identify with others like them. They have a low tolerance for ambiguity, are culturally disillusioned, naively passionate, and somewhat dependent.

I bring all that up because, if you look at the way you act, you exhibit many of the signs of someone who has been indoctrinated into a cult. It would never occur to you to hang around IMAO for any other reason... but then again, why would you? Whether you thought the site was funny or not is irrelevant; you have a single objective that seems to permeate your entire lives right now. You all have taken Ron Paul as some type of prophet, and little will deter you from your devotion to him because you have identified with his following so deeply that any notion of him not getting elected or even nominated is preposterous.

You make Dr. Ron Paul look as though he is sinless, without defect or vice. You show that you know a lot about Dr. Paul, his life, his objectives, his career prior to politics, his diet, etc. But I bet none of you came upon all that knowledge all on your own. You all have the same arguments for Dr. Paul & cannot accept other people's dissent. If you could, you wouldn't take all the time & effort to comment spam this (and I'm guessing many, many other) websites that don't say nice things about Ron Paul. To you, that's akin to blasphemy, and you feel it's your moral duty to set everyone else straight. After all, how can the rest of us be so blind?

If you take the time to read books on character aspects of cults, you just might see some frightening parallels to you own behavior. Indeed, the only thing missing is a charismatic leader who demands this kind of fealty from his following, but that's another reason why I don't like him: any responsible conservative would discourage & even condemn such behavior from his fan base if they acted like this without his express consent. He neither commands nor condemns it. That seems flaky to me.

As a professional hypnotist, JIVEWIRE has worked to empower people to access the power of their subconscious mind to create positive change. In 1958, the American Medical Association endorsed hypnotherapy as a valuable self help tool, so it has nothing to do with magic- it is all about suggestibility.

Suggestibility is how we learn and process information, some of us are right brain suggestible (direct suggestions) while others are more left brain suggestible (inferred suggestions). Hypnotherapy is the process of working with a person’s suggestibility to overload and bypass the conscious mind (estimated at 10%), and inducing a trance state to access the powerful 90% of the mind, which is subconscious. All of our memories and conditioning is stored in the subconscious, so change can happen quickly in a subconscious state of mind, as the critical conscious mind is put to “sleep”. It is natural to fall into various levels of trance throughout the day (daydreaming, jogging, engrossed in a movie or book), and trance is the suggestible brain wave states of Alpha (light trance) and Theta (deep trance). However, with the overload of information in modern society, humanity has been conditioned to live in a constant state of Alpha and Theta trance, creating an easily influenced and hyper-suggestible population. Much of JIVEWIRE’s practice is dedicated to dehypnotizing people who were in a constant state of hyper- suggestibility. We can ponder if this hyper-suggestible population is by design or just a byproduct of the information age, regardless of how it happened, it is here and the challenge is now.

We now live in a sound bite society, where many have become completely absorbed by the latest reality show or electronic gadget. Many are unknowingly steered to support politicians and policies that really benefit the elite, and not the people. Many are just lazy to research, and eager to obey. How else could one explain the popularity of bought and paid for establishment candidates like Clinton and Giuliani? What kind of bizarro Orwellian world do we live in when calculating warmonger candidates are crowned the front runners by the corporate controlled media, and a principled, anti-war candidate like Dr. Ron Paul is considered “fringe”? When did liberty, sound money, and peace become “fringe”?

Ron Paul critics love to throw stones. They are quick to smear and distort the truth. How could these people blindly support Clinton, Giuliani and the other Washington insider candidates? JIVEWIRE will provide some answers on how the corporate media has created these misinformed individuals.

The television has the appropriate nickname of the “idiot tube”. NOTHING has done more damage to independent thinking than TV. Furthermore, television conditions the human mind to settle into the Alpha brain wave state quickly and the more TV we watch, the more quickly we slip into TV induced trance. You are then open and receptive to whatever is being peddled on TV. Granted, responsible programming can educate and entertain. Yet the “entertainment” industry has sold out to the almighty dollar, and peddle gratuitous sex, violence, and propaganda that can damage our perceptions and behaviors. TV journalism is irresponsible. The propaganda peddled by FOX and CNN look to increase ratings and push the objectives of the money people behind the scenes, and the corporate advertisers who buy commercial time. Don’t forget that FOX head honcho Rupert Murdoch supports Giuliani, but also supports Clinton as he has held fundraisers for her. If Giuliani or Clinton win, they are beholden to Murdoch. Dr. Paul frightens the corporate establishment, as he cannot be bought by them. As a result, the establishment controlled media smear and belittle Dr. Paul and his supporters. The brainwashed population who accept the establishment candidates buy into the media assertions of “kooky and “fringe”. How does the TV news media control the SHEEPLE using hypnotic principles?

1) LAW OF OVERLOAD- the special effects and colorful graphics behind the TV broadcast “journalist” induce visual trance (think of a hypnotist’s swinging pendulum, or imagine how a casino overloads people with colors and sounds to elicit a suggestible “gambling” trance state). In addition, the streaming words on the the lower portion of the screen providing news updates is a form of subliminal programming- you focus on the broadcaster, your subconscious is being fed the words, you focus on the words, your subconscious accepts the message of the broadcaster.

2) LAW OF REPETITION- how many times has the media portrayed Dr. Paul as “fringe”? Now read any of the blog sites smearing Dr. Paul, and like Pavlov’s dogs, the Ron Paul critics are parroting the same words like “fringe” and “kooky”. In hypnosis, information is repeated in patterns of three, with twenty one being a powerful number number of repetitions to influence behavior. Those against Ron Paul understand the power of repetition.

3) THE LAW OF ASSOCIATION- another powerful hypnotic principle, which is also the main principle behind Pavlov’s research of ringing a bell while feeding a dog, so later the dog hears the bell he salivates for food. The establishment controlled media is doing it’s best to tie in Dr. Paul with controversy. As an example, a donor of Dr. Paul happens to hold racist views, Dr. Paul is now guilty by association, even though he is not a racist and cannot control who supports him. Every campaign will have contributors with controversial views, imagine how many the warmongering candidates have? Unfortunately, the easily swayed SHEEPLE buy into the propaganda without research.

4) FEAR. It controls the weak and suggestible. Ron Paul critics are afraid of less government. They fear change. They fear going against the status quo. They have so much fear they have been willing to give up their freedoms.

5) IDOL WORSHIP. The SHEEPLE idolize the famous. TV creates the American Idols that SHEEPLE love. Both Giuliani and Clinton have huge name recognition and the easily influenced are seduced by the fame.

Here are some tips to keep yourself in the Beta brain wave state (wide awake, and blocked from brainwashing)-

A) Be wise in your television viewing. Don’t watch too much TV, especially at night. We are more receptive later in the evening as the critical conscious mind is tiring as we move towards sleep, leaving the subconscious receptive to TV propaganda.

B) We are very suggestible to ourselves. Be positive in your self talk. You create your reality by how you think.

C) Food affects mood, and overeating junk food can create hypoglycemic states that leave you more receptive to influence. Avoid human tinkered with processed foods.

D) Exercise and meditation allow you to control the trance state, as you decide to slip into trance while practicing a healthy habit, versus slipping into TV trance to watch some negative programming.

CNN and FOX are two sides of the same coin. All of the mainstream media are part of the same greed and manipulation. The old adage of sticks and stones may break bones, but words can never hurt is a myth. Words, and the way a message is delivered has great impact on our society. Please pass this message along, as us patriotic Americans who are awake to the deception need to spread the word. We also need to do the best we can to protect the freedom of the internet (as Dr. Paul has proven to be a great defender of a free internet), as the powers that be will soon attempt to dismantle this new “power to the people” media.

The Ron Paul Revolution is real- intelligent Americans everywhere have become empowered as a political force to restore America to greatness in a peaceful way. We also have a responsibility to remind everyone that the constitution is the foundation of this wonderful country, and to make sure it is not ignored. Dr. Paul has awoken a sleeping giant, and his campaign has also exposed the mainstream media for the dying relic that it is.

God bless America and God bless Dr. Paul! He is a selfless and remarkable patriot, a true American hero. As history and the future will prove, Dr. Paul has already won in so many ways.

I'm going to re-post #130 from time to time, because you Paulies need to get it.

The theory that two wrongs will not make it right but but three will, is absent minded. In order to find a solution to a problem we must first truly understand a problem. In our country we are beset with a strange black is white thought process that has been given to us. To understand this is to is begin to understand the problem. That is to say we believe that killing others that do not agree with is the correct thing to do. We do this in our society and in our foreign affairs. We keep touting a Democratic government is the only right government for the world. Little do we know that we are a republic that has been turned into a democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

re·pub·lic (rĭ-pŭb'lĭk)
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

The key difference is the Republic is where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and are responsible to them. The Democracy is where majority rules the rest of the people, maybe that is one person. The Democracy can subvert the will of the people (FISA, Patriot Act)with a simple majority a free republic operates on the express desire of all the people not just the majority as a majority is a trick that allows a smaller group of people to control a larger group this is not freedom.
In a republic we the people are always in control as the state operates to the will of the people not special interests ever.

Protect Americans while they are overseas? What about China and Russia setting up their bases in the US to protect their own citizens while they are there?

Ron Paul is TOUGH on terror. Here are three examples:

1) To safeguard each American individually, he is the Gun Owners of America’s A+ candidate for protecting Americans right to bear arms.

2) To defend America’s most immediate threat, Ron wants to prevent terrorists from crossing the Southern border, now occurring nearly unimpeded.

3) In the event that intelligence sources provide Congress with real threats to our national security originating overseas, an act of Congress would mandate future President Paul to mobilize our armed forces to neutralize the threat, and then return home.

That some say Ron is weak on terror is a shame on their ability to reason with the information given them.

#130
"a flurry of comment spammers does little more than reinforce the notion many other people, myself included, have that either you're surreptitious phonies trying your best to divide the conservative voting base or you really are just that easily indoctrinated."

#132:
"I'm going to re-post #130 from time to time, because you Paulies need to get it."

Fire with fire eh? :-)

"The fact is that most of these people getting drawn into the cult trap are intelligent and idealistic young folks who feel a need to identify with others like them. They have a low tolerance for ambiguity, are culturally disillusioned, naively passionate, and somewhat dependent."

Some are, perhaps. Speaking as one who is neither young, nor much of a "joiner", I can suggest an alternative solution to the puzzle of all this Ron Paul "spam": Freedom is popular.

Maybe a message of liberty, which was powerful enough to fuel the revolution which created this country, is still powerful enough to inspire the descendents of that movement. Maybe some citizens are willing to take the risk of running their own lives. Maybe some recognize that America�s 5% of the world population cannot fund benevolent invasions to free the other 95%, some of whom live in nations we define as oppressive. Maybe the Constitution of the United States does not actually allow such collective benevolence (short of formal declarations of war).

Maybe anti-Paul posts on sites which Google categorizes as "news" are found by anyone searching Google News for "Ron Paul". Maybe a traditional message of constitutionality and liberty resonates with some people so well, that even a speaker as unremarkable as Ron Paul lights a fire in them. Maybe the "spam" is the result of thousands of listeners who have felt that fire within.

In the late 18th century, I�m sure there were plenty of regular colonists who were quite tired of hearing all this "freedom" talk from annoying people like Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and the like. The definition and tolerance of oppression can vary widely.

Also, a few quick notes to the original poster from another Libertarian: Nations don�t have rights, they have powers. One man�s "hell hole" is another man�s "sovereign nation". The "general welfare" and "commerce" clauses also don�t grant Congress or the president the authority to meddle in the affairs of people in other nations any more than they do here. A "war" on an inanimate generalized object like "terror" or "drugs" can never end. "Terror" cannot surrender. "Drugs" has no binding spokesman (okay, maybe Keith Richards). A constant state of war is useful for the emotional unquestioning allegiance it demands, "Support the commander-in-chief, we�re at WAR." Libertarians who reject collectivist domestic social solutions might well be some of the same libertarians who reject collectivist foreign military solutions.

But I agree with protecting our citizens as they travel abroad. I don�t recall ever seeing Ron Paul suggest he didn�t agree as well.

Good post. Much shorter than mine, an advantage I�ll concede to you. I�ll have to use Pascal�s excuse: mine would have been shorter, but I ran out of time.

I don't think we, as nation, really deserve Ron Paul.

Talk about your cruel and unusual punishment.