Posted on 05/18/2007 8:13:13 AM PDT by traviskicks
Being "not completely happy with" US foreign policy, and coming to the US to murder random Americans, are not the same thing. It is actually frightening that there are people like you who think that they are. If I took you seriously I would conclude that you believe that randomly-killing-civilians-of-nation-X is a rational and normal reaction to not being happy with nation X's foreign policy.
After re-reading your post three times and giving it some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what we're talking about. Your points are basically accurate, but are not germane to what is being discussed. Like many Ron Paul supporters, (or Paul himself) you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Thanks for the reply, though.I'm not a Paul supporter. However I do think Paul broke GOP lockstep enough to allow problems with American strategy in the middle east to be discussed. Which aspects do you think aren't relevant?
“Purely judging an issue off an idealogy, ‘
The word is ideology.
And as a libertarian, I believe I own myself, and anything I do that does not do violence to another is no business of the state. Your definition of libertarian is... what?
Specifically, the cause and effect analysis. Yes, the U.S. supported Islamists against the Soviets. Lesser of two evils, good strategy, worked well. But we didn't cause extreme Islamism. Even if we've supported it from time to time as a matter of politics, it's not our creation.
So, you can't pin U.S. interventionism on the creation of Islamism, and, by extention, 9/11. Sounds neat and clean, but it doesn't hold water.
As far as breaking the GOP lockstep, I've been watching the Ron/Rudy threads for days now. By and large, it's ignorant, snooty-sounding RP partisans against ignorant, offended-sounding mainstreamers. The lockstep on either side is in no danger of being broken.
But my central point is "I don't care". If anyone should have a grievance, it's us. I don't see blacks flying airplanes into downtown Mexico City as a result of millions of 'immigrants' forcing them out of their (US) ancestral homes.
Or what about the 100s of thousands of UAW workers who have had their lives disrupted & have suffered tremendous economic hardships as a result of Japanese automakers capturing increasing market share?
Or how about everyone else targeting China and/or Walmart for altering our basic underlying manufacturing capacity and way of life?
The bottom line is that the only constant is change. The West deals with it well; the ME doesn't. They're not oppressed - they're just resentful.
Peru and South Africa: far away and not important enough. No one ever said the jihadis wage jihad against everyone at the same time without regard to the value of the target or to global strategy. Sheesh. (They don't bother with Iceland much either. This proves exactly nada.)
Australia: as others have pointed out, please google "Bali bombings".
Norway: as others have pointed out, Norway is having a serious criminality/rape problem with their non-assimilating domestic Muslim immigrant population.
Mongolia: even that's a bad example. Please google "Uighurs", "Xinjiang", etc.
“Then you admit social freedom is what you think it is. Thanks for proving my point.”
You have no point. I realize what the idealogy of social freedom is. I can do anything if I don’t harm someone physically.
Yet the world is not that simple.
______________________________________________________
“What is it about libertarians that makes your think you are one?”
I’m not an idealogical libertarian. I’m a moderate libertarian conservative.
I believe in as much freedom economical as possible. I actually believe in a private banking system...void of a centralized bank.
—
I believe that social freedoms should be many, but it shouldn’t be a stamp of approval. If all laws allowed for people to screw themselves over, then I would be more than willing to let them. As we have it, social freedoms of the drug sort would transfer fiscal hardship to others....as they already do with cigarettes.
If you don’t think they effect our medical industry and the costs,...well. They do. Methods of resolution may differ, but an idealogical stance is often one-sided.
—
I don’t agree with conservatives often. For one, I don’t think we should have went to Iraq (atleast at the time and how). I think the war should have been declared out-right, and not through vague authorizations.
But I’m not going to favor Ron’s view of pull-out over idealogy. The liberal/Libertarian view on leaving the war right-now (if possible)is just political crap.
“And as a libertarian, I believe I own myself, and anything I do that does not do violence to another is no business of the state. Your definition of libertarian is... what?”
Pretty-much the same thing. Although I don’t live in a fantasy world, so I don’t cling to theories.
Ultimately everything is the pratical and the idealistic. Only using one side of the equation is worthless.
“Ultimately everything is the pratical and the idealistic.”
It’s the ‘idealistic’ side that envisions utopia. It’s anything but libertarian. The more idealism the laws mandate, the less free we are.
The context of that word (in that sentence):
The world as you envision it. Your ideals.
Don’t make it a semantic arguement.
I went back and looked. The bombers in Beirut were from the Amal movement, were Shia, and were directed by Iran through an ambassador to commit the act. This came out in a 2003 court case adjudicated by Royce Lamberth.
I have been unable to find any specific statement that says the Marines were bombed because we were in Lebanon.
Do you have one?
...non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don’t Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?
Did you actually mean to write that drivel? Your inane reasoning makes it appear that you are affiliated with the STATE dept. or the DU.
But on the flip side, not taking action, also has unintended consequences.
People are going to be pissed off no matter what course of action (or non-action) you take. Just make sure you piss the right people off, and from what I've seen, our actions in Iraq have pissed off the right people.
So are you advocating brownshirt tactics? Do you believe social conservatism is actually that fascistic?
How else would you characterize laws governing victimless ‘crimes’?
I would excuse the awkward syntax, because of the difficulty in handling a complex subject in 30 and 60 second sound bites. It is to be hoped that someone will air a debate that lasts several hours, and allows at least five minute speeches.
Your other point is right on the money. After two days of vile invective, the Paul detractors have yet to actually address his argument. They prefer to feign outrage and hurl invective. Their mindset reminds one, very uncomfortably, of that which prevailed in Soviet Russia from 1917 on, or that which prevailed in Socialist Germany from 1933 to 1945. We must not let their like stifle free debate in America!
No, actually, their original guru, according to their proclaimed "Godfather," was Leon Trotsky, one of the most notorious butchers of the 20th Century. (See Neocon Phenomenon.)
Wilson, while off base on post World War I foreign policy, actually supported efforts to stop the Communists, at the time when Trotsky was Lenin's right hand thug.
William Flax
It is sad to see forms of "New Speak," cropping into this forum. Conservatism is about conserving, not adopting new restrictions. Social conservatism may support traditional restrictions--such as enforcing laws against theft, rape, assault, etc..--but it is about conserving the values and cultural achievements of the particular society involved. Words have meanings that should be respected.
Primary among the social values of traditional America, are the treasured personal liberties and personal independence of the American citizen. Social Conservatism in America is very closely allied to the Libertarian values of the Founding Fathers.
I would rank Islam as more evil than Socialism, Communism, Nazism, or any other movement in history. Oh sure, those left-wing movements have killed over 100 million people, but Islam will eventually dwarf those. It is far more dangerous because it is a religion, it is spread across the entire globe, and there is nothing peaceful about it. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims spread out over the world. The vast majority are decent folk, but when religion is involved, even the slightest incident can turn most decent folk into something very dangerous. Once Islamic controlled countries get nuclear weapons, the world will be a very different place. We can sit back and ignore it, or we can try to stop it. It should be our highest priority to ensure that no Islamic country gets nukes, but Iran is almost there. IMHO, sitting back and not getting involved is not the answer.
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.