Posted on 05/18/2007 8:13:13 AM PDT by traviskicks
To follow up... Are you saying that if America withdraws completely from the Middle East that all the attacks, etc. would stop?
BTW, we helped the Muslims in Kosovo (the wrong side) and what thanks did we get? The Fort Dix Six.
No, at this point, I suspect that the attacks would continue. However, were that the case, MY response would be to nuke Mecca and that rock that’s so holy to them, thus preventing the next caliphate from happening and showing islam for the false doctrine it is... after just ONE attack or attempted attack on my country.
We agree on that.
Operation Desert Glass...
What do you think of this?
http://acuf.org/issues/issue32/050319news.asp
Truth be told, I BELIEVE that it’s Dr. Paul’s position as well, pretty much, though I would have to have that verified... OP, I think you would know best on that, wouldn’t you?
I'll never forget.
The people who blowed up (sic) the Barracks were Lebanese
Actually they were Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy supported by the Syrian government.
Why did Iran tell them to do so?
Because we were in Lebanon. Duh.
You're the one making the argument that the Iranians would have attacked Camp LeJeune, not me.
It's largely because of people like you I have ceased using the phrase 'no one could possibly be that stupid...'
L
I'm no sure exactly what your question is. If you're asking whether I think the "libertarian-conservative" marriage can be saved, then I would say that it's already pretty much over. The Republican party has gone very authoritarian since the 2000 election. It's been terrible from a libertarian perspective and conservatives have mostly cheered. The swing of libertarian votes from Republican to Democrat between then and 2006 was very large. If you're asking what I think of the author's specific arguments, then I think they are just ridiculous distortions of the libertarian position.
I suspect he also seriously distorted what Nick Gillespie said during the debate. Fortunately there is audio of it here, but I'm way too tired to listen to it right now.
“Problem is he is not right on the WOT, far from it.”
That alone should disqualify him from being president.
No. "Nuke Mecca if they don't leave us alone" (in so many words) is the position propounded by Ron Paul's former staffer, Dr. Gary North.
Dr. North's views are still thought of quite highly amongst Congressman Paul's national Political Director and others on his staff, but Ron Paul himself has not formally endorsed this position at this time.
“feigned indignance.”
I think it was more annoyance on Giuliani’s part that anyone could take the words of a mass murderer’s “reasons” seriously for why they murder — any more than one could take seriously a wifebeater’s “reasons” for why he beats his wife.
Paul’s comments (and this debate wasn’t the first time he’s said this stuff) once again show his utter ignorance when it comes to radical Islam.
Hmm Ron Paul basically acts as Bin Laden’s propaganda mouth piece and supposed “Conservatives” fall all over themselves to make excuses for him. If anyone on the Left had said what Paul said the very people makes excuses here would call them traitors.
Bullsh**.
L
Hate to burst your bubble but YOUR abnormal fear of anyone outside your trailer park is not THE ONLY issue, or even the most important issue, facing this country.
Cause & Effect
In a now famous November 6, 2003 address, President Bush explicitly linked U.S. policy with the rise of Islamic terrorism:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."
Paul stated:
"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."
So why was Paul savaged?
I believe it's because many conservatives, especially since 9/11, have become increasingly unwilling to internalize the simple maxim that government actions have consequences - many of them unintended, some of them negative.
Conservatives are rightly skeptical of grand government initiatives aimed at curing various domestic ills. Yet some have become convinced that the same bureaucrats who cannot balance the budget will nonetheless be able to deftly manage the political outcomes of nations half a world away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<
Wise words, well written.
Damn shame so few here can understand them.
Go p**** up a rope.
L
What more can be said than was in the article but a BUMP.
yea, well he didn’t articulate himself as well as he could have, that’s for sure.
“There are free non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don’t Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?”
Well said.
Of course there’s an obvious answer for the mindlessly anti-Paul crowd...because Peru, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia don’t have enough ATMs, or in some other way “just aren’t quite free enough,” of course.
But you should be aware that Norway was specifically included in the countries Bin Laden said he would attack. I have no idea why. I would enjoy an explanation for that one. Might be the lutefisk got to him.
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.