Oh yeah, the jerk store called and said they were running out of you!
Posted on 05/24/2007 9:35:47 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
Paul is making the mistake about assuming that terrorism is about us and is a result of something we’ve done. He ignores the fact that many nations face far more terrorist attacks than the USA. Look at India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Their crime against islam is that they’re infidels who refuse to submit.
The American presence in the mideast is simply the excuse of the moment. If it weren’t that, it would be another excuse.
Your point? Doesn't mean he still can't be ignorant to the facts, which he proved the other night. If he's so concerned about being President, perhaps he can run for President of 9/11
I agree with you - I was simply correcting the author about the whole “militant” thing.
Very true analysis. Too bad more people, like Paul and his supporters and those on the left do not understand that.
Oh yeah, the jerk store called and said they were running out of you!
(1) "Dying To Win" by Robert Pape.
Pape, the foremost pupil of anti-Semite John Mearsheimer.
The argument is that terrorists only engage in suicide bombing on what they perceive to be their home territory or homeland.
What does that tell us about the 9/11 conspirators, Messrs. Pape and Paul? Did they consider America their homeland? After all, they are the world's most successful suicide bombers in terms of murders committed.
(2) "Blowback" by Charles Johnson.
Mr. Johnson buys into the theory advanced by Chomsky disciple and convicted terrorist murderer Antonio Negri in his book "Empire."
This theory is the notion that America's economic and political leadership in the world following the collapse of the Soviet Union is a deliberate act of hegemonic conspiracy.
In other words more moonbattery.
(3) "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer.
Scheuer is the Clinton-era CIA bureaucrat whose job it was to capture bin Laden. Great job, Mikey, by the way.
His thesis combines the theses of the two previous books: (a) that the terrorists are only fighting a defensive war against evil America, and (b) America has been magically transformed into an Empire - despite the inconvenient fact that America has less territory now than it did 50 years ago.
Self-serving moonbattery.
(4) The 9/11 Commission Report.
The Report contains a lot of useful raw data, certainly. However, it was chaired by a Clinton flunky and its conclusions - such as they are - are very tendentious and don't really support Ron Paul's fantasies.
It's amusing that Ron Paul is so reliant on a book published by a government bureaucracy that does not even support his thesis.
All the European nations repudiated the legality of such letters more than a century ago by treaty and they are not currently recognized by law in any country.
At the time the Constitution was drafted, such letters were a commonplace among Western nations and were reciprocally honored by most.
That situation no longer obtains.
Ron Paul, as usual, is impervious to the reality around him.
From a constitutional standpoint I agree with Ron Paul.....BUT, our constitution doesn’t account for a psychotic death cult that will rule the world or kill us all. It really isn’t a suicide pact.
Sure we can withdraw within our borders and avoid the fight but the fight will come to us. For all of our peaceful years of isolation, they’ll grow stronger and more technologically advanced. One day our children and grandchildren will wake up and find themselves surrounded. With a little luck they’ll die to protect the last bastion of freedom in the world but chances are that it will be too late.
Horse-hockey. You think any of the Ottoman pashas along the Barbary coast gave a rats behind about Privateers bearing M&R from the States?
It is possible that the American presence in the Middle East (and in other areas where Muslims live), have somewhat exacerbated Muslims, but this is not the main reason why a number of Muslims are terrorists. The main reason is because Islam is an Imperialist/Expansionist Religion. Fanatic Muslims want to control the whole world. Therefore, to justify their evil deeds, they offer some excuses such as "the war in Iraq", "the American military presence in the Persian Gulf", "the Zionists in Israel", etc.. But, even if we would follow what Ron Paul suggest (less involvement in Foreign Affairs), Muslims will still be Imperialists/Expansionists in their behavior and will try to control as many countries as they can. To give in or give up is not a solution.
Of course they didn't.
And, as a result, the ineffectiveness of privateers in addressing the problem resulted in the necessity of funding a transatlantic fleet capable of resolving the matter militarily.
Privateers did not put an end to America's difficulty with the Barbary pirates: the Marines did.
Thank you for providing a very early historical example that amply proves my point.
http://www.blupete.com/Hist/NovaScotiaBk2/Part5/Ch03.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm
If it wasn't for Privateers, the US wouldn't exist.
The US wouldn't exist if it weren't for muzzleloading muskets either.
However, they wouldn't prove so useful against foes who have RPGs today.
Your two cited sources focus on seaborne privateering - which isn't of much use in Kandahar, or Anbar province, or London or the suburbs of Hamburg.
Or in an age of commercial airliners, for that matter.
If he didn’t notice the Islamists are attacking the Russians, the Phillipinos, the Australians, the Sudanese Christians, the Indians, the Armenians, the Christians in Palestine...Geez, perhaps Ron went to one of those revisionist schools as a kid.
Ron Paul is a piece of dung that shows himself to be a blame America liberal with each utterance from his foul mouth.
Get your facts straight.
He CLEARLY waffled his ass off on abortion in the first debate.
Now he realizes he can't hide from it so he's just going to remain pro-abortion and let the chips fall where they may be.
You're defending a POS who has given a guest speech supporting abortion in front of NARAL.
Go Ron Paul, we don’t need a Guiliani police state!
Rudy isn't fit to tie Paul's shoes.
Yup, and Ron Paul opposes the US holding rogue states accountable. The Act only allows the killing of terrorists at the permission of said states.
Paul doesn't support terrorism and wants them dead just as much as you do.
Typical - no valid arguments against Paul so you resort to name-calling and ad-hominems.
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.