Posted on 05/21/2007 1:53:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
I don't consider the gunman courageous, but according to your definition he is.
His was a planned suicide that was going to take as many with him as he could, just like the 9/11 terrorists.
The 9/11 terrorists had no fear to face either, since they were armed and the passangers unarmed.
So, they were facing the same type of fatalistic ending that the gunman at VT was, 'go out in a blaze of glory' killing people who can't fight back-an act of a coward, not a brave man.
You have a hard time grasping essentials don't you?
So now it is the goal that makes an act courageous?
As for Dresden, lets remember who began bombing civilian cities, the Germans, as part of their fear tactics.
Nor, can we forget the gas ovens running at full capacity.
For he will have judgement without mercy, that shewed no mercy; (James 2:13)
Unless either of you object to killing courageous enemies, I’m not sure their courage is relevant.
Cool your jets, wiseguy. Paul is just the latest of the libertarians to suggest that if the world's only superpower just 'minded its own business' and let the tyrants of the world run roughshod over every other country, they wouldn't get the notion to sucker punch it or shoot it in the back. There is no basis for that point of view in world history.
If you're thinking about citing Switzerland as a model of neutrality, don't bother. We now know the Nazis had secret deals with the Swiss involving not only billions in stolen gold, but also refusing Jewish refugees at its border during the Nazi regime. And if the Swiss grew a conscience and decided they no longer wanted to be money launderers to the world, it would be in grave danger -- personal handguns notwithstanding.
As the saying goes, nature hates a vacuum. If the U.S. voluntarily capitulates its superpower status, the throne will not remain empty out of gratitude. Do you dispute this?
“Back that up with evidence”
He lied when he publicly claimed Operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal. His dishonest behavior gives the Islamic fascist governments free propaganda for recruiting jihadists against the West. He also rejects the findings of the 9-11 investigation as he parades around with people like Alex Jones.
No, according to your view (and Ron Paul's) the Japanese had a valid reason to attack Pearl Harbor, since we were interfering with their attempts to control Asia.
The attacks against us by the Japanese would have happened sooner or later because we were the only major power able to stop them.
The Japanese jumped the gun and figured we would be bogged down in Europe and would not have the 'heart' to fight a long war with them.
Like the Muslims, they underestmated American resolve.
Paul has some sensible immigration plans. I'm sure he read the 9/11 Commission Report and remembers the section on the 1993 WTC bombing and what happens when you grant blanket amnesty to people you know nothing about.
Actually, he has a good plan of securing the U.S. borders and dealing with the illegal's issue.
If he were smart he would try to bring it up to distance himself from the Pro-Illegal Immigration group.
You seem to have some kind of obscure travel phobia. When we "travelled halfway around the world" to bring Japan to justice, no one objected because of the distance.
it would have been nice if we took a non-interventionist approach after ww2.
The USSR would have heartily agreed with you, except you me and the rest of us likely would be long dead by now so they would never have the pleasure of endorsing your foolishness. Please, no more hackneyed sound bites.
Ironic he played the Reagan card since on his website he states
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
A pretty direct link between al Qaida attacks in the 90s culminating with 9/11 and Ronald Reagan.
Also, while you're right that war effectively removes dicatorships, establishing democracy becomes a bit more complicated.
Apparently you have no idea what libertarians believe since they are nothing like anarchists. They are, unlike the two factions of our single political party, not statists or socialists.
The definition is very relevant, since it gives sanction to the act.
Pearl Harbor was always considered a cowardly act since it was done while the Japanese were still negotiating with us.
Attacking unarmed civilians, who are not even aware they are in a war, is a cowardly act, not a courageous one, as Bill Maher, tried to define it.
I think that is unfair to Dr. Paul.
His views on foreign Policy have some merit when you consider many of the contradictions between our polices and goals.
Often we are shortsighted and support those who later come back and bite us.
I think the GOP is a large enough Party to have differences of opinion as long as we share the same goal of United States independence and sovereignity.
I would agree completely as to attacking civilians, it’s cowardly. And imo the 9/11 group were cowards. Just not a point worth arguing. We killed plenty of courageous Japanese, with just cause, that’s the issue. If the 9/11 boys are courageous, kill the next ones anyway. You do have a point relative to the reverence accorded them in the Arab world, but I doubt they’ll be swayed by an FR conversation.
Regardless of the possible truth of that statement, I expect the Ron Paul boomlet to have exhausted itself by the weekend.
I doubt he ever said any such thing. More likely he said it wasn't allowed by the Constitution. There's an important distinction there, but either way, there is no lie. It is an opinion on public policy. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but everyone you disagree with is not lying.
His dishonest behavior gives the Islamic fascist governments free propaganda for recruiting jihadists against the West.
Oh my, you're one of those. Sheer demagoguery. Dissent is not treason. Careful, your jackboots are showing.
He also rejects the findings of the 9-11 investigation as he parades around with people like Alex Jones.
Hyperbole. Once again, expressing an opinion is neither lying nor treason. We live in the United States of America, remember? Freedom of speech and all that? And giving a radio interview is hardly parading around with someone. In any case, associating with someone you don't like doesn't constitute treason either.
Sorry, your post is nothing more than shouting to hear yourself make noise.
Paul has dug a hole too deep to cliumb out of. yes, he has a point. The Arabs are as much justified in launching 9/11 as Hitler was in occupying the Rheinland, no more and more less.
OK, he didn't say that exactly, but he may as well have. That's what he obviously intends.
"Any" Arab or Muslim country? What an idiotic statement.
In 2003 there was only is ONE national leader who had done all of the following:
-Had invaded his neighbors to the East and to the South.
-Ignored 17 UN Security Council Resolutions.
-Launched medium range missles against multiple civilian targets in at least 3 different countries
-Used WMD on other countries.
-Used WMD on his own people.
-Caused the death of 2 million Middle Easterners.
-Funded terrorists AND REPEATEDLY, OPENLY, BRAGGED about it.
If you declare a War on Terrorism, the FIRST PERSON YOU TAKE OUT is the national leader who's participating in it and bragging about getting away with it. And there was one (1) such individual on Planet Earth: Saddam Hussein.
“I doubt he ever said any such thing. More likely he said it wasn’t allowed by the Constitution. There’s an important distinction there, but either way, there is no lie. It is an opinion on public policy.”
It’s not an opinion, it is a fasle charge against the U.S. Whether he is talking about the U.S. Constitution or international law, his accusation is still ficticious. If he simply stated he disagreed with the congressional authorization, it would be opinion. But he falsely declared it illegal.
“I hate to be the one to break this to you, but everyone you disagree with is not lying. “
Liar!.......;-)
“Dissent is not treason.”
No, I’m not accusing him of treason. Treason is an illegal act, and would most likely be a ficticious accusation against Ron Paul on my part.
“Hyperbole. Once again, expressing an opinion is neither lying nor treason. “
Agreed. The lying accusation, I was referring to his public statements regarding the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I never accused him of treason. One can be a traitor without engaging in treason. But perhaps you’re right, ‘traitor’ might be a bit too harsh for someone like Ron Paul. Perhaps he’s just willfully misinformed. I find it irritating when appearently educated people, who do have some good ideas, side with the likes of Saddam over the rest of the world. For example, Ron Paul blames the deaths under sanctions on the U.S. The Security Council unanimously concluded that it was Saddam who was preventing the humanitarian aid to those in need. But notice how the anti-war crowd sides with Saddam.
Wrong on all points.
That is exactly what you did. You need to get your story straight hoss.
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.