Posted on 09/07/2007 10:40:07 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/07/2007 2:31:57 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Has this been a hectic and encouraging time! First we got almost 17% in the Texas straw poll, an event set-up to represent the establishment, with very restrictive voting rules. That 17% of the Republican hierarchy would support our views, after a full day of pro-war propaganda, is good news. Then we won the more open Maryland Republican straw poll with 28%. In both cases, as usual, hard-working, well-organized volunteers made all the difference.
The Fox debate was a lot of fun as well. It's true that a few of the network people are not exactly with us on foreign or domestic policy (though one famous guy whispered to me that he is a libertarian), but the audience—with lots of students from the University of New Hampshire—was definitely fair and balanced, as their enthusiastic reaction showed.
My opponents called for more war, more torture, more secret prisons, more eavesdropping, more presidential power. Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return.
The government failed miserably on 911 to protect us, despite spending trillions. So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane. I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots. But then, you and I really believe in the Second Amendment. It is not just a political slogan for us.
When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans.
There was much talk of taxes, and a pledge not to raise rates. But as usual, I was not allowed to discuss my lifelong pledge to abolish the income tax. Just holding the line, when the government takes such vast sums through an illegitimate guilty-until-proven-innocent system, is hardly enough. We need to slash taxes and spending if we are to have a future of prosperity for ourselves and our families.
After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, "security" ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty.
But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe. Even party officials. When one of my opponent said it was OK to lose elections through supporting the Iraq war, that set party people's teeth on edge, and rightly so. The Republican party is shrinking. We need new people. It's either our ideas or President Hillary, and more and more people recognize it.
But the media, and everyone else, will be looking at fundraising totals at the end of this month. They'll judge us by how we do. And we need help to wage what we hope will be a full-scale, 50-state campaign. Please help me head into the next quarter fully armed to do battle for freedom, peace and prosperity. Make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/. This Revolution is on the move, but it very much needs your support.
Sincerely,
Ron
How is the HilaryCare War Room. You are the biggest phony of them all. Anybody who doesn’t believe you and about 30 others are Plants are naive.
Tell us what do you think of HilaryCare??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Well done, mn.
The notion that terrorists would "come over here" is the biggest straw-man argument in history.
*************
What about 9/11?
>>That’s why there’s a huge grassroots support for Dr. Paul and the smear/ridicule campaign conducted by the major news media.<<
Smear campaign mostly defined by pointing a camera at him while he acts like a lunatic? Who could possibly be to blame for this utterly inaccurate perception of a truly great man (ignoring the crazy, of course)?
Where did you learn about constitutional law?
Why not try to defend Ron Paul on the merits of what he said rather than trying to project onto Giuliani?
Then by all means, explain, rather than using template answers and then running away.
Yes, I saw quite a few of them holding up signs on clip I recently saw of a "9/11 truth" rally.
I do not understand why FR should have to continue to put up with this BS.
My 17 year old daughter who is in her ultra left-wing rebellion period took one of those test to see what candidate she identified most with. Well Dennis Kucinich came out on top but Ron Paul came out ahead of Bill Richardson! The fact that Paul is conservative on SOME issues does not mitigate the fact that he is a nut job It is beneath FR to continue to provide a platform for his platoon of the insane.
--Ron Paul
I do not understand why FR should have to continue to put up with this BS.
It is beneath FR to continue to provide a platform for his platoon of the insane.
**************
I have mixed feelings about it, but I tend to agree with you.
...
Wouldn't a more 21st century approach involve massive air bombardment and the use of every major piece of artillery we can ship over there?
You don't fight insurgencies with massive firepower and manuever warfare. If you can find me an example of large-scale strategic bombing being useful in a counter-insurgency campaign, I'd love to hear about it. You can include massed artillery as well, especially for campaigns that occurred before the advance of strategic bombers.
Oh, and none of this changes the fact that the first thing you did was pathetically go for the ANSWER talking point about "Mission Accomplished." It doesn't exactly give me confidence in your grasp of the situation.
Old school? You mean like using Privateers to hunt down pirates?
No, I mean like the tactics that worked in the Phillipines, Malaya, Kenya, Algeria, El Salvador, etc.
BTW, saw an interview with the guy who wrote Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife and he said that in 2003 the U.S. simply wasn't prepared to do counter-insurgency, period...as in, not just in Iraq, but not anywhere. So I consider our early stumbles to be like the early stumbles in WWII...and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
You seem to be rather limited in the scope of this thing. This isn't just Iraq. This is militant Islam we are fighting and we need to go after EVERY Nation that harbors it without a fight.
Did we invade every island in the Pacific in 1942, or did we take them one or two at a time? Did we invade Normandy, Italy and Africa in 1942, or did we start in one place, kill the Germans there and move on?
Otherwise, this cancer will continue to spread and it WILL kill more of us.
Yes, by all means, let's all whine about a President who not only agrees with what you wrote about going after them whereever they hide, but also has gone six years without another attack as of Tuesday.
Be honest: When you rolled out of bed on September 12, 2001, did you think we'd go six years before another attack, or did you figure we'd be lucky to get six months, six weeks, six days or six hours?
Expending 130,000 rounds to kill one "insurgent" and still losing more of our military personnel doesn't seem like progress to me.
I'd like a source for that 130,000 rounds, but to be quite frank I have to wonder what's going on in your head when you're worried about rounds expended to kill someone who might otherwise schlepp a suitcase bomb or weaponized ebola into the country.
The reason we are losing troops is because we're in a war. Whenever you engage the enemy you will lose troops unless you are on the receiving end of a miracle. The irony is guys like you will whine about ROE, but when we go forth to kick buckets of Al Qaida ass we will lose more troops and then you will whine about casualties. More microwave burrito warfare BS.
Nor does having the asinine ROE that would be better suited to POLICE roles than it would military in a hostile zone.
Can you quote those ROE? If so, can you tell me how many engagements in the current surge have fallen under "police" ROE?
You know what? In '42 we lost 6,000 guys at the Kasserine Pass because we weren't using proper tactics. Instead of whining and going home because those tactics failed we adapted, put in new leadership and the Germans never won a major armor engagement against us again. In Iraq we neeeded new tactics and a new guy, we have them and the enemy is finding that he can run, but it will just ensure that he's tired when he dies.
Petraeus rocks. Drive on, General!
People don't like to stop to wonder why the terrorists picked planes...maybe because they too knew that planes are one of the places where everyone is disarmed.....I remember when folks with carry permits could take their guns on planes as long as they notified the airline in advance of their intention to do so. Sadly, those days are gone (only temporarily, I hope) because the average person has been taught for for a couple of decades to look to the government to save them. Ron Paul seems to be one of the few elected officials who understand that we must take some responsibility for protecting ourselves and he wants to make sure we are allowed to do it. He's also one of only a handful of members of congress to consistently get an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America as well as the American Taxpayers Union. He stands for most everything that REAL conservatives and constitutionalists have been praying for and, yet, due to the warmongering that takes place in the media and some feeling that we must 'save face' in the middle east, they are the very ones who come out and decry him now. I just don't get it.
Funny, we appear to be using the ones from Viet Nam instead. Nice attempt at a slam by trying to ad homenim paint me with those traitorous ANSWER retards.
Ok... so you don't like fighting the War on Terror against Terrorist supporting Nations like we did WWII. You don't like using Privateers like we did with Barbary. You seem to think the current "troop surge" is working even though we are still spending a few hundred million per "insurgent" killed.
And you think I don't have a good grasp of the situation?
Did we invade every island in the Pacific in 1942, or did we take them one or two at a time? Did we invade Normandy, Italy and Africa in 1942, or did we start in one place, kill the Germans there and move on?
We aren't even doing that much. This would be like trying the Island hopping by using door-to-door "knock and announce" tactics. If we used your examples, we'd still be trying to get that flag to the top of Mount Suribachi without success.
Can you quote those ROE? If so, can you tell me how many engagements in the current surge have fallen under "police" ROE?
Haven't been keeping abreast of the Haditha incident or any of the other crap our Troops are being charged with have you... If you aren't even that far up to speed, it's no wonder you think things are going perfectly and are incapable of imagining a better solution.
Also, a quick "Google is your friend" search makes it look like my 130k rounds per insurgent killed was a low estimate...
I like Ron from a Constitution perspective, I do not think he would make a good POTUS though.
I could have sworn that it was common courtesy to ping someone if you talk about them in a post. So much for good manners, I guess.
Just FYI: I keep in contact with my friends and family in the military via email, snail mail and phone calls. As far as I know they don't post here on FR (although I guess it IS possible). I'll have to ask some of them about when next we talk. Your comment about not being able to point to posts is simply asinine. FR, while infomative and sometimes entertaining, isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of communication.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? You read
"To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"
and conclude that this "grants Congress the authorization to capture land as it deems necessary". And by your own account, of the arguments you've presented this is "the best".
Why did the Clinton Administration decide not to take bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him?
I don't believe Congressman Paul ever said we should do nothing.
He said that we've lost too many soldiers in Afghanistan...leads me to believe he's not going to go anywhere and hit the enemy, or that he'd go in (after all, he did vote for the 2001 Authorization) but pull out the minute it wasn't mirowave burrito warfare.
What is amazing to me is that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to cede Iraq to Al Qaida and/or Iran, yet his supporters will claim all over the place that he will be a fierce terror warrior, and that no one else in the field will be his equal. Yeah, sure.
However if you can dig up a statement in which the good Congressman said the attacks on the Cole, Khobar, and the American embassies should go unpunished I'll happily concede your point.
Guess who else said we would deal with the people who did those attacks? Bill Clinton.
I don't remember him doing that. I remember him saying that the attacks were a response to some of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sure, and the police didn't say the rape victim raped herself, they just said she shared some of the blame because she shouldn't have been in that part of town. I'll cover blowback in a separate post.
I think everyone pretty much agrees this is the case. AQ doesn't like our foreign policy. That's a fact.
Let me ask you a serious question. I mean, seriously think this one over: Have you ever, even once in your life, heard of a Jewish person asking "why did Hitler hate us? Shouldn't we figure out what was making him so angry so we can avoid doing it again?" Have you ever heard of someone saying, "If the Jews would have just done X differently, maybe Hitler wouldn't have put them on the cattlecars"?
Armed pilots sure would have come in handy against 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters, though. And if those mutts had been stopped we most likely wouldn't be worrying about other nuts with detonating Dentucream now would we.
No suprise to see a circular argument from a Paulestinian. In his message (specifically, the part you quoted in your post) Paul complained about the lack of guns in the cockpit and then said the government's answer was seizing toothpaste. So let's see if you're intellectually honest:
1. What is the reason you can't take toothpaste or shampoo on flights anymore?
2. Would armed pilots be able to stop a liquid bomb?
3. Would armed pilots on September 11th killing 19 guys who planned to die anyway have stopped Al Qaida from attacking airliners with explosives?
Did they? Did all of them disagree? When was that poll taken? Got a link to the statements of each and every airline CEO to document that assertion?
OK...are you actually going to try to claim that Ron Paul said "the airlines" and he meant half of the airlines, or two of the airlines?
But, since you asked, see the two links I provided in post 331.
Maybe they didn't ridicule him openly, but they didn't do a damned thing to expedite the process either.
I'll type this slowly so that you can understand it:
What...did...Ron...Paul...say?
What...did...I...say?
What I don't like is the yards of bullsh** I see spewed about the guy. Ron Paul doesn't hate America. Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was 'our fault'. And he certainly does support our troops.
Sure...Mussolini and Neville Chamberlain supported their troops, too.
Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.
Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.
Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.
16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake
_____________________________________________
It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.