Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on May 16, 2007, 07:59:34 AM
-
Both entertaining and informative.
Favorite line: Congress has "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop..." Gov. Mike Huckabee
Winner (in my book, anyway): Gov Huckabee. He said everything I wanted to hear, though I still need to research his record as governor; however, I didn't hear anyone claim he'd changed positions on core values, which is a positive.
Loser: Ron Paul, due to his "blaim America for 9/11" remarks and a complete lack of understanding of Mid-East history and politics.
-
From the NYT transcript:
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
-
What a shame he's gone off the deep end like that.
-
What Ron Paul said is not a fabrication, or an untruth.
As long as we are beholden to fossil fuels to run our economic engine, we will find ourselves entangled on the broken blade of that idiotic religion that runs every aspect of every cheapened ignorant life in the middle eastern region.
I would rather make oil obsolete with new technologies, than continue to lose precious american souls trying to maintain control over those regions that produce the pollution causing fuels that feed our economy and our military. Too bad our leadership seems to be so blind to this reasoning.
-
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
Lived through it?
WTF? He lived near it maybe.
-
I agree with you, Yeager, about getting away from oil usage. However that won't stop them from attacking us. The whole mentality of them is to make the whole world into a Muslim world.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lived through it?
WTF? He lived near it maybe.
Thats a pretty idiotic statement.
The whole country was with them that day. That was this generations Pearl Harbor. I remember where I was when all that happened. Do you?
-
Huckabee's excited interest in doubling the size of Guantanamo so that we could store more people without access to legal representation (that was his main apparent reason) and Giuliani's wishy-washy sorta pro-torture stance were pretty telling. Ron Paul said some things that were unpopular, but he seemed to be the most honest.
It is seductive to say what you know people want to hear, and it takes fortitude to say what you mean and what you believe is right in the face of that pressure.
The strength of a man's character is an important factor in a decision like this. I'd rather elect someone I occasionally disagreed with (that I knew would do what he felt right) versus someone who said everything I wanted to hear (but flip flops back and forth at the drop of an opinion poll).
-
I find myself in agreement with Paul.
Washington's Farewell Address nailed it down pretty well and that's all Paul really said...Washington was right.
And we are going to have to find something WE have that we can use as a substitute for foreign oil. Nuke power is one of those, coal shale may well be another, we can hope for thermal depolymerization of ag waste but sooner or later and preferable sooner we need to do something on a major scale. Selling 100,000 electric cars ain't gettin' 'er done.
We just need to get on with this; there are more and more options all the time.
Currently the oil from Jatropha curcas seeds can be used for making biodiesel fuel in India, and is being promoted as an easily grown biofuel crop in hundreds of projects throughout India and the third world [1]. The rail line between Mumbai and Delhi is planted with Jatropha and the train itself runs on 15-20% biodiesel.
The plant can grow in wastelands, and it yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of corn. A hectare of jatropha produces 1,892 liters of fuel (about 6.5 barrels per acre). Also Jatropha is a one-stage conversion to biodiesel
Gotta love something that grows in a wasteland, produces more fuel than an equivalent acre of soybeans and is a one-stage conversion to fuel.
-
I think Ron Paul was spot on.
-
Other than Paul are there any other GOP candidates who give them a chance for votes from anyone but 30-percenters and Jebus people? I might have to hop on this bandwagon.
-
I seriously doubt that either Billary or Obama can win Kansas, so I'm reasonably certain, even at this early date, that I'll write in Paul.
-
The whole mentality of them is to make the whole world into a Muslim world.
====
I believe we could go a very long way towards diffusing the muslim radicals if we managed to end our dependancy on oil. The majority non radicals might go out of their way to deal with the radicals if we provided them with less angst towards us.
However, I agree with you on the radical islamers. My analogy of radical islam is as a fast spreading cancer requiring radical life preserving surgery that, out of necessity, would kill off all surrounding healhty tissues. Most people cannot accept my reasoning because in order to destroy radical islam, so many non radicals would need to be incinerated along with the radicals. But if a mushroom cloud rises over an American city, I suspect my analogy would come to pass in a single day of multiple shroom clouds over the arab desert cities and holy sights. Out of necessity. Man, what a day world that would be, but at least I think the western world could survive it.
-
At the cost of our collective soul, perhaps. Today's Germany still feels the aftereffects of the Holocaust, I'm not sure the USA would be able to avoid the same or worse.
-
I don't really think there will be a big conflict. I'm sure they realize they can't win a war against a modern army. cripes, all of them together have never beaten Israel even when Israel gave them a head start.
They can peck at us with relatively minor terrorist actions. We'll survive those too, albeit painfully.
Where they will win is in the ballot box. They're outproducing us by an amazing amount when it comes to birthing new voters. In the end, our own democratic principles will be used to install Sharia.
Enjoy that thought. ;)
-
mushroom clouds are so last century, with todays cruise missiles, smart bombs and unmanned aircraft the enemy can be selectively picked apart.
-
years ago it may have been about us poking our noses around the ME in the name of oil and control but now I think they just want us and our way of life dead - oil or not
-
Realistically speaking, it's just a matter of years before drone technology reaches the point where a country can deploy a swarm of flying robots that can use selective logic to identify and, where necessary, immobilize targets on a scale that our current technology can't even touch.
A hundred thousand drones the size of a frisbee drifting through a city. People shoot at them or throw rocks? No problem, it's just a drone. Of course, 20-30 other drones might drop in to check out if it's a real threat or just some kid. Then they keep going and searching.
When they find an insurgent, they can tag 'em with a radio beacon or just follow him, with a big arrow blinking on his position back at the command bunker. Maybe the drones call in a tazerbot and coordinate with the local cleanup squad (who collects the unconscious soldier until they can figure out what to do with him/her) without walking into a firefight. Maybe the person is a known baddy and a JDAM, Tomahawk, or mortar round comes down with pin point precision (care of terminal guidance from our watching close-quarters frisbee drones).
This is the future, unfortunately, it's a two sided sword. It would work equally as well in Iraq and Kansas.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
years ago it may have been about us poking our noses around the ME in the name of oil and control but now I think they just want us and our way of life dead - oil or not
Yes, because THEY HATE OUR FREEdOMS! I've read the bumperstickers, and I've heard the stump speeches.
Assigning human motivations to folks we're trying to kill sure is uncomfortable, it's best to stick to the boilerplates.
-
I watched this "crap" its so bull@hit, if you people really believe what most of those nominees are saying then there is no hope.
the war was started because of the tower "Attacks", what if, they were not done by the people who our government says did it?????????
all I'm saying is don't automatically believe what our "leaders" are saying
use the tools GOD has given you, common sense, and now with the Internet you can find anything but, what you read someone saying is only that persons opinion, look at footage of the towers falling, not just the towers but "building #7" witch was admittedly "pulled" " due to fire damage" it fell 4 hours after the towers fell, they had enough time to place all the explosives to drop a building of that size? that was burning out of control? it takes weeks to plan a demolishion of a building, i wonder how long they were planning the towers?
besides that, do you really believe 911 is a good day to terrorize us? a # that every peson in this contry knows? 9/11 a perfect new "pearl harbor"
-
What a perfect time to point this out:
Rasmussen Reports, the public opinion outfit, recently asked voters whether President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The findings? Well, here's how the research firm put it: "Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure."
So, 1 in 3 Democrats believe that Bush was in on it somehow, and a majority of Democrats either believe that Bush knew about the attacks in advance or can't quite make up their minds.
Cod help us all.
-
Ink, step away from the computer. Those cathode rays are doing bad things to your brain. BTW, you're in good company, Rosie O'Donnell (the bastion of "common sense") believes as you do, so... (golf clap)
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ink, step away from the computer. Those cathode rays are doing bad things to your brain. BTW, you're in good company, Rosie O'Donnell (the bastion of "common sense") believes as you do, so... (golf clap)
:D
open those eyes of yours
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Favorite line: Congress has "spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop..." Gov. Mike Huckabee.
I like how he linked republican spending to the dems, that's rich, and typical
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
At the cost of our collective soul, perhaps. Today's Germany still feels the aftereffects of the Holocaust, I'm not sure the USA would be able to avoid the same or worse.
It would be VERY hard to find anyone from this country that regreted dropping the A-bombs on Japan. Why? Because we were attacked by them.
I doubt you would find any who would regret nuking the ME if they used one on us.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I like how he linked republican spending to the dems, that's rich, and typical
The Dems also like to spend our money.
.
-
Who was the guy that used to be on the BBS that posted reams of electronic ink on how the WTC was blown up by the government? Seems like his handle started with a K.
You're not a shade of that guy are you ink?
I'm sorry I just have to post this. Enjoy the read, because it highlights the flaws in your reasoning. Unless you don't want to read anything that challenges your reasoning?
Just how crazy are the Dems? (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg15may15,0,3962183.column?coll=la-home-commentary)
We don't know what kind of motive respondents had in mind for Bush, but the most common version has Bush craftily enabling a terror attack as a way to whip up support for his foreign policy without too many questions.
The problem with rebutting this sort of allegation is that there are too many reasons why it's so stupid. It's like trying to explain to a 4-year-old why Superman isn't real. You can spend all day talking about how kryptonite just wouldn't work that way. Or you can just say, "It's make-believe."
Similarly, why try to explain that it's implausible that Bush was evil enough to let this happen and clever enough to get away with it yet incapable either morally or intellectually of doing it again? After all, if he's such a villainous super-genius to have paved the way for 9/11 without getting caught, why stop there? Democrats constantly insinuate that Bush plays politics with terror warnings on the assumption that the higher the terror level, the more support Bush has. Well, a couple of more 9/11s and Dick Cheney will finally be able to get that shiny Bill of Rights shredder he always wanted.
And, if Bush who Democrats insist is a moron is clever enough to greenlight one 9/11, why is Iraq such a blunder? Surely a James Bond villain like Bush would just plant some WMD?
No, the right response to the Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Democratic Party is "It's just make-believe." But if they really believe it, then liberals must stop calling themselves the "reality-based" party and stop objecting to the suggestion that they have a problem with being called anti-American. Because when 61% of Democrats polled consider it plausible or certain that the U.S. government would let this happen, well, "blame America first" doesn't really begin to cover it, does it?
-
Originally posted by Tango
The Dems also like to spend our money.
.
But the spending he is talking about was under republican watch
-
Originally posted by Tango
It would be VERY hard to find anyone from this country that regreted dropping the A-bombs on Japan. Why? Because we were attacked by them.
Just look for the Americans exiting the Peace Museum at Hiroshima. They're easy to find.
-
Probably the same emotion as the Japanese exiting the USS Arizona memorial at Pearl.
-
The only thing to regret is regret itself :confused:
Sort of reminds me of mg or towd.....
-
Originally posted by ink
all I'm saying is don't automatically believe what our "leaders" are saying
You're asking something that most Americans don't have the brains or balls to do.
-
since Gingrich is probably going to run in 2008, i was wondering what some of you thought about a possible Gingrich Presidency.
-
Originally posted by ink
"all I'm saying is don't automatically believe what our "leaders" are saying"
are you saying hillary and obama are not telling us the truth?:O
-
the Grinch is a smart fellow, and I would love to hear what he has to say, but I have serious misgivings about him as President. Yet, when compared to Oblama or Billary, I think he would be preferred over those two misjunks.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Yet, when compared to Oblama or Billary, I think he would be preferred over those two misjunks.
Ronald McDonald would get my vote before either of those two clowns
-
Originally posted by Tango
Thats a pretty idiotic statement.
The whole country was with them that day. That was this generations Pearl Harbor. I remember where I was when all that happened. Do you?
BS.
Guliani is trying to politicize 9-11 as if he was the savior of the day. As if he was in the thick of it all with the firefighters and port authority police. Rudi is a tool trying to use a horrific point in history to his own political ends. Rudi is no 9-11 hero. AND I'd be willing to bet that you were one of those willing to jump all over John Kerry's use of Vietnam as a political tool. No matter what you think of Kerry, he was 1000 times more heroic than Guliani ever hoped to be.
Idiotic my ass.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
AND I'd be willing to bet that you were one of those willing to jump all over John Kerry's use of Vietnam as a political tool. No matter what you think of Kerry, he was 1000 times more heroic than Guliani ever hoped to be.
Well we know whose being idiotic now.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Just look for the Americans exiting the Peace Museum at Hiroshima. They're easy to find.
Just because they are exiting a museum means they regret saving a million lives?
-
Originally posted by Tango
Just because they are exiting a museum means they regret saving a million lives?
Not what I wrote.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Well we know whose being idiotic now.
I'm glad you agree with me.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
years ago it may have been about us poking our noses around the ME in the name of oil and control but now I think they just want us and our way of life dead - oil or not
The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society. - Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm glad you agree with me.
I'll agree anytime that Kerry is an idiot and anyone who voted for him.
-
The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society. - Michael Scheuer
i'm not sure we should allow bin Laden to dictate our foreign policy. this is one reason why i do not support the Democrat party.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society. - Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer)
BS
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaida, not American culture and society. - Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer)
Bin Laden attacked the US as a way to get back at Saudi Arabia when they gave him the boot and kicked his crazy arse out of their country. He sees the royal family there as US lackeys.
-
Originally posted by Tango
BS
Originally posted by Eagler
Bin Laden attacked the US as a way to get back at Saudi Arabia when they gave him the boot and kicked his crazy arse out of their country. He sees the royal family there as US lackeys.
You're right. You know more about Bin Laden than a 22 year CIA veteran. :rolleyes:
-
i'm not sure we should allow bin Laden to dictate our foreign policy. this is one reason why i do not support the Democrat party.
I agree. Maybe some logic would suffice.
-
Ahhhh, this thread cheered me right up.
Well we know whose being idiotic now.
I remember where I was when all that happened. Do you?
Did your teacher bring a TV into the 5th grade classroom?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You're right. You know more about Bin Laden than a 22 year CIA veteran. :rolleyes:
Nope - I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and watched the History channel :)
-
good recap IMHO...
Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/45195576;_ylt=AtcGw.X6LRWQCQjTsuwj5YkDW7oF)
-
i'm enraged with Osama and al-Qaida's foreign policy. He wants the "infidel" out of the ME. OK, fair is fair, get all muslims out of the USA.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
good recap IMHO...
Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/45195576;_ylt=AtcGw.X6LRWQCQjTsuwj5YkDW7oF)
It's an interesting article, but you're not going to score any points by quoting The Nation. They are as biased as Fox News.
Just sayin...
-
good recap bsaddict. I think R. Paul has clarity about the ME situation, although i think its crazy to just up and pull out of Iraq right now. I think that there are a lot of conservatives who will find him to be very refreshing, especially with his belief in minimal government. other issues not so much.
i don't see him instilling confidence in Americans that he has the will to assertively protect Americans against terrorism. Hillary Clinton steamrolls R. Paul in that area.
I'd really like to like R. Paul more, but I'm dead set against just pulling out of Iraq right now like he wants to.
Being a superpower, the USA is going to piss off somebody somewhere no matter what our foreign policy is. i'm not saying we couldn't have better foreign policy in the future, but whatever the reason Islamists hate us, they still hate us, and we have to deal with that. Disengaging from everything isn't going to prevent future attacks.
-
Disengaging from everything isn't going to prevent future attacks.
by itself, you're right. you gotta combine that with a policy shift.
-
What Paul said is right. Gulliani, nothing says POLITICIAN quite like playing the "I survived 9/11" card.
-
with all due respect bsaddict, what policy shift? - combined with immediately pulling out of Iraq - are you suggesting? and what would it acomplish?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think Ron Paul was spot on.
I do too...
Man, I miss traditional conservatives/libertarians . :confused:
Well said Rep. Paul.
-
You're not a shade of that guy are you ink?
I'm sorry I just have to post this. Enjoy the read, because it highlights the flaws in your reasoning. Unless you don't want to read anything that challenges your reasoning
I'm not a "shade" of anyone.
now i did read what you put up here, but in now way does it dispute what i feel is the truth, its actually quite pointless.
if YOU were to maybe do a little research you might find the truth, i dont know who in the government did the towers, but it was an inside job. im sorry, but the truth hurts.
-
Originally posted by ink
You're not a shade of that guy are you ink?
I'm sorry I just have to post this. Enjoy the read, because it highlights the flaws in your reasoning. Unless you don't want to read anything that challenges your reasoning
I'm not a "shade" of anyone.
now i did read what you put up here, but in now way does it dispute what i feel is the truth, its actually quite pointless.
if YOU were to maybe do a little research you might find the truth, i dont know who in the government did the towers, but it was an inside job. im sorry, but the truth hurts.
This guy might be on a jury some day. God bless america.
"The best argument against democracy is a fifteen minute conversation with your average voter."
-
Originally posted by ink
im sorry, but the truth hurts.
Yes, an inside job involving 19 middle eastern folks with airplanes and funds.
Regarding your conspiracy theories, kindly sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. :aok
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
with all due respect bsaddict, what policy shift? - combined with immediately pulling out of Iraq - are you suggesting? and what would it acomplish?
a shift towards the "non-interventionist foreign policy" RP espouses.
Ron Paul said "Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none."
Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments.""
what specifically does this mean policy-wise, aside from a timely and safe military withdrawl from the region(not just Iraq)? Aside from addressing foreign aid (basically, stopping it) I'm not exactly sure.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did your teacher bring a TV into the 5th grade classroom?
Ah, yes. Lets resort to the kiddie insults. That shows how mature you are.
I'm probably old enough to be your Daddy or even Grandpa.
-
Originally posted by ink
i dont know who in the government did the towers, but it was an inside job. im sorry, but the truth hurts.
Like all the tinfoils, you make the assumption that in this land where millions of dollars are instantly paid for the story that this could be kept a secret.
The WTC area was frequented by tens of thousands of people daily, but no one saw the secret agents wiring three buildings for demolition. A job that size would take a large number of secret agent men all skilled in demolition and it would take quite a long time. Not a one of those secret agent demolition men has tried to sell the story which, if proven, would bring absolute avalanches of money from guys like Soros who live to bring down the present admin.
The Goldberg editorial pretty much sums up the looney-toons in the Demo party that believe this stuff.
Go ahead, link us all to the true story... I'm due for a good laugh.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Ron Paul said "Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
so paul would not have invaded france in WW2, i agree, the invasion of france ,who was not at war with anyone at that time was a mistake. France was no threat to the USA.
oh, and bring our troops home from germany, 60 years of occupation is long enough.
-
Ink, you need to hang your hatred of Bush on another argument other than the "he allowed 9/11 to happen" bilge, for there isn't a sane person of any political stripe in the entire United States who believes it. There is no concrete evidence of any sort to back up such vitriolic claims.
As to how the United States is perceived by radical Muslims in the Middle East, let me posit the following: the U.S. didn't actually have to do anything of any consequence to provoke an attack by them, for they don't really need a reason to attack us. They have despised the West since the Crusades, yet today they lack the military power to challenge any modern western nation. While the average muslim might resent western intrusion into middle eastern affairs they're not willing to go to war because of it. Other nations have been interfering in their affairs for hundreds of years, so an intrusion by the U.S. would not be anything out of the ordinary.
The radicals, however, are different. As long as the Middle East remained poor, they were basically powerless to carry jihad into infidel nations. The discovery of oil changed everything. Oil money not only enriched the Persian Gulf nations, it filtered down into the hands of these undesireable factions. They now had the resources to resume the spreading of their faith. All they needed was a target, or a pretext, to galvanize their supporters and bolster their ability to recruit.
They needed an 800 pound gorilla; a pretext for tweaking its nose would be fabricated as needed. This has been the favored tactic of militant Islam for initiating conflict with infidel nations since the time of Muhammed. The fact that much of the Middle East's new found wealth came from the US., or that the American government had devoted time and material toward protecting muslims from genocide in places such as Kosovo, mattered not one bit.
-
what specifically does this mean policy-wise, aside from a timely and safe military withdrawl from the region(not just Iraq)? Aside from addressing foreign aid (basically, stopping it) I'm not exactly sure. -bsaddict
me neither. does it mean that he would not want us to interfere with Iran if we knew they were developing nuclear weapons for example?
__________________
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
does it mean that he would not want us to interfere with Iran if we knew they were developing nuclear weapons for example?
Depends what you mean by "interfere". Going from his quote on non-interventionism above I'd say military, financial or covert interference would be a no-no. Diplomatic options would be availed, but no regime changes, economic sanctions, invasions, etc.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
Depends what you mean by "interfere". Going from his quote on non-interventionism above I'd say military, financial or covert interference would be a no-no. Diplomatic options would be availed, but no regime changes, economic sanctions, invasions, etc.
That's a foreign policy with no teeth. It will NEVER work.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That's a foreign policy with no teeth. It will NEVER work.
Exactly why it is needed. We don't need to "work" on other countries, we need work on our own.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That's a foreign policy with no teeth. It will NEVER work.
"teeth" is (partly) what got us here...
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"teeth" is (partly) what got us here...
being weak willed is what "got us here", enemies know americans have no will to fight a long war, all they have to do is wait for the american people to lose the will to fight. Recent history has proven america to be a paper tiger.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Exactly why it is needed. We don't need to "work" on other countries, we need work on our own.
Sure, that'll work. When Hell freezes over. Foreign relations will work great when we negotiate from a position of weakness and disadvantage. Absolutely.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Sure, that'll work. When Hell freezes over. Foreign relations will work great when we negotiate from a position of weakness and disadvantage. Absolutely.:rolleyes:
Good attitude:aok
-
Originally posted by Tango
Ah, yes. Lets resort to the kiddie insults. That shows how mature you are.
I'm probably old enough to be your Daddy or even Grandpa.
That would make you older than dirt.
-
These debates should be run the Westminster Kennel Club; the hacks handlers run them around on a leash .. to show off how shiny & well groomed they are, then go center stage to display how well they can bark on command, in the proper order... meanwhile adoring party slaves cheer them on in the background.
Questions about abortion; 3 barks & wagging tail for "No", 2 woofs and a growl for "Yes"
Gay marriage: lift leg, wag tai &l 1 woof for "yes", squat and lay a loaf for "no"
For each correct answer, the candidate will be rewarded with the proper treat and allowed to lick his nuts for 5 min.
Although after the "Bill Clinton Incident" pictured below during the test run, the networks are a bit reluctant...
(http://www.crackmuffin.com/images/icons/dog_sex.jpg)
-
Hilts, the US has the biggest fist on the planet, militarily and economicaly. Where's the weakness?
The critical point would be proper intel to decapitate any offensives just before they happened (smoking gun for the masses to see).
So Ron Paul really was set up by FOX? The audience looked a bit special.
-
For each correct answer, the candidate will be rewarded with the proper treat and allowed to lick his nuts for 5 min.
i submit that 5 minutes of nut licking is way too long - after one minute, whatever was there that may have been worthwhile is either gone for good or there to stay.
:)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
What Ron Paul said is not a fabrication, or an untruth.
As long as we are beholden to fossil fuels to run our economic engine, we will find ourselves entangled on the broken blade of that idiotic religion that runs every aspect of every cheapened ignorant life in the middle eastern region.
I would rather make oil obsolete with new technologies, than continue to lose precious american souls trying to maintain control over those regions that produce the pollution causing fuels that feed our economy and our military. Too bad our leadership seems to be so blind to this reasoning.
Spot on.
p.s. I say, put the O'Club in charge. It would be more interesting than reading about our current politicians. We got dogs humping, charges of being "idiots," evaluative mechanisims, in some cases, that beg description. Can I write in AH O'Club for president?
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
a shift towards the "non-interventionist foreign policy" RP espouses.
Ron Paul said "Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none."
Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments.""
what specifically does this mean policy-wise, aside from a timely and safe military withdrawl from the region(not just Iraq)? Aside from addressing foreign aid (basically, stopping it) I'm not exactly sure.
that would be great if it was still 1796 or 1801 but the world and its entire structure is not the same nor should our policies be. Back in those times we had nothing to fear that was not on our shores, that is not the case today. The oceans are not the buffers they were over TWO HUNDRED years ago...nor is this country or its ppl the same.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that would be great if it was still 1796 or 1801 but the world and its entire structure is not the same nor should our policies be. Back in those times we had nothing to fear that was not on our shores, that is not the case today. The oceans are not the buffers they were over TWO HUNDRED years ago...nor is this country or its ppl the same.
I find the level of paranoia of some here "amazing".
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I find the level of paranoia of some here "amazing".
afraid of what? I'm all for closing our n & s border and booting out every illegal rodent that is in this country now but do not feel we need to withdraw our forces that have been stationed around the world since ww1. Sorry RP just isn't the alternative to the two party system many, including myself, are seeking.
-
Eagler,
You're right the world has changed. I don't think people have changed much.
Also in todays instant travel, there's no way to make America 100% safe. No country is.
I do think that we wrong if we continue to be oil dependent in the sense we are today.
We'll be wedded to the troublesome middle east for as long as we need them.
I'd like to see us go back to producing what we consume. That's another matter entirely. One that none of the candidates of either party are addressing. That unfortunately won't change in my lifetime I expect.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Eagler,
You're right the world has changed. I don't think people have changed much.
how can you say that? you think the average Joe has the same priorities and mindset now that they had over 200 years ago? do you think America is the same as it was then? I don't think they were worried about illegals from mexico or cheekboness from the ME back then, do you?
the US and the world has grown and is 180 degrees out from what it was back in Washington & jeffersons times. many changes were for the better with probably just as many for the worse.
-
the people in here who think its impossible, for our "government" to hide the truth, lie to us, or kill us, you r exactly what they want for citizens, they have lied to us , the have killed us. they will do whatever "they feel is necessary". to stay in power. and i feel sorry for those of you who's eyes are closed to the truth.
call me "crazy" call me whatever you want, i belive that satan is alive in this world, and is the "god" of this world. i blame him, he is the one i hate not Bush.
-
Still waiting for your link to credible explanations of how the Feds blew up the WTC on 9/11.
Take your time.
BTW, I feel sorry for the ones whose eyes are blinded by their too large tin foil hat dropping so far down past their eyebrows it covers their lips.
-
Originally posted by ink
call me "crazy" call me whatever you want, i belive that satan is alive in this world, and is the "god" of this world. i blame him, he is the one i hate not Bush.
crazy is an understatement
-
Originally posted by Toad
Still waiting for your link to credible explanations of how the Feds blew up the WTC on 9/11.
if you truly want to find out, search it. you will find more then enough information to deside for your self what happened.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1177430230
this is just one of many that ive found.
peace
-
in that video firemen that were there that day say themselves it was as if "...they had detonated, planed to take out a building..."
watching this video again angers me, i hope and pray you feel the same
-
Originally posted by Eagler
crazy is an understatement
Ink, give up now. If Eagler thinks you're crazy (who's a bona fide, iron-clad, lunatic), you're definitely screwed. :D
-
Originally posted by ink
this is just one of many that ive found.
peace
How many have you looked for that debunk that one?
I'm guessing zero.
(http://defcon.pdx-tech.com/albums/Ches-Defcon-12-Pictures/siviak_hat.sized.jpg)
-
Oh, and here's a credible source where you can begin your deprogramming.
Debunking the 9/11 Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=2)
You might particularly want to visit THIS (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html) page as it deals with the demolition myths.
None of the conspiracy theorists can ever come up with anything that sounds remotely plausible when confronted with the simple truth that companies that explosively demolish buildings take literally MONTHS to set up the charges, use thousands of feet of visible det cord and thousands of pounds of explosives. Instead, they happily believe you can wire Building 7 during a 36 hour power down.
The button to bring down the 30-story office tower at Seventh and Houston streets, one of the tallest buildings ever to be imploded, will be pushed at 8 a.m., said John Angelina president of D.H. Griffin of Texas, a Houston company that has served on the demolition team, which also includes Midwest Wrecking in Fort Worth.
Crews have been working feverishly this week on the final preparations on work that began in November.
"We'll work as hard today as we have in the last four months," Brian Choate, Midwest Wrecking's chief executive, said Thursday.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14122036.htm
But don't let reality intrude on a good conspiracy paranoia!
Peace be unto you; sounds like it's hard for you to find.
-
INK-
I understand where your coming from in saying not to trust the gov't 100% with what they tell the public.
BUT -- I was in manhattan that day, and watched the 2nd plane crash from a classroom window. I was walking down the street and watched the 1st tower collapse. I saw grown men and women fall to the floor hysterically crying because people they knew where in those buildings.
Not to trust the gov't is ok, but to think that they set up 9/11 is idiotic.
And as far as gulliani, i don't think he's using what happened that day to gain support. He was in the middle of it all, and I truly believe he did a great job keeping everything under control. Alot of people saw it on tv, and were impacted tremendously, the people who were in the city that day lived through it. He's not my first choice for president either.
-
i went to that site about "debunking the 9/11 conspiricy" pretty lame, its cool though, belive what you feel is right
-
Originally posted by ink
i went to that site about "debunking the 9/11 conspiricy" pretty lame, its cool though, belive what you feel is right
I'll go one step further and believe the truth .. thanks anyway
-
Osama Biladen has yet to be indited for 9/11 because the FBI lacks credible evidence he was responsible. So who did it again?
http://www.projectcensored.org/updatedrealnews/index.htm
Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI explains, The reason 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11
He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.
No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 Paul V. Sheridan and Ed Haas, The Ithica Journal, 6/29/2006
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/OPINION02/606290310/1014
-
BYU physicist concludes official 9-11 explanation is implausible
Researched by Courtney Wilcox
Research on the events of 9-11 by Brigham Young University physics professor, Steven E. Jones, concludes that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is implausible according to laws of physics. Jones is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
-
Originally posted by Speed55
INK-
I understand where your coming from in saying not to trust the gov't 100% with what they tell the public.
BUT -- I was in manhattan that day, and watched the 2nd plane crash from a classroom window. I was walking down the street and watched the 1st tower collapse. I saw grown men and women fall to the floor hysterically crying because people they knew where in those buildings...
so you watched the towers fall, into there own footprint, in other words strait down, building 7 fell in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint.
so what anyways, whats the difference? there is nothing i, you or anyone can do about it.
peace
-
Ink...You missed where he said he saw the second plane hit.
Whereas I loathe the current administration, and I do believe it's as crooked as a Grand-canyon gulley, I don't believe that those buildings were brought down by explosives.
First of all, why would anyone rig the bombs at the top portion? If you're a terrorist, and want a max. body count, you blow at the bottom, to trap as many inside as you can. You have the max weight of the building working for you, rather than a smaller portion. You also hit both at the same time, rather than waiting for a while, Like the period of time between the first and second attacks. Another thing, too. You would have to Go up 2/3 of the building, smuggling thousands of pounds of explosives and equipment, wire and rig it all without being detected by any of the 1000+ people on the floor, and then fuse it and arm it, and then get out of the building and detonate it without being discovered. Even with a power down, or any kind of drastic maintenance work that would result in the building's total evacuation and clearance, There would not be enough time.
The only con. theory I've ever heard about 9/11 that even remotely held water was that the CIA or some other party helped Otta and his gang get through the terrorist watch lists' so that they could train for the attack, and helped them with untraced funds, and ducking the FBI.
As to never having any real connection to Bin Laden...I'll admit that even Osama seemed suprised when he was first contacted about it(I believe he denied it for a while.) I've wondered if maybe it was done by a group rival to Al-Queda, That we've never heard of, that pulled it off to get the U.S. started after bin Laden. There are LOTS of smaller terrorist groups and splinter-cell type of organization's out there.
-
Ink, why don't you take this argument to another thread?
-
what cheekboness ... no wonder the dumbarsecrats got elected last nov ... I have heard as many as a third of them believe as ink does that thier bubbling Bush did have something to do with masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
wow - this country is turning into a bunch of michael moorons .. I pray for its future which will have me voting in 08 for whatever Republican candidate gets that party's nomination regardless of his stand of abortion. This country just can't afford to have a yellow bellied crackpot lefty running it in this day and age.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yes, because THEY HATE OUR FREEDOMS! ...Assigning human motivations to folks we're trying to kill sure is uncomfortable, it's best to stick to the boilerplates.
Exactly!
What do you expect from a bunch of cowards that could never win a stand up fight...
*wont go into the reasons they hate us*
-
chair... if you read some of the things that the islamo fascists read to become what they are you would see that they indeed do hate us for our... for lack of a better word.... "freedoms".
We are decadent and our women are potatos who should be stoned... we are corrupting their people... we don't need to attack them or be marching in their streets to be hated by them.. we are on the air waves with our potato women and adds for booze.
Our lifestyle... our very "freedom" is a threat to what they want to accomplish.. the enslavement of their people. A return to the 9th century.
it is naive in the extreme to think that if we left them alone (how would we do that?) then they would simply ignore us? that they would still be able to accomplish what they want? of course not... we are an example they can not allow their young to see.
We can't leave em alone... this isn't the ninth century... their people are amoung us... living in western cities.. they have TV's and radios...
It is maybe not simply naive to think that they don't hate us for what we are but maybe more akin to denial.. it is the new platitude that the left uses to allow then to surrender.
Your-0-peeans are getting along so well with the islamo facists and muslims in general that perhaps we should adopt their policies?
Like ron paul... they had a policy of hands off and "trade".. they had trade with the worst of the regiems and have large muslim populations...
Look how well it is working out for them. their muslims are no problem. terrorists leave them alone right?
lazs
-
Lazs, that was a reply to me, but I'm not sure what message you're replying to. As far as I know, I haven't been advocating appeasement or dropping out middle east involvement, I'm criticizing the over simplistic explanations for why we're in conflict.
-
and I am saying that to say that they don't hate us for out "freedoms" is the real simplistic thing to say.
They absolutely do hate us for what we are. Part of what we are is of course... being free and wanting others to have that.
The new lefty whine is that they would leave us alone if we left them alone. I say that is BS. It is not possible for us to "leave them alone" we will always be an example they can not have shown to the people they wish to enslave.
Just as soviet russia tried to keep our culture away from their people and failed.. so would they... no amount of walls or censorship works in todays electronic age and they know it. We can't be ignored... we need to be demonized.
lazs
-
this is gonna be my last post on this thread,
if you believe we are in Iraq to bring those people "freedom" you are very much disillusioned.
and if you believe this is a free country, lol, thats absurd, ya its free if you are rich, this system is designed so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.{even then you are NOT free, oj simpson was found guilty in civil court}
We have killed over 600,000 Iraq citizens, some say closer to 800,000.
i hope you are real proud. next time you fill your gas tank think to say, thank you Bush for the murdered people it took, to get this gas.
-
Originally posted by ink
this is gonna be my last post on this thread,
hey Rosie, any idea who is going to replace you on the View?