Posted on 09/20/2007 4:14:12 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/20/2007 4:38:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ron took himself out of the game when he started advocating our pullout from Iraq.
The comments on this thread are great. Then the guy comes out and demands we pull out of Iraq. I disagree with him there, and I cannot vote for him on that point alone.
I’m not a big fan of the U.N. I’m certainly do not approve of the U.N. given command of our troops, ever.
That being said, what are we going to with when an 09/11 event comes along? Tell me what you would have done.
>That being said, what are we going to with when an 09/11
>event comes along? Tell me what you would have done.
Two Choices:
1) Challenge the Islamic world to a public debate on the truth of Christianity vs. Islam
2) Nuke Mecca, and point to verses in the Koran which say that it will stand forever, and say, “Your God lied, the Koran is the work of man”
1) Challenge the Islamic world to a public debate on the truth of Christianity vs. Islam
Debating the truth of candidates and religion generally get you nowhere. People can be presented with truth, but it takes time for them to recognize it. And if they were raised a certain way, the chances of that happening can be very slim. What you'd be faced with is still more attacks until you had to take action. It looks like your course of action is listed below.
2) Nuke Mecca, and point to verses in the Koran which say that it will stand forever, and say, “Your God lied, the Koran is the work of man”
Nuking Mecca would instantly make the United States the number one pariah nation on planet earth. We wouldn't have one allie, except perhaps Israel. Even they would have to couch their support or risk being hated even more by every nation right along with us. Every Muslim on the planet would be aiming to kill you and I off, including tens of millions of them within our borders.
Most of our Embassies and consolates around the world would have to be closed in the short term. Many nations would boot us for a period of time. Others would be closed due to verified threats, and the inability to protect them.
Neither of these ideas would pan out. If you think Muslims are going to wilt because we destroyed Mecca, I think you're dreaming. These people aren't rational. Don't expect them to act along rational lines.
If these don't work, what then?
Their nights are my mornings. On the days I remain on base, I'll keep an eye on 'em.
Teamwork. ;-)
What about the term "neocon" is unacceptable to you?
Do you think it is a pejorative?
Do you think its use is undeserved?
Do you know what it means?
Ah, yes, viability is the key, isn't it?
You could say all of them need to "be viable", even the front-runners.
For instance; Rudy is the current front-runner, but since he cannot win the general, he is still not "viable" in any real sense of the word.
We could hope.
Actually, Ron Paul as President would stand a far better chance of dismantling those "programs" than any other candidate out there.
From what I have seen during the debates, he seems to use “neocon” codeword for the Bush Administration and the other gentlemen up on the stage with him who support getting the job done in Iraq.
No, I wish I did. I love it, and am helping propagate it as often as appropriate.
The only person I would suspect is EGD. He is capable of this kind of sharp wit.
I'm glad to see that you know what the term means.
Perhaps you also know why the neocons call themselves that, too.
You have correctly identified Ron Paul's position on the neocons and the fact that he does blame them for the foreign policy we now have.
When you say he should be directing "more anger" toward the Islamic terrorists, you have overlooked the possibility that those Islamic terrorists have been put in place and funded by yet another party.
It is my considered opinion that Islamic terrorists have been largely funded and trained by the former Soviet Union and other communist entities, such as Cuba, et al.
Now as absolutely repugnant as the Islamic terrorist are, (and they are) why not go after the snake's head, rather than be distracted by the tail?
IOW; if we Americans would try to get a handle on the source of terrorism, instead of directing all our attention toward only one manifestation of that terrorism, we will never make the kind of change we all envision.
IMO, we should of course continue be wary of Islamic terrorism, and at at the same time cut off the source of their motivation, namely communism.
Until more Americans realize this is a much wider front than just the Islamic terrorists, we will be doomed to failure.
I'm afraid that when it comes down to brass tacks the answer is "Not anymore.".
Awesome. I need to find the real originator and hand over the glory to him/her.
IMO Ron Pauls selling point is the cheering from people who see folks holding signs for RP on bridges. It’s big, it’s sincere, and people are getting miffed that his supporters, not just him are being summarily disrespected.
Amazing.
Basing US troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of Saudi Arabia was an OK enough excuse for Ron Paul to suggest that America is at fault for Islamic hate.
Are you sure Ron Paul and his Paultards are on board with this "Nuke Mecca" idea?
sorry, not me (but watch the Hugh Hewitt interview of Ron Paul supporters it sure fits)
"Peace" with them is the peace of the grave.
Leni
I won’t be voting for Rudy. While I appreciate his service associated with 09/11, we do not need any more RINOS. Hopefully NEVER AGAIN.
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.