1 - 10 Next
Osama Bin Laden use to work hand in hand with our CIA to combat the Russians. If Osama Bin Laden has always hated us why did we get along so well? Could it be that in the years since, with extensive military operations on their holy land, they became quite angry with us? We can avoid beating around the bush and get the answer straight from the source. Osama Bin Laden proclaimed why he attack us on 9/11 but our media didn't give it much attention because it goes against the narrative (that the terrorists hate us because we are rich and free). Osama proclaimed that the attacks are in response to the harsh treatment of Iraqis in the first gulf war and due to us building military bases on their holy land. His reasons do not justify a single thing that happened on 9/11. I do not point this out to excuse or justify terrorism. I point it out so we can better understand the motives of our enemy. They do not hate us for who we are. They hate us because we will not leave them alone.
Fear does not seem to motivate or to deter our enemies. It is our presence and over-involvement in middle east affairs that has incentivized otherwise moderate Muslims to join the ranks of terrorists. Therefore, a ramping up of military operations over seas would not reduce terrorism or defeat it. Rather, it will likely result in increased anti-American sentiment and growing factions of jihadists.
"The only rational approach is: "does this dictator fear us and not cause us any problems outside his own borders - yes/no"?" This is rational? Really? By that standard half the world should come THWACK the United States. We surpass all other countries in the world by far when it comes to Military Spending and the size or our forces around the world. Further more, because of the sanctions, trade restrictions, etc we enforce around the world we surely cause many problems for other countries. Do they have the right to attack us? Is it rational for them to attack us? It clearly meets your criteria. You speak like a war mongering elitist who sees the world as his chessboard.
The strategy I advocate is unlike that of a tortoise, unless, this tortoise defends itself without exception and hunts down those who attack it. That is the strategy I advocate. To engage in trade with all nations (the greatest instrument for peace and cooperation), to not infringe on the rights of other countries, and to defend itself vehemently. This strategy ensures its own safety while not stirring up trouble or provoking people far away to hate us. Please explain to me how this emboldens our enemies. Further, provide me an example of how this strategy in the past has lead to enemies being emboldened. I'll be waiting.
We've been ramping up the war on middle east terrorism for how long now? almost 15 years? Our enemies seem stronger and more vast than they were before 9/11. Could it be that there are some ways in which our foreign policy stirs up more trouble and creates more enemies than it kills? Trying to be more bold, aggressive, or scary will not solve our terrorism problem. It hasn't yet. In fact, there is plenty reason to believe the problem is getting worse. Perhaps we need to change course. Defend OUR borders, bring the troops home. It is fine to take out legitimate threats or to bring justice to terrorists, but prolonged military occupations and nation building are clearly not the way.
Rand Paul understands and respects the Constitution. The Constitution is clear about wars needing to be declared by Congress. This is so we know precisely who we are fighting (which is confusing in today's world), what our goals are, how we will know when we have completed the mission, and so the American public understands the purpose of the war. In today's foreign policy we have goals that most troops don't even understand, much less the American public. No longer are they days of going after a specific enemy, destroying him, and returning home, mission complete. Now, our wise overlords in Washington DC decide how they want the political landscape of the world to look, then form lies to get public support for military action (see Syrian chemical weapons or the downed airliner in Ukraine), and then settle for prolonged military occupation and nation building of countries far away. The result is great loss of money, great loss of life, longest wars in American History while not being able to define what victory even looks like, and enemies seem to be growing. Great idea Kurt, play right into Osama Bin Laden’s plan.
Careful, believing in theories contrary to the state approved story may lead to being labeled a cook or a conspiracy nut. You must hate America, right? lol. All joking aside, I don't know the whole truth with all the incidents you names, but I know this. That the government generally says whatever makes them look good. They do not stick to the truth but rather craft a story line to make things appear as if they take care of us.
With a simple search, you can read about FBI documents explaining their contact and knowledge of some of the hijackers in Florida before 9/11. This was left out of the 9/11 commission report but it really happened. I don't know how deep this rabbit hole really goes. But just because I ask questions does not mean I am a kook. Stop labeling those who think differently as stupid, a kook, or a conspiracy nut. We are not all the same, we are individuals. If you don't like 9/11 truthers then prove them wrong. I think they are wrong on plenty of things, but not everything. Our government lies to us, a lot. You should expect this by now.
If somebody has reason to believe the real story is different than the official story, how can they express this without being labeled a conspiracy nut? Name calling and tarnishing the person's character is an effective way to get people on your side but it fails to address the facts or the argument. Most of us here are conservative and are rightfully upset about what happened in Benghazi, including our governments response to this incident. Just because your idea of what really happened is different than the governments story, that doesn't you are wrong. It doesn't mean you are a conspiracy nut. Labeling people as a kook is, unfortunately, a great way of quieting dissent. I argue that 9/11 happened a little differently than the official story. I don't believe our government planted explosives. I don't believe Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Does it make me a nut? Does it mean you can lump me into a category marked my people that believe our leaders are shape shifting lizards.
Spot on. Without a declaration, government can change the terms of the war, the purpose of the war, change the goals of a war, change the length of a war. That is too much power for the president to have, it doesn't matter what party they are from.
1 - 10 Next