Posted on 07/30/2008 4:27:52 PM PDT by rightwinghour
I watched Ron Paul on Glenn Beck today and as usual I was amazed that he is just about the only politician in Washington talking about the real issues. Neither McCain nor Obama will talk about monetary policy. They are scared to, because they know the system we have is unconstitutional and that the only way to fix things is to go back to constitutional money. But that would hurt, so it wouldn't be prudent to bring it up...
Do you have any idea what the definition of an Empire is or do you just repeat whatever Dr. Mo says?
Wow! You're a real douchebag.
***Read my whole post and see if maybe, just MAAYYBEE you can figure out what I was saying.***
Sorry, that statement just seemed a little strange. I get what you mean though.
***Horse crap. It’s the same thing, no matter how you want to candy coat it. If a terrorist demands I leave a country and after I decide to up and leave then I have surrendered regardless of what I claim I’m doing it for.***
Terrorists will always demand we leave and eventually we’re going to leave (when we complete whatever our objective is). It certainly won’t be surrender then. I believe there is a difference between surrender and pulling out. When an army pulls out of a country because it is losing (and we’re certainly not “losing” Iraq), it isn’t surrendering. Hitler didn’t surrender when he couldn’t take Stalingrad, but he did began to pull back because he couldn’t sustain the losses and the Russians began applying too much pressure.
Obviously that’s not the case for us so any pulling out we do is on our terms. I’m not arguing pulling out immediately. And it’s not as if these insurgencies are any real threat to our military power. No matter what they claim, we did, are, and can kick the crap out of them anytime. Most Iraqis aren’t stupid, and they are acquiring a competent military. Like I said, I’m not in favor of pulling out immediately. We invaded their country, promised to rebuild it, and we owe it to them to finish that.
My issue is with the fact that we think it’s our job to do nation-build all the time. We should have finished Afghanistan before we even considered Iraq. I believe in the Just War theory and Taliban clearly prevented us from catching Osama and clearly helped him. I won’t get into the details, but I believe we should have gone in full force and accomplished our goal.
Today we have loosely defined goals and by and large I think we have won. It will require more time, but not much more in my estimation.
A couple points:
On previous wars, the arguments of bankruptcy were probably made, and to an extent the arguments were right (not in bankrupting us, but that we spent tons of money). The problem now is that we spend so much money on other welfare type projects and big government spending that we keep digging ourselves further into a hole that can very well lead to bankruptcy.
As far as Vietnam, we trade with them, though I wouldn’t call them “allies”. As far as the enemy in Iraq, the main difference is that we aren’t fighting an organized army from a any specific nation. Vietnam had the vietcong with massive support from the NVA. Even if Iran is helping the current fighters, it’s not the same as them actually sending their army (probably because they know they’d be slaughtered).
On losing vietnam, I don’t believe we did, we just fought it stupidly, pulled out a hair to soon, and didn’t do a good job managing the theater in general. Militarily, even with some of our ridiculous rules of engagements and strategies, we still kicked the crap out of the North by their own admission. When we pulled out, we had reached a peace deal and I believe it was largely on our terms since the north’s military was so battered. Had we held out another 6-12 months I believe the North never would have attacked the South like they did a year after the peace accords were signed. But the past is past.
Let's see... did TJ invade north Africa? Nope... What did he do?
Oh yeah... he did this. Like Ron Paul suggested we do in addition to other military options. It costs the government nothing and would probably have netted us Bin Laden's head by now.
But, I guess RP is just another "crazy Uncle" like TJ after all... Right?
I don't have "stormfront buddies", and I don't know what you're referring to. You seem intent upon debating "Paulites" and "stormfront" instead of debating me. I have said over and over I'm not a pacifist, yet you keep arguing as though I am. I don't advocate that we do anything the world's dictators want us to do. What I do advocate is a non interventionist foreign policy.
No, it wouldn't. Not even close. The economy of a dictatorial regime would easily be in a shambles and wouldn't amount to much to do business with. I sure don't see a lot of European or Canadian investment in Cuba right now. Amazing, since it has the potential to be a great beach resort location. Besides, I can imagine a salesman from a US corporation walking across a factory floor in Saddam's Iraq in total shock when Iraqi guide says.."Oh, don't mind that guy in the corner being put through a shredder, he's just a low-level political opponent. It only happens a few times a day." LOL.
Didn't Congress authorize the use of force against Iraq? Yes, they did, and that is quite different from declaring war.
Oh, now we see you are equivocating and getting ridiculously technical. Your demolishment continues.
We haven't declared war on anyone since 1941, and I don't think it is a coincidence that we haven't been very successful since then when we have invaded other countries.
Really? Name some! Vietnam doesn't count because we were hamstrung by the weenie Democrats who pulled the plug and defunded the war, hence our retreat.
The only way we were able to attack Iraq was to say we were enforcing UN resolutions.
Total Bullcrap. Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War, so in actuality, this second Iraq war was a resumption of hostilities of the first Iraq war. That's a fact. Besides, Saddam shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone was an act of war in and of itself.
I'm talking about a resistance within a country against the tyrannical rule of its own government, not one country against the occupation of another (the Iraqi insurgents come to mind).
There you go equivocating again! You have evaded my point. Whether or not is was the sovereign government or an occupational one is besides the point of a victorious resistance movement that you foolishly assume is so capable of victory.
You need to get real and admit you are wrong.
Our Revolutionary war is an example of a successful resistance. Only between 3 and 5 percent of our population fought against the British.
And there are many, many more examples of resistance movements in history that were crushed. History says your position of a successful resistance movement is a longshot.
Having free run of the planet assumes that no other nation in the world has the capability to defend themselves, and it assumes Saddam had the drive and the means to conquer the world.
With your logic, we don't need a local police force anywhere in the USA because the people should defend themselves against criminals.
We decided to make it easier for them to attack us by coming over to their side of the world. Now they don't even have to worry about crossing our border undetected! Your logic has no credible sequence.
Oh..my..God! This is unreal. Boy you are dense...at least our citizenry and communities are not put in dangerous risk by taking the fight to them (with heavily armed US soldiers) instead of waiting for them to come here and nuke our cities with biological, chemical or nuclear weaponry. Demolishment continues.
They got CRUSHED.
You mean the Kurdish uprising? They only rebelled because we promised them help, and then we didn’t and they got annihilated.
How am I advocating surrender in Afghanistan? We know the attackers came from there, we gave the Taliban an ultimatum which they ignored, we went back and forth on terms for turning over Bin Laden and they refused, so then we went in to supposedly get him and his cronies. Seven years later we still haven't done it. Perhaps if we had declared war on Afghanistan we'd have this done by now.
I don’t believe they have or ever had the ability to hit us with ballistic missiles. As for something like a suitcase nuke, our porous border makes it just as easy as before 9/11 to carry out such an attack.
As far as resistances go, many may be unsuccessful, but many don’t have the will or popular support to persist. Eventually dictatorships will do something to cause a change in the government, even if it’s another dictator. They impoverish their county beyond repair or piss off enough people that a coup or a successful resistance pops up. Again, the result isn’t always desirable and sometimes makes things worse for the average Joe, but the resistance was still “successful” (in so far as its goal was to depose so-and-so dictator).
I think you and I agree on that issue.
As far as the enemy in Iraq, the main difference is that we aren’t fighting an organized army from a any specific nation.
I would suggest that to at least SOME degree, we are, in fact fighting an organized army that was and still is supported by national governments... BUT there is great care taken by those parties to conceal the nature of their relationship.
Pakistan's government seems to be either unable or unwilling to effectively prevent our enemies using their territory as an "off limits to US attack" base from which to attack us in Afganistan, and to which to retreat to from Afganistan.
Iran's territory is likewise used regarding Iraq, but with a much more obvious tie to the official Government there.
Vietnam had the vietcong with massive support from the NVA. Even if Iran is helping the current fighters, it’s not the same as them actually sending their army (probably because they know they’d be slaughtered).
I think it is precisely because they know they would lose a direct nation to nation confrontation, that they conceal the nature of the official governments' involvement.
Much like Communism/Socialism, Militant Islam is not confined by national borders, is an ideology which has a stated intent of world domination, views the US as its chief impediment to achieving world domination, conceals its association with government officials (and others of influence) when beneficial, and capitalizes on the freedom in the US to undermine support for opposing their efforts globally.
...Had we held out another 6-12 months I believe the North never would have attacked the South like they did a year after the peace accords were signed...
I believe had there not been such successful effort to undermine domestic support for that cause by Kerry, et al, that the Communists and the Islamofacists aggressors since that time would not be emboldened knowing that the US military can be defeated by fomenting dissent for conflict at home.
The L Ron Paul, Bobby Barr & Chuck Baldwin
anti war supporters, legalizing drugs, gay marriage, & 9/11 truthers, along with Allen Keyes who has never nor will ever win a major election supporters have driven Free Republic into the Kook zone.
Their constant threads to divide Conservative voters only make it possible for an Obama victory.
If a person is conservative, why allow this.
The harm Obama and his Marxists will do to America will
be the final blow.
Also what he will do to our Military with a pull out will crush our men and women as it did in Viet nam only worse.
There will not be a next time to rebuild.
My candidate was Duncan Hunter. Since McCain is the candidate and at least he realizes the IslamOfascists is the enemy and he has two sons in the military, I will vote for him as he has the only chance to beat Obama.
The constant Third Party and McCain basher spammers only bring a Marxist Obama victory.
I don’t disagree with you on a lot of points, I just feel that the threat faced from radical Islam is not as great as that from Nazism or Communism. There’s no way these countries (Iran and the like) could EVER hope to defeat us. If it came down to it, we could topple all their countries and destroy so much infrastructure and so many of their resource gathering capabilities that they would be unable to do anything for years if not decades (I’m not advocating that, just saying).
I don’t even really believe Communism was as big a threat as it was made out to be. I know I’ll get hammered for that but let me explain. The Russians (far more powerful than any of the countries we’re dealing with now) could never have defeated us in combat. By their own admission they concede 2 main reasons why they could never defeat America
1) Our military was not by the books like there’s was. We had competent officers on and off the battlefield that could be replaced by the men below them, so “cutting off the head” so to speak wouldn’t work on the battlefield because all of our soldiers could keep fighting. Not so for the Russians. They had a strict chain of command, and if that broke down, chaos would ensue.
2) The Russians said (just as Admiral Yamamota in WWII) that they could never invade America because every household would have a gun.
In addition to our military superiority, no matter how hard a government tries, central pllaning and communism don’t work. Communism and heavy socialism can’t sustain themselves because the system just sucks. I’m sure you know this. Eventually they adopt more and more capitalistic ideas until they’re no longer “communism”.
I’m not trying to say that Communism (or radical Islam) aren’t threats, but sometimes I feel like any questioning of our policies against them leads to being labeled a denier or a left wing hijacker or a pacifist. My 2 cents anyway.
Not militarily. But they have demonstrated their ability to do us harm, and have vocalized that they (specifically Ahmadinejad) intend to have nuclear capabilities soon. An arms race with the Kremlin is one thing, suicide bombers with nuclear capability is another. This is an area where I believe Dr. Paul's style of foreign policy is dangerously naive.
I don’t even really believe Communism was as big a threat as it was made out to be.
Militarily, I agree with you. But only because we made the necessary effort to maintain a superior military. Pick the place: Mongolia, China, Korea, Vietnam. They're military succeeded until they were opposed (By us). Wherever their military did NOT succeed, it was because they were opposed militarily. The same with any military aggression. It WILL succeed if it is not superiorly opposed.
Their non-military strategies, however, have been terribly successful. It is the domestic political fight where they have their victories. Failure to recognize that we are vulnerable to defeat politically, failure to understand their strategies and how and why they work, and failure to respond with effective tactics that will reverse the trend, will still lose the fight despite them having an inferior military. If we don't stop that trend, the tables will turn and they WILL have a superior military.
I’m not trying to say that Communism (or radical Islam) aren’t threats, but sometimes I feel like any questioning of our policies against them leads to being labeled a denier or a left wing hijacker or a pacifist. My 2 cents anyway.
I can understand that frustration. It's the result of intellectual laziness by your opponents.
In response to your #2 in your list, that observation isn’t true anymore. Many American households don’t own a gun, and a great many that do aren’t trained well enough to use one effectively.
Yes, we have suicide bombers who want to harm us, but why do they want to harm us? Is it brought on by our past interventions, or do they hate us for our freedom and prosperity, such as we hear in the MSM? I don't think Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive, I just think that because it hasn't been used in over a hundred years it is hard to imagine how it could ever work.
I think the most likely answer is that they've been told by extremist religious leaders that harming us is a holy act and they will be blessed for it.
No, the Shiite uprising, just as I said.
They only rebelled because we promised them help, and then we didn’t and they got annihilated.
According to Rightwinghour, they should have been able to rise up on their own, after all, the American colonists did it so easy! LOL! And even if they only did it at the time because of our promised help, then they should have easily regrouped over the next ten years and risen up again, according to Rightwinghour. Piece of cake, he says!
Yea, I hear ya. Being an agnostic, I have the same problem with people who are absolutely convinced that there is a deity.
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.