Paul gets booed at the debate...my thoughts.

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#51
And again, when he's asked about foreign policy he goes into "Norm Stansfield Robot Mode" and gives the facts without regard to good or bad, right or wrong, or anything related to those concepts.
:haha7:

Huh!?! The 'Muslim Crusades' were started in 630 A.D. when Muhammad invaded and conquered Mecca. Later on, Muslims swept across the entirety of the Middle East, Northern and Eastern Africa and into Spain, Italy, France, etc. The Western Crusades started around 1095 to try to stop the Islamic aggressive invasions. Islamic Crusades continued even after the Western Crusades ended around 1291 and still do to this day.
And before that it was the Byzantine Empire and the Romans. This shit has been going on since the concept of religion was invented by humans.
 
#52
I never ignore Ethics. I dismiss moral systems I disagree with, but not actual right and wrong as I understand it. If Ron Paul thinks he can win over the American Right without addressing the moral aspect of every single issue that comes up, he's in for a rude surprise.
I don't know what happened here, but when I hit Reply With Quote this isn't what I was trying to reply to.

I agree with this 100%. Paul's completely un-electable. That doesn't mean I wouldn't elect him in a heartbeat if it were up to me. I think he would be the best president we've ever had for domestic issues, we'd just need someone there to keep his head on straight on foreign policy.

Ron Paul's the one who wants to pull out of the Middle East. If he believes our involvement is morally justified, he really should make that clear. 'Cause it ain't. I think he doesn't believe that at all, he thinks Arab nations have some kind of natural right to keep up out if they feel like it, and our refusal to pull out is a legitimate gripe.
This is what I was trying to respond to.

This is another unfair assessment of Paul's stance on this issue. It has nothing to do with the Middle East. He also wants to close bases all over the world, like Germany, Korea, etc. Again, good idea? Probably not... I mean, we could get rid of a HUGE chunk of the bases in Germany, but you'd at least need Ramstein AFB to stay in-tact for the hospital, but we don't really need a combat presence there any more. Korea? Ehh... I think we all know the answer to that one. North Korea's still too twitchy to leave SK all on it's own with that border, though SK is far more capable to defend themselves these days than they were in the 60s.

This is the fundamental problem with Ron Paul. His views on 90% of the issues are perfect for most people, it's just how his answers are perceived:

Ron Paul: "As a medical doctor, I am morally opposed to abortion, and I have never performed one nor will I ever, however, as a President I believe that the government should have no business making that decision for anyone."

What the right hears: "I would pass a law that makes baby-killing A-OK."
What the left hears: "I'm morally opposed to abortion, so I'm going to make it illegal."

A statement that is the most perfect, moderate viewpoint of any politician ever which should be embraced by both sides is twisted by stupid people to make him hated by both sides. It's fucking maddening.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#53
Bad example. Jews didn't actually do anything as a group to anyone.
That is irrelevant. In Hitler's mind, he could find tangible "examples" of things the Jews did that led to all of Germany's problems. It is an analogy, not a one to one comparison. My point was that if we try to explain Hitler's point of view in order to better understand what HE FELT were the "reasons" for executing millions of Jews, would we be accused of attempting to justify what he had done?
At least in this case, the things extremist Muslims accuse the US of doing are true (except for the various dumb conspiracy theories). The US simply had good reasons to do them.
So you admit that in the real world, the extremist muslims are right in what they have accused the U.S. of doing (killing hundreds of thousands of their people, occupying their holy lands...), yet you cannot accept that this might be an impetus to attack the U.S.?

You mean the task force that took 10 years to find him? The man working for the same agency that got blindsided by 9/11 and thought that Khomeini's White Book was a fake? Yeah, why WOULD I believe him? I'll stick with historians and Middle East and Islam experts, thank you.
Just because they were unable to find him quickly does not mean that they were not privy to classified information and facts that point to our foreign policy as a major contributor to the terrorist attacks. Just because they did some things wrong doesn't mean they are incompetent at everything.

Do you, and everyone else, really believe that NOTHING the United States has done has contributed to the Islamic hatred toward our country? Do you really believe that it is 100% a figment of their culture and religion, that led them to dislike and attack our nation? Do all of your historians and Middle East and Islam experts all agree that we were completely innocent and that the terrorists had no real factual reason to hate America?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#54
This letter is obviously fake, no where in there did it mention that our women wear pants, that we listen to rock and roll, that they hate freedom, or that we are the Great Satan. Way to go fail troll. ;)
 
#55
That is irrelevant. In Hitler's mind, he could find tangible "examples" of things the Jews did that led to all of Germany's problems. It is an analogy, not a one to one comparison. My point was that if we try to explain Hitler's point of view in order to better understand what HE FELT were the "reasons" for executing millions of Jews, would we be accused of attempting to justify what he had done?
In a sense, yes, because his thoughts are irrelevant considering his actions. Trying to figure out his state of mind is an attempt to absolve him in some way, even if just to say: "Well, he was doing what HE thought was right." There is literally no other reason to do it. For historical purposes, it only matters what he TOLD the people that he thought the Jews did, not what he actually believed in his own head.

So you admit that in the real world, the extremist muslims are right in what they have accused the U.S. of doing (killing hundreds of thousands of their people, occupying their holy lands...), yet you cannot accept that this might be an impetus to attack the U.S.?
Actions and spin are two different things. There is no doubt the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt the US supports the Saudis and supported people like Mubarak. However, Islamists have a myriad of ideas for the MOTIVE behind those actions, all of which are wrong and driven by a culture of propaganda and indoctrination.

Just because they were unable to find him quickly does not mean that they were not privy to classified information and facts that point to our foreign policy as a major contributor to the terrorist attacks. Just because they did some things wrong doesn't mean they are incompetent at everything.
No, but it does mean that their word is not worth more than the words of those who got right the things that the CIA got wrong. People like Bernard Lewis, who was told by the CIA in 1978 that the book he claimed to have been written by the Ayatollah Khomeini (detailing his plans to turn Iran into... well, Iran) was fake and that he should hit the bricks.

Do you, and everyone else, really believe that NOTHING the United States has done has contributed to the Islamic hatred toward our country? Do you really believe that it is 100% a figment of their culture and religion, that led them to dislike and attack our nation? Do all of your historians and Middle East and Islam experts all agree that we were completely innocent and that the terrorists had no real factual reason to hate America?
It does a lot to influence street level hatred of America, but only because it is being spun by the higher ups, just as they could spin American inaction into street level hatred. Pawns don't plan 9/11, pawns carry out 9/11. But without the masterminds (people who truly hate America for what it is, not what it does), the pawns are useless and powerless.

You're looking at this too linearly, like Cause -> Effect, when in fact it is more like a fire triangle - that is you need 3 (or more) things to coexist in order to cause something. A. You need people who are driven by a cause. B. You need a suffering public. You need the people in group A to create hatred in the people of group B to promote their cause. Group A is people like bin Laden. Group B are people in Arab countries, who suffer regardless of the US because they are ruled by corrupt authoritarians. Group A will use whatever it can to create hatred in Group B. Whether it is "America did this and look what happened" or "America DIDN'T do this and look what happened" doesn't matter to Group A, because they are driven by a cause (radical global Muslim rule). Add to that the atmosphere in the Arab world of devout Islam, highly controlled media, and people who would say and do anything to gain power, and you have your fire triangle.

So yes, they are influenced by America's actions, but the actions themselves don't matter. The masterminds would find a way to spin WHATEVER America did into hatred of America.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#56
In a sense, yes, because his thoughts are irrelevant considering his actions. Trying to figure out his state of mind is an attempt to absolve him in some way, even if just to say: "Well, he was doing what HE thought was right." There is literally no other reason to do it. For historical purposes, it only matters what he TOLD the people that he thought the Jews did, not what he actually believed in his own head.
So you are saying Hitler held back in his hatred for the Jews? That the reasons he gave his followers were not his true personal reasons? Maybe you are right in the technical detail, but I am assuming that there is some historical merit in studying why Hitler claimed to have hated the Jews, if only to see how despotic dictators take facts (or lies) and spin them into hyperbole to drive the masses. I think it is intellectual dishonesty to say, "we should completely ignore any of Hitler's motivations, and only focus on the results that he produced". I think the Jews would completely agree with doing just that, which is why most people do not know that just as many non-Jews were killed in the Holocaust as were Jews. (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/non-jewishvictims.htm) Any non-Judeo-centric view of the Holocaust is forgotten and downplayed so that Hitler is made into a caricature of what he really was (this comment in no way condones, justifies, or down plays his evil and atrocity). He is made into a one-track monolithic monster whose only goal in life was to exterminate the Jews. This is exactly the treatment that the Islamic terrorists have gotten. They are all crazy religious zealots whose only goal in life is to kill Americans, and the only reason that they want to kill Americans is because they hate freedom and our lavishness. Period. If you attempt to pry any deeper into their motivations, you are unpatriotic, you think we deserved to be attacked, you are justifying their actions...

Actions and spin are two different things. There is no doubt the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no doubt the US supports the Saudis and supported people like Mubarak. However, Islamists have a myriad of ideas for the MOTIVE behind those actions, all of which are wrong and driven by a culture of propaganda and indoctrination.
So doesn't occupying their country and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians only give them more fodder to spin in any way that best suits their ideology? It's easy to convince people to retaliate for the dead bodies that they can plainly see in their villages, it is much harder to use abstract ideas such as "America didn't do this to help so and so..." to convince people to give their lives for a cause. At least in second scenario, thousands of American troops are not getting killed.

It does a lot to influence street level hatred of America, but only because it is being spun by the higher ups, just as they could spin American inaction into street level hatred. Pawns don't plan 9/11, pawns carry out 9/11. But without the masterminds (people who truly hate America for what it is, not what it does), the pawns are useless and powerless.

You're looking at this too linearly, like Cause -> Effect, when in fact it is more like a fire triangle - that is you need 3 (or more) things to coexist in order to cause something. A. You need people who are driven by a cause. B. You need a suffering public. You need the people in group A to create hatred in the people of group B to promote their cause. Group A is people like bin Laden. Group B are people in Arab countries, who suffer regardless of the US because they are ruled by corrupt authoritarians. Group A will use whatever it can to create hatred in Group B. Whether it is "America did this and look what happened" or "America DIDN'T do this and look what happened" doesn't matter to Group A, because they are driven by a cause (radical global Muslim rule). Add to that the atmosphere in the Arab world of devout Islam, highly controlled media, and people who would say and do anything to gain power, and you have your fire triangle.

So yes, they are influenced by America's actions, but the actions themselves don't matter. The masterminds would find a way to spin WHATEVER America did into hatred of America.
You may not realize this, but I have read Ron Paul's book (The Revolution) and your description above is very similar to how he describes the motivation to commit terrorist acts against Americans. You do need 3 or more things to create a terrorist, but I disagree on what they are: the leader or mastermind, the pawn, and something tangible that the pawn can latch onto. The leaders can spin anything, as you said, but without some sort of visualization of the supposed evil of the enemy, motivating the pawn is extremely difficult. Sure you can try to use Koranic scriptures in combination with propagandized ideas of how America's policies toward other nations are hurting the pawn and his loved ones, but predator missiles and humvee's work much, much better. Seeing one's loved ones killed is enough to make a person want to retaliate (even if the killing was justified, as in the American point of view), just a little coaxing from a sly mastermind is all it would take to set that guy into action.

My whole point is that if course of action A is costing us trillions of dollars, killing our young men and women, separating our country, and pissing off would-be terrorists, and course of action B (ending the wars) costs us next to nothing, ends the deaths of American troops, helps to reunite the country, and still pisses off would-be terrorists, I'll take course of action B any day.
 
#57
So you are saying Hitler held back in his hatred for the Jews? That the reasons he gave his followers were not his true personal reasons? Maybe you are right in the technical detail, but I am assuming that there is some historical merit in studying why Hitler claimed to have hated the Jews, if only to see how despotic dictators take facts (or lies) and spin them into hyperbole to drive the masses. I think it is intellectual dishonesty to say, "we should completely ignore any of Hitler's motivations, and only focus on the results that he produced". I think the Jews would completely agree with doing just that, which is why most people do not know that just as many non-Jews were killed in the Holocaust as were Jews. (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/non-jewishvictims.htm) Any non-Judeo-centric view of the Holocaust is forgotten and downplayed so that Hitler is made into a caricature of what he really was (this comment in no way condones, justifies, or down plays his evil and atrocity). He is made into a one-track monolithic monster whose only goal in life was to exterminate the Jews. This is exactly the treatment that the Islamic terrorists have gotten. They are all crazy religious zealots whose only goal in life is to kill Americans, and the only reason that they want to kill Americans is because they hate freedom and our lavishness. Period. If you attempt to pry any deeper into their motivations, you are unpatriotic, you think we deserved to be attacked, you are justifying their actions...
A. You misunderstood me, and again - I think comparing this to Hitler is wrong. Regarding terrorists - talking about their motivation is ok as long as you assume that their motivation was false, because flying planes into buildings full of innocent people is NEVER justified. Presenting US action in a negative light ("occupying their holy land," "killing thousands of innocent civilians") grants them a certain justification in what they did, because you are using their own narrative. That's like talking about the Norway shooting and saying "well, Muslims really ARE infesting Europe like a plague. But I'm not justifying him, I'm just explaining HIS thinking." No. You say: "Muslim immigration has increased in Europe, and he perceived it as some sort of disease." You see the difference?

B. Everyone knows that way more non-Jews than Jews were killed in WWII, and that the Nazis also put Romani people, mentally retarded people, gays, and mentally ill people in death camps. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. However, the Jews were the most prominent "enemies" in Nazi propaganda and were directly referred to in the Nuremberg laws, unlike some of the others. There is a reason that Jews are the main focus of Holocaust discussion, but nobody ignores the other victims.


So doesn't occupying their country and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians only give them more fodder to spin in any way that best suits their ideology? It's easy to convince people to retaliate for the dead bodies that they can plainly see in their villages, it is much harder to use abstract ideas such as "America didn't do this to help so and so..." to convince people to give their lives for a cause. At least in second scenario, thousands of American troops are not getting killed.
Where exactly did we kill thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians again? And occupying WHO'S country? You think the insurgents in Iraq were IRAQIS? Well if you do, I got a news flash for you - the vast majority of them were not.


You may not realize this, but I have read Ron Paul's book (The Revolution) and your description above is very similar to how he describes the motivation to commit terrorist acts against Americans. You do need 3 or more things to create a terrorist, but I disagree on what they are: the leader or mastermind, the pawn, and something tangible that the pawn can latch onto. The leaders can spin anything, as you said, but without some sort of visualization of the supposed evil of the enemy, motivating the pawn is extremely difficult. Sure you can try to use Koranic scriptures in combination with propagandized ideas of how America's policies toward other nations are hurting the pawn and his loved ones, but predator missiles and humvee's work much, much better. Seeing one's loved ones killed is enough to make a person want to retaliate (even if the killing was justified, as in the American point of view), just a little coaxing from a sly mastermind is all it would take to set that guy into action.
But you could just as easily show footage of starving Saudis (which there would have been without American money), people being butchered (which happened even with US intervention), and say: "Look at those Western pigs sitting on their ass as Muslims suffer. We should show THEM what it is like to suffer!"

See? The actions themselves are irrelevant, because any action or inaction can be made to look negative, especially if people's lives suck (and in the Middle East, they do regardless of the US)

My whole point is that if course of action A is costing us trillions of dollars, killing our young men and women, separating our country, and pissing off would-be terrorists, and course of action B (ending the wars) costs us next to nothing, ends the deaths of American troops, helps to reunite the country, and still pisses off would-be terrorists, I'll take course of action B any day.
While I don't agree with you, that is an entirely informed decision, and one I can definitely understand.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#58
Okay, now let's say this Joshrawdon guy followed that up by saying, "how would you feel if the Jews were causing all these problems for your country? Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem."
The entire premise is fatally flawed from the get-go.
Not only are you wrong about my premise being fatally flawed, but if the Jews had actually invaded Germany and killed a shit-ton of their citizens (as we have done to the Arab world) then it completely supports my point. Now in the case of Hitler, the Jews didn't actually do anything to deserve what they got, but we have done tangible things that could easily be described by the Muslim world as "deserving" anything that we get.


They were applauding the practice of capital punishment for the most heinous of crimes, good for them!
Yes they applauded that too, but the exact course of events went like this:
[video=youtube;pXB8avpzMyI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXB8avpzMyI[/video]

"Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times..." and the moderator was interrupted by the applause and whistles of the audience before he could even finish the question. Only later did they cheer the line about " the most heinous of crimes".
(I don't know anything about The Young Turks, so don't rip me on whatever bias they might have, it was just the first video I found of the event)
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#59
Regarding terrorists - talking about their motivation is ok as long as you assume that their motivation was false, because flying planes into buildings full of innocent people is NEVER justified. Presenting US action in a negative light ("occupying their holy land," "killing thousands of innocent civilians") grants them a certain justification in what they did, because you are using their own narrative. That's like talking about the Norway shooting and saying "well, Muslims really ARE infesting Europe like a plague. But I'm not justifying him, I'm just explaining HIS thinking." No. You say: "Muslim immigration has increased in Europe, and he perceived it as some sort of disease." You see the difference?
Clearly we disagree on the ability to identify a group's motives without justifying their actions. I believe that if we can identify ALL of their motives, no matter how twisted, we may find that there are some that we can actually ameliorate. I think you and many others confuse identifying a motive with justifying the action. I can understand why a guy would want to punch his bitch of a wife in the mouth when she refuses to shut up, but I also understand that the initiation of force against another person is wrong. I understand why a father would want to murder the man who r@ped his daughter, but I do not believe that murder is a justifiable action in response to r@pe. I understand (part of) why Muslims hate our guts, but I do not believe that it is ever right to murder innocent civilians.

Now one might even go as far as to tell the wife that maybe she should keep her mouth shut more often, but that doesn't justify getting punched. It is just good advice for someone who knows that her husband is out to punch her in the face. We know that certain things we do make people hate us more, it doesn't make their actions right, but it might be good advice if we don't want to keeping getting attacked.

B. Everyone knows that way more non-Jews than Jews were killed in WWII, and that the Nazis also put Romani people, mentally retarded people, gays, and mentally ill people in death camps. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. However, the Jews were the most prominent "enemies" in Nazi propaganda and were directly referred to in the Nuremberg laws, unlike some of the others. There is a reason that Jews are the main focus of Holocaust discussion, but nobody ignores the other victims.
To be totally honest, I went to a pretty damn good high school, and we barely even touched on the fact that anyone other than Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Yes, we covered the fact that many different people died as a result of the war, but not really that anyone other than Jews were forced into concentration camps (which is what the generally accepted definition of "the holocaust" is). Maybe I am in the minority on this one and certainly I can't blame others for my own ignorance. Although you being Jewish may have something to do with your belief that "everyone" knows that way more non-Jews died. Perhaps you all take it a little more seriously than we WASPS do.


Somewhat off topic, it is nice to have an intelligent and respectful disagreement with someone rather than just resorting to name calling and completely ignoring the other person's points.
 
#60
Clearly we disagree on the ability to identify a group's motives without justifying their actions. I believe that if we can identify ALL of their motives, no matter how twisted, we may find that there are some that we can actually ameliorate. I think you and many others confuse identifying a motive with justifying the action. I can understand why a guy would want to punch his bitch of a wife in the mouth when she refuses to shut up, but I also understand that the initiation of force against another person is wrong. I understand why a father would want to murder the man who r@ped his daughter, but I do not believe that murder is a justifiable action in response to r@pe. I understand (part of) why Muslims hate our guts, but I do not believe that it is ever right to murder innocent civilians.

Now one might even go as far as to tell the wife that maybe she should keep her mouth shut more often, but that doesn't justify getting punched. It is just good advice for someone who knows that her husband is out to punch her in the face. We know that certain things we do make people hate us more, it doesn't make their actions right, but it might be good advice if we don't want to keeping getting attacked.
I guess so. I just think that most of them only THINK that they hate America. Most of them are just angry and they're looking for a cause. The Arab world is underdeveloped, backwards, totalitarian and has high unemployment and low living standards. Blaming that place that does everything different, and where lives are better is easy. I honestly believe that no matter what America did or didn't do in the Muslim world, there would still be a ton of hatred there towards the West. Don't forget that many of those people are devout Muslims and abhor secular lifestyles regardless of where they occur.

To be totally honest, I went to a pretty damn good high school, and we barely even touched on the fact that anyone other than Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Yes, we covered the fact that many different people died as a result of the war, but not really that anyone other than Jews were forced into concentration camps (which is what the generally accepted definition of "the holocaust" is). Maybe I am in the minority on this one and certainly I can't blame others for my own ignorance. Although you being Jewish may have something to do with your belief that "everyone" knows that way more non-Jews died. Perhaps you all take it a little more seriously than we WASPS do.
Funny enough, I went to highschool in Israel, and we learned plenty about the other people who were murdered in the Holocaust. That could be because Holocaust studies are naturally more comprehensive in Israel, but whenever I see a history channel show, or anything written about the Holocaust in general, and not about Jewish topics in particular, they always mention the non-Jews who were murdered. I guess since there aren't too many Gypsies around, and the other groups that the Nazis targeted are less cohesive, then the Jewish voice sounds stronger by comparison, especially in this country.

Somewhat off topic, it is nice to have an intelligent and respectful disagreement with someone rather than just resorting to name calling and completely ignoring the other person's points.
Shut the fuck up. Your mother's cunt. :action-sm

But yes. It can be done.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#61
We were supposed to only be there temporarily during Desert Storm. I remember it being very controversial at the time and we had promised to leave afterwards.
oh...so whatever obl is pissed at that takes priority.no other voices should be taken into account like say...the saudies themselves.what is your point? that if we had left sooner there be no problem? who cares? we were invited and we stayed at our hosts request.are we supposed to care about what this savage wants? why?



What does Kyoto have to do with ANYTHING? Who gives a fuck if OBL was "green?" Stop buying into right wing propaganda and pretending it really matters.
thats the first time i herd al jizera be referred to as right wing propaganda...wow.

it matters because you seem to care about his claims of butt hurtness for our troops in "his" holy land.do you only care about some of his gripes but not others? i say to you sir that both his greenie claims (which is obvious bullshit,he could give a half a fuck,) and his propaganda line of "troops on our lands" are both bunk.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#62
We have been in the middle east since the founding.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/196189-1

Michael Oren talked about his book Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, published by W.W. Norton. He described the United States' involvement in the Middle East over the past 230 years.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393058263/?tag=wackbagcom-20
Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present by


Michael B. Oren.



http://www.amazon.com/Michael-B.-Oren/e/B001IGHQKW/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1(Note: the author does not believe we belong in iraq.
avil. in audio.)


I haven't said anything that's in opposition to anything there, and to my knowledge neither has Ron Paul.
yes you have.

This is the biggest point right here. You're putting intent behind his words that doesn't exist. You're not submitting to an enemy if you attempt to identify his motives. You assigning that guilt to Paul's words is the same thing as considering a detective guilty of murder for attempting to reconstruct the motives for the murder.

What he's saying is 100% true. Before we got involved in the Middle East, there was no jihad against America. It wasn't until we got involved in Afghanistan and manipulated the guerrilla warfare situation under Bin Laden that we were considered the enemy. (There were previous tensions over Israel, but nothing like there is today)
learn your history.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#63
Clearly we disagree on the ability to identify a group's motives without justifying their actions. I believe that if we can identify ALL of their motives, no matter how twisted, we may find that there are some that we can actually ameliorate.
lets apply this to flash mobs...exactly...fuck em.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#64
I guess so. I just think that most of them only THINK that they hate America. Most of them are just angry and they're looking for a cause. The Arab world is underdeveloped, backwards, totalitarian and has high unemployment and low living standards. Blaming that place that does everything different, and where lives are better is easy. I honestly believe that no matter what America did or didn't do in the Muslim world, there would still be a ton of hatred there towards the West. Don't forget that many of those people are devout Muslims and abhor secular lifestyles regardless of where they occur.
This I agree with. I just go a little further and think we should not contribute to that cause any more than we absolutely have to. If they twist any inaction on our part, then that is their fault.

/thread
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#65
oh...so whatever obl is pissed at that takes priority.no other voices should be taken into account like say...the saudies themselves.what is your point? that if we had left sooner there be no problem? who cares? we were invited and we stayed at our hosts request.are we supposed to care about what this savage wants? why?

thats the first time i herd al jizera be referred to as right wing propaganda...wow.

it matters because you seem to care about his claims of butt hurtness for our troops in "his" holy land.do you only care about some of his gripes but not others? i say to you sir that both his greenie claims (which is obvious bullshit,he could give a half a fuck,) and his propaganda line of "troops on our lands" are both bunk.
Wow. Because I tried to get inside his head and try and explain his rationale for justifying the attacks, all of a sudden I support him? Now I know how Ron Paul feels...
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#70
Immediate retreat from the war? Not wanting to "interfere" overseas? That's pretty isolationist.

I get where he's coming from, I just think it's shortsighted.
We've been there for 10 years. What exactly is short-sighted about calling it quits on the longest war in American history? Especially since no one can actually explain how we will know we have "won" the war. I would say it is pragmatism rather than isolationism that is driving the decision. Also, why is it a bad thing to not want to "interfere" overseas? Do you support Obama's war in Libya? Should we go overthrow every leader that mistreats his subjects? Or should we just pick and choose like we are doing now?

I always hear people say, "what if he's wrong?" Well, if he is wrong, then our entire military will be in the United States ready to protect us from our enemies, and we will have saved a shit ton of money by not continuing the wars, so the economy will probably be better, too. I guess maybe Iran will get a nuke or something. In which case, Israel or any other country within range has a hell of a lot more to worry about than we do, since our troops won't be over there, and there is no way they will have perfected an ICBM. I really do not see a whole lot that he could be "wrong" about on foreign policy.

His foreign policy regarding war is all that is ever used to describe him as isolationist. People always forget to factor in the fact that he is all for diplomacy with anyone who wants to talk (far less isolationist than most conservatives who would refuse to speak with Ahmadinejad), and he is completely for free trade. He is even against the embargoes on Cuba. I think it is unfair to call him isolationist without considering his full foreign policy stance.

I know the guy isn't going to be the next president, but it would be helpful if people better understood his policies before taking a stand for or against him. I can't tell you the number of people that I talked to in 2008 that said "I agree with everything he is saying, but John McCain is the only one who can beat Obama." How'd that work out?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afghan-war-now-longest-war-us-history/story?id=10849303
 
#71
I always hear people say, "what if he's wrong?" Well, if he is wrong, then our entire military will be in the United States ready to protect us from our enemies
A lot of good that will do when Iran puts a nuke on a container ship bound for New York or Seattle. Wars aren't won on defense. Can you imagine George Patton saying, "Let's just wait for the Huns to come to us"?
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#72
Wow. Because I tried to get inside his head and try and explain his rationale for justifying the attacks, all of a sudden I support him? Now I know how Ron Paul feels...
what?

i never said you supported him im saying your not in his head and giving credence to whatever is in his head is no way to go through life son.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#73
what?

i never said you supported him im saying your not in his head and giving credence to whatever is in his head is no way to go through life son.
I think it's hilarious I'm addressed as "son" by a guy who types like a 14 year old girl.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#74
We've been there for 10 years. What exactly is short-sighted about calling it quits on the longest war in American history? Especially since no one can actually explain how we will know we have "won" the war.
well we can definitely say when we lost cant we.these are immaterial points that are strategic and tactical questions.maybe even good ones.they however are not the cause for the start and end of wars my friend.


I would say it is pragmatism rather than isolationism that is driving the decision.
Also, why is it a bad thing to not want to "interfere" overseas? Do you support Obama's war in Libya? Should we go overthrow every leader that mistreats his subjects? Or should we just pick and choose like we are doing now?
why oh why oh why will no one read kirpatrick....yes and we doubted our mission in somila to if you remember...we pick our battles based on American interest.you may disagree as to what those interests are but that is the baseline.there is none in libia except the death of daff duck whixh the cic has taken off the table.

I always hear people say, "what if he's wrong?" Well, if he is wrong, then our entire military will be in the United States ready to protect us from our enemies,
how is the us army gonna protect you from terrorism on the domestic front? scare em off planes? guard that border real good are ya?



and we will have saved a shit ton of money by not continuing the wars,
so the economy will probably be better, too.
*sigh

In 2008 and 2009, the federal government spent tax dollars at a frenzied pace to try to rescue the financial markets from its own mismanagement. Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP which obama voted for) outlays could reach $1 trillion or 7 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. TARP was originally enacted so the government could buy risky or nonperforming loans from financial institutions. But the mission changed within weeks—the government began using the funds to buy equity positions in financial institutions, presumably to inject cash directly into these entities. An oversight panel concluded that $350 billion of the TARP funds cannot be adequately accounted for.The Federal Reserve also provided assistance of $30 billion for Bear Stearns, $150 billion for AIG, $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $20 billion for Citigroup, $245 billion for the commercial paper market, and $540 billion for the money markets.21 It is poised to lend over $7 trillion to financial institutions, or over half the size of the entire American economy in 2007.According to Bianco Research president James Bianco, the federal bailout far exceeds nine of the costliest events in American history combined:

Event Cost Inflation Adjusted Cost
Marshall Plan $12.7 billion $115.3 billion
Louisiana Purchase $15 million $217 billion
Race to the Moon $36.4 billion $237 billion
S&L Crisis $153 billion $236 billion
Korean War $54 billion $454 billion
The New Deal $32 billion (est.) $500 billion (est.)
Invasion of Iraq $551 billion $597 billion
Vietnam War $111 billion $698 billion
NASA $416 billion $851.2 billion

TOTAL Over $3.9 trillion.The entire cost of World War II to the United States was $288 billion, or $3.6 trillion when adjusted for inflation.Congress also passed, and President George W. Bush signed, fiscal spending bills to try to alleviate the economy’s ills, such as the $152 billion Economic Stimulus Act of 200825 and the $300 billion Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Congress and President Barack Obama are upping the ante by hundreds of billions more or so with the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan of 2009.The Wall Street Journal reports that when stimulus and bailout spending is combined, “the federal spending share of GDP will climb to 27.5%.” Put another way, more than $1 of every $4 produced by the economy will be consumed or controlled by the federal government. The Journal also notes that “all of this is fast pushing the U.S. to European spending levels, and that’s before Obama’s new health-care entitlements.”

yeah its not the wars.they have nothing to do with the housing crisis/economic meltdown.

how much does it cost to kill the threat? i dunno...is it less of a threat because it costs more money? no.

I guess maybe Iran will get a nuke or something. In which case, Israel or any other country within range has a hell of a lot more to worry about than we do, since our troops won't be over there, and there is no way they will have perfected an ICBM. I really do not see a whole lot that he could be "wrong" about on foreign policy.
you dont see a problem with a nuclear armed iran? they can get a nuke but no ICBM'S(today) huh..

i dont see iran on a global stage with a nuke working out very well for the M.E.who cares? well when shit goes bad over there they have a tendency to drag it over here regardless of how many troops we have overseas.a nuclear armed iran will be a player and not one im comfortable with.you may be.

His foreign policy regarding war is all that is ever used to describe him as isolationist. People always forget to factor in the fact that he is all for diplomacy with anyone who wants to talk (far less isolationist than most conservatives who would refuse to speak with Ahmadinejad),
sir...please....john boltons book...the whole thing...give it a whirl and come back to us and tell us we didn't try to talk to iran.


and he is completely for free trade. He is even against the embargoes on Cuba.
well personally i need to see that pig dead before i can sleep at night.but thats personal.


I think it is unfair to call him isolationist without considering his full foreign policy stance. I know the guy isn't going to be the next president, but it would be helpful if people better understood his policies before taking a stand for or against him. I can't tell you the number of people that I talked to in 2008 that said "I agree with everything he is saying, but John McCain is the only one who can beat Obama." How'd that work out?
sir!!!!...who on this board was for mccain?...not i.not don.i know its not your fault for not paying attention to us during our primary season but we were not for mccain.
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
#75
I think it's hilarious I'm addressed as "son" by a guy who types like a 14 year old girl.
it was a movie reference no disrespect meant sir(the "drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son" thingy).
 
Top