Wednesday, July 18, 2007
|
|
Ron Paul Will Place Second at Ames
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
1:48 AM
|
|
You heard it here first. He leads the second tier in cash-on-hand. He was able to get 1,200 people out to the Hy-Vee (has any candidate done something that big on their own, not at an RPI event?). His home base in Texas isn’t that far of a drive, and his people are motivated enough to come in from out of state for him. And he’s making a big push on his Web site, which for all intents and purposes, is his campaign. Romney, given his dominant position organizationally in Iowa, should still win. Even with the rest of the top tier not participating, he won’t be able to let his guard down, lest he be ambushed by one of the second tier. Should Romney underperform against someone not even playing at Ames, or against someone not taken seriously, that’s a blow to his Iowa inevitability. Does Paul placing a close second make the straw poll and its winner into a laughingstock? Do benched McCain or Giuliani supporters direct people to vote for Paul to ensure that outcome? Or does this portend something bigger? I see that Ron Paul is up to 3% in the Gallup poll, above Huckabee and Brownback. He won’t come close to winning, but can he aggregate whatever Bilderburger and Trilateral Commission-phobic votes there are in his corner, in the same way that Lyndon LaRouche could get 15% in a Democratic primary against Bill Clinton? And what’s happened to Huckabee and Brownback? Conn Carroll and I got into a lengthy “What about Huckabee?” discussion on BloggingHeads.tv. Intellectually, the Huckabee campaign seemed to make sense in the context of the standard playbook of GOP campaigns. With no Country-Western candidates and no authentic pro-lifers in the race, and with his personal connection to the pastors, he has/had a chance to break out in Iowa. Where this theory breaks down is that the interest groups may not matter so much in GOP politics anymore. What matters is going to your base directly, which only Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and maybe Mitt Romney are doing. Can Huckabee or Brownback be carried by the church lists, or is the drawn out calendar and the Internet helping Evangelicals to make their own independent assessments (which is why Rudy isn’t getting killed, BTW)?
|
|
Have you ever driven from Texas to Iowa? Just going border to border will take you a full day.
If 1,200 people includes his "home base" supporters, how does that help him with votes in Iowa? If his support is 1,200 people across 5 states, that is not much to shout about. |
|
|
shut up, neo con. He will have the votes, his grass roots supporting is spready like wild fire! :) |
|
At the Des Moines Rally I met a lot of "Iowa" supporters for Ron Paul. I drove from Dubuque IA to hear him. I, personally, didn't meet anyone from Texas, other than his campaign staff, I did meet a few people who claimed to live along the borders of neighboring states and their reasons for coming were the same as mine, they were very interested in hearing his message 1st hand, and viewed it as a once in a lifetime chance to see Ron Paul unadulterated by the MSM.
I'll be voting for Ron Paul, and most everyone I've introduced to his Ideas & Campaign are impressed enough that they are Volunteering, Donating, or at least spreading the word to others who haven't heard about him yet. I do get a lot of "Who is Ron Paul?" and even had campaign workers for the other R. Presidential Debates (held down the hall from Ron's Rally) asking me why he wasn't included in the Des Moines Debates. Very simply the Organizer was a McCain Loyalist & Organizer in Iowa until just a month or so before the debate, and even though we had almost 10,000 online signatures requesting Paul's presence, he adamantly refused. On the Grounds that RP wasn't a credible candidate & that if they had invited all of the candidates that there would be time issues and it would be unwieldy. Well, out of the 16 (+/-?) candidates only 6 accepted, you think that would leave room for Paul, nope... now his excuse was that Ron Paul supporters from all over the country were calling his house, at all hours, to complain. He seemed to believe it was an organized effort to harass him rather than an effort to get Ron Paul in the Debate. Pathetic, like a man trying to stop the tide from coming in, while claiming that the water is obviously involved in an organized conspiracy to make him appear all wet. |
|
Libs4RP - No.
Wrathwilde - Thanks. I tossed in my comment just to point out what I considered a fallacy in Ruffini's column, which appears to draw some big conclusions from a little data. Not being in Iowa, it is difficult to get the pulse of how the electorate there is thinking so appreciate your comments. You also inspired me to look at RP's website and his stance on the issues. I think he is wrong on the war, wrong on trade, wrong on monetary policy, but is great on right to life, taxes, spending and restraint of government.
HalO - Can you repeat that? |
|
The Real Reason Ron Paul will place 2nd is that Mitt Romney is buying votes on a massive scale!!! Our local GOP here in Dubuque, Iowa is just giddy with excitement. The tickets to the Ames straw poll are $35 and you can't vote without a ticket. FOR THEIR ASSURANCES THAT THEY WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY... ROMNEY IS PAYING FOR THEIR TICKETS, PROVIDING FOOD, AND PAYING FOR THE CHARTERED BUSES TO TAKE THEM FROM DUBUQUE TO AMES, a three hour drive, so far he has five bus loads of votes bought and paid for... just from Dubuque!!!
Congressman Ron Paul on the other hand believes that buying votes is morally repugnant, and counter the intentions of a free democracy, he refuses to buy votes. If the Vote is lopsided toward Romney, know that he is buying thousands of votes across Iowa. If it is actually close between Ron Paul and Romney, remember one of them bought thousands of votes the other didn't, just imagine who would have won if everyone bought their own tickets.
note - Romney Knows that this is exactly how Bush won Ames, Bush spent almost $900,000 to win Ames, and a good deal of that $$ went to Bribing voters with Free tickets and the like. I'd wager Romney has Spent at least $15,000 buying votes at our local GOP here in Dubuque. He's probably going to surpass Bush and blow upward of a million dollars on Ames. |
|
|
People actually are motivated to spend their own money promoting and voting for Ron Paul - his Message is their Message, that the era of "business as usual" is past, and it is time for real meaningful change. Thus, Romney might be able to buy the straw poll, but the pundits will all say it doesn't prove anything since the so-called front-runners didn't contest it. Meanwhile, quietly, everyone there will be exposed to all of the Ron Paul supporters, who will spread the Message ... pay for their own tickets ... donate MORE to the campaign ... and all those bought and paid-for folks will get turned on to real freedom, real change. Even if he does place 2nd or 3rd, Ron Paul will be the real winner. |
|
|
If that is how the system in Iowa works, I guess it is wise for the other candidates to skip the straw poll. If such an obvious method of cheating is left open, I guess that doesn't speak well of Iowans either. Any chance all this grass roots energy there could reform their corrupt system? |
|
"Does Paul placing a close second make the straw poll and its winner into a laughingstock?"
How can it not? Ideally for Romney, he would have won a toe-to-toe battle with Rudy in Iowa. Far less satisfactory would be winning over a Rudy who barely competed. Winning over Paul will make this like a minor league victory.
While Rudy, McCain, and Fred are getting ready for the PGA Championship being played in South Carolina and the US Open being played in Florida, Romney is "winning" a developmental league title over a few club pros in Iowa. Ouch.
If what Wrathwilde claims is even 10% true, it goes to show why Iowa is so jealous of preserving its supposed kingmaker status. It's not just false pride, it's greed. All the more reason to welcome the lessening importance of the two whitest, least typical states in the union and the growing importance of relevant states like SC, FL, CA, GA, etc. in the selection process. |
|
|
A Jihadi "the Americans make me do it" apologist in the White House! You guys got your tin foil hats ready? |
|
In his Google interview, Ron Paul made his support for gay marriage pretty clear.
Google Executive: "So clearly, then, your position on issues like gay marriage--you'd be in favor of that?"
Ron Paul: "I'm in favor of all voluntary associations, and people can call it whatever they want." |
|
|
He looks like Ross Perot's cranky older brother. This is the age of media, people. An old scold like Paul might play well in retirement homes, but hasn't a prayer of winning national office. Give him a pitchfork and he'd look like that farmer in the Rockwell painting. |
|
Ron Paul leads ALL ‘08 candidates with one-third
of military contributions for Q2
EL-It turns out that the news I reported in this post is even better now that someone has looked at all the contribution data from military personnel and military veterans. Ron Paul is ahead of all candidates for the White House in this area. Again, the point here isn’t the total amount of money raised so much, but the percentage of support from military families. Conventional wisdom would suggest that the one candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the start on philosophical and constitutional grounds would not have a following among the military. But Ron Paul is bucking conventional wisdom in all areas of this campaign, and now we know he is doing it here, too.
Military contributions for Q2
Ron Paul - - 32.94%
John McCain - - 22.99%
Hillary Clinton - - 13.92%
Bill Richardson - - 7.03%
Barack Obama - - 6.85%
Mitt Romney - - 4.68%
Rudy Giuliani - - 3.06%
John Edwards - - 2.97%
Tom Tancredo - - 1.85%
Duncan Hunter - - 1.32%
Joe Biden - - 1.06%
Mike Huckabee - - 0.20%
Mike Gravel - - 0.09%
Sam Brownback - - 0.07%
Dennis Kucinich - - 0%
Tommy Thompson - - 0%
Chris Dodd - - 0%
Jim Gilmore - - 0%
John Cox - - 0%
Click here and here for more details.
http://controlcongress.com/2008-election/ron-paul-leads-all-%e2%80%9808-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2
|
|
A small but vitally important correction:
Mr Ruffini has written here:
"With no Country-Western candidates and no authentic pro-lifers in the race..."
Ron Paul has been staunchly Pro-Life for as long as I've been aware of him (at least ten years). He is an obstetrician who has delivered four-thousand babies amd long ago proposed an anti-abortion amendment to the constitution.
I believe some of the other "second tier" Republican candidates also have solid pro-life records, but it was especially out-of-place to say there weren't any pro-life candidates in an article centered on "Doctor No", Congressman Ron Paul.
Michael Burns |
|
Now there's an intelligent and well thought out post!
Why is it that ronpaulette's pretty much always seem to have that kind of limited response?
The few who insist on plaguing TH seem to be so immature. If that is the type of personality that ronpaul attracts, ?????
|
|
Apologies for a second post, but a needed follow up for my contention that Ron Paul is Pro-Life. At the below URL is an article written by Ron Paul TWENTY-SIX YEARS AGO, in 1981. Read it for yourself, he didn't come to this fight yesterday.
http://www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html
|
|
|
Ron Paul maintains "the Americans have made Jihadis way too mad by going into Iraq" therefore we should not fight the Jihadis in Iraq!!! There are no more pre-born infants in America if American cities are destroyed by alQaeda using WMD's! Someone that irresponsible does not deserve money or support by freedom loving people. |
|
|
Let's see. The US has intervened in the internal afairs of many countires in the mid-east (not to mention the rest of the world) for decades, toppling elected governments while propping up tyrants who murdered dissadents by teh thousands. US imposed sanctions against Iraqcaused 500,000 deaths - a number Madaleine Albright found "acceptable". Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. Bush lied about the WMD which was the big excuse to invade. Over 70% of Iraqi's want the US out of Iraq. The war (in fact the entire foreign policy of worldwide interventionism) - in conjunction with massive domestic spending - is bankrupting the US and with teh FED's help is destoying the dollar. If teh US would leave the people in those lands would sort out their own problems, as it should be. The US is in no position to pick the "good guys" from the "bad guys" among people's who have been fighting for generations. Once the US leaves - which is all they want of us - they have no reason to care about the US. Seahawk's squawks of "American cities ... destroyed by alQaeda using [non-existent] WMD's" proves only that he's the one in need of a tin foil hat. |
|
I hope Romney isn't doing what has been reported by Wrathwilde. I too would find that despicable. It would be yet another reason why he wouldn't be my choice for the GOP nomination.
It may be true that Ron Paul doesn't buy votes. However, it appears that he buys bloggers. |
|
I can personally vouch for his online popularity. He has hoards of passionate supporters and they seem real to me.
I just watched a video of an interview Ron Paul had at Google. Its pretty powerful stuff. I don't agree with everything, but you can tell this guy means what he says and it pretty much explains his new found popularity.
Have a look and see for yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
|
|
"US imposed sanctions against Iraqcaused 500,000 deaths - a number Madaleine Albright found "acceptable"."
1. Please cite a reputable source for that.
2. Saddam Hussein had more than enough money to feed his people. He also could have just complied with the earlier truce he agreed to and avoided the sanctions. Instead, he decided that building palaces and building up his army to threaten his neighbors was more important. I would give just slightly more blame to him than I'd give to the U.S.
3. uh, yeah, because it was just the U.S. that imposed that, it's not like the rest of the countries in the U.N. did it also...
"for decades, toppling elected governments while propping up tyrants who murdered dissadents by teh thousands."
We helped topple Iran and Chile. While these weren't exactly the epitome of free and fair elections to begin with, us not toppling them would have led to them being taken over by communists. In 2007, it may be fun to Monday-morning quarterback our policy during Cold War, but if the alternative to some people hating us is the USSR winning the Cold War - I'll take some people hating us. I wouldn't entrust our policy (either back then or today) to a guy who opposes freakin' Korea. Sorry, it's not going to happen.
The main problem I have with Ron Paul's foreign policy is that it boils down to "it's alright if other people have to live in tyrannical dictatorship as long as it doesn't affect me." Now, Ron Paul can call hismelf a libertarian - his supporters can call themselves libertarians. But I don't see anything libertarian about that.
Liberty be damned--all that amounts to is "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you." |
|
|
Blaming America for the Jihad is akin to blaming us for the Nazi's. It's just, too, stupid to argue. regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/05/deroy_murdock/ |
|
I'm a conservative and I've researched all the Republican Presidential Candidates. I believe that Ron Paul is the most qualified for the job. He has the kind of ideas that will bring our country together and change it for the better. His ideas are called "radical," but they are taken directly from the Founding Fathers. We don't need more of the same from the other candidates who just sould like Bush clones. We need someone with integrity, who practices what he preaches. Don't form an opinion based on the (sometimes) negative and sometimes incorrect press about Ron Paul. Research him for yourself, read his own words. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org
I see a lot of incorrect press about Congressman Paul, and a lot of hateful things are said about him. It makes me wonder why they treat him this way. I suppose some people have their own agendas and will say anything to make others look good.
Don't let the press tell you who to vote for, think for yourself. Do the research. I'm sure that you'll discover like I did, that Dr. Paul is the best man for the job. |
|
Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is debatable. Whether we should stay in Iraq is debatable. That the war in Iraq is dragging the GOP towards oblivion is not.
We got our collective butts handed to us in the last election over this war. I sure as hell don't want a collectivist harpy like Hillary Clinton riding to victory on the back of an unpopular war.
And spare us the mushroom clouds going off over cities rhetoric. If AQ gets a nuke, it will not be because we left Iraq. It will be on the black market, most likely from Russia or North Korea. Such talk is the worst form of scaremongering, brought to us courtesy of a wing of the GOP that has nothing but fear to offer, and should rejected part-and-parcel by Republicans who still believe their party is the party of freedom and prosperity.
I want to thank Ron Paul for reminding us all not to sell our liberties out because we are afraid... that is the way of cowards and fools.
Ron Paul 2008. Because taking your country back should be fun. |
|
Going into Iraq prevented A.Q. Khan from giving the bomb to alqueada already.
Winning in Iraq will put the Dems in the basement for 20 years.They have gone so far out now they cannot ever say "me,too" when we do win there.
Tin foil hats for all Ron Paul ostrichs! Yipppeee!
(Dems and libs fear monger about global climate change. Islamic Jihad is real)
You need to stop listening to NPR. |
|
... AQ Khan was a Pakistani network, not an Iraqi one. So, why haven't we invaded Pakistan? Or is it your contention that the ONLY way to break that network was by invading Iraq? If so, what's the point of having an intelligence service?
Re: Putting Dems in the basement... Time to wake up, Seehawk!! We are not going to win in Iraq before Nov 2008. All the metrics have us going backwards. More servicemen have died in the last 12 months than in the previous 12 months. More Iraqi personnel have died in the last 12 months thean the previous 12 months. More Iraqi civilians have died in the last 12 months than the previous 12 months. Public opinion in the US and Iraq is worse now than 12 months ago. IOW, if you are counting on victory in Iraq to propel the GOP in 2008, you have already conceded defeat. There are two choices... bail on Iraq and possibly lose the elections, or stay with Iraq and certainly lose the elections. Either way, the US will be leaving Iraq.
GWB tried bringing Wilsonian idealism into our foreign policy, and our party is now paying the price for a fool's errand. Had the Realists had their say, and we installed Ahmed Chalabi and gotten the hell out, maybe things would have been different. But tin foil hats ought to be reserved for those ostriches who refuse to identify abject failure when it is staring them in the face. Such lunacy is worthy only of those on the left. We on the right should be made of sterner stuff.
BTW, when I listen to the radio, I listen to music... not the fairy tales you apparently have been tuning into. |
|
"Blaming America for the Jihad is akin to blaming us for the Nazi's. It's just, too, stupid to argue."
Translation: I can't dispute anything you said so I will call it stupid and bury my head in the sand.
Thank God more people aren't buying that kind of rhetoric these days. Everything Marlow said was true and anyone who disagrees needs a history lesson. Look, no question these fundamentalists despise us and the fact they view us as an immoral Christian nation intensifies that hatred. But in no way is it the cause. In 1950 we were beloved throughout the Middle East because we were viewed as the only superpower that had no Imperial ambitions in the area. Since then we have gone in the complete opposite direction and have paid the price. You have to understand that the only way fundamentalist militant Islam (and really fundamentalist militant anything; look at Nazi Germany) is when you create a situation where supporting it is patriotic. The clearest example in the ME is when in 1953 our CIA organized a coup against the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq (a secularist, but one who wanted more money from their oil going to Iran and not British oil companies) who we falsely labeled a communist. We installed the Shah in his place and his corrupt and autocratic rule was despised by it's civilians for 25 years and they ultimately rallied behind a group of fundamentalist militant Muslims who had the power to over through the government and the rebellion that lead to the 1979 hostage crisis was born. This is what they call blowback and it's only one of many examples that have occurred the past 50 years. Whether you want to remain willfully ignorant to the fact that US foreign policy has contributed to this Jihad or not doesn't change the fact that it does. It's contributing right now in Iraq where we create more by the day with our occupation and acceptance of 70,000 Iraqis as collateral damage. There are a lot of rational people in the ME, but by creating a terrible and desperate sense of anger and hopelessness we are feeding this terrorism. Ridiculing such logic as stupid is nothing but a cop out. |
|
|
I wasn't blaming US for Nazi Germany. I was blaming the Treaty of Versailles and the immense poverty and humiliation it led to. |
|
That's the way most Republican Straw polls work, Iowa or Not, and that's why the media is loath to give anyone without the big bucks any sort of shot winning the straw poll, or at winning the Party Nomination, this is the real reason there doesn't seem to be any real choice in candidates anymore, it is money. The GOP Straw Polls are supposed to be fundraisers for the State's GOP, so they're not about to outlaw buying votes. As far as it being true, it is, I'm preparing an information package to pass out in the parking lot, before the buses leave, hopefully change some minds as they read during the 3 hour trip down.
As for being a paid blogger, no, quite the opposite, Last month I started to make monthly donations to Ron Paul's Campaign, I'm shooting for donating $100 a month. I'm at $200 now. |
|
--"The clearest example in the ME is when in 1953 our CIA organized a coup against the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammed Mosaddeq (a secularist, but one who wanted more money from their oil going to Iran and not British oil companies) who we falsely labeled a communist. We installed the Shah in his place and his corrupt and autocratic rule was despised by it's civilians for 25 years and they ultimately rallied behind a group of fundamentalist militant Muslims who had the power to over through the government and the rebellion that lead to the 1979 hostage crisis was born."--
We didn't install the Shah. The latest dynasty dated back to the 19th century and the Shahs of Iran, as rulers, dated back centuries before that. What we did do is get rid of Mosaddeq as an opposing power.
How was Mosaddeq falsely labeled, though? He implemented collective farming and government land ownership, he nationalized the oil industry, he was increasingly relying on Iran's communist party for support. Sure, the guy called himself a nationalist, but so did the early Chinese Communists. If this isn't Communist, what is?
Also, while we definitely did not used to be hated in the Middle East like today, I've never seen a reason to believe we were beloved either. |
|
I'm a registered Republican, I didn't Vote for bush in 2000 or 2008 because I thought he was an idiot & a tool for special interests... obviously I was in the minority then. I did vote for McCain in his Primary fight with Bush, won't vote for him now, he's lost all credibility he once had.
I don't know if the Democrat straw polls are fundraisers, anyone? |
|
|
Er, sorry, the first Pahlavi Shah (last dynasty) was born in the 19th century but didn't come to power until 1925. |
|
For everyone here who buys that line that Rep. Paul won't fight terrorism, it's simply not true. His biggest complaints with the Iraq Quagmire were:
1) that it was commenced in an unconstitutional fashion. In order to invade, there must be a declaration of war by Congress. There was no such declaration. Nor was there such a declaration for Vietnam.
2) there was no credible evidence that Iraq posed any threat to us. Rep. Paul voted for the Afghanistan invasion because they attacked us. Iraq did not.
3) the justification of the war was based on UN resolutions. Aren't we conservatives the ones clamoring to pull out of the UN? Personally, I am. Why should a world body with no sovereignty over us dictate justification for war?
As it turns out, we obviously should have listened to Dr. Paul back in 2002/2003. Iraq has become a quagmire like Vietnam did, no WMDs were found, Saddam had no al-Qaeda allies (newsflash - they were mortal enemies), and we should never commence military action based on world body resolutions or global opinion. You know, entangling alliances and all that stuff that our founders preached.
Pragmatically speaking, Republicans can't win on a pro-war, pro-Bush Doctrine ticket. Voters are looking for a change from Bush. Ron Paul is the only Republican who stands a chance. Even if you don't like his foreign policy stance, I imagine everyone here would take him over Hillary or Obama. |
|
I personally couldn't care less if anyone in the ME loves me. I do, however, care if people anywhere hate me enough to cross an ocean and commit acts of murder and terror against me. Remove the motivation for someone to commit acts of terror against me, and we won't have to suffer terrorism. Non-interventionist nations don't have this problem.
Washington had it right when he said "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
Jefferson was prophetic when he said "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
My vote will definitely go to Ron Paul. He's the only candidate whose foreign policy truly represents the best interests for average Americans. Besides, I'd like to vote for the candidate who has the most respect for the Constitution, rather than one who's always trying to find ways *around* the Constitution. |
|
["She" and "her" refer to the United States]
"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...." |
|
Ames is the means of funding the IA Rep party and local candidates so they can win. Romney is in big trouble if he only has 5 bus loads of tickets. He needs 500. His contribution to the local party via tickets will pay big dividends in Jan.
If Ron Paul finishes 2nd that is wonderful. Rudy, McCain and maybe Thompson will be on the ballot. I can not think of anything more humiliating than for them to lose to Ron Paul. That will be big news.
Go Paul Go.
|
|
Al, that's a nice sentiment but when Jefferson sent our ships over to the Middle East to fight the Barbary Wars, when Islamic pirates were seizing our ships and enslaving our people without any provocation from us, he wasn't under any illusion that imperialism and bad acts by us were required for other people to hate us.
As much as we have done crappy things in our past, they aren't required here either. What Bin Laden has emphasized many times and what a policy like Ron Paul's ignores is the importance of having us seen as opponents as weak. That's the justification he’s used many times before and, as much as he'll toss in other stuff in there occasionally--that's all the justification he needs. To quote Bin Laden "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse."
The guy supports the genocide that the Sudan is engaging in Darfur. The victims there are poverty stricken African Christians who have never done a thing to Muslims. If he supports that, I really don't think he needs much of an elaborate justification to go after us.
Bin Laden declared war on us in the 90s (officially) before Bush ever came to power. What he emphasized, until he started to lose in Afghanistan, is not that we were evil, but that we're weak. He had committed terrorist attacks on us throughout the 90s without us engaging in any serious retaliation against him.
As far as imperialism, what he focused was not our actions towards Iraq (whether in the form of sanctions or the Gulf War):
Here, here's his declaration of war against us-
http://www.meij.or.jp/new/Osama%20bin%20Laden/jihad1.htm
Now that goes on for about 12,000 words. It mentions Iraq for a grand total of four sentences. What he focused on was our stationing our troops in Saudi Arabia.
With regard to that,
1. We were invited there by the Saudi government
2. Our stationing our troops there is the only thing that prevented Saddam from invading, taking over, and starting to conquer the whole region.
3. So, the only way to relieve us of the grudge by Bin Laden (us being within Saudi Arabia), and not have Saddam take over the entire region, was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Back to the impression we're weak,
After we bail on Iraq, that's not going to help the impression in the Middle East that we have a glass jaw. We go to help the Somalis, then bail. We go to help Vietnam, then we bail. We station our troops in Lebanon, then we bail. We go to Iraq, then we bail. If a scrawny force of roughly 50,000 insurgents can cause the United States Army to flee after it loses just 3,000 men, why should any dictator take us seriously as a threat again? If we go to Darfur after bailing on Iraq, don't you think they're just going to do the same thing they did in Iraq. After three years of them doing the same stuff, do you bail on them or not? If you bail, and you’re willing to bail other places, spare me any arguments with regard to humanitarianism (i.e., the United States having done crappy things. Sure we’ve messed up in the past, but by and large our actions have involved us toppling dictators not installing them, and what our actions in Iraq constituted was us toppling a dictator, not installing one.)
If we're going to let those people fry and never worry about foreigners being suppressed by dictatorships again, I guess that's less of a concern, but those dictatorships use hatred of the United States as a scapegoat. If you allow that to continue you're not going to get rid of these guys.
We’re also in a situation where out of a population of 36 million, we’re acceding to a force of merely ~50,000 that wants a dictatorship merely because they’re the ones willing to use violence. Now that may be the pragmatic solution, it may be the easiest solution, it may be the solution that makes us safest--but it’s not the solution of anybody whose primary concern is liberty.
When Ron Paul states that he's against the Korean War, that if he had his way the South Koreans would be suffering the same fate the North Koreans are now (having to resort to eating grass under an authoritarian dictatorship), unless you’re against that--I find arguments about our own acts as having had bad results around the world are a lot less persuasive if that’s the alternative you would support. |
|
|
The higher Ron Paul ranks, the more irrelevant Ames becomes. |
|
"Remove the motivation for someone to commit acts of terror against me, and we won't have to suffer terrorism. Non-interventionist nations don't have this problem."
----
Here, to quote the Ambassador of Tripoli's response to John Adams and Thomas Jeffson:
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
http://www.robbpearson.com/drblog/jatj_tojohnjay_28mar1786.htm
That's what we're fighting here.
When Al Qaeda tried to infect the Paris subway system with Ricin, it wasn't because of French interventions in the 90s. When terrorists tried to fly an airplane into the Eiffel Tower, it was to protest Chirac's actions in Iraq.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060615/ai_n16481093
This is what we're facing with the fundamentalists and these are people you do not appease until you take an inferior position to them. |
|
sorry, should be:
"it wasn't to protest Chirac's actions in Iraq." |
|
The wheels are starting to come off your jeep.
I'll just refer you to 9/11 Commission's Report and CIA's now well publicized concept of blow-back. |
|
"I'll just refer you to 9/11 Commission's Report and CIA's now well publicized concept of blow-back."
Um, exactly what did I say contradicting that? |
|
Here, how about this - to cite as specific a refutation to your rebuttal, let me cite the phonebook and Encyclopedia Britannica.
Please be more specific here |
|
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
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....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice. |
|
Brutus, [sorry, I know this is a cheap shot, but] you realize John Adams and John Quincy Adams are two different people. If you want me to just pick a President at random who supports me and cite something he said, I can do it, but wont advance this debate.
John Adams was one of our founding fathers. I consider John Adams an authority (and, yeah, I know he said some stuff that contradicts me). I don't consider John Quincy Adams one (while he was not a bad guy, he was a mediocre President 50 years after our founding who's main contribution to the country came after he left office). One reason for I feel this way about him is that in the speech cited there -- he's just wrong: 1812 was after the Barbary Wars, so contrary to what he's saying we had already engaged in military acts abroad. |
|
Good post - lots to respond to here.
First, Jefferson's war is more akin to our situation with respect to Afghanistan. Americans were attacked, so we struck back. Iraq didn't attack us and posed no threat to us.
Second, al-Qaeda and other terrorists didn't reign supreme in Iraq while Saddam was ruling them with an iron fist. Now, all anti-American terrorist groups have generated so much support after all the civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, Abu Ghraib, etc. that we're responsible for. And doesn't it strike you as ironic that the al-Sadr and the Shiites that we freed are very hostile to our military?
The number of terrorists in Iraq is difficult to ascertain, since it changes dynamically. Whenever we take action, whenever there are civilian casualties in the form of collateral damage, more civilians become hostile toward our military. I'm convinced that this whole campaign is a total disaster, and I honestly don't think we can eradicate terrorism in Iraq without an incredibly high number of civilian deaths. Those civilian deaths, however, only generate more sympathy and support for terrorists, so it's a no-win situation.
About Saudi Arabia:
1) their government is despotic, and does not represent the Saudi people. Our presence over there only serves to generate resentment toward us. Think of it this way: how would you feel is armed Chinese soldiers had a base in your home town? Personally, I'd be pretty offended at their presence.
2) our military isn't supposed to police the world, so even if Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, we shouldn't have intervened. Besides, I'm not convinced he would have attacked west after Iran decimated his army. Had he invaded Saudi Arabia, he would have been vulnerable to the east. And besides, had a secular dictator invaded Islamic holy lands, all of the Wahabbi extremists would have volunteered to fight Saddam. I can't think of any reason to intervene in that fight.
3) by invading Iraq in 2003, we raised more ire in the Arab world than we had already. If Sunnis want to attack Wahabbis or Shiites, why should we do anything? It's a regional dispute, and we don't have any business getting involved. Besides, had we never intervened in the Middle East in 1990, al-Qaeda would not be motivated to commit acts of terror here. Bin Laden would have fought Saddam himself, and we could have sat back and watch 2 horrible people duke it out.
About us being weak: when we're attacked, we should declare war and rally everyone behind the cause. This is what happened in WWII and Afghanistan, and we had the resolve to win. This is *not* what happened in Vietnam or Iraq, and is a big reason why they turned out to be quagmires. Politicians couldn't articulate achievable goals in either conflict, but Congress allowed the intervention. That's why we're stuck with no good way out.
Throwing money, and more importantly, lives down the rat hole isn't sensible. Should we have stayed in Vietnam longer? I don't think so. I think LBJ should have admitted what a costly mistake it was and withdrawn earlier. Same goes for Iraq. That Bush and Johnson didn't do this is unconscionable.
The only thing we're accomplishing over in Iraq is creating more terrorists. Al-Qaeda loves that we're over there. Nothing could be better for their recruitment, and that's not helping us against terrorism. We need to pull out now and learn from the mistake. Hopefully, we can learn to question our reckless politicians before they march us off to the next quagmire.
Finally, about humanitarian intervention, I'm against that too. And pretty much for the same reason I'm against Iraq: the war turns political and soldiers die for an elected official's popularity. It's simply disgusting. I was against our involvement in Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, and Kuwait. I'd be against intervening in Darfur too, as disgusted as I am at the genocide taking place there. By the same token, however, I'd never stand in the way of a private citizen arming himself to the teeth and fighting these brutal oppressors. I might even contribute to their cause. The US military, however, should not be used for anything like this. |
|
Al, I don't like our relationship with the Saudis.
While I think having them there is preferable to allowing Saddam Hussein to take over, yeah, we do suck up to their government way too much and that is a problem both for terrorism, human rights, and our situation in the Middle East.
I agree that we’ve handled Iraq badly, that we also handled the lead-up to the war badly, and I am certain you can make a good case that we should have sent our troops to do other things these past few years (that there were ways to have accomplished more both for getting rid tyrannical governments and for improving America’s position in the world). For the reasons I mentioned earlier, I do not see anything wrong with us taking out a guy like Saddam Hussein (as far as I’m concerned, ethically, any country is justified in taking out a dictator)- however, yeah, it’s easy to make a case that there are other things that we could have and should have done.
My problem still is that there’s no way to go back in time and head down a different route. I think a lot of people want a mulligan here and there’s just no way to get one--right now we’re stuck in the situation we’re in and as crappy as it is now, I don’t think we improve it by pulling out. [I actually would have done more with Vietnam. On the ground we were accomplishing a lot towards the end of the war, there just wasn’t political support for it by that time, no matter what happened. Even when we pulled out we promised the South Vietnamese financial aid and air support and then didn’t deliver when they needed it. The North Vietnamese didn’t invade (after the truce) until they saw that we weren’t going to deliver on that promise and I think the result could have ended up differently if we did.]
|
|
someone to commit acts of terror against me, and we won't have to suffer terrorism. Non-interventionist nations don't have this problem."
First of all, of course ronpaul BLAMED AMERICA!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...." which is so off base and clueless, it's frightening!
And then there is this column by Geoff Metcalf:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/9/92033.shtml
"In the British Observer, of July 2, 2007, a former terrorist, Hassan Butt looked at the terrorism problem from experience as an insider.
"'I remember how we used to laugh whenever people on TV proclaimed that the cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombing, and 7/7, was Western foreign policy. What this does is help to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.' According to a one time terrorist, the problem of Islamic terrorism is Islamic theology.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all Mideast terrorists are certain to be Muslims. So if Islam produces them, then Islam is the problem. This is the great fact that the world needs to recognize to make any progress in stopping terrorism, which will eventually mean catastrophic destruction of cities including ours."
|
|
Looks like we agree about our cozy relationship with the Saudi government. We further agree that the lead up to and execution of the Iraq invasion was disastrously poor. My opinion is that neocon think tank elitists planned this war several years ago, and that they and the Bush Administration seized the first opportunity they could to go in with no consideration of the potential consequences.
Where we disagree: I don't want a mulligan on how to execute the Iraq invasion so much as I do on having a long, thoughtful discussion of the ramifications of an invasion and prolonged occupation of a country that posed no threat to us. Also, I don't believe that we should be searching out foreign dragons to slay in the form of despots. Our founders warned us against that, and for good reason. Politicians love war, since it empowers them to exercise more control and usurp individual liberties. Sending other people's kids off to fight a war for someone's political agenda is one of the worst things I can think of.
On Vietnam, I don't think our involvement produced anything positive. I don't see how we or the Vietnamese benefitted from our being over there. How would we have been any worse off by leaving them alone? And how would we be any better off had we crushed the North? We probably would have been stuck occupying the country against guerrila forces for many years after. So, yes, we could have won, but at what cost? We would have been better off to pull out earlier, or, better yet, never to have gone in at all... even notwithstanding the blatant violation of the Constitution. |
|
you're contorting Rep. Paul's words. He didn't blame the victims of terrorist attacks. He didn't blame America. He said that terrorists come over here because we go over there. The CIA and 9/11 Commission have confirmed what he said. It's a phenomenon known as blowback. And it makes sense.
Terrorists don't strike us because "they hate us for our freedom." They hate us because our government has military bases on their lands, props up dictators, etc. Terrorists don't strike countries that don't intervene.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Imagine what you'd think if you saw armed Russian soldiers in uniform on a Russian military base in your town. Their very existence would be incendiary. And if they bomb parts of the US or if a family member of yours were a victim of collateral damage, you'd probably want retribution.
This whole notion that Islam is a horrible religion is a ruse by neocons to convince Americans that we need to declare a holy war. Yes, Islamic extremists use inflammatory rhetoric and commit acts of murder, but it's a very small minority of Muslims. That minority, however, is growing due to American intervention in the Middle East. If we leave them alone, they'll turn their attention to local secular dictators and despots... you know, like Saddam Hussein.
Besides, we were crushing the terror group responsible for attacking the US, only to have our attention diverted to a country that posed no threat to us. If we want to fight al-Qaeda, we should fight al-Qaeda, not a country that posed no threat to us. |
|
ronpaul said! Check out the link which provides ronpaul's STATEMENT! It's VERY CLEAR what he said!
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...." which is so off base and clueless, it's frightening!
Now, if you want to continue to twist what his words were, then that's your right... You have a right to be delusional!
There is no doubt that ronpaul is a Conservative! But he's also delusional about foreign policy.
Clearly you did not read the IMPORTANT PART of Metcalf's column.
"'I remember how we used to laugh whenever people on TV proclaimed that the cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombing, and 7/7, was Western foreign policy."
Get it? Western foreign policy had NOTHING to do with it! It's idiology, just as it IS and WAS idiology for hundreds of years!
Hundreds of years... heck, what do you think the Crusades were about...RECLAIMING countries that had been invaded by the Muslims.
|
|
If there were no cars, nobody would be killed in a car accident.
If we had secure borders and ports, a moritorium on all immigration from majority-Muslim countries, and a cessation of military involvement in the Middle East, very few Americans, if any, would be killed by jihadists.
Nine of the 9-11 terrorists were illegal, three of the Fort Dix Six crossed the southern border.
The fact that GWB hasn't secured the borders and ports ought to raise questions about the very reason there even is a WoT.
PS: It has now cost a trillion dollars to fight a bunch of 7th Century wackjobs. And let's not forget the massive expansion of the governments' police powers...hardly a conservative value. BTW, how many bases did Jefferson build in Tripoli?
PPS: Ruffini is just another neocon hack who's just doing what comes natural: smack down any who believe in the letter of the Constitution. Can't have a real conservative in the WH now, can we? |
|
What would your response be to a Chinese military base in your state?
I know what mine would be. There'd be no difference between it, and what the insurgents in Iraq are currently doing...except I'd be more successful, much more. |
|
"If we had secure borders and ports, a moritorium on all immigration..."
Plumber, that'd be nice. It ain't gonna happen. I'm not even talking about legislation--even you passed that, even if we got full reform--outside of instituting a police state there's no way we're going to keep all terrorists out of this country. If you can smuggle drugs into this country, you can smuggle a terrorist; no matter what roadblocks we put up there will be some unchecked mile of coastline/woods, some unknown tunnel, some way to get a guy in. (And that’s overlooking the fact they could still recruit guys who are already here.)
"and a cessation of military involvement in the Middle East, very few Americans, if any, would be killed by jihadists."
Again, what the hell was France doing when Al Qaeda tried to infect Paris with ricin and slam an airplane into the Eiffel Tower? It’s nice to think this - but what have the terrorists said that would really lead you to believe it? There’s one deal Al Qaeda has offered us, and only one to avoid any future attacks: convert to Islam and impose Sharia. Any other deal and any other solution for appeasing these guys has come from westerners and I just don’t see anything coming from the terrorists themselves that would back this up.
“And let's not forget the massive expansion of the governments' police powers”
For a war, the expansion during this has been actually pretty damn minor. In World War II, there was open censorship of the press and monitoring of civilians-to say nothing of internment camps. In the Civil War, Lincoln abolished habeas corpus in an entire state, jailed state legislators, and instituted prison camps that would make Guantanamo look like a summer retreat.
“BTW, how many bases did Jefferson build in Tripoli?”
None, he merely beat ‘em and concluded a peace treaty.
And because of that, they treated the peace treaty like toilet paper as soon as we no longer posed a threat to them.
So we had to come back for the Second Barbary War in 1815 in which we defeated them again.
But we didn’t set up a permanent base then either.
Predictably, by the next year, the Algerians had repudiated the treaty again.
Then they were bombarded by an English/Dutch fleet and agreed, for the third time, to stop it.
Afterwards France conquered the whole place and ran it as a colony for 150 years. And that’s how we got rid of the Barbary pirates. |
|
"What would your response be to a Chinese military base in your state?"
I don't know about the rest of you, but if we were run by Saddam Hussein in an absolute dictatorship, I'd welcome the Chinese with open arms. Sorry, but if that situation comes up and you try to stop them and keep the status quo, I'm going to be fighting you guys.
[I'd prefer to be invaded by a democratic country, but, as they say, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."] |
|
Your snow job seems convincing to the uninformed... but you really are clueless and seemed to believe the sensationalist lies the media hypes, while ignoring the Media "corrections" or following the stories to their conclusion. The Ricin Paris incident was no such thing. Quote from the follow up story from the BBC "Paris 'ricin' find is harmless. Two bottles thought to contain the deadly toxin ricin that were found at a Paris railway station last month have proved harmless. Defence Ministry laboratory tests showed they contained a mixture of ground barley and wheat germ."
So, UTH, I guess in your view Health Food Nuts are al-Qaeda Terrorists. Remember, when Health Food is outlawed, only Islamic terrorists will have health food.
It's always a good idea to check your facts, it just might have kept you from looking foolish, but I doubt it.
See the BBC Article here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2940805.stm
|
|
and his statement is correct. Bomb other countries, and don't be surprised when others in the region want payback. The 9/11 Commission and CIA agree with Ron Paul, so I don't believe he's too clueless.
I'd like to know what you propose, Anne. An all-out war on Islam? Should we kill all Muslims, including peaceful moderates? (Yes, peaceful, moderate Muslims do exist, but you wouldn't know it listening to talk radio or reading most right wing websites.)
Also, Spain practices interventionism. France has colonized peoples of North Africa. England has intervened in the Middle East. All are victims of terrorism. Switzerland, Canada, and countries in Scandanavia mind their own business, and are not attacked. Coincidence? More likely, blowback.
Also, UTH - if you were ruled by Saddam and freed by foreign soldiers, you may love your liberators temporarily... but, after 4 years of military occupation and anarchy, you'd probably long for a little stability. Eventually, you'd resent your liberators... much the way Iraqi Shiites do. In fact, you may even take up arms against them if they stay too long and are responsible for too much collateral damage.
|
|
"Your snow job seems convincing to the uninformed... but you really are clueless and seemed to believe the sensationalist lies the media hypes..."
I find that ad hominem attacks are always helpful when you're on the wrong side of an argument.
"Quote from the follow up story from the BBC "Paris 'ricin' find is harmless."
1. Al Qaeda tried to do this before, that wasn't the first attempt.
2. Al Qaeda's attacks on France weren't limited to Ricin. Care to address the Eiffel Tower issue?
3. The fact that they weren't successful at it doesn't negate the fact they were trying to do it. The point is whether limiting foreign intervention avoids attacks from Al Qaeda. If they're still trying to do it--but merely unsuccessful at it--then it doesn't.
"It's always a good idea to check your facts,"
Unnecessary--when the facts don't back me up, I can always call my opponents "sensationalist liars."
|
|
"if you were ruled by Saddam and freed by foreign soldiers, you may love your liberators temporarily... but, after 4 years of military occupation and anarchy, you'd probably long for a little stability. Eventually, you'd resent your liberators... much the way Iraqi Shiites do. In fact, you may even take up arms against them if they stay too long and are responsible for too much collateral damage."
Eventually, you're right I would long for stability. Under the right circumstances, yeah, even I'd still take up arms and fight the guys. What I wouldn't do, though, is side with the guys who've been causing anarchy the last few years and--as much as the U.S. has f'd things up over there—it’s necessary to keep in mind that the guys who are directly involved in the anarchy are the militias, the death sqads, and the branches of Al Qaeda. They're the insurgents that are being analogized here. Now, you're right, we could easily still reach the point where I'd take up arms and go after the Chinese in this scenario, but if any posters here wants to say he'd be doing what the insurgents are doing, then I'd still be going after those guys while I'm at it.
|
|
|
|
Here ya go, from another plot in 2006:
http://www.kxmb.com/t/russia/13172.asp
The prosecutors were unable to prove that attack would have involved chemicals, though they found ricin, gas canisters, fuses, chemicals and a suit to protect against chemical attacks in the raids. 25 people were convicted.
|
|
be to a Chinese military base in your state?"
Oh, pa-lease! al-Qaeda is NOT a STATE and it's NOT a COUNTRY! Just another ronpaul "I'm clueless on foreign policy" statement.
And, of course, you haven't addressed the points I made in my previous posts!
So, until you do, this debate is WORTHLESS!!!!
|
|
|
Anne - if Ron Paul's clueless on foreign policy, then so are the CIA and 9/11 Commission. And I'd like to know if you're advocating a war on Islam and how you'd like to wage such a war. |
|
"It ain't gonna happen." You're right. Not with this president. Drugs and terrorists being smubbled over the borders and through the ports and this president does nothing.
"what the hell was France doing when Al Qaeda tried to infect Paris with ricin and slam an airplane into the Eiffel Tower?" France has an immigration problem as well. They're waking up just like the rest of western Europe. Some day you will.
"For a war, the expansion during this has been actually pretty damn minor." With my policy, there'd be no war. The expansion of Fed police powers would have never occured.
Tripoli: And now we're back at it again: fighting an ideology that has existed for some 1500 years. Those pirates are now radical Algerian and Moroccan youths who riot and burn cars in the streets of Paris. Even in "good" years, 600-800 autos are intentionally set ablaze in France. ALL because of liberal immigration laws.
Islam is incompatable with Western liberalism. When there is large-scale contact, it's like having water in your crankcase. Very minimal contact however, can create a delicious salad dressing.
Read the Koran, UTH. Muhammad was a wackjob. There are 100 million people who espouse belief in a blood-thirsty lunatic, and you believe that a temporary occupant of the WH has a snowballs chance? You'll always be an infidel, unless you convert.
|
|
|
|
I DID read and respond to your posts. Read MY posts closer.
This is a war the West has been fighting for over a thousand years. Want to defeat them? Fine. Nuke em. Kill as many Muslims as possible.
Go house to house and kill every one of them. Until you do that, there will be always be someone calling you infidel and calling for jihad.
Hello? It's a religion. There are 100 million of them and they have a staggering birthrate.
Read the Koran for yourself if you don't believe me.
Personally, I just don't get why we invite a disease into an already compromised body. It's an immigration issue first and foremost. Plus, my way is more tolerant than war.
|
|
If al Qaeda isn't a state, then how are we waging a war on them, Hmmmm?? My understanding of foreign policy dictates that war is an action that is the exclusive province of states.
Please don't accuse others of foreign policy ignorance while demonstrating your own. |
|
fighting this war with the Muslims for hundred of years!
Soooo, ronpaul's notion that 9-11 happened because we were bombing Iraq for ten years is ludicrous!
It's absurdity is provoking or deserving derision, ridiculous, and laughter!
Maybe you ought to do some reading about the Barbary Pirates... Gee, wonder who we were bombing then????
|
|
The CIA and 9/11 Commission support Ron Paul's claim that blowback had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. These are people who make their careers studying the speeches and writings of bin Laden and motives of al-Qaeda.
Do you think the CIA and 9/11 commission are filled with ignoramuses who espouse ludicrous views?
Also, in your view, should the US declare a holy war on all Muslims, and if so, how would you go about waging such a war? |
|
|
|