No need to condescend, professor ... I’ve been a member for almost a year LONGER than you have. Perhaps you assume too much. I recently acquired a new handle (Hemorrhage), but have been a member since September 1998 under a different handle (ThePatriot1776).
Aha. Well, I do wish JimRob would allow an occasional change of screenname, maybe once every couple of years with previous handles noted on the user's home page.
I listen all the time - she’s a kook, no doubt..
You made me tune in to it tonight. I got the definite whiff of Leftism off her. And that news reader was radioactive. They had some blips of George Schultz on and were trying to get him to say something damaging about GWB's Mideast policies, especially to dissent on Iraq. He was making points like "Merely because there is a great deal of oil in the region and in Iraq, that doesn't mean that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was about acquiring oil". Just my paraphrase. You know, it was good to see George Schultz again. A good man, essential to Reagan. Anyway, then they had some Lefty guy, Ehrlich, who wrote some enviroblather, probably some hortisodomy treatise, looked like a pervert. Anyway, then the Redder-than-Mao newsreader came on and I couldn't take any more of it. The many mentions of Stanford made me wonder if most of her regular guests are Stanford academics, obviously, Lefties.
The problem is, on foreign affairs and national securituy, your buddy Ron Paul sounds JUST like her (as do virtually all of his supporters). Leaving the Arabian peninsula (including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, etc.) at the demand of a terrorist organization (as Paul advocated last night) is tantamount to surrender. Such a blundering decision will have long-lasting detrimental effects when every two-bit dictator and terrorist organization around the world concludes that we don’t have the stomach to withstand a drawn-out war against our enemies, even after we lose 3,000 people in an attack on our home soil.
But in fact, we have shown little interest in apprehending Bin Laden. He will be on TV again in a few days, celebrating that he killed 3,000 of us and promising even more. With our borders wide open, I don't know why anyone thinks we're especially safe. One of the major problems with "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" (a loony mantra) is that we already have a lot of them over here and no control over our borders or more than a basic grasp of who is or is not a budding terrorist, either self-radicalized or acting on Osama's orders.
Failing to make capture/trial/execution of Osama and his top henchmen a priority (or even a serious goal) has been an irrational policy for a war on terror. When you go after drug cartels, you don't just ignore the largest and most dangerous one. If you defeat Hitler's armies, you don't leave him alive. Or let the Japanese warlords who attacked Pearl die of old age. And you don't let Osama and his top lieutentants kill 3,000 people and show up regularly on TV bragging about it and promising to kill more of us.
Our very presence on the Arabian peninsula does, in fact, help Osama to recruit followers. These are holy lands to them. So our policy must priortize that there should be no Osama and no top al-Qaeda leadership left. And their financial network finally fully traced and those who fund them prosecuted or killed.
BTW, you included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in your list of countries on the Arabian peninsula. That's inaccurate. While small portions of Iraq and Jordan are geographically a part of the Arabian peninsula, they are not considered a part of the Arabian peninsula (aka Arab Gulf states) in foreign policy circles. You need to look at a map because in no way can Iran or Afghanistan ever be considered on the Arabian peninsula. This is how CFR documents, CIA reports, etc. routinely refer to them. The context of Ron Paul's comments on withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula were in regard to our rush to get our troops out of Saudi as quickly as possible. We transferred 4500 to Qatar, leaving behind some 500, deeding portions of that base to the Saudis. Wolfowitz and others at the time were talking about how our presence in the Saudi kingdom did actually recruit terrorists for Osama. The actual countries of the Arabian peninsula are
- Bahrain, geographically an island off the east coast of the peninsula.
- Kuwait
- Oman
- Qatar
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
- Yemen
So I think you may have misunderstood that portion of the debate. As for Ron Paul advocating closing most bases around the world and bringing troops home as a better foreign policy and a necessary measure to overcome the ever-growing government and to help pay for the Boomer retirement and escalating medical costs, infrastructure needs, yes, he does certainly advocate it. Absolutely. If you don't like the choice offered, that of America as a global policeman and welfare agency vs. being good neighbors and trading partners, then don't vote for Ron Paul. What puzzles me is when people demand no choices or options in foreign policy and especially its relation to domestic policy, let alone such hosility that they are offered any choice. These domestic issues I mentioned are choices directly related to the purely military and geostrategic goals we presently pursue in the region.
But American forces in the Middle East are not just unnecessary, they are demonstrably harmful. In late February 2003, before the start of the war, Wolfowitz admitted that the price paid to keep forces in the region had been "far more than money." Anger at American pressure on Iraq, and resentment over the stationing of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Wolfowitz conceded, had "been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device." Looking ahead to the post-Hussein period, Wolfowitz implied that the removal of Hussein would enable the United States to withdraw troops from the region. "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to . . . be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."
Troops in Saudi Arabia Are Superfluous and Dangerous - Cato
Ron Paul and his supporters are no less dangerous than Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman or the dirty hippies that support her. I’d rather a Democrat win than Republican Ron Paul, because if a President is going to send the country down the toilet, I’d rather he didn’t have an (R) beside his name.
Fine. Vote for Hitlery then. Maybe Maddy Allbright could fix what's wrong in the Mideast. Personally, I'd expect a real war to break out. So good luck with that.
I still maintain, your credentials aside, that much of the online support garnered by Paul is from Democrats and Communists. This is why he does so well in random online polls, but cannot break 2-3% in polls of likely Republican voters ... the vast majority of likely Republican voters think he’s a nutjob.
I think I've yet to hear of any communist supporting Ron Paul. They're pretty decimated and pathetic from what little I've seen. No doubt we do have some Democrats, my wild guess is 10% to 15%, not so terrible unless you thought Reagan should have rejected his Reagan Democrats to get a landslide. We have probably a majority of Republicans, the rest are a mix of Libertarians and a whole bunch of college kids and young people in their twenties who aren't very partisan or political about any party yet but who realize the welfare state is about to fall on their heads with the Boomer retirement. IMHO. You can learn a lot by looking at Facebook or MySpace or the MeetUps. Of course, we do have quite an assortment of single-issue voters. Like these online gambling people.
I don’t shoot them, yet ... but my aim is improving.
Well, then, we can at least agree on the virtues of the Second Amendment and the need for target practice.
[cva66snipe flagged, for when he gets back in a few days]
>> You made me tune in to it [DemocracyNow] tonight.
Welcome to the dark side. I live in Houston, and we have a Pacifica Radio affiliate that carries DemocracyNow, and several dozen other propaganda arms of the Anti-American establishment (including Go Vegan Texas, The Peace Hour, the New Capital Show, the Progressive Forum, an Illegal Immigrant Show, an Arab-American Show, a couple of Black Power and Nation of Islam Shows, and some wacko feminist show called “Women with Wings” ... the vegan and feminist shows are, by far, the funniest of the group).
>> They had some blips of George Schultz on and were trying to get him to say something damaging about GWB’s Mideast policies, especially to dissent on Iraq.
I heard Schultz on last night - and he is officially the only remotely conservative individual I’ve EVER heard on the show (the previous “most conservative” guest was the illustrious John Conyers, who said the House impeachment wasn’t feasible). And, I did not fail to note that Goodman played only recordings of Schultz’s interview at Stanford ... Schultz apparently took the microphone off and left mid-interview, and refused to come on the show live the following morning, as he had originally intended. Like most people, Schultz had probably not previously heard of the subversive and obnoxious Miss Goodman.
>> The many mentions of Stanford made me wonder if most of her regular guests are Stanford academics, obviously, Lefties.
She was broadcasting from Stanford yesterday because of the previous evening’s forum with Schultz and the Stanford Professor ... she normally broadcasts out of an abandoned firehouse (literally) in New York.
Most of her guests are obscure left-wing professors, militant left-wing activists, or international anti-American personalities. Recent interviewees have included Ward Churchill, leftist Professor Robert Jensen, Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel, Cindy Sheehan, former U.S. Attorney General and impeachment-monkey Ramsey Clark, etc.
Jimmy Carter will be appearing on DemocracyNow on Monday. Amy Goodman a worthless shred of human debris.
>> Anyway, then they had some Lefty guy, Ehrlich, who wrote some enviroblather, probably some hortisodomy treatise, looked like a pervert.
I wouldn’t know what he looks like. I prefer to listen to, not watch, Democracy Now ... Amy Goodman could use a shower and a visit to the Clinique counter (as Limbaugh says ... feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society).
Ehrlich, as I understand it, is one of these wackos that believes mankind is a virus infecting the planet ... and, thus, that the survival of the Earth depends on the mandatory reduction of the human population.
>> But in fact, we have shown little interest in apprehending Bin Laden. He will be on TV again in a few days, celebrating that he killed 3,000 of us and promising even more.
I agree with you here. We haven’t done enough to capture Osama. This fact, however, cannot and does not negate the necessity of the broader War on Terror - including actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> With our borders wide open, I don’t know why anyone thinks we’re especially safe.
Again - I agree. Border security is essential. But, again, this does not negate the necessity of a broad international intervention in the War on Terror. Border security and aggressive overseas confrontation of terrorism are not mutually exclusive.
>> One of the major problems with “we’ll fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” (a loony mantra) is that we already have a lot of them over here and no control over our borders or more than a basic grasp of who is or is not a budding terrorist, either self-radicalized or acting on Osama’s orders.
That “loony mantra” has kept various terrorist organizations distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan for six full years since 9-11, and, thus far, unable to carry out an attack on American shores. Seems to be working.
>> Failing to make capture/trial/execution of Osama and his top henchmen a priority (or even a serious goal) has been an irrational policy for a war on terror.
I agree, to an extent. The War on Terror cannot and should not be exclusively focused on capturing one man ... if killed, Osama can and will be replaced. The War on Terror is about destroying the finances, safe harbors, friendly governments, infrastructure and capabilities of a vast terrorist network based in the Middle East so that it becomes fully incapable of sustaining itself. Symbolically, we should do more to capture Osama ... logistically, we must do FAR more than simply chase one man.
>> And you don’t let Osama and his top lieutentants kill 3,000 people and show up regularly on TV bragging about it and promising to kill more of us.
Agreed ... we should capture him, interrogate him until he cries (which will make a nice little propaganda film), then kill him - publicly and preferably painfully. I fail to see why this means we should withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East - as Ron Paul suggested.
>> Our very presence on the Arabian peninsula does, in fact, help Osama to recruit followers.
The War on Terror does not create terrorists ... it exposes them. Our tactics drawing out terrorists and their sympathizers is not a bad thing. In fact, its kind of the whole point ... we want to know who and where these people are.
>> BTW, you included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in your list of countries on the Arabian peninsula. That’s inaccurate.
Sloppy wordsmanship on my part, to be sure. In my defense, however, Ron Paul used the opportunity of a question regarding the War in Iraq to make his statement regarding the Arabian Peninsula ...
[From Debate Transcript]
MR. WALLACE: “Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? ...”
REP. PAUL: “... Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”
[End Transcript]
It was Ron Paul, not I, that originally conflated the Arabian Peninsula and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul was asked about troops in Iraq, and answered that we should not only abandon Iraq and Afghanistan ... but that entire region of the globe including the “Arabian peninsula”.
However, I should’ve been more clear.
>> So I think you may have misunderstood that portion of the debate.
I did not misunderstand, I merely worded my response poorly. Paul clearly advocates withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Arabian Peninsula (perhaps the entire Middle East?). I simply shouldn’t have implied (or expressly stated) that the Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the Arabian peninsula. My mistake - but the thrust of my argument remains unchanged by this correction.
>> Paul advocating closing most bases around the world and bringing troops home as a better foreign policy and a necessary measure to overcome the ever-growing government and to help pay for the Boomer retirement and escalating medical costs, infrastructure needs, yes, he does certainly advocate it.
Small-government conservatism is about removing governmental intervention from areas where the government was never intended to intervene - it is about the limitation of government power to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. However, national defense and national security are among the Constitutionally justifiable responsibilities of the federal government ... these are areas where the government is not only allowed to be involved, it it CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED to be involved.
Small government conservatism is not about having the federal government skirt its responsibility to defend this nation from foriegn threats.
Additionally - the argument that we should abandon the War on Terror in order to “help pay” for “escalating medical costs”, social welfare and the retirement of Baby Boomers is so laughable as to not even require a response. This would be tantamount to the government ignoring its Constitutional obligations to national defense in favor of ridiculous nanny-state programs and retirement plans.
The government is not a retirement plan or a medical insurer ... it is, however, Constitutionally responsible for the national defense.
>> If you don’t like the choice offered, that of America as a global policeman and welfare agency vs. being good neighbors and trading partners, then don’t vote for Ron Paul.
Rest assured, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Ron Paul. However, what intrigues me about this sentence is the implication that we are “bad neighbors” because we engage in military action in defense of our national security. We did not start this war, but we will finish it. Perhaps those who now bear the wrath of our military were the “bad neighbors”.
This is not about trade or being neighborly, it is about the federal government observing that its highest responsibility is to national security.
>> What puzzles me is when people demand no choices or options in foreign policy and especially its relation to domestic policy, let alone such hosility that they are offered any choice.
I do not demand “no choices”. The nation has a political party which espouses the exact rhetorical nonsense that Ron Paul does ... the Democratic Party. Each and every Democrat candidate would agree with every word of Paul’s foreign policy stances.
What I do demand is a Republican nominee that reasonably represents conservative opinion on foreign affairs. Ron Paul does not. If Americans want a weak anti-war candidate, the Republican Party isn’t the place to look.
>> I think I’ve yet to hear of any communist supporting Ron Paul. They’re pretty decimated and pathetic from what little I’ve seen. No doubt we do have some Democrats, my wild guess is 10% to 15%, not so terrible unless you thought Reagan should have rejected his Reagan Democrats to get a landslide.
There have been some RAVE reviews of Ron Paul on DU - an anti-American and entirely socialist website.
As for your “Reagan Democrats” argument ... Reagan also had the traditional conservative support. Reagan espoused traditional conservative values on both domestic and foreign policy. Paul, on the other hand, is capturing Democrat and leftist support, not by espousing traditional conservatism ... but by alienating the very Reagan conservatives that were so essential to Reagan’s victory.
“Reagan Democrats” are entirely irrelevant without the support of the Reagan Republicans ... and, according to any scientific poll, Paul is not connecting with Reagan Republicans at all.
>>> Ron Paul and his supporters are no less dangerous than Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman or the dirty hippies that support her.
>> Fine. Vote for Hitlery then.
I’d no more cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than I would for Ron Paul. The nomination of Ron Paul (however improbable) would send me to a third party for the first time in my life.
H