After Giuliani embarrassed Ron Paul in the 2nd Republican Presidential Debate last month, The RP damage control team has attempted to patch up Ron Paul’s campaign by "educating Rudy". Basically, it is their argument that Rudy Giuliani, by evoking President Bush’s "they hate us for our freedom" line of thought, is being simplistic. Ron Paul recommends a reading list to Rudy, that includes
"Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.
Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. Well, what are their motives? Ron Paul says we should listen to their own words; what they tell us. It’s true that Islamists will cite their perception of American foreign policy as an ingredient to their drive toward violence as well as our presence on "their" soil, and support for governments in the Middle East that they don’t approve of. But what is the underlying, root cause? After all, as Ryan Mauro so excellently puts it,
Many people point to the sources of anti-Americanism as the cause of terrorism, but anti-Americanism does not translate into an acceptance of, and willingness to participate in, suicide bombings. It is not fair to blame anti-Americanism (and thus American policy causing anti-Americanism) as the cause of the sickness, because hatred of one country’s policy does not lead most people to justify killing innocents. After all, most of Western Europe and Latin America is anti-American, but they aren’t participating in terrorism. The deliberate massacring of civilians, although conducted by many groups over history, is currently unique to the Islamic world, specifically the Middle East and North Africa.
What Ron Paul fails to acknowledge, is the threats of radical Islam. That is the fuel that fires the violent "jihadist" mentality.
These Islamist fundamentalists oppose U.S. support of Middle Eastern governments, because these governments are not Islamic enough for them. They consider any secular government an aberration and an offense to God, because it is created by man’s arrogance to supplant Sharia Law. The salafists and wahabbists prey upon the feelings of injustice and oppression by the governments upon their people to sell them the snake oil of Islamic fundamentalism as the cure to their ailments.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have made it clear that their endgame plan is to create a a pan-Islamic Super-State.
Yet it was not America’s perceived weakness that brought about the September 11 attacks, as Mr. Lewis argues, but rather its undeniable prowess. This is because Mr. bin Laden and other Islamists’ war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire, the umma.
As the preeminent world power for quite some time, and the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet empire, America blocks the final realization of this goal and hence is a natural target for aggression. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.
The creation of a new Islamic Caliphate as a launching pad for a final showdown against all infidels isn’t the dream of just al-Qaeda Qtubists; the Shia-branch of militant Islam in Iran awaits the coming of the 12th imam. Ron Paul’s foreign policy does not take into account Ahmadinejad’s claim that he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”, who endorses a violent path to conquering the world.
It is the radical, violent ideology of the Islamists that drives Osama bin Laden; not "we’re over there. That’s why they attacked us".
Any perceived trespasses by American foreign policy is just slant-sided propaganda, pushed for the purposes of recruiting more anti-American hirabists and sympathizers to rally around their cause. Apparently, it’s also been effective in swaying the opinions of American politicians and world opinion against us. This is why the anti-Americanism that is preached by the Ward Churchills and the Howard Zinns and the Noam Chomskys is so dangerous at the university level. Young people looking for something to believe in, an idealistic cause to take up arms over, are vulnerable to being influenced by radicals.
When blame-America-firsters rail against American foreign policy as a root cause of anti-Americanism, what they fail to note that it is a perception issue. After all, American foreign policy is also what has us pumping financial aid to so many countries, as well as coming to the rescue of so many people, including Muslims.
Ryan Mauro further writes,
While American policy surely causes anti-Americanism, and policy should be fixed to reduce that, there are limits. For example, Islamists may condemn our culture, but does that mean we eliminate our freedoms to sooth their anger? Islamists, and the governments that promote them, deliberately manipulate the feelings of the population. Their hatred comes from half-truths. One only needs to take a quick glance at American foreign policy to see that terrorism does not emanate from an objective critique of our actions.For example, while Islamists condemn our support for Israel and presence in Saudi Arabia, they make no mention of what we have done for Muslims. During the Cold War, we staunchly opposed any Soviet interference in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were backed by America to defeat the Soviets. In 1990, the U.S. freed Kuwait from the Iraqis, and defended Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holy land, from his probable scheme to invade. In 1995 and 1999, we fought on the side of the Muslims to protect them against the Serbs and Croatians, who were Christians! In 1999, the US hurt relations with Russia by criticizing their action in Chechnya. And it was American pressure that caused Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, forcing Jewish families from their homes, so the Palestinians could make it a homogenous area for themselves. While the U.S. does sell arms to Israel, we do the same for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and its Arab enemies. Just like the radical Muslims manipulate the interpretation of the Quran for evil ends, they also manipulate the interpretation of American policy for evil ends.
Likewise, while anti-Semitic feeling is real in the Islamic world, Israel is also a scapegoat in many cases. Few people know that Israel actually treats the Palestinians better than any Arab country does. The entire Palestinian problem was created by Arab nations refusing to allow the Palestinians into their country, and even today, Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights in the Arab world. There are religious disputes, of course, but we must question why this translates into violence and a demand that one side simply not exist. Israel allows Muslims to visit their Holy Sites and even lets them vote in municipal elections (Bard, 221-223). This isn’t to say Israel is perfect or their positions are correct, but one must ask why Israel, which is the least oppressive in the region (even towards Muslims), is the target.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former Al-Qaeda terrorist and associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, also disagrees that American policy is what caused 9/11. In his book, he describes how he was taught not to think, how all misery was blamed on the infidels, and how 72 virgins awaited him in heaven, which was a treasure because sex before marriage, masturbation, and even looking at a woman in certain ways were strictly forbidden. Dr. Hamid describes how verses of the Koran are used to teach their students to kill the infidel, arguing that these verses are what cause terrorism, not current events. He also describes the history of violent political Islam, highlighting how it goes back to before the establishment of either the state of Israel or the United States. Hamid’s thesis is that all Islamic terrorism emanates from “purists” who forcefully took control of the Arabian Peninsula, thus controlling the heart of Islam (and able to shape it to their mold), and then during the 20th century, they exported this form of Islam using the oil wealth. He also notes that more Muslims have been killed by Islamic terrorism than Americans or Israelis, so the idea that the Israel issue is the primary motivator is false.
Muslim upon Muslim violence is not America’s fault. It is the fault of the radicalization gene inherent within the Koran. (No, I am not saying that all Muslims are evil- I believe that most are not). American foreign policy is the scapegoat.
After the first debate in which Rudy Giuliani called Ron Paul out on his comment, Ron Paul brought in Michael Scheuer as his back up.
Michael Scheuer is held up by the Paulistas as the go-to expert to give validity to Ron Paul’s foreign policy opinion.
Why?
Why is he the expert? Because he was the CIA’s senior intelligence analyst who created the bin Laden unit for the purposes of tracking and hunting the al-Qaeda leader down (we know how that worked out, right?)? Howard Zinn is supposedly the "expert" on American history. Does this make him "right"? The CIA are experts in their field; yet how often have they been failing us and getting things "wrong"? As well as injecting their political partisanship into the equation?
Interestingly, Scheuer’s memory lapse here, has me wondering if personal political feelings is getting in the way of professional, detached observation and analysis.
The fact is (in my entitled opinion of course), Michael Scheuer is indeed an expert, is intelligent, and is extremely knowledgeable. But his judgment is flawed, and his interpretation of the known data wrong. He, too, fails to acknowledge the radical ideology of fundamental Islam as a driving force. As the critical factor in the equation.
So….who educated who? Did Ron educate Rudy? Or did Rudy take Ron to school?
Many supporters of the so-called peace movement suggest that some dramatic shift in US policy might bring a quick end to the jihadist ferocity that claims innocent victims every day in some tortured Muslim corner of the globe. According to this logic, the brutality of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other fanatical groups represents a predictable response to American meddling in Islamic affairs. These terror apologists (or at least terror explainers) forcefully reject the now common conservative formulation that “they hate us not for what we do, but for who we are.”
My recommended reading list for Ron Paul and his followers? Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower. In there, you will find that the source of Osama bin Laden’s hirabah against the West and against America in particular, isn’t American foreign policy, but the radical, Qutbist ideology of a hateful, intolerant fundamentalist practice of Islam. It is the writings of Sayyid Qutb, among others, that is the source of al-Qaeda ideology; one which excuses violence against innocents. And yes, it’s because that ideology hates America for its freedoms. Because of America’s "decadence", "corruption", and because it is not governed by strict, Islamic Law. Not because of our "entangling alliances" and interactions with foreign nations. Salafists and Wahabbists find modernity a threat to their practice of Islam.
Do you know what "blowback is"? Al-Qaeda does. Blowback is what happened to al-Qaeda when they waged violence against the U.S. Payback’s a bitch when you’re huddled up in a cave, hiding from further blowback, isn’t it?
*UPDATE* 2007/09/08 18:30 I’d like to add Max Boot’s "The Savage Wars of Peace Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" to my reading list recommendation for Ron Paul and his minion. In particular, Ch 15 on Pax Americana, Small Wars in the 21st century. Maybe another Ron Paul post is in order? It’s like it’s Ron Paul bashing Weekend at FA’s.
Articles of Interest:
Was Ron Paul Right or Wrong to Say that America Caused 9/11? by Scott Malensek
In Their Own Words by Bruce Thornton reviewing Raymond Ibrahim’s The Al Qaeda Reader
The Master Plan by Lawrence Wright
whats funny is Ron Paul always says to read theese books and listen to their words. How about the words in the Islamofacist qua’ran that says islamofacist must kill all non believers. It doesnt get any more straight forward then that.
how about reading the statement issued by osama, stating very clearly the three reasons why they are taking offensive action against america:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm
namely: occupation of their holy land, support for israel, and aggression against iraqis.
hmmmm.
Wow, the Noam Chomsky bit was dead nuts on target! Bin Laden even praises him in his latest tape.
Clearly, there is little difference between the Ron Paul doctrine and the Al Queda doctrine save the religious rhetoric and the mandatory pursuit of WMD.
Ron Paul : Life & Liberty > Honor
Rudy, GOP, et al : Honor > Life & Liberty
Dr. Paul wins this debate all day, every day. Period.
100 yrs. of empirical, interventionalist foreign policy got us into this mess. Non-interventionalist (minimal) foreign policy will get us out of this mess.
Quite simple, actually.
Read the Constitution.
Thank goodness some people realize the truth. These evil hateful Muslims have a grand conspiracy against us. They want to restore and expand the grand caliphate through control of the worlds oil. Osama Bin Ladens Grandfather was a Sufi Mystic who transfered his Knowledge to Osama, giving him the ability to easily brainwash people, it also allowed Bin Laden to create shadow governments in several Arab countries to be sure that people never even want democracy. A few of the elite families realize this, King Abdullah, Sadot knew, and King Fahd of Saudia Arabia, and they fight this wheever they can, but it leaves them looking like oppressive despots. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was instigated by his dealings with Osama, spurred by the Amir of Kuwaits active support of the U.S.
Bin Ladens Sufi Abilities extend even to the U.S., Creating Fear, and confusion which eventually leads to the Cut and run mentality. WARNING – Be sure not to view the Bin Laden Tape, that is coming out – It will contain secret subliminal messages that are designed to break our will to fight. Only Hassidic Jews and Evangelical Christians, because of their religious practices, can fully resist his sufi mystic techniques.
Kinda like the latest marching orders issued by Osama to the Ron Paulistas?
Osama is issuing out propaganda- part of which is aimed at deceiving fellow Muslims to convince them of the endgame he is playing; the other is aimed to deceive westerners, such as Ron Paul.
Perhaps this will enlighten:
The intersting thing is the Fox viewers who took the viewers instant poll on who “won” the debate, Ron Paul won by nearly a 2 to 1 percentage over the person who came in second in the poll. Paul’s 34% against such a large field of politicians was remarkable.
You are of course partly right. The adherents of Qutb (which you mysteriously spell Qtub, but whatever) will seek the destruction of the West and the triumph of Islam regardless. However, the question remains of how many marginal characters they can recruit to their banner – and I would argue that under normal circumstances that number is small and the threat they pose minimal. If we shatter societies and occupy countries, the number increases somehwat.
And in noting that Islamic terrorists have actually killed more Muslims than Americans, you also highlight an important point: in general, the fanatics are going to fight over there. They have their own clans and factions to defend and their own local oppressive governments to fight. If we don’t fight them over there, we won’t have to fight (99%) of them over here. Now, if I thought that after all this a unified Islamic nation would emerge to menace us, I could still see involvement over there as productive. But when I look at the almost fractal landscape of sects and clans that are struggling against each other in the Middle East, I conclude that unified Islam is fantastically unlikely.
I’m also quite skeptical that Ahmadinejad is a martyrdom-seeking lunatic in the same mold as OBL (though of course OBL has cleverly managed to avoid martyring *himself*). He seems to like to run his mouth about Israel, but if he wanted to confront the West and find his own destruction he’s had ample opportunity to do so (cutting off oil, supplying advanced missiles to Shiite militias in Iraq) and not done so. This suggests that his bluster is in the mold of Kruschev’s ‘we will bury you’, designed to prop up his own base at home. He has been deterred and contained, and we can continue to do that even if he obtains nuclear weapons.
Oh, and one other thing: the reason Paul talk about ‘educating Giuliani’ is not because they disagreed per se, but because Giuliani professed to never have even heard of the blowback idea before. Now, I expect that Giulani actually was quite familiar with this theory and just wanted expel the idea from the bounds of reasonable debate by framing his answer the way he did; but if he wants to play at rhetoric in that way I think accusing him of ignorance is a reasonable counter.
Oi Vey! These Paul bots will NEVER Learn.
I see they just continue to Cherry Pick Osama’s words. Are they really that dumb or do they just think that WE are as dumb as they are?
I can’t wait to get the transcript the latest Osama missive, but in case the Paulbots haven’t heard, after we abandon Israel and all our allies in the Middle East Osama is STILL coming to the U.S.
Why? Because the U.S. Constitution offends his religious sensitivities. And until we abandon the Constitution, which your Paulbot cited above, and adopt Sharia, Osama is going to keep on truckin.
From Bin Laden’s letter to the American People: “What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
…
complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad
…
You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire.”
Ready to toss over the U.S. Constitution and start wearing the burka Paulbots? Because that is the simple choice. Convert to Islam, submit to being ruled by Sharia Law or DIE!
You demand we “listen” to what our enemies say, but you stick your fingers in your ears and hum when the bad parts come out.
Here’s something that sums up the Paulbots position perfectly.
Convert to Islam, submit to being ruled by Sharia Law or DIE!
You’ve conveniently neglected the fact that Osama Bin Laden doesn’t have the power to kill me. In fact I see your line of argument a lot – the accusation that an advocacy of withdrawal from Iraq is tantamount to a fearful surrender to Sharia here locally. As I argued above, OBL can be largely ignored (by the American people). This is not to say that we shouldn’t secure our borders, keep a watchful eye on visitors from the Middle East, and continue to hunt Bin Laden (using small forces and intelligence, not entire divisions). The bedwetters in this argument are you clowns, who insist against all evidence that these quasimedieval religious nuts are an ‘existential threat’ to our astounding civilization. Please stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this ridiculous overreaction.
The only one taking orders from al Qaeda is anyone who supports the Iraq War, which continues to boost al-Qaeda’s recruiting power in the same way FOX News inadvertantly continues to boost Ron Paul’s popularity.
What I find interesting is that some people seem to disregard any questions of the Bush family connection to the Bin Laden family. There are people out there that say that Bin Laden is actually a CIA operative, which, if true, would totally change the landscape of this debate.
Regardless, even if Bin Laden is everything you say he is, how will he be able to successfully attack us is if we do not defend ourselves. According to the official line, we were attacked on 9-11 because we failed to use intelligence correctly, and because NORAD did not follow standard procedure. So if we improve our defense, we should avoid an attack.
If bin Laden is such a threat, why is he still alive and releasing videos. If we want to protect our country, why are our borders still not secured. Why is our Department of DEFENSE on the offense? Why do we not realize that some people don’t appreciate us spreading our way of life by force? Why are we entagling ourselves in another Crusade? Can’t we fight over something more important than which mythological figure we should worship?
The U.S. has no right to be over in the middle east trying to set it up to its own benefit. Furthermore, it is EXTREMELY hypocritical to shout freedom of religion on our own soil, then turn around and say that an extremist of religion is not acceptable and should be hunted down simply for the fact that they are an “extremist” (and why do we get to decide who is and isn’t an extremist?). Until the INDIVIDUAL commits an act of terror, we have no right to hunt them down. Furthermore, how does a soverign nation declare war on a religion (which is NOT a sovereign nation)? You can’t…that’s why Dr. Paul tried to get us to use the constitutional tool of letters of margue and reprisal…which is what we used to fight pirates (who also did not have a nation, but was just a loose organization kind of like Al Queda). Please understand that Ron Paul is in no way blaming Americans…he is blaming a faulty and arrogant foreign policy (instated by a few) that has gained us enemies, and some of them extreme. It’s not that they hate us for our freedoms, or that we are over there…it’s that we are over there IMPOSING OUR WILL ON THEM. U.S.A. was started in defiance of tyranny and some far off land imposing their will on the colonies…many patriots gave their life in defiance of this.
Mike’s America , great comment. Notice that the left wing retards all leave off half of Osama (aka DNC talking points) demands. “Come to Islam or die”. Ending the fight against the animals will not help, you have to become Islamic. How many left wing nuts are willing to subject they’re families to the joke religion Islam? None, they think they can turn terrorism off like a light switch. How many dozens of attacks occured and how many died at the hands of Islam before 9-11 and before the war in Iraq? I support killing as many of them as possible even if it requires Nuclear weapons, heck, start with nuclear weapons and save thousands of lives. Why delay, it will come to that in the near future anyway.
Yawn, Paulbots are boring. They just seem to advocate isolationism as if it will solve all the world’s problems to runaway and hide and let the world fight amongst themselves. Uh, no. When someone needs help, wants help, and we turn them down…that’s not gonna make America safer or make the world better or have any sort of a positive effect. Nu-uh.
All these bots are doing is making excuses to support Bin Laden’s demand that the US leaves Iraq, leaves the Middle East, and accepts radical, militant Islam (which is in and of itself intolerable of any other religion so to be at peace with it is to either convert or die).
Yeah, that’s it, blame everyone else, accept no responsibility, it’s all the neocons and major corporations that have caused all of America’s problems. Right?
With millions of people professing the three main religions, you can always cherry-pick quotes by which to generalize and characterize the whole group. There are Christians and Jews in both America and Isreal who “hate us for our freedoms”.
Anyone who pretends to know the Muslim Mind is a pretender practicing the fraud of psycho-babble. The simple truth is that it is harmful to others to drop bombs on them and occupy their land. Since we do that, it would be wise to stop doing it and then find out if – after we have all of our troops home to defend ourselves – they really do want to bother attacking us.
It is absurd to assume they would. Another simple truth is that muslims are just people who – like most of us – are the victims of their own preachers and politicians and would very much like to be free themselves.
It is intellectual nonsense to assume that there are hordes of muslims ready to attack us over here if we stop attacking them over there. That is the exact opposite of the truth. They will lose interest in us when we go away and will get back to their normal lives of fighting one another.
Scott and “MIke’s America”
What high school was that you dropped out of… You are both such good media “sheep”.. They must be doubling up on the Flouride in your water or something. It’s pointless to try to enlighten you… You are both so TOO FAR GONE. Neither of you deserve the freedom and liberty of this country…. You are what’s wrong with this country… You are like trapped Apes at the Zoo…. You have forgot your domain, you have been brainwashed out of Liberty — You are broken and blinded… Even if offered freedom, it just being over the fence, you remain seated in the corner of the Cage… You defend why your cage is good instead of you trying to regain your freedom. One Day you will realize the err of your ways… With Hillary, Obama, or Rudy… the wave of facism will continue to wash over you, but you will wake up … and when you do, it will be too late. Sad. Just sad.
Don’t argue with the idiots, because in the end, they bring you down to their level. How can one even attempt civilized debate when simply analyzing cause and effect suddenly becomes “blaming America” or “taking marching orders from al Qaeda”?
How many dozens of attacks occured and how many died at the hands of Islam before 9-11 and before the war in Iraq
First of all, they died at the hands of evil men. Saying they died at the hands of Islam is foolish, unless you want the adherents of every world religion to take the blame for all evil that has been done in the name of that religion.
Second of all, not many in the grand scheme of things. I’ve seen various lists put together online of all the attacks since 1979 or so. Undeniably, you’re talking about a bunch of murderers who should be stopped. But let’s look at some other threats the US has faced and compare the numbers:
Nazi Germany: 5,000,000 men or more under arms, technology on a par or in some cases better than us; killed over 20,000,000 people over a period of 7 years or so.
Communism: Even more soldiers (though lower quality) than the Nazis; nuclear weapons, worldwide reach, thousands of tanks; killed 50-100,000,000 people over fifty years.
Al Qaeda: 20,000 members (maybe); low levels of technology and technical sophistication; killed maybe 5000 people (?) over twenty years.
Now I imagine some of you would want to count all Muslims, or all radical Muslims, in order to boost the numbers for the Grand Islamic Threat. But not all muslims are radical, not all radicals are terrorists, and in most places the radicals seem to be concerned with their local government (see: Algeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and on and on).
So stop trying to make this the World War For Your Generation. It’s not. Maybe if you try really hard to ‘invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity’, you can make it one, but it sure doesn’t have to be.
Ok… I’ll retract my previous post. I’ll also admit, this article has some very good points. I initially skimmed it, because I thought it was more about bashing “Paulettes” “Ronulans” “Ronladens” or whatever names you people coin. Drop the neocon buzzwords, and people will begin to take you infinitely more seriously. (Just like the Ron Paul people need to dial down the hyperbole notch a little… if not a helluva a lot.)
Still, I think it’s a contextual issue. We could’ve stuck to Afghanistan, taken out the Taliban, and while the ocassional jihadist would’ve popped up, we’d have pretty much been done with the War and Terror, we would have won it, and the world would’ve been stupid not to be on our side. From there, we could have worked on the social and economical conditions that create terrorism, and would have mostly eradicated it. Before we went into Iraq, people were saying these very same things (Cheney included, at least in ’94), were ridiculed, and now we’re in this big, destabilized mess that everyone predicted, and the typical Bush administration response is now “Well… you were right, but since we created more terrorists now, we might as well fight them.” Kind of like someone intentionally sneezing on the last two pieces of pizza and saying “Oh, whoops, my bad, I guess I’ll have to eat those last two slices.”
Great points bbartlog. I would also add for all those still suffering from the author of this blogs delusions that regardless of whether or not bin Laden hates us for who we are rather than what we do, he is still only the sum of al Qaeda’s parts – i.e, the number of recruits it can muster up. If Muslims see their countries under American occupation, and there co-believers killed and injured, they are going to hate America, and provide the next generation of al Qaeda recruits that bin Laden dreams of. This is one of Michael Scheuer’s (and Robert Pape’s) main points, and one I don’t think this blogs author does a very good job of refuting.
bbartlog said “Osama Bin Laden doesn’t have the power to kill me.”
Did you forget 9/11 bb? Or do you REALLY believe that was a plot hatched by the government?
The depths of delusion, denial and willful ignorance coming from you people is STUNNING.
No wonder you support a candidate who openly declares he would divide America on ideological lines.
You people serve the enemies of this country. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
No, I didn’t forget 9/11, nor am I a truther (nice try). And to be fair, if you take it literally, my statement is probably false: if killing me (specifically) were somehow critical to Bin Laden’s plans, he could probably send some sort of suicide assassin, as he did to the head of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. A better phrasing would have been that Bin Laden is not, in general, a bigger danger to American lives than many things we consider minor threats (like swimming pools), and that our reaction should be of a scale appropriate to the threat. And that because of that I treat him as an insignificant risk to me personaly.
delusion, denial and willful ignorance
I consider myself reasonably well-informed. If I’ve made a false statement, describe it; if my reasoning is flawed, contradict it.
divide America on ideological lines.
Any candidate is going to divide people on some fault line or other. People disagree deeply over important issues. It is true that a (real) existential threat can unite people and make them set aside their disagreements, but in the absence of such a threat I consider unity to be overrated. Especially when, as seems to be the case with you, unity would seem to be simply a way of saying ‘you have to agree with me on this’.
You people serve the enemies of this country. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Grow up. Not everyone who disagrees with you is some sort of traitor – you’re basically making an excuse to yourself so that you can stick your fingers in your ears. Many, many people love this country and its high ideals and yet have reached different conclusions about what we should do at this juncture. Read what I wrote and try to explain why I’m wrong.
This is a real comedy to go with the eight month of comedy that has came out of the ‘democrat’ controlled congress. Just like clock work, the democrats think they can have their cake and eat it to and old Osama shows up and pee’s on they’re cake. He sure knows how to torture the democrats.
“Bin Laden is not, in general, a bigger danger to American lives than many things we consider minor threats (like swimming pools)”
Astounding! bin Laden is no greater threat than swimming pools. So when he kills how many Americans would you take him seriously? 10,000? 100,000?
And you do realize of course that we have lifeguards at public pools to protect the public from that danger. Funny you should care less about the very real and demonstrated danger of bin Laden. As it is, President Bush has aggresively protected the American people with perhaps thousands of lives saved by preventing terrorist attacks THIS YEAR!
You really do have your head stuck up your ass at the same time it’s stuck in the sand! What a neat trick!
“I consider unity to be overrated.”
You lurch now from being astoundingly delusional to being absolutely absurd. You’re so well informed I won’t have to remind you who said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Now, do you wish to be totally honest and say that there would be nothing wrong if the union that binds the states were dissolved?
“Grow up.”
Funny, but I would say exactly the same thing about you. It’s clear that you remain completely oblivious to any of the lessons which history has so painfully taught us. You prefer the comforts of your small minded prejudices and your delusions rather than face the agonizing realites of the truly life and death issues which this nation confronts.
You and your fellow Paulbots feed on that delusion and your prejudices and attempt to create confusion at a time when clarity is most needed.
I have NO patience for you. I have NO respect for your position. You have NO part in any serious, meaningful, intellectually honest political solution to the problems we face.
Flopping Aces readers will know that I believe Founding Father Samuel Adams said it best:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!â€Â
One might almost think OBL is working for the ‘republic’ controlled white house…
“They must be doubling up on the Flouride in your water or something. ”
Nope, no correlation between Paulbots and conspiracies at ALL, right?
“Neither of you deserve the freedom and liberty of this country….”
Apparently Paulbots aren’t American as they don’t believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to live, and live in liberty for per the Paulbot doctrine…I don’t “deserve the freedom and liberty”
Come on now, lets not forget that we are all conservatives hare and we gain nothing by attacking each other.
The point of the Primary is to pick the Republican that can win the national election because we do not want Hillary to be the next President.
70% of the country is against the war, there is no way in hell that a pro-war candidate can beat Hillary with 70% of the people against them.
None of these Jokers that are the assumed frontrunners have the personality of Bush, and even he can not sell this war.
By nominating Ron Raul, you are taking the war issue off the table, and gambling that most people would prefer an honest principled man over a lying socialist cheat like Hillary.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that can win.
Youe choices are either Ron Paul or Hillary, choose carefully.
its traitor neocons like the asshole that wrote this that have ruined our country ………trying to emulate their traitor hero hannity .
“Ron Paul is the only candidate that can win.
Youe choices are either Ron Paul or Hillary, choose carefully.”
JohnnyB you are 1000% correct. It really comes down to who can beat Hillary.
A recent poll of over 20,000 worldwide over 80% want the USA to pull out of Iraq. That is very interesting.
If Hillary wins — God Save the USA
Interesting. I didn’t even think about it. It’s because of having heard Lawrence Wright pronounce his name, for whatever odd reason, I was sounding it out the way I spelled it. Thanks for pointing it out. I should go back and make the correction.
You know, I might agree with you that the number would be smaller than it otherwise has become; mostly, we’ve given them huge media exposure, and the media with its blame-America message and negative reporting (such as conflating abu ghraib- think NYTimes with its 30+ consecutive frontpage stories) has acted as a good propaganda vehicle for recruitment.
And “the threat they pose minimal”? I disagree. In today’s technological age, it only takes a handful to carry out the machinations of a handful.
We killed and captured about 3000 al-Qaeda operatives, I believe, including a 3rd of their leadership, right after Afghanistan. Many more escaped.
War was declared on all radical, Islamic terrorist cells right after the events of Sept 11th, and those who would harbor and provide state-sponsored support.
Was that the right response? History will tell. We’re in the thick of it, so who’s to really say what the world is going through right now won’t ultimately lead to a better, safer world? What price would the world have paid if Saddam were still in power today? The status quo most certainly was not working, given the Food for Oil scandal, the officials working behind the scenes in the UN to have sanctions lifted; and Saddam made no secrets about his hatred of the U.S., desires to obtain wmd capabilities, and he’s proven from past actions that he is not afraid to put them into use.
And if you folks think that a secular Saddam regime would not work operationally with America’s enemies, even religious enemies, then you have not beeen paying attention.
The enemy is indeed larger than al-Qaeda.
I don’t think Ron Paul has any understanding of Islam as a driving factor in this. Besides the al-Qaeda branch of Islamic theology, we are also facing militant Islam Khomeinites in theocratic Iran. (Thanks Jimmy Carter!)
Only if what we are doing there is perceived to be harming Muslims.
But perceptions aside…
What is the actual truth? Are we trying to help Iraqis, or are we imperialistically trying to take over their oil?
Who is killing more Muslims? U.S. and Coalition forces, or insurgents and al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia?
You’ve lost me a little there. I am not afraid of the former Baathists and Saddam loyalists and whatnots who are involved in sectarian violence (in terms of them “coming over here”).
What I am afraid of, is the influence and machinations of al-Qaeda which wishes to create a Taliban-like state with Baghdad as the capital of a new pan-Islamic caliphate. If we leave Iraq a vacuum the way we left Afghanistan…or abandon the Iraqi government before it is mature enough to fight and defend itself, the bloodbath that could follow will indeed be upon our hands, and to America’s shame. That in and of itself, is bad for America’s security and interests.
We have Muslim allies in all of this. In Iraq, and in other nations, helping us fight the Islamic terrorists. Why should they ever trust allying themselves with us, ever again, when history seems to show an inability of America to sustain casualties and incur setbacks, in order to “win the war”? We are proving Osama right, that we are a paper tiger with no intestinal fortitude and a short attention span.
I do not think it is unlikely. I think it is a possibility. About 95% of al-Qaeda in Iraq might be made up of Iraqis, with the rest- mostly in leadership position- being foreign fighters. I’ve heard conflicting information on this. If we left Iraq and the government falls, it will be a hell-hole between the varying sects and Al-Qaeda with Iran and Syria also influencing the bloodbath; and what is in their countries’ interests, cannot possibly be good for America.
You might be right; but I lean toward taking his words at face-value and taking his theology seriously when he talks of the 12th imam and such. The religious leaders of Iran are fueled by radical Islamic beliefs. What does it say about an ideology that advocates martyrdom? And seems to have no shortage of supply in adherents, willing to sacrifice themselves by strapping on bombs? If madmen love death more than life, why shouldn’t we worry about nuclear weapons ever falling into their hands?
But Iran does have its hands in the violence going on in Iraq.
And just because Iran has not initiated a war with Israel YET, doesn’t mean that it is not building itself up to be able to take on Israel and the U.S.
We cannot allow Iran, a state-sponsor of terrorism, to obtain nuclear weapons.
Do you really think allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is a good thing? Survivable for all in the world to live and breathe? There’s a strong difference in the Soviet Union’s desire to remain alive, and in a theocratic regime who holds less value in remaining in this life, over the afterlife. The fundamentalists are intolerant of anything short of bringing about a worldwide Islamic dominance.
Stop it, bbartlog! You’re sounding too intelligent and reasonable to be a Paulbot!
bbartlog addressing Mike’s America said:
Ah…this is more like it!
I guess you weren’t anywhere near the WTC in September of 2001, then? Because 3,000 innocents might argue that point.
Of course, what you probably mean is, Osama doesn’t have that kind of power today. How do you know this? And if he doesn’t, who should some of the credit go to for neutering his power and influence?
What Mike is saying (I’d have to go back and actually take a look at his response….I’m just going down the list, looking mostly at the RP supporters right now) is that the “blowback” from a withdrawal from Iraq, if it is perceived as a U.S. defeat by the Arab world, that sign of weakness does make America less safe, and is a recruitment vehicle for Al-Qaeda.
Oh, do wake up, please and smell the “jihad”. The vast majority of Muslims, I believe, want nothing more than to just live their lives and are not political and dedicated to our destruction because of religious radicalism.
But Islamic radicalism is a movement that didn’t begin with George W. Bush. And its those who live in denial of recognizing the cancer on the world before it fully metasticizes that will indanger us all.
Ok…I need to get ready for work.
Keep typing away, RPers!
You all amuse me, greatly. Because of the influx of fan mail, it may take me a while to get to you. So be patient, and have a good day!
Wow Word, you do know how to rile these Paulbots up. Good work.
Whoever wrote that the only way to beat Hillary is to nominate paul, i want to thank you. I needed that laugh.
You apparently know nothing about Mohammed. If he had a bomb, Mohammed
would have killed people with it. Here is a chronology of his
“religion.”
613 – Muhammad’s first public preaching of Islam at Mt. Hira. Gets few
converts.
615 – Muslims persecuted by the Quraish.
619 – Marries Sau’da and Aisha
620 – Institution of five daily prayers
622 – Muhammad immigrates from Mecca to Medina, which was then called
Yathrib, gets more converts.
623 – Battle of Waddan
623 – Battle of Safwan
623 – Battle of Dul-’Ashir
624 – Muhammad and converts begin raids on caravans to fund the
movement.
624 – Zakat becomes mandatory
624 – Battle of Badr
624 – Battle of Bani Salim
624 – Battle of Eid-ul-Fitr and Zakat-ul-Fitr
624 – Battle of Bani Qainuqa’
624 – Battle of Sawiq
624 – Battle of Ghatfan
624 – Battle of Bahran
625 – Battle of Uhud. 70 Muslims are killed.
625 – Battle of Humra-ul-Asad
625 – Battle of Banu Nudair
625 – Battle of Dhatur-Riqa
626 – Battle of Badru-Ukhra
626 – Battle of Dumatul-Jandal
626 – Battle of Banu Mustalaq Nikah
627 – Battle of the Trench
627 – Battle of Ahzab
627 – Battle of Bani Quraiza
627 – Battle of Bani Lahyan
627 – Battle of Ghaiba
627 – Battle of Khaibar
628 – Muhammad signs treaty with Quraish.
630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca.
630 – Battle of Hunsin.
630 – Battle of Tabuk
632 – Muhammad dies.
Mohammed gave you a choice. Either you converted or you died. He was
responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people in his lifetime
alone, and the death of millions indirectly through his religion. To
this day, Mohammedans inflict the death penalty on anyone who even
discusses a different religious view.
Wordsmith: As always, your efforts to reason with loonies is commendable. But you know and I know that these Paulbots are lost souls. They are beyond reasoning.
Ron Paul may have enough fringe financing to continue his campaign, and he’s welcome to do so. It’s always good to have at least one total nut out there so people can see the contrast with more rational candidates.
The question is: When Ron Paul consistently produces results in the primaries in single digits what will his supporters do come November 2008?
Would the Paulbot above who thinks Paul would defeat Hillary vote for Giuliani or is he going to toss away his vote on some other fringe lost cause candidate and by default help Hillary?
From a Political Scientist’s viewpoint, it would be interesting to look at the voting records, contribution histories and volunteer participation of these Paulbots prior to Paul’s campaign.
My hunch is that almost none of them have ever really participated in any meaningful and SUCCESSFUL political campaign.
They’re all about complaining about what’s wrong. They are NOT about working towards practical and positive solutions and change.
First, Ron Paul is not the only candidate that can win. He’s barely even mentionable on polls that aren’t electronic. Gee, wonder why the only polls he wins are electronic ones (how many times yall voting?).
Second, the war issue is off the table. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, all have pledged to keep tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq. Hillary promoted the war, authorized the war, supported the war, called for more troops, and (again) has already said she’ll keep tens of thousands of Americans there. Any Republican (save Paul) can point that out and it removes her as an anti-war candidate. Not a big complex trick at all.
Third, I LOVE that neocon bit that we get from Paulbots and Osama Bin Laden. Great stuff.
“REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them.”
Man, that’s brilliant stuff. Really. Completely unsubstantiated and false, but brilliant. Clearly Osama Bin Laden agrees in his latest tape.
“Among the most important items in Bush’s speeches since the events of the 11th is that the Americans have no option but to continue the war. This tone is in fact an echo of neoconservatives….”-OSAMA BIN LADEN
It seems to me like the Paulbots are in complete agreement with everything Osama Bin Laden says about the US other than his religious comments. They even buy the neocon label and lie COMPLETELY without even knowing from where it stems or what it means in terms of the decision to promote the war in Iraq, authorize it, support it, and continue it. Lemmings will point reflexively to the PNAC, but ignore that the PNAC’s comments re the Middle East are anything BUT conservative. They stem from the DLC-Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Democratic Leadership Council.
In the end, I don’t see any difference at all between the Paulbots and Kucinich-critters. None.
Gee…it’s all our fault…right? So…what troops do we have in Algeria?
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/muslims-kill-at-least-28-muslims-in-algeria
when he kills how many Americans would you take him seriously
Well, there’s a difference between taking him seriously in the sense of supporting efforts to kill him (on an appropriate scale), which I do, and taking him seriously in the sense of spending any time worrying about him on a day to day basis. He’d have to increase his capabilities by a couple orders of magnitude to make me spend any time evaluating the threat to my personal safety.
perhaps thousands of lives saved by preventing terrorist attacks
Out of curiosity, do you contend that this preventive action consists of the Iraq war, or are you thinking of other measures? Because there are certainly security efforts I support; continuation of the Iraq war just isn’t one of them.
there would be nothing wrong if the union that binds the states were dissolved
I think the context of my post makes it perfectly clear that the unity I’m talking about is unity of political opinion. Your quote and your attack suggest I’m some sort of secessionist, but if you made an honest attempt at reading comprehension you would realize that I wasn’t talking about the Union of the States. The ‘house divided against itself’ that Lincoln referred to was not merely divided on the issues, but ultimately divided in civil war.
I have NO patience for you. I have NO respect for your position.
Cute, but since you chose to respond to my post I think you protest a little too much.
…May your chains sit lightly upon you…
This would be really apropos if Osama were headed our way with a hundred divisions at his back, and I were advocating surrender instead of hydrogen bombs. But if my position on the gravity of the threat is correct, it’s you who is the bedwetter, not me.
Some avenues of argument I would be open to, if you’re serious about trying to change my mind (or the mind of some hypothetical third party):
1) Lives lost to terrorist attack shouldn’t be accounted the same way as lives lost to accidental drowning (or falling out of bed or whatever). Maybe there is a qualitative difference in being murdered by someone as opposed to falling victim to happenstance, and this difference should inform our policy (that is, cause us to devote many more resource per expected fatality in the former case). Elucidate.
2) Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are a marginal threat by themselves, but some other set of Islamic terrorists (existent or incipient) make them look like pikers, and I should be aware of this looming threat. Describe this.
3) Iran will nuke us if we let them get the bomb, and can’t be deterred by our own nuclear counter. Explain why you think Ahmadinejad is this crazy. For what it’s worth I don’t consider quotes from the Koran compelling evidence of his lust for personal and national martyrdom, but in principle I’m willing to consider this possibility.
4) The emergence of an Islamic superstate is likely, *and* it is cheaper/easier for us to intervene now rather than later to stop this threat.
All of these are sort of tangential to the Iraq war, but I’m ultimately more interested in the stance on the whole of the Middle East and Islam anyway. By the time anyone currently running for President gets into office I expect Iraq to be partitioned (de facto or de jure) anyway.
Scott: You stole my thunder! I’m going to post on that exchange between Paul and Huckabee later today. I think it says quite a bit about Paul’s flawed outlook.
Speaking of flawed…. bbartlog is back.
I would go further into Iraq as the keystone in a geostrategy to win the war, but it’s clear the points would be lost on bbartlog.
He’s a sophist. And practices the worst form of deception: self deception. As I said earlier, his type sow confusion at a time when clarity is most needed. The ultimate consequence of their blathering is to weaken the resolve of the American people. The cost will be a war which lasts longer and costs more American lives.
I have NO respect for that mindset.
“This would be really apropos if Osama were headed our way with a hundred divisions at his back, and I were advocating surrender instead of hydrogen bombs. But if my position on the gravity of the threat is correct, it’s you who is the bedwetter, not me.”
If UBL and AQ aren’t that big a threat, then what’s the big deal about fighting in Iraq-the “we’re creating terrorists” line is irrelevent if UBL and AQ are largely irrelevent. Nah, if terrorism isn’t a threat, then the threat-isn’t a danger because he doesn’t have 10 divisions in landing craft headed for NYC-then of US interventionism isn’t a threat as it has no danger of creating 10 divisions headed for the US. See, if you dismiss UBL and the AQ threat, then you dismiss the threatening effect of US interventionism and thus make the argument for isolationism moot for it’d be a policy aimed at avoiding a threat that one doesn’t make one wet their bed.
what’s the big deal about fighting in Iraq
The cost in lives lost, soldiers maimed, and dollars spent, obviously. You’re right that I don’t consider the effect on the terrorist threat to the US to be large, since I don’t consider that threat large to start with. Regardless of whether we cut it in half or doubled it with our actions, it wasn’t worth what we had to spend. If the only cost to consider were the effect on the terrorism level, then your argument would make sense – and you’re right, in that case our Iraq policy would be way down on my list of political issues.
mpower began:
Really? So you don’t blame just George Bush? Truth be told, it stretches back far longer than 100 years. Think back to Thomas Jefferson.
With Decatur during the Tripolitan War, we began a step in the direction of acting as the world’s policeman. Our naval power protected ships on the high seas, boarded slave ships joining Britain in ending the slave trade, and helped to uphold and enforce international laws. Subsequent events throughout America’s 200+ year history has her instituting an interventionist policy on behalf of her national interests; and the majority of our wars have been undeclared wars. This didn’t all start in the last half of the 20th century.
No. It will shame America, destroy our credibility by deserting our allies who have staked their necks out in joining us against Islamic terrorists who target their nations as well. Abandon our friends and allies? How selfish and how destructive to America’s security and interests!
Ron Paul is not the end-all be-all spokesman for the Constitution.
You read it, then get back to me. There’ll be a written quiz for you, including essay questions.
Class dismissed.
Hey Scott,
Congressman Paul’s supporters are not isolationists, we are non-interventionists. Isolationists have far more in common with interventionists than non-interventionists, for they advocate the use of power to achieve national greatness, something our founders vehemently opposed.
The founders, with the noted exception of Hamilton, whose centralist ideas, domestically and abroad, were expressly repudiated in the Constitutional Convention by Washington and the large majority of the delegates on Sept. 17, 1787, opposed an interventionist policy, and through the Monroe Doctrine, largely held to it.
“Congressman Paul’s supporters are not isolationists, we are non-interventionists. Isolationists have far more in common with interventionists than non-interventionists, for they advocate the use of power to achieve national greatness, something our founders vehemently opposed.”
Isolationism IS non-interventionism. If one advocates the use of power to achieve national greatness, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to get that power from outside. There’s plenty of power inside (or so the non-interventionists/isolationists tell us).
Look up Isolationism, it means not intervening; non-intervention.
All those people who support a non-interventionist position (ie, the Chomsky/Bin Laden position), are all too happy to ignore that most examples of American “interventionism” have benefited the nation and humanity-not all by any stretch, but most.
We live on a planet, if we’re all going to live together, sometimes we need to help other countries.
If that means sending money, we send money
If that means helping after a tsunami, we help
If a nation needs food, we send food
If a nation needs doctors to fight a plague, we send doctors
If a nation needs troops to help defend itself, we send troops.
Why? Because helping others, helps US. The strength of allies is only measured in their reciprocation to the aid, comfort, and support we provide. Deeds not words, gain friends, and when WE need help…it’s the friends we gained through deeds who help us-not those who we help in rhetoric alone.
Not all examples of American intervention have gone well, but advocating and supporting the failure of an intervention has always helped it fail.
No sir, I’m afraid that there is no difference between the pre-WWI and pre-WWII non-interventionist/isolationist ideas than there is to today’s non-interventionist/isolationist ideas. If there is a difference it’s that in previous times when “non-interventionist” policies were promoted, the enemy wasn’t promoting them as well. Bin Laden specifically praised Chomsky in his latest tape because he likes Chomsky’s anti-American interventionist ravings (that’s what Chomsky’s book was all about).
Put another way, if we want to live on the same planet, and live in a global economy rather than an isolationist one, we have to work with other nations, and work means intervention-either in terms of money, doctors, food, or sometimes in terms of security.
http://howardwasright.com/index.php/site/more/2056/
Scott,
Isolationism is NOT non-interventionism. Isolationism is what the interventionists have achieved through the employment of their policies abroad, domestic policies which would be blatantly unconstitutional if employed by the United States government here.
Isolationism means isolating a country from the world, aka “Fortress Europe,” Fortress America”
etc… this is the polar opposite of non-interventionism, which advocates fully integrating with the world economically. Isolationism is synonymous with protectionism, whereas non-interventionism is the defining foundation and moral principle undergirding free-trade.
Bin Laden does not support a non-interventionist policy, in fact, he supports the Bush policy of intervention in Iraq and the Middle East. Having decided to attack the United States because of hatred arising from American presence on Muslim holy land, he wishes our soldiers to remain there, and in Iraq, to aid his recruitment efforts, and to concentrate and consolidate Muslim outrage and multi-generational hatred. Bin Laden supports an interventionist policy by the United States. He is our decided and dedicated enemy, and he would prefer us to remain where we may be attacked easily.
Scott, you write, “All those people who support a non-interventionist position (ie, the Chomsky/Bin Laden position), are all too happy to ignore that most examples of American “interventionism” have benefited the nation and humanity-not all by any stretch, but most.”
You then proceed to cite some globalist belief in the responsibility of the American tax-payer to subsidize and support other people’s around the world… I’m going to address several issues here substantively for each point you have raised. You wrote:
“We live on a planet, if we’re all going to live together, sometimes we need to help other countries.”
Where do you derive this? I was under the impression that governments gain their rightful power from the consent of the governed, and that they are given power to protect the lives, the liberty and the property of the citizenry of that particular country, or at least, this country. The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the constitutional bounds of the powers of the federal government, limiting them to enumerated clauses, that is, what is written in the text, in English. What provision in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer monies to aid foreigners? Perhaps an argument can be made to use taxpayer monies to aid citizens abroad, but even that argument is weak if those citizens assumed the risk for traveling or engaging in business abroad. It strikes me as odd that though the U.S. government cannot guarantee private property rights and the protection of legal enterprise here in the United States, we attempt to extend this to the rest of the world? If an intervention domestically is expressly unconstitutional, how and why would it be a good policy abroad?
“If that means sending money, we send money”
If the federal government cannot constitutionally engage in an activity here domestically, such as redistributing money to debtors, to those who are needy among us, our fellow citizens, what business do they have redistributing American taxpayer’s money to foreigners abroad?
“If that means helping after a tsunami, we help”
Article I, Sections 8, 9 and 10 are the only portions of the U.S. Constitution which grant the federal government spending power. This power does not extend to aiding flood victims, or tornado victims, or victims of a famine, domestically here in the United States, let alone abroad. There is no legal basis for offering these entitlements to Americans, let alone foreigners.
“If a nation needs food, we send food”
Again, where is the constitutional authorization for these kindly measures? The government cannot be benevolent, for the funds from which it operates are confiscated monies, they are coerced from the unwilling taxpayer. The monies are taken under the promise that they will be used to fulfill the constitutional obligations of the central government, but are used… as you are here advocating: to entitle a class…
“If a nation needs doctors to fight a plague, we send doctors”
Where does the federal government derive this authority? I’m just finishing law school, and I assure you, there is not one jot or tittle in the U.S. Constitution which authorizes the federal government to intervene in medicine here in the U.S. in the form of socialized medicine, or in its equivalent abroad in the form of federal medical aid to foreigners.
“If a nation needs troops to help defend itself, we send troops.”
Governments are instituted to defend the life, liberty and property of the citizenry, that is their primary obligation, and it is for this reason that taxes are levied. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.†If a government falls, it is not the duty, the obligation, or the right, of any other people to set it back up again. It is for the people of that country to reconstitute a government which is fitting to their interests and desires, one which will provide the necessary mixture of security and protection for liberty.
“Why? Because helping others, helps US. The strength of allies is only measured in their reciprocation to the aid, comfort, and support we provide. Deeds not words, gain friends, and when WE need help…it’s the friends we gained through deeds who help us-not those who we help in rhetoric alone.”
You are indeed extremely naive if you believe that other countries will help the United States, or that other countries consider interests other than their own. As Jeremiah cautioned the last Kings of Judah… “foreign allies are not to be trusted, Egypt with all her promises is a broken reed, which when you lean on her, will pierce your hand.â€Â
It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, for jackals, not men. Men who have the moral courage to fight intelligently for freedom have the best prospects of avoiding the fate of both live jackals and dead lions. Survival is not the be-all end-all of a life worthy of
man. Sometimes the worst thing we can know about a man is that he survived.” ~Sidney Hook
Ryan Mauro’s writings pointing out how the “purist” version of Islam spread throughout the world using the oil wealth of the Middle East does point to a solution – kill the Islamic oil profits. There are 2 ways we could do this: (1) militarily, or (2) economically. Militarily – we invade Saudi Arabia and Iran, take the oil fields, and any Mohammedan who comes within 5 miles of the oil fields is shot on sight. Survivors get shot again. Economically – we develop all available sources of domestic oil, including off our coasts (environmental concerns can wait), and our oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains. We meet all our oil demand domestically, including eventually 10 million, 15 million, even 20 million barrels a day from the oil shale (and Shell’s in-situ retorting there shows great promise), and become an oil exporter, competing with the Muslims, and driving oil to the low single-digits per barrel. Then Ahab the Arab goes back to picking dates, living in tents, and screwing his camel named Clyde. And as a final coup-de-grace, hammer Mecca. Desecrate, damage, or destroy the Kabaa in Mecca (that big black cube they all pray towards), and you expose as a lie the Arab moon god’s supposed promise that no infidel will ever damage or desecrate the Kabaa. The fact that the Kabaa has not been hit (yet) leads Muslims to believe that the Arab moon god is indeed helping them, and making Islam indeed invincible. Expose the basis of that belief to be an unmistakeable lie, and you kill off the Islamic uprising.
You ignore one massive difference between the Middle Eastern nations and “Western Europe and Latin America”… Umm, here goes. We’re not blowing up Western Europe and we’re not drone bombing Venezuela. I’d say that is a stark difference that accounts for why people in the U.K. and other nations pretty well leave us alone.
IF I might add something to those comments, is that AMERICA should always have the priority,
OF any DECISIONS made, THE citizens born of many generations have a word to say about the running of the COUNTRY, and they should be in the fore front of that position,
because they posses the knowledge of their ancestors who work so hard and fought so hard to bring AMERICA so GREAT,which should always remain as THE BEST IN THE WORLD,
AND PROUD OF IT,with THE AMERICANS stand TALL like GIANTS they are.