Posted on 05/21/2007 1:53:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
Great, just what we need on this site, another 'keyboard commando' who is real brave in front of a computer monitor.
As for dictators, putting some high velocity hot lead between their eyes is a much better way to remove them, and a hell of a lot less expensive. Bullets are cheap. Let somebody who actually LIVES in the country deal with it, it's not our responsibility, and not worth the life of a single American Soldier.
I attribute this name [Traitor]to those who publicly make false accusations against their own country in a time of war, like Ron Paul.
You accuse the man of being a "Lying Conspiracy theorist", yet have the audasity to ask ME what his 'take' is on those???
What are you, 14 years old???
Get a clue, or better yet, go away until you get your facts straight.
Actually we were prepared to go to war with them, but did not expect them to strike at Pearl Harbor.
The fact is that our actions against both the Japanese and Iraq were justified, and Ron Paul is saying our actions against Iraq were not.
Scheuer pays no attention to ideology. He is an internationalist living off the man he failed to capture or kill.
Dinesh D’Souza is a dhimmi tool Read his new book. He thinks that Islam is non-violent and calls anyone who disagrees racist.
I think that an enemy's courage plays no part in whether I should kill him or not. An enemy's level of courage is relevant, however, in determining tactics to employ to meet one's strategic goals while fighting him. If I were, for example, to simply consider my opponent cowardly, I might believe he is likely to surrender at the threat of his life...and conduct myself in a restrained manner, hoping for acquiescence.
However, if I recognize that my opponent is willing to risk or sacrifice his life for his cause, then I can have appropriate expectations (no surrender) and take an appropriate response (defense against unconventional tactics).
Although my opponent's intentions, honor, morality, etc., might have no bearing on deciding whether to fight, his courage does. And we must learn to stop misunderestimating (sic) our foes just because it makes us feel good to put them down or to comment on their moral failures.
Denouncing an act of cowardice in killing helpless women and children shows the nature of the enemy we are fighting, those who use women and children as shields.
No one is underestimating the enemy's ruthlessness or cunning.
But I don't grant him the virture of courage, since that is a virture he has not earned.
So stop puffing up the terrorists of 9/11, they were not brave men, they were cowards, who committed a vicious crime.
Those men followed a religion which hates life and that is why dying for them was easy to do.
Speak no ill of Dinesh. He worships at the altar of the northern tyrant like the rest of Claremont Institute fellows. He was also a darling of the neo-conservative movement for quite awhile as well. As a good 'conservative' I must take everything he says as the gospel truth....
Did not expect an attack at the one place where most of our Navy was tied up?
No, the Navy underestimated the Japanese ability to launch aircraft that far from its homeland.
We thought the attack might be on a closer U.S. base or the Philippines.
Did you even bother to listen to what Ron Paul had to say?
About what?
You keep coming up with things Ron Paul neither said nor suggested...when his basic message is to understand more about what we are getting into so we don’t make ‘underestimates’ that in retrospect are bizarre.
Do you proofread your posts? Your straw-man dichotomy is like saying, "I don't care if it's morning or April." The two have nothing to do with one another. Invading and occupying sovereign nations to protect the interests of Saudi princes is not allowed by our Constitution. If you can find a place where it is, please, enlighten us.
But he falsely declared it illegal.
I think you need to provide a quote. Otherwise, you're simply parroting second-hand misinformation.
No, I’m not accusing him of treason.
I never accused him of treason. One can be a traitor without engaging in treason.
Sorry, I only speak English. In English, a traitor is one who commits treason.
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.
I defy you to find a single shred of evidence in which it is demonstrated that Ron Paul ever sided with Saddam. You are simply regurgitating neocon agit-prop.
Ron Paul has done nothing treasonous, nor has he lied. You have not produced any evidence to support your assertions. Unless you can do so, I suggest you refrain from tossing bombast. Foolishly repeating jingoist nonsense doesn't equal discourse.
Case in point: there are hardly any republicans left in the Republican Party. There is a difference between libertarians and Libertarians. The former are not anarchists and they are not necessarily pacifists. If such have invaded that forum, then they are misplaced. Von Mises and Hayek both agreed that war was occasionally unavoidable, even if it was undesirable.
IIRC Many Flight Surgeons are also pilots themselves. I know they were in the Navy but I'm not sure about the Army.
“Great, just what we need on this site, another ‘keyboard commando’ who is real brave in front of a computer monitor.”
Not true at all. I’m not always this brave in front of my computer monitor. The last time I saw the Blue Screen Of Death, I hid under my desk for three days strait.
“As for dictators, putting some high velocity hot lead between their eyes is a much better way to remove them, and a hell of a lot less expensive.”
This wouldn’t achive the objectives spelled out in the Congressional Authorization For Use of Force Against Iraq. I strongly support this legislation and the objectives within.
” Ron Paul is not one of them, and you owe the man an apology.”
I’m waiting for Ron Paul to apologise for making fasle accusations against America.
“You accuse the man of being a “Lying Conspiracy theorist”, yet have the audasity to ask ME what his ‘take’ is on those???”
If you had confidence in Ron Paul’s take on the truther conspiricy theories, you would have easily rebutted the association. Instead, you dodged the question. I’ve been debating with the left for years. Here is the Ron Paul talking points they use with their ‘see, even Republicans agree’ nonsense, (all ficticious claims by Ron Paul):
“Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States.”-Ron Paul
****This is false. Iraqi military shooting at U.S. warplanes contitutes aggression on Saddam’s part and is in direct violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. The attempted assasination attempt of George H.W. Bush constitutes an act of aggression and puts Saddam in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first gulf war. The attack on the U.S.S. Stark, leading to the death of 37 U.S. sailors, also constitutes an act of aggression. All of which are ignored by Ron Paul.
Lie Number 2: “No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.”
Here Ron Paul is essentially blaming the deaths of ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ on the U.S. This is a ficticious charge as well. One of Saddam’s PR campains was to block the humanitarian aid to those in need and then blame the deaths on the U.N. imposed santions. This plan was working, as one of the main arguements for lifting sanctions (as articulated by Ron Paul) was the humanitarian disaster resulting in these deaths. The Security Council unanimously concluded that Saddam was blocking the humanitarian aid to those in need, putting Saddam in violation of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. Notice how Ron Paul dismisses these findings, and blames America instead. You had mentioned the 9-11 commission. Where does the 9-11 commsisson contradict the findings of the P-5 and side with Ron Paul’s take instead?
“Your straw-man “
Not a strawman. If you look to the post I was replying to, you will see that I was addressing Ron Paul’s ficticous charge that Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal.
“Invading and occupying sovereign nations to protect the interests of Saudi princes is not allowed by our Constitution. If you can find a place where it is, please, enlighten us. “
You are unfamiliar with the goals spelled out in the congressional authorization for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nowhere does it even mention the Saudis.
“I think you need to provide a quote. Otherwise, you’re simply parroting second-hand misinformation. “
OK. “The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. “ This is ficticious, as Ron Paul appearently ignores the War Power’s Act of ‘72. He also labels it ‘immoral and unjust’, in which that case he is simply giving his opinion (ie, not lying). But his accusation that it is illegal is ficticious. Also, I just don’t think forming a multi-national coalition to remove a tyrant and free millions from tyranny is immoral, unjust, or illegal. And I find it bizzarre that one would claim otherwise.
Reading the lastest Mises Review, Rockwell discusses the Ron Paul Foreign Policy.
He states that Ron Paul believes that 9/11 was an act of 'retribution' against us.
I also note in Ron Paul's speeches he always calls 9/11 a 'tragedy' instead of a crime.
He has placed the US as the essential cause of the act and the implications is that if we had a different foreign policy, the Muslims would not have been led to take such drastic actions.
Now, according to the Old Right, no war undertaken by the United States was ever justified, including WW2.
The only two wars that are given moral sanction are the American Revolution and what they call the 'second war for Americann Independence' the Civil War.
These they hold to be justified because they were wars against the governing State,(Britain, United States Federal government), which they believe is always a greater danger than any foreign power.
Of course there are some legitimate patriotic libertarians like Penn Gillette and others.
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.