MEET THE PRESS: Ron Paul

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Legend
CNN is really, really trying to make Paul look like a racist:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/ron-paul/

During the Sunday interview, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, pointing out that Barry Goldwater opposed it. But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today. "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics," he added.

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery ?eventually.?

Reasons why it is obvious that this is intentional:

1. Paul didn't say that slavery would just go away eventually. This was done to suggest that Paul didn't care about civil rights. Paul very clearly explained a highly relevant example that is easy to grasp: The British Empire bought the freedom of its slaves. He opposes Lincoln's absolute power, and he opposes the deaths of 600,000 American citizens. Just who the fuck is "for" that?
2. Paul explained clearly that he opposes the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. You can quote him saying that he had no problems with the human rights part of it. He just didn't want the government to be able to seize property. The article was crafted with the intention of making it look like he doesn't care about human rights.
3. The White Supremacist article below. Who the fuck cares if out of 100,000 donations, he took $500 from a racist. That's the headline?

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

Could you explain that to me?

He is against the Civil War because he thought that government should not have taken the slave owners property away. So too bad for the slaves, right?

Paul would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. Too bad for the people being oppressed under Jim Crow, right?

 

[First]

Good interview. Still would like to see some clarification on the White Supremacist issue and evolution. The former would definitely keep me from voting for him. Assuming it's a misunderstanding, he still has my primary vote.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cpmer
He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

A distinction without a difference.

Only to a fool like you.

Isolationism is pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. Non-intervention is allowing other nations to solve their own problems without sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to do it for them.

Deserves to be bumped.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
We look weak if we don't invade other countries? What exactly do you do that makes us look tough, Captain Armchair? I've been in the Army. What the hell have you done, bitch?

We looked weak in the 90s because we failed to respond to attack after attack by terrorists. And when we did respond it was with a few missiles and then we moved on and forgot about the terrorists.

If we had taken more forceful action after the first AQ attack their may not have been a second, third or forth one. If we had gone into Afghanistan with B-52s or F-117s instead of a dozen cruise missiles the Taliban might have decided that the risk AQ presented wasn?t worth the gain they got etc etc.

No one said our enemies were calm or rational. Even some terrorist sympathizers have come to admit that 9-11 was a huge mistake of the Muslim world and that it has afflicted FAR more damage to Islam than it did to the west. Since 9-11 about 8,000 Westerners have died due to the ?war on terror? meanwhile perhaps 100,000 Muslims have died. They thought we were weak and that somehow attacking us would expose that weakness to the world and instead all it did was bring a world of hurt down on the Muslim world.

We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

BTW... your little "I was in the army" statement is meaningless.

Meaningless? For all your talk about looking tough, you're one of the weakest sounding pussies in this forum. If you want to look tough, go to Iraq yourself, you little shitstain. You're the one who's trying to prove your manhood, not me little man.

Ooooh, this too.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Legend
CNN is really, really trying to make Paul look like a racist:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/ron-paul/

During the Sunday interview, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, pointing out that Barry Goldwater opposed it. But he would not say he whether would vote against the legislation today. "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics," he added.

Paul also contended that the Civil War had been unnecessary because the United States would have gotten rid of slavery ?eventually.?

Reasons why it is obvious that this is intentional:

1. Paul didn't say that slavery would just go away eventually. This was done to suggest that Paul didn't care about civil rights. Paul very clearly explained a highly relevant example that is easy to grasp: The British Empire bought the freedom of its slaves. He opposes Lincoln's absolute power, and he opposes the deaths of 600,000 American citizens. Just who the fuck is "for" that?
2. Paul explained clearly that he opposes the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. You can quote him saying that he had no problems with the human rights part of it. He just didn't want the government to be able to seize property. The article was crafted with the intention of making it look like he doesn't care about human rights.
3. The White Supremacist article below. Who the fuck cares if out of 100,000 donations, he took $500 from a racist. That's the headline?

Sounds like Paul values property rights over personal liberty.

Could you explain that to me?

He is against the Civil War because he thought that government should not have taken the slave owners property away. So too bad for the slaves, right?

Paul would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act because of property rights. Too bad for the people being oppressed under Jim Crow, right?

He was against the Civil War because other countries, including Great Britain, managed to get rid of slavery without resorting to war.

 

[JD50]

I might not agree with everything that Ron Paul has to say, but he has my vote because he is the only one that would make a difference. Those of you that think that your "Republican" candidate or your "Democratic" candidate will do anything different than what has been going on for years now are fools. The more radical things that Ron Paul advocates (a lot of which I disagree with) will be blocked by congress, so I'm not too worried about that (disbanding the FBI, CIA, NSA etc...). I'm a conservative, and Ron Paul is the ONLY conservative running for office, the rest of you supporting the RINOs are just fooling yourselves. True conservative Republicans will vote for Ron Paul, the rest of you are NOT conservatives at all. Baaaaaahhhhh.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Before getting too carried away with dramatic statements, consider that I possibly qualify as a Paul supporter and said this in this very thread.

"Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated. "

Is he good stuff? He's the freshest breath of air we've gotten a long time.
Perfect? That's YOUR misconception of what people are saying.

so you must also be one of the vamboozled....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Before getting too carried away with dramatic statements, consider that I possibly qualify as a Paul supporter and said this in this very thread.

"Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated. "

Is he good stuff? He's the freshest breath of air we've gotten a long time.
Perfect? That's YOUR misconception of what people are saying.

so you must also be one of the vamboozled....

so you must also be one of those satisfied with the status quo....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Before getting too carried away with dramatic statements, consider that I possibly qualify as a Paul supporter and said this in this very thread.

"Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated. "

Is he good stuff? He's the freshest breath of air we've gotten a long time.
Perfect? That's YOUR misconception of what people are saying.

QFT

 

[First]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I am beginning to agree with an earlier observation: Paul supporters are behaving like GWB supporters, their guy can do or say no wrong.

Before getting too carried away with dramatic statements, consider that I possibly qualify as a Paul supporter and said this in this very thread.

"Yes, the man isn't perfection... he's just the best this country has seen in hundreds of years. Only a visionary with true insight on what's going on in the world said the things he said, and voted the way he did back when the Iraq war was being instigated. "

Is he good stuff? He's the freshest breath of air we've gotten a long time.
Perfect? That's YOUR misconception of what people are saying.

so you must also be one of the vamboozled....

so you must also be one of those satisfied with the status quo....

Yeah, this is my thinking as well. Even though I personally disagree completely with Paul on a great many things, in particular his economic views and his stance toward the IRS and Fed, his stance on dissolution of federal agencies like the CIA/FBI (though he has said he would replace them with something less bureaucratic, what he didn't say), and evolution, I do agree with him on a great deal many things, particularly vastly reduced federal spending, foreign policy, and strict adherence to basic constitutional principles, making it more difficult to find loopholes that create domestic and foreign disasters.

The only other candidate that I think might bring some serious change on either side would be Obama, though honestly I just think he's a less corrupt version of what we already have in DC. I'd love to be wrong about him and about whichever Dem is eventually named president (which sadly might be HRC), but I have this bad feeling it's going to be status quo. Yuck.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ron Paul is now one of the top 3 repub candidates for President

That's sure to get some republicans' panties in a twist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where in the world do you get Ron Paul in the top three? McCain in now rising up from the dead and polls place him at 20% or better, Giuliani is losing support and still doing better than McCain, Romney and Huckabee are also viable and both command around 15% or better poll numbers. And even the sinking Fred Thompson is still double digits. Leaving Ron Paul a somewhat distant 6'th place. With today's Meet the Press figures for Ron Paul at 8% poll numbers.

The polling methods are flawed and therefore aren't indicative of the true support for Ron Paul.

But the online polls are perfect, right? lol...

Listen guys, RP has a lot of great things to say, and I agree with about 80% of it, but the remaining 20% of his ideas are enough to make the other 80% null and void. He's downright loony on several issues, especially the gold standard and regressive taxation ideas.

There's also no chance in hell that any President can order an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. That just isn't going to happen. A plan carried out over five years? maybe.... but not all at once in 2009. That just ain't gonna happen...

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

But the online polls are perfect, right? lol...

Listen guys, RP has a lot of great things to say, and I agree with about 80% of it, but the remaining 20% of his ideas are enough to make the other 80% null and void. He's downright loony on several issues, especially the gold standard and regressive taxation ideas.

There's also no chance in hell that any President can order an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. That just isn't going to happen. An plan carried out over five years? maybe.... but not all at once in 2009. That just ain't gonna happen...

Ron Paul is a democrat without any advantage of being a republican!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: GrGr
Ron Paul is now one of the top 3 repub candidates for President

That's sure to get some republicans' panties in a twist

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where in the world do you get Ron Paul in the top three? McCain in now rising up from the dead and polls place him at 20% or better, Giuliani is losing support and still doing better than McCain, Romney and Huckabee are also viable and both command around 15% or better poll numbers. And even the sinking Fred Thompson is still double digits. Leaving Ron Paul a somewhat distant 6'th place. With today's Meet the Press figures for Ron Paul at 8% poll numbers.

The polling methods are flawed and therefore aren't indicative of the true support for Ron Paul.

But the online polls are perfect, right? lol...

Not completely no. But it does show the demographic that does not get counted through gallup polls.

Listen guys, RP has a lot of great things to say, and I agree with about 80% of it, but the remaining 20% of his ideas are enough to make the other 80% null and void. He's downright loony on several issues, especially the gold standard and regressive taxation ideas.

Something needs to be done regarding our monetary and fiscal policy. What do you suggest? And don't say 'cut spending' because thats so vague any buffoon running for office can say that. It takes balls to actually have a plan on what departments to cut spending. Monetary policy OTOH, is in trouble with this nation. How would you fix that? Just like the FED? Inject more dollars to infuse life into a consumer economy? Further dilute the value of the dollar and in essence steal from people's savings through inflation? I want to see your views on how you would fix it. Let's see your fix.

There's also no chance in hell that any President can order an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq. That just isn't going to happen. An plan carried out over five years? maybe.... but not all at once in 2009. That just ain't gonna happen...

We can leave just as fast as we got in, even faster IMO.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Not completely no. But it does show the demographic that does not get counted through gallup polls.

Who? The scriptkiddie hax0rz who can automate the voting process?! Gee, there's a demographic I care about... no, really, that's special! :thumbsup:

Something needs to be done regarding our monetary and fiscal policy. What do you suggest? And don't say 'cut spending' because thats so vague any buffoon running for office can say that. It takes balls to actually have a plan on what departments to cut spending. Monetary policy OTOH, is in trouble with this nation. How would you fix that? Just like the FED? Inject more dollars to infuse life into a consumer economy? Further dilute the value of the dollar and in essence steal from people's savings through inflation? I want to see your views on how you would fix it. Let's see your fix.

Well, economics is certainly not my area of expertise, but I have read and understood the popular objections to RP's monetary ideas - enough so that I've decided to disagree with said ideas. I can't offer an alternative, but strangely enough, "cutting spending" would be at the top of my list.

I would personally like to see the IRS dismantled and rebuilt with a much simpler tax system. I would also move to eliminate earmarks altogether - for everyone! Last, I'd do away with any program having to do with "welfare." Most modern "welfare" programs are broken and too frequently abused.

We can leave just as fast as we got in, even faster IMO.

Not if we actually care about the consequences this time! :shocked: No President will be able to stomach the millions of lives that may be lost if we to just up and leave. The DNI, NSC, and JCOS will set the next POTUS straight the moment they take office. You'd have to be completely ignorant to believe RP would be any different.

The reality is that we must fix what we've broken in Iraq, and we can't do that without the security provided by our troops... at least, not yet. Withdrawal will be a long and gradual process. The timing of each reduction will have to coincide with handovers to Iraqi elements capable of maintaining the security without our help. As I've said before, this is a process that may take up to 10 years, or more.

Unlike the decision to go in, this time around we have to actually consider the consequences! We have to fix what we've broken. Doing anything else would be inhumane.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Who? The scriptkiddie hax0rz who can automate the voting process?! Gee, there's a demographic I care about... no, really, that's special! :thumbsup:

This is an assumption and not based on fact. So your premise for dismissing this demographic is in error.

Well, economics is certainly not my area of expertise, but I have read and understood the popular objections to RP's monetary ideas - enough so that I've decided to disagree with said ideas. I can't offer an alternative, but strangely enough, "cutting spending" would be at the top of my list.

I would personally like to see the IRS dismantled and rebuilt with a much simpler tax system. I would also move to eliminate earmarks altogether - for everyone! Last, I'd do away with any program having to do with "welfare." Most modern "welfare" programs are broken and too frequently abused.

Fair enough. But would you agree, that at the least, we need to reevaluate our fiscal and monetary policy in order to correct the constant devaluing of our dollar? Creating more money is not the answer.

Not if we actually care about the consequences this time! :shocked: No President will be able to stomach the millions of lives that may be lost if we to just up and leave. The DNI, NSC, and JCOS will set the next POTUS straight the moment they take office. You'd have to be completely ignorant to believe RP would be any different.

The reality is that we must fix what we've broken in Iraq, and we can't do that without the security provided by our troops... at least, not yet. Withdrawal will be a long and gradual process. The timing of each reduction will have to coincide with handovers to Iraqi elements capable of maintaining the security without our help. As I've said before, this is a process that may take up to 10 years, or more.

Unlike the decision to go in, this time around we have to actually consider the consequences! We have to fix what we've broken. Doing anything else would be inhumane.

We haven't broke anything. Its not "our" (US citizens) responsibility. It is the EXECUTIVE BRANCHES responsibility. They started it, they can clean it up and not with our blood. Why do you want the American people to pay for with their blood and money to clean up someone else's mess? I couldn't disagree with you more on this subject.

 

[burr4392]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Good interview. Still would like to see some clarification on the White Supremacist issue and evolution. The former would definitely keep me from voting for him. Assuming it's a misunderstanding, he still has my primary vote.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: cpmer
He is not an isolationist he just believes in non intervention.

A distinction without a difference.

Only to a fool like you.

Isolationism is pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. Non-intervention is allowing other nations to solve their own problems without sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to do it for them.

Deserves to be bumped.

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
We look weak if we don't invade other countries? What exactly do you do that makes us look tough, Captain Armchair? I've been in the Army. What the hell have you done, bitch?

We looked weak in the 90s because we failed to respond to attack after attack by terrorists. And when we did respond it was with a few missiles and then we moved on and forgot about the terrorists.

If we had taken more forceful action after the first AQ attack their may not have been a second, third or forth one. If we had gone into Afghanistan with B-52s or F-117s instead of a dozen cruise missiles the Taliban might have decided that the risk AQ presented wasn?t worth the gain they got etc etc.

No one said our enemies were calm or rational. Even some terrorist sympathizers have come to admit that 9-11 was a huge mistake of the Muslim world and that it has afflicted FAR more damage to Islam than it did to the west. Since 9-11 about 8,000 Westerners have died due to the ?war on terror? meanwhile perhaps 100,000 Muslims have died. They thought we were weak and that somehow attacking us would expose that weakness to the world and instead all it did was bring a world of hurt down on the Muslim world.

We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

BTW... your little "I was in the army" statement is meaningless.

Meaningless? For all your talk about looking tough, you're one of the weakest sounding pussies in this forum. If you want to look tough, go to Iraq yourself, you little shitstain. You're the one who's trying to prove your manhood, not me little man.

Ooooh, this too.

I thought I might chime in on this one as well. I have been over head in the middle east, Bahrain specifically, for the last couple of years plus. The majority of my friends out here are locals, and we have spent a little time now and again talking about these things.

The bottom line is that none of them have problems with Americans. They have a problem with American Policy and specifically with GWB. They just want to live their lives in peace without the latest US policy fucking with their lives. And we have a very good track record of managing to find the one thing that would piss a whole lot of locals off and doing our best to force them to do it.

I introduced a few of them to Ron Paul immediately after the first debate. The response was an overwhelming, "Can he be our leader?" They sincerely hope that someone like RP gets elected, because they would actually be respected by America, rather than seen as a second and third class citizens at best. They wanted to give money to the campaign.

Even those that really hate Americans because of the foreign policy, like this guy. He listens to them, respects their opinions and their feelings, and understands them. Of course, their comment was that he would never get elected. He would not be allowed to.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is an assumption and not based on fact. So your premise for dismissing this demographic is in error.

Oh come on, you dont seriously believe that online polling is even remotely accurate... do you?!

Fair enough. But would you agree, that at the least, we need to reevaluate our fiscal and monetary policy in order to correct the constant devaluing of our dollar? Creating more money is not the answer.

Yes, we need to do something... or maybe we don't? Like I said, I don't know enough about economics to comment with anything resembling accurate economic advice. I do know enough to appreciate the workings of a free market. That line of thought would have us do nothing, therefore allowing the market to do whatever comes naturally. If that means recession, then so be it. Perhaps getting in the way of that would only delay the inevitable, or quite possibly make it worse!

This is also why I opposed Bush's decision to impede the free market nature of the housing market. When he decided to step in and interfere with that market, I believe all he did was delay the inevitable - for political reasons, of course. The eventual crash will be that much harder when it happens after his term in office ends... DOH!

We haven't broke anything. Its not "our" (US citizens) responsibility. It is the EXECUTIVE BRANCHES responsibility. They started it, they can clean it up and not with our blood. Why do you want the American people to pay for with their blood and money to clean up someone else's mess? I couldn't disagree with you more on this subject.

So you really don't see the current state of Iraq being a direct result of our invasion!? How can you ignore America's moral obligation to fix what we have broken over there?

There is no difference between the "Executive branch's responsibilities," and our own. We are collectively responsible for their decisions, and any work that must be done as a result. In terms of what needs to get done, Bush leaving office in 2009 doesn't change a thing.

Like I've said before, as one of the troops whose blood is actually on the line, I'm quite willing to continue working over there until they're stable enough for us to come home. Failure to do so would be inhumane, especially at a time when things are moving in the right direction!

We'll agree to disagree, but I hope you someday realize that, even if RP wins the WH, his promise of immediate withdrawal from Iraq is an empty one. The most that anyone can hope for is some sort of 5-10 year well articulated plan.

 

[Capitalizt]

pale, I'm afraid you won't realize that Iraq can't be "fixed" until we have another 4,000 dead soldiers. Our presence is only making things worse, and offering a huge recruitment tool for Al-Queda. It's time to come home and defend our borders.. Give Iraqis their country back. The country is already a mess, and it will certainly be a mess when we leave...but at least our troops won't be caught in a crossfire.

 

[Braznor]

It's my observation that isolationist periods of 20th century United States coincided with the festering of great evil. eg. Nazi Germany, Soviet Union etc.

It is my belief that there should be a greater international effort to combat evil in the world. It is unethical and hypocritical to expect the US to be engaged in an one man show alone in the Middle East and far east. Other countries affected by terror should be morally/ legislatively coerced to contribute, otherwise risk being cast off from the global terror effort in a defined framework of sanctions.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
pale, I'm afraid you won't realize that Iraq can't be "fixed" until we have another 4,000 dead soldiers. Our presence is only making things worse, and offering a huge recruitment tool for Al-Queda. It's time to come home and defend our borders.. Give Iraqis their country back. The country is already a mess, and it will certainly be a mess when we leave...but at least our troops won't be caught in a crossfire.

Are you willing to accept the millions of deaths that may occur after a complete and immediate US withdrawal?

I would personally never forgive myself if my decision to leave led to that happening... after all, it's our fault that security there is so weak.

I'm optimistic and believe that the US can create a stable Iraq. I'm also willing to put life on the line until that happens - along with hundreds of thousands of other volunteer military personnel.

 

[Capitalizt]

I respect your determination to "stay the course"...but obviously most of your comrades don't. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty servicemen than every other GOP candidate combined. The Iraqis want us out...the American people want us out, and apparently most of the troops want to come home as well. That's why they aren't supporting neocons like Mccain and Giuliani who want to expand this war..

The Iraqis have their government. We should leave them with one rule to follow: "Preserve democracy....don't let another tyrant come to power. If you do, we'll be back."

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty servicemen than every other GOP candidate combined.

Got proof? links please.

 

[burr4392]

Sure:

My second brain turned up:

3rd Quarter Military Fundraising Huston Chronicle

3rd Quarter WIStv

2nd Quarter Breakdown

Plus there is always the wiki article. Use it as a base and check the references. But I don;t want to do all the work for you.

Wiki Article

Not that it would convince you, but having spoken with several members of the US Navy, Army and AF serving in the middle east, they are all for Ron Paul. I personally know several who have donated in excess of $100. And these are guys that could have used that for beer money!


Oh and how many countries have we withdrawn from and they survived and prospered? You go off and research that one, will ya. Give you a hint though... There's a lot more than one.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty servicemen than every other GOP candidate combined.

Got proof? links please.

I'd like to see that one as well - would be great to have when people say that Paul is anti-military (for some reason).

 

[nageov3t]

I had heard that RP was getting in a big chunk of financing from military types, but I'd also heard that it was mostly from the older vets, not active duty soldiers.

 

[burr4392]

Check out youtube for a few active duty vids. There are a few from the guys in iraq.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We follow the Ron Paul model and the terrorists will go back to thinking that we are weak and won?t do anything if they attack us, HUGE mistake.

Wow.

Because our involvement in their world is not the root cause of their hatred for us?

Have you ever once thought that suicide bombing is an act of fear? Of desperation?

They are scared to DEATH of us. They feel extremely threatened by our involvement in the middle east.

Can you comprehend the thought of China occupying North America right now, and Americans wanting them to stay to 'stabilize' us? Hell no. We'd want them on the first flight out.

To end our meddling ways, would not only leave us extremely powerful back at home instead of overstretched and overextended (and bankrupt).. but would also give the world confidence that we can be trusted not to use our great power for less than noble causes.
That means, yes, they will begin to trust us. Trade will open up, and the need for terrorism will evaporate like water in a desert.

Terrorism, like the USSR, can be defeated without firing a shot. I know that's too much of a stretch for many out there.

You have a very misguided and dangerous worldview. Frankly, anyone who's reading this that believes that if we allow Bush, he will get us all killed... yeah, your vein of thinking is also the reason we're where we are at today.

I'd like a reply to this. Everyone wants to make the quips and talk the talk, but I want to hear where I'm wrong. This is a too serious part of the world today to have people running around blabbing ignorance about 'appearing strong'.

Let's engage in the war of ideas and see who wins, unless that's too civilized.
Because this war on Iraq can't lead to anything called victory.