When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
What? No Paulspambots? Did I tire them out? Come out, come out, wherever you are!
I can’t believe you made this post, Mike, and asked if I was a glutton for punishment from moonbat commenters.
I might have to do at least one more post on this Ron Paul Bash Weekend, before getting back to SERIOUS topics; especially on consequential candidates who matter.
Herschel
16 years ago
I have to agree. We cannot be divided. Divided we fall and all that. Seriously I like some of what Ron Paul says about taxes but what part of THEESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US doesnt he understand. Listen to Bin Laden? Ok he says “CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE”. Hopefully his followers will vote for Thompson after Paul looses but for some reason I think they are probably way too RETARDED.
rich
16 years ago
lincoln-a past president…
how about washington’s admonition about avoiding foreign entanglements.
should ron paul resort to lying as the others have been doing..to save face.
They keep killing the troops to save face for a failed foreign policy…It is not ron paul who is insane per albert einstein’s definition… its the losers who support our failed foreign policy of intervention.
from ex cia chief of the bin laden unit:
NewsMax: Is there an answer to the dilemma?
Scheuer: Ron Paul is the only one that really has said, “Wait a minute, people don’t like other people sticking their nose in their business, and we have been doing this for 50 years.”
ron paul corrected giuliani, he was only trying to instruct huckabee who is probably too neo-conned to accept the truth.
keep drinking the neo-con coolaid. now i must donate more money to ron paul. ronpaul2008.com thanks you for my generous donation. Its only paulitics you know…
Haven’t the Dems already created this divide – RP is just trying to dig deeper.
While you are out donating to the RP society for the cognitive impaired – why not fork some cash over to the flat earth society – they also are trying to instruct the masses.
rich
16 years ago
is there a terrorist behind every bush….
or maybe a Bush behind every terrorist…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
scrapiron
16 years ago
Donating to the mental dwarfs in either party is really stupid. Paul and Dennis the Menace have as much chance of ever reaching the white house as a fart in a hurricane. Someway the bottom half of both tickets are managing to steal millions of dollars, otherwise they would pack up and go home. Then we have the wounded ego’s and BDS at work in the democrat party that explains most of what we think is stupidity. It is really a recently proven mental illness. The real idiots are those running down the Iraqi government for not accomplishing a lot, while the complainers are members of the United States congress that has accomplished ‘0’, ‘nothing’, in 8 months.
Robert Micheal of the Saints
16 years ago
70% of americans want out of Iraq. The only divide is in your own mind. Last time I checked 70% beats 30% TIME TO COME HOME
Paul
16 years ago
I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter; but I don’t like supporting a war that continues escalating al Qaeda’s recruiting power. And as the poster above said, paper covers rock.
I don’t like supporting a war that continues escalating al Qaeda’s recruiting power.
How about a war where negative news coverage, such as 5th column NYTimes with 33 consecutive frontpage news stories on abu Ghraib, and media propaganda escalates al-Qaeda’s recruiting power?
How about supporting a war to insure that Iraq doesn’t become a terrorist safe-haven, and that greater innocents are not butchered by al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as those brave Iraqi allies who have fought alongside us, and believed in us helping them rebuild their country? That we would not do to them what we did last time, when we encouraged a rebellion against Saddam, then did not back them on it?
That’s the honor that Huckabee talked about, and which Ron Paul has not an inkling of.
And as the poster above said, paper covers rock.
My scissors just shredded your paper, thereby freeing Iraq from being smothered by your misguided paper tiger cut-and-run policy
70% of americans want out of Iraq. The only divide is in your own mind. Last time I checked 70% beats 30% TIME TO COME HOME
I’ve never participated in this ‘poll’ you carry so close to your heart. I’m SURE no one else on this thread has participated either. Make one wonder about the veracity of this poll. I wonder what the percentage would look like if this ‘poll’ were conducted with only the participants of this comment thread. Hmmmm.
ScrapIron: The Paulite phenomenon IS a sympton of an intellectual disorder.
Examples abound of the disease. They say we should “listen to our enemies” but do they actually listen to what bin Laden demands? Nope!
If we abandoned ALL our allies in the Middle East, that would mean walking away from Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States. The nightmare that would surely follow cannot be imagined. You think the price of gas is high now?
We’ve implored the Ronulans to look at history. Appeasement in Europe meant the death of 60 million people across the world. Are the Paulistines prepared to bear the responsibility for causing another such conflagration?
Churchill warned of the false security offered by appeasement and he was called a warmonger. Today, we are called “neocons.” We’re in good company.
The Paulbots are children. They’re playing games with toys that are more dangerous than lead painted baubles made in China.
They may wish to stick their heads in the sand (or up their asses). But the adults will remain in control despite Ru Paul’s whining.
How about a war where negative news coverage, such as 5th column NYTimes with 33 consecutive frontpage news stories on abu Ghraib, and media propaganda escalates al-Qaeda’s recruiting power?
How about decades of unfettered funding, recruiting and training – all the while their attacks escalated with impunity. This is the surest way to build al-queda. In Iraq, Michael Yon said it best: “al-queda is committing suicide”.
See this is the paulites problem. When they think of a nuclear attack on Iran all they see in the million or so dead civilians. What they dont see is what will happen if we dont nuke Iran. 30 million dead jews. A new holocaust. This is what the paulites are advocating with there “peace”.
This whole politics game is starting to get annoying, because the candidates for the president do not really work together as they should.
I wonder if Ron Paul would nominate Obama as a Vice president, which would be more interesting than affending eachother on TV.
Yours Sincerely.
NH
16 years ago
Andrea what a stupid idea. Who wants some socialist on the ticket with the perfect Mr. Paul? He is against socialism. Get a clue.
Also Dr Paul doesn’t offend anyone – he is for life – period.
I am offended by this war.
Also, we should skip this blog because he obviously would get no readership if he hadn’t posted something about Dr. Paul!
rich
16 years ago
explain the idiot in chief’s statement…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
DEFEND YOUR CHOSEN ONE….
Do you also need help to tie your own shoes?? I love OUR President’s anachronisms. Although, if you have trouble comprehending OUR President’s statement – the problem lies with you and not OUR President.
John Galt
16 years ago
This has to be the most amusing piece you’ve written yet, comparing Lincoln’s House Divided speech, to the public discourse over the war on terror. Lincoln’s speech was referring to seccesion, not dissent. You somehow try to link the civil war deaths with today’s political dissent. You make the Old my country right or wrong argument, with a little flag waving added in for good measure.
“You are an American. (yes I am)
And as along as you live under the Stars and Stripes you owe an obligation to the nation
(no, not really, that is a moral judgement – no where is there any specific obligations. Essentially you agree to follow the law – the constitution – beyond that any obligation is based on my personal moral code.)
which created and protects your freedom
(the nation does not create my freedom, I’m endowed with it by my creator. If it is a good government it does not take my freedom from me. It also does not protect my freedom, I do that, by being vigilant, and joining with my neighbors to fight, if necessary. )
to do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed by the Congress and the President to undertake.
(no, this is not an obligation. there is no such obligation anywhere in the constitution. Where do you derive such a moral standard – Its the “be true to your school, sis boom bah standard. It suggests the state is more important than the individual, a socialist idea.)
I am barred from providing physical aide and comfort to any enemy(treason)
The principle you are insinuating was tried before with the alien and sedition acts of 1798, and the sedition act of 1918. Both were found to be unconstitutional.
Finally, The congress authorized the president to use force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Iraq now has a friendly government, and the security council resolution are enforced. Time to come home.
Bert M.
16 years ago
Actually, he understands the threat we face completely. Have you read the book “Imperial Hubris?” It’s not as the title might have you think. Anyways, Michael Scheuer (head of the CIA bin laden unit for a number of years) who wrote the book is someone who has had major impact on how Ron Paul views the current conflict with Islamists. Why do I say this? Because they meet frequently and Ron Paul recommended the book to Rudy Giuliani so that he might better understand our policy in the middle east and the enemy we face.
Why don’t you think Israel can support herself? All we do by standing by her is hurt her. We tie Israel to the UN and by having so much influence over Israel’s foreign policy (cough Israel-Hezbollah war cough) we hurt Israel. She cannot act with the necessary force because we tell her not to (just as Condi Rice did in the Israel-Hezbollah war). We effectively tie their hand so they can’t with the enemy, the same way we tie the hands of our soldiers in Iraq. As Ron Paul says, if we’re going to fight, we fight hard and get it over with. With the rest of the neo-cons, it’s all about policing and law-enforcement tactics. Don’t believe me? Look at how we’re fighting in Iraq. Anyways, Israel has far superior nuclear capabilities to Iran. Let’s not deny this. Israel will destroy Iran if she sees fit and we should not stop her. By tying ourselves so closely to Israel, we inhibit her ability to act. We can still be allies and allow Israel’s sovereignty. I urge you to read “Imperial Hubris.” It is really an excellent book on how we can destroy our enemy.
RP hasn’t a realistic idea of geopolitics or the threat of global jihad – he never did and never will.
Have you read – Unholy Alliance, Treachery, Countdown to Terror, Bush VS the Beltway, Londonistan and Disinformation.
bbartlog
16 years ago
Mike writes:
do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed
And Herschel writes:
think of a nuclear attack on Iran all they see in the million or so dead civilians
I put these two quotes next to each other by way of highlighting my problem with blind allegiance. If some future President and Congress were to adopt Herschel’s proposal as a military strategy, I couldn’t support it, unless Iran had already hit us with a nuclear weapon. Of course it’s kind of an extreme example – but in general, I simply don’t have enough faith in the Congress and the President to uncritically support whatever military efforts they command. Think back to Clinton, and consider the criminal records of Congress, if you think we will always be led by wise men.
walking away from Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States. The nightmare that would surely follow cannot be imagined.
What nightmare is that? Israel can hold its enemies in check with its nuclear arsenal and its elite military. The Saudis and Iran would probably fight a proxy conflict in the remains of Iraq, but eventually make peace. Saudi Arabia and Iran would still be economically dependent on the West. Things would not get any better (I’m sure Hezbollah would still be killing people), but I think you overstate the degree to which we’re keeping a lid on things. But maybe you think things would play out differently.
Appeasement in Europe meant the death of 60 million people
In another post I believe I outlined the difference in capabilities between Nazi Germany and our current band of terrorist adversaries. Or is it Iran rather than Al Qaeda that you’re worrying about? Their military is also fairly insignificant, though as an actual nation-state they do weigh in a little heavier than OBL and his jihadis. But their force projection capabilities are still feeble on a global scale.
John Galt burped: “Lincoln’s speech was referring to seccesion, not dissent.”
Really oh wise one? Lincoln was actually discussing slavery. I went so far as to provide you the link to the speech. the next line following “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” is “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” Go on and read the rest of the speech if you need more help.
I might also recommend to you the last lines:
“Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.”
Seems to me we could find further inspiration and warnings also from those words.
In another post I believe I outlined the difference in capabilities between Nazi Germany and our current band of terrorist adversaries. Or is it Iran rather than Al Qaeda that you’re worrying about? Their military is also fairly insignificant, though as an actual nation-state they do weigh in a little heavier than OBL and his jihadis. But their force projection capabilities are still feeble on a global scale.
Iran aside, the problem we face today is a technological age where it doesn’t take invading, uniformed armies and missile launchpads to devastate an entire city. We’re engaged in a new kind of war. Unfortunately, for many of us, it doesn’t feel real; it doesn’t feel like a war. I suppose that’s due in part because no real sacrifices have been formally asked of us by the President; as a nation, we’re not on a war-footing with a war-face on.
It doesn’t take an army, anymore, to wrought the devastation of an army.
Actually, he understands the threat we face completely. Have you read the book “Imperial Hubris?” It’s not as the title might have you think. Anyways, Michael Scheuer (head of the CIA bin laden unit for a number of years) who wrote the book is someone who has had major impact on how Ron Paul views the current conflict with Islamists. Why do I say this? Because they meet frequently and Ron Paul recommended the book to Rudy Giuliani so that he might better understand our policy in the middle east and the enemy we face.
I made my opinions of Michael Scheuer’s expert analysis known already in my previous posts.
bbartlog said he was “highlighting my problem with blind allegiance.”
It’s perfectly clear to me you’re sufferring from blindness. Though I’m not sure to what you owe your allegiance. Like the rest of your Paulbot ilk, your tranference is transparent to me.
I’m very interested that you continue to insist that the consequences of our abandoning our allies will be neglible. Would you be prepared to take responsbility for those consequences should your program be enacted? I doubt it.
Forcing Israel to use nukes to retaliate against Iran is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
I’ll try ONCE AGAIN to help illuminate the dark corners of your mind. Winston Churchill said that the biggest mistake we made in the runup to World War II was abandoning the Czechs. Had we stood by them, as we were obligated to do, Germany would have been faced with war on two fronts at a time when they could not sustain such an effort. The Czechs had many men under arms and an excellent line of forts. All that was lost and the war happened anyway.
I recommend Churchill’s six volume history of World War II. In it you’ll find this paragraph which should be a lesson and warning if you’re capable of learning from the past:
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
–Winston Churchill
Patrick Henry
16 years ago
“The Iraq authorization for war was made on a truly bipartisan basis and represented the clear will of the American people as expressed through the democratic process for representative government.”
America is a republic, not a democracy, as recognized and guaranteed by the first clause of the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution. Neither the Congress nor the President nor the Supreme Court nor the people of this country have the power to over-rule the Constitution. No power is delegated in the Constitution to authorize a war without Congress declaring war, thus very simply no such power exists.
“Three years before the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War, Abraham Lincoln warned that “A house divided cannot stand” ”
Lincoln was a monster, easily the worst tyrant in American history. Not only did he spill so much blood, and violate the law many times committing the most horrible of crimes, he also created the beginnings of the modern behemoth of the federal government that controls ever more of our lives on a daily basis.
United we stand, divided we stand apart.
>>You are an American. And as along as you live under the Stars and Stripes you owe an obligation to the nation which created and protects your freedom to do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed by the Congress and the President to undertake.
The obligation we have is to understand and uphold the law, and to oppose and refuse to blindly submit and obey any other man or group of men no matter what position they may hold.
“Anything less than that and you don’t deserve to benefit from the freedom won by others let alone run for President!”
Supporting the actions of the government without considering their legality is a surefire means of eroding our freedom.
Sean
16 years ago
F*ck Iraq, and F*ck the Iraqis. I say we get our troops out of that pit, and drop 100 megatons on Baghdad on the way out. All the raghead jihadi bitches on the planet aren’t worth the life of a single U.S. soldier. Kill ’em all, and let allah sort the bitches out.
Henry: Like your fellow Paulites, you make a mockery of your namesake who said “Give me Liberty or Give me death.”
The closest you loons come is “run away and hide.”
Bad enough don’t understand what “representative government” means but to say the savior of the Union and the man who abolished slavery is a “monster” shows the moral turpitude which is at the core of much of your Paulite perfidy.
You are a parasite on the freedom won by others and your opinions are of no value. You have no place in any meaningful, serious discussion on these critical issues.
I’ll repeat my favorite Samuel Adams quote as it fits you as it fits the rest of your crowd:
“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!
–Samuel Adams, Founding Father
Istrilyin
16 years ago
Well, a main problem in this world is: there are whole groups of people who believe that islam is the only way of life. And everybody else should be converted or killed. When it comes to fanatism, they are worse then the nazis for example.
So, of course, we can try to nuke the 1200 million or so muslims (includes Indonesia for example), and destroy all copies of the koran. It’s a plan, surely, but I have my doubt that it will ever come of the ground. I’m also not sure about the fallout.
Alternative plan is to have a more appealing lifestyle ready for youngsters over there: capitalism. I mean a country like Dubai is prospering like nothing else on the planet, and the ideology is a mixture of Islam and capitalism. Especially the latter. You even see guys from Pakistan and India working together over there… If I were a 20-year old Iraki, the Dubai thing would sound way more attractive then living bitterly in a cave like mister Laden.
Now the neocon/Bush/other-9-candidates plan is a halfway measure: not really nuking them all, and also not going for peace either. So the effect can only be bad. Just being present in Irak is a bit like bitch-slapping the islam world constantly, and yeah I imagine Osama is making really good use of it.
So… My vote would actually be Paul.
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
“70% of americans want out of Iraq. The only divide is in your own mind. Last time I checked 70% beats 30% TIME TO COME HOME”
I believe the number’s even higher as no one wants the war despite the Bush-hate rhetoric, BUT 56% of Americans believe it’s “winnable” and want to stay until it’s won.
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
“I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter; but I don’t like supporting a war that continues escalating al Qaeda’s recruiting power. And as the poster above said, paper covers rock.”
I’m always amazed at that claim. It presumes there was a known number of Al Queda before the invasion of Iraq, and a known number now. A>B ok, what’s A and what’s B?
If you don’t know either, then the claim isn’t substantiated, it’s a guess.
Additionally, the “we’re creating more terrorists” line completely ignores C. C is the number of Al Queda killed in Iraq (1000-1500 a month every month this year per MNF, 2-5000 in the invasion per first hand accounts that I’m all too happy to list, 7000 between 10/04 and 9/06 per MNF) So, the real question isn’t is A>B, it’s is C>B? Since Osama and Zawahiri are repeatedly coming out with tapes aimed at getting the US out of Iraq with rhetoric, it’s clear that they can’t do it with force, and even AQ in Iraq’s leaders have openly said they’re losing their fight. Thus C>B.
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
“explain the idiot in chief’s statement…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
DEFEND YOUR CHOSEN ONE….”
Hmm, which is more likely:
a Freudian slip
OR
Bush is a poor public speaker
Given that both Reagan and Clinton can’t hold a candle to President Bush in terms of the competition for the most motivational and inspirational American President in modern times, gosh, then it must be a slip…unless one thinks that President Bush is a poor public speaker?
All things being equal, I’d have to go with just another example of being a poor public speaker (plenty of evidence to support that, none to support the Freudian slip propagandist claim).
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
“Lincoln was a monster, easily the worst tyrant in American history. Not only did he spill so much blood, and violate the law many times committing the most horrible of crimes, he also created the beginnings of the modern behemoth of the federal government that controls ever more of our lives on a daily basis.
United we stand, divided we stand apart. ”
WARNING
WARNING
OXYMORON ALERT
Scott Malensek
16 years ago
DING
DING
DING!
Winner! The neocon label pops up again (in complete agreement and sympathy with Osama Bin Laden’s latest tape which is being parroted by Paulbots)
Can Israel defend itself?
No. No one can defend themselves against a terrorist-delivered nuke. Ever hear that expression, close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear war? All Iran has to do is have their terrorist proxies get close to Israel (perhap through occupied territories) and boom. You cannot defend against terrorism unless you attack it. To defend against terrorism is to increase security, and what is it that Paul the Great tells us? If we increase security, we lose our liberties. So which is it? Do Paulbots want to defend against terrorists here and abroad by reducing our civil liberties OR go after the terrorists?
Btw, I’ve read Imperial Hubris. I wonder if you’ve read the three other CIA first hand accts from the Bin Laden unit?
JAWBREAKER
First IN
and
The Hunt For Bin Laden (Robin Moore-not an actual CIA guy, but he was embedded with SOF/CIA teams during the invasion of Afghanistan)
Imperial Hubris is nice, but Schuer himself says it’s contradictory, poorly organized, and offers no real solutions.
I on the other hand, DO have a solution:
attack rather than defend
oppose rather than submit
dispel their casus belli rather than support and agree with it
Mike
16 years ago
The longer the US stays in Iraq, the longer Iraq will be unstable, the more Iraqi refugees will be created, and the more Iraqis will die. If the US had continued occupying Vietnam, not only would a lot more American soldiers have died, but Vietnam would not be a stable, peaceful country with a growing economy and growing trade and investment that it is today.
Mike
16 years ago
To the above poster’s comments about a nuclear bomb being delivered to Israel via “Iranian terrorist groups”. Time for a reality check:
1) Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for decades, and has never handed them off to surrogates. Iran has very long range-high payload missiles that it has never handed off to Hizbollah. There is no evidence Iran would suddenly hand off a nuke to destroy Israel. This is fear-mongering at its worse.
2) It is not US’s responsibility to protect Israel. Israel has expanded its territory numerous times and kept millions of Arabs under occupation for 4 decades against international law. Israel needs to deal with its own mess.
3) Israel can take care of itself, it has 200+ nuclear missiles
4) While Israel refuses IAEA inspections of its facilities, and has hundreds of nuclear warheads, Iran has been subject to more IAEA inspections than any other country in history, and there is no evidence it has a weapons programs, so there is no reason to take Israel’s side.
5) Jewish media moguls like Rupert Murdoch are hurting America for the sake of Israel’s imperialistic desires with their propaganda, and you have fallen for it. I guess the Iraq war didn’t wake you up, you’re as dumb and gullible as ever.
Trey
16 years ago
Here is what is Cookoo…. being against Bill Clinton’s pre emptive foreign policy and then turning around 100% to be totally for Bush’s pre emptive nation building foreign policy.
It can be said that Bush was simply following out Clinton’s foreign policy of regime change in Iraq.
And as for Huckabee, who’s head is so full of Honor and now sounds like Edwards and wants to go around fixing what’s broken with the world, I say, Get some Ron Paul GUTS! Only Ron Paul has the GUTS to say its time to declare victory and come Home, Israel can defend itself, the military should not be used as a local City Police doing police action in Bagdad.
If you want to catch Bin Laden there is a better way than going into the wrong Muslim country and smashing in it up, Mr. Huckabee. Get some guts Mr. Huckabee. There is no HONOR is doing the Wrong Thing. Around here, continuing doing the wrong thing is called Stupid. We “broke it” and now must fix it is silly. We destroyed a dictactorship, found no WMD’s, so its time to come home. We don’t “own it”. Earth to Huckabee, if you and your democrat friends wish to fix what was never fixed in the first place, turn in your citizenship, move there, and get to work. It will take a lifetime or several life times to bring a Jeffersonian capitalist democracy to Suni & Shia Iraq, I wish you well…but not with my money and my son’s life.
Mike, it must give you great pause to find you agree with democrats. Bill Clinton’s Madiline Halfbright agreed with you, does that not make you wonder? When it comes to Bush’s foreign policy, which not fundamentally different in anyway from the Clintons, you should stop to think. During this campaign, the Killery/Obomb-me Democratic ticket is 100% supportive of Bush and so is the Democratic house. Yes the progressive democrat anti-war base is confused (thats only because they believe the democratic party propaganda that republicans are just a bunch of racist war mongering nazis), but you should not be confused. The democrats like to pretend to be against Bush, but come on, how could they? Bush spends like a drunken sailor, creates whole new federal agencies out of thin air, nationalizes airport security (hello union!) and he is executing THEIR foreign policies.
Now Mike that fact alone ought to give you pause. Democrats LOVE nation building, building schools, “infrustructure” with our tax dollars for OTHER PEOPLE. Heck we are STILL in Bosnia doing it. Thanks Bill Clinton. The Muslim Kosovoians love their new country, love our of OUR tax payer support. Thanks Bush for Breaking THAT 2000 campaign promise to bring our troops home from there.
Mike, Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He wants this country DEFENDED here. He does not want us breaking more countries so we do not need to be there with our heads full of Honor. He wants you Mike, to show some GUTS and do an about Face on the silly democratic foreign Policy that you advocate. He wants you Mike to show some honor and face the fact that this democratic foreign policy does just what a democratic domestic foreign policy does here at home: It Bankrupts us. It does not work. Government Housing–locally, or Government housing–nation building…is a boondogle and has NOTHING to do with the Real Defense of this Country.
The question you should be asking is …where was NORAD on 9/11 and will Norad be out to lunch again? Focus on the defense of this country. What is China going to do with all our dollars? How do we reverse the rust belt of this country? I myself like the thought of the income tax gone, I can imagine easily that companies from around the world would race here to produce again. Hello “made in America”.
Ron Pauls use of the Constitution Mark & Reprisal is simply brilliant, it in effect deputizes private citizens & companies — our own Jihad–to get Bin Laden and others. And trust me, once we privatize our own Jihad, Bin Laden will be brought in Dead or Alive. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in Americans.
Now Mike a switch in thinking is never easy, especially since you Mike, have hours and hours of emotional venom on this, your reputation, your friends, heck maybe even your identity, but you have been wrong just the same and it takes a real man with GUTS to admit it. Just like Fred Dead heads, two Guantonomos Romney, the Honorable Huckabee, and the Me-likes -War McCain, you also have sunk your conservative flag deep into the Democrats Foreign Policies of this country. You, like the foolish anti war democrats fall for the shinny words, but democrats always want to spend our money here and abroad. John Edwards is saying we need to “educated the world’s children”—the world’s? Not one laugh from his crowd, not one. Killer/Obomb-me will be using the military to save Africans in Darfur, “she will be using the Military”–does that not give you pause? With the powers Bush has claimed, you should be worried, so bitch about them now or don’t say a word when Killer/Obomb-me does the same thing.
Mike, “Neocons” – NEW- conservatives have bamboozeld you. They took over the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review, and made the Weekly Standard a conservative mouth piece for perpetual war. But fool me once, shame on the Neocons… don’t be fooled twice Mike.
Though you are right. If we leave Iraq stability will quickly return. That would occur after the deaths of at least one million who would be murdered by Iranian backed Shiite and Al Queda death squads to punish the “collaborators.”
And then Iran would control all of Southern Iraq while Al Queda would be free to use the remainder for it’s terrorist training operations.
Is that the kind of stability you want? I’d like to see you folks take some responsibility for your grossly irresponsible, naive, ignorant positions, but since most of you still shave only once a week and living in your Mom’s basement that might be asking a bit much.
And while we are on the subject of Iran: They founded, funded and trained Hezbollah which has been behind the deaths of 289 Americans prior to our invasion of Iraq. Iran’s Quods force has been behind the killing of American soldiers in Iraq.
And your only answer to that problem is to abandon ALL our friends and allies in the Middle East (not just Israel) and make the region a “no-go” zone for ALL Americans while the jihadis have free reign to sow murder and mayhem.
That’s a moral position?
And at the end of all that, The Jihadis will just demand more. Bin Laden and friends have been very clear that their goal is to liberate all “Muslim lands” and have Sharia law paramount above all others everywhere.
“Muslim lands” means Spain, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan or wherever large numbers of Muslims live. Some suburbs around Paris became “no go” zones for French Police after jihadis declared them muslim lands. Do you want to see that happen in Dearborn, Michigan?
I realize that you and your fellow Paulbots are desperate to deny that the threat is real, or that U.S. actions are the problem. But reality is something altogether different. And it’s would be a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY to allow you people to inflict your deluded, monumentally stupid ideas on the world and the United States.
Move out of your mother’s basement. Get a job. Get a life. Read a history book for crying out loud!
Trey: What I said to “Mike” above applies doubly to you. Grow a brain!
You cannot defend the United States by withdrawing COMPLETELY from the world. That’s NOT a rational position.
And during the Clinton years (when you were still riding your bike with the training wheels) I and many others did not oppose Clinton’s “pre-emptive” foreign policy. We only asked where U.S. interest was in Kosovo, but once we were there, supported the mission. And we usually found ourselves asking why he performed only half measures, or withdrew altogether as he did in Somalia.
And as for this insipid nonsense about the “neocons.” I’m willing to stack up my solid bona fide conservative credentials (I’ve worked for and/or met: Reagan, Ashbrook, Buckley, Goldwater, Schlafly, Meese, Hatch…)against any of you claiming to be “true” or “real” conservatives.
You haven’t got the slightest clue what conservatism means and your ignorance is only matched by your near total lack of experience in any meaningful, SUCCESFUL political movement.
bbartlog
16 years ago
Would you be prepared to take responsibility for those consequences should your program be enacted? I doubt it.
If everyone who argued in the public sphere were somehow held to account for their share of the bad consequences of the policies they advocated, I’d be happy to sign up. Or if both good and bad were accounted for, I’d sign up unilaterally. In the real world, though, it’s not even clear what you mean by taking responsibility for the consequences of an opinion, and I have to assume that this attempt to call me out is just a rhetorical gimmick.
Forcing Israel to use nukes to retaliate against Iran is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
The strong presumption is that Israel will not actually have to use nukes, since the threat alone should be deterrent enough. I’m not clear on why you think Israel’s nuclear deterrent would be less effective than our own (or maybe you are saying something else).
…Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you…
As already noted, this quote isn’t very applicable to the actual positions of your opponents. Indeed, I can find many radical opinions on the web, from white nationalist secessionists to anarchocapitalists to blame-America-firsters of all kinds, and yet I don’t find any American advocating a surrender to Islam (Azzam the ‘American’ excepted, I guess). But then, you haven’t chosen this quote because it is on target; you’ve chosen it because it drips with the same contempt for your opponents that Sam had for his. There is something peculiar about an advocate for unity who is so intolerant of others’ different opinions.
Mike D
16 years ago
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title): America Deceived (book)
Chubs
16 years ago
Yes, the House and Senate represented the will of the people when they authorized force… but where your argument falls on its face is: The people and their representatives formed their opinions based on falsified evidence presented by the Bush administration. So yes, Ron Paul is correct when he names those responsible.
Chubs: The reasons to invade Iraq goes way beyond concerns for Weapons of Mass Destruction (even though members of both parties for YEARS had cited that threat).
If Democrats REALLY believed Bush “lied them into war” they could put forward articles of impeachment against him.
If Democrats REALLY believed Bush “lied them into war” they could support legislation in both Houses to rescind the authorization.
They have NOT done so. Neither will they. And YOU simply cannot decide that YOU will have a different foreign/ national security policy than your elected government.
Do you understand why?
Chubs
16 years ago
As for rescinding the authorization to use force, the reality is that the Democrats do not have a large enough majority in the Senate to defeat a veto, and they know it. Any attempt to do so would be futile and a waste of time and resources.
Impeachment is likely not considered for a similar reason. The task of proving that the president knowingly misled Congress is difficult… in part because he probably didn’t do it knowingly. I believe that if the evidence to go to war was intentionally falsified, it was Dick Cheney and others behind the scenes who are responsible… Moving for legal action is only wise when the evidence is strong enough to win the case. I… and the majority of the people of the US… believe that those who misled Congress did it and got away with it just as much as OJ Simpson did.
However… let’s put all of that aside for a moment and assume the American people are responsible for the decision to attack Iraq. So we as a nation have removed Saddam… we’ve stuck for years trying to establish and strengthen a democratic government… and we’ve failed. If you don’t agree (which I know you don’t), then how much longer do we wait before we accept that we are incapable of changing the sectarian dynamics of the Middle East? If the situation persists as it has for the next 20, 30, or 40 years, do we really stay there that long? Sure, it’s honorable to want to fix your mistakes as a nation… but being able to recognize the extent of your capabilities in an alarmingly backwards part of the world is equally important. At what point does resolve become stubborness?
Well Chubs at least you recognize the beauty and the soundness of a Constitutional process in a representative democracy!
As for your last remarks, the only way we fail is if we withdraw prematurely.
I’m not going to insult you by reminding you how difficult it was for us to achieve the most monumental changes which rid the world of Nazism in Germany and militarism in Japan, both nations which are now our staunch allies. But we did it despite the challenges, setbacks and carping by people who couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
Same thing with winning the Cold War. Are you old enough to remember that time? It took decades to achieve the goal of a Europe “United, whole and free.” When I was growing up, no one thought it was possible.
If you want to talk about Vietnam, we had largely won that conflict too. Vietnamization worked and our troops had largely come home until Democrats decided to play politics and stop any further help to our ally, South Vietnam.
Democrats forced us to desert our ally and we paid a huge price, both in human lives of people in the region, but also to our ability to work with other friends around the world who battled against similar threats to their freedom.
It wasn’t until President Reagan demonstrated the backbone to stand up to great challenges that we achieved great things and a wave of freedom and democracy swept around the world.
You won’t strengthen that success and progress by undermining another our latest most difficult undertaking in Iraq.
We can succeed, and we WILL do so faster, with less loss of life, if the American people are united behind the foreign policy and National Security goals that our elected representatives and President have put forward on our behalf.
The ball is in your court Chubs. Do you want peace on better terms at lower cost or are you prepared to accept the responsibility which comes from a program of weakness, vacillation and isolation?
mikeyintheoc
16 years ago
But what side is dividing who?. united we stand divided we fall. Seems like a wise concept a 100 plus years ago and the same still holds true today. I may not agree with this war, but, my God I will support the decisions that both sides approved to invade that country.
What? No Paulspambots? Did I tire them out? Come out, come out, wherever you are!
I can’t believe you made this post, Mike, and asked if I was a glutton for punishment from moonbat commenters.
I might have to do at least one more post on this Ron Paul Bash Weekend, before getting back to SERIOUS topics; especially on consequential candidates who matter.
I have to agree. We cannot be divided. Divided we fall and all that. Seriously I like some of what Ron Paul says about taxes but what part of THEESE PEOPLE WANT TO KILL US doesnt he understand. Listen to Bin Laden? Ok he says “CONVERT TO ISLAM OR DIE”. Hopefully his followers will vote for Thompson after Paul looses but for some reason I think they are probably way too RETARDED.
lincoln-a past president…
how about washington’s admonition about avoiding foreign entanglements.
should ron paul resort to lying as the others have been doing..to save face.
They keep killing the troops to save face for a failed foreign policy…It is not ron paul who is insane per albert einstein’s definition… its the losers who support our failed foreign policy of intervention.
from ex cia chief of the bin laden unit:
NewsMax: Is there an answer to the dilemma?
Scheuer: Ron Paul is the only one that really has said, “Wait a minute, people don’t like other people sticking their nose in their business, and we have been doing this for 50 years.”
ron paul corrected giuliani, he was only trying to instruct huckabee who is probably too neo-conned to accept the truth.
keep drinking the neo-con coolaid. now i must donate more money to ron paul. ronpaul2008.com thanks you for my generous donation. Its only paulitics you know…
Haven’t the Dems already created this divide – RP is just trying to dig deeper.
While you are out donating to the RP society for the cognitive impaired – why not fork some cash over to the flat earth society – they also are trying to instruct the masses.
is there a terrorist behind every bush….
or maybe a Bush behind every terrorist…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
Donating to the mental dwarfs in either party is really stupid. Paul and Dennis the Menace have as much chance of ever reaching the white house as a fart in a hurricane. Someway the bottom half of both tickets are managing to steal millions of dollars, otherwise they would pack up and go home. Then we have the wounded ego’s and BDS at work in the democrat party that explains most of what we think is stupidity. It is really a recently proven mental illness. The real idiots are those running down the Iraqi government for not accomplishing a lot, while the complainers are members of the United States congress that has accomplished ‘0’, ‘nothing’, in 8 months.
70% of americans want out of Iraq. The only divide is in your own mind. Last time I checked 70% beats 30% TIME TO COME HOME
I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter; but I don’t like supporting a war that continues escalating al Qaeda’s recruiting power. And as the poster above said, paper covers rock.
How about a war where negative news coverage, such as 5th column NYTimes with 33 consecutive frontpage news stories on abu Ghraib, and media propaganda escalates al-Qaeda’s recruiting power?
How about supporting a war to insure that Iraq doesn’t become a terrorist safe-haven, and that greater innocents are not butchered by al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as those brave Iraqi allies who have fought alongside us, and believed in us helping them rebuild their country? That we would not do to them what we did last time, when we encouraged a rebellion against Saddam, then did not back them on it?
That’s the honor that Huckabee talked about, and which Ron Paul has not an inkling of.
My scissors just shredded your paper, thereby freeing Iraq from being smothered by your misguided paper tiger cut-and-run policy
I’ve never participated in this ‘poll’ you carry so close to your heart. I’m SURE no one else on this thread has participated either. Make one wonder about the veracity of this poll. I wonder what the percentage would look like if this ‘poll’ were conducted with only the participants of this comment thread. Hmmmm.
STAY THE COURSE – LET THE TROOPS DO THEIR JOB!
ScrapIron: The Paulite phenomenon IS a sympton of an intellectual disorder.
Examples abound of the disease. They say we should “listen to our enemies” but do they actually listen to what bin Laden demands? Nope!
If we abandoned ALL our allies in the Middle East, that would mean walking away from Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States. The nightmare that would surely follow cannot be imagined. You think the price of gas is high now?
We’ve implored the Ronulans to look at history. Appeasement in Europe meant the death of 60 million people across the world. Are the Paulistines prepared to bear the responsibility for causing another such conflagration?
Churchill warned of the false security offered by appeasement and he was called a warmonger. Today, we are called “neocons.” We’re in good company.
The Paulbots are children. They’re playing games with toys that are more dangerous than lead painted baubles made in China.
They may wish to stick their heads in the sand (or up their asses). But the adults will remain in control despite Ru Paul’s whining.
How about decades of unfettered funding, recruiting and training – all the while their attacks escalated with impunity. This is the surest way to build al-queda. In Iraq, Michael Yon said it best: “al-queda is committing suicide”.
The difference is everything
Mike and Wordsmith:
You two just love to stir up the RP natives.
See this is the paulites problem. When they think of a nuclear attack on Iran all they see in the million or so dead civilians. What they dont see is what will happen if we dont nuke Iran. 30 million dead jews. A new holocaust. This is what the paulites are advocating with there “peace”.
Herschel makes a good point. Paulite appeasement and delusion would certainly bring peace. But it’s the peace of the grave.
This whole politics game is starting to get annoying, because the candidates for the president do not really work together as they should.
I wonder if Ron Paul would nominate Obama as a Vice president, which would be more interesting than affending eachother on TV.
Yours Sincerely.
Andrea what a stupid idea. Who wants some socialist on the ticket with the perfect Mr. Paul? He is against socialism. Get a clue.
Also Dr Paul doesn’t offend anyone – he is for life – period.
I am offended by this war.
Also, we should skip this blog because he obviously would get no readership if he hadn’t posted something about Dr. Paul!
explain the idiot in chief’s statement…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
DEFEND YOUR CHOSEN ONE….
I’m offended by people offended by this war.
Skip this blog? To late, NH!
Is it too much to ask if you would simply listen to your own advice??
Do you also need help to tie your own shoes?? I love OUR President’s anachronisms. Although, if you have trouble comprehending OUR President’s statement – the problem lies with you and not OUR President.
This has to be the most amusing piece you’ve written yet, comparing Lincoln’s House Divided speech, to the public discourse over the war on terror. Lincoln’s speech was referring to seccesion, not dissent. You somehow try to link the civil war deaths with today’s political dissent. You make the Old my country right or wrong argument, with a little flag waving added in for good measure.
“You are an American. (yes I am)
And as along as you live under the Stars and Stripes you owe an obligation to the nation
(no, not really, that is a moral judgement – no where is there any specific obligations. Essentially you agree to follow the law – the constitution – beyond that any obligation is based on my personal moral code.)
which created and protects your freedom
(the nation does not create my freedom, I’m endowed with it by my creator. If it is a good government it does not take my freedom from me. It also does not protect my freedom, I do that, by being vigilant, and joining with my neighbors to fight, if necessary. )
to do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed by the Congress and the President to undertake.
(no, this is not an obligation. there is no such obligation anywhere in the constitution. Where do you derive such a moral standard – Its the “be true to your school, sis boom bah standard. It suggests the state is more important than the individual, a socialist idea.)
I am barred from providing physical aide and comfort to any enemy(treason)
The principle you are insinuating was tried before with the alien and sedition acts of 1798, and the sedition act of 1918. Both were found to be unconstitutional.
Finally, The congress authorized the president to use force to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Iraq now has a friendly government, and the security council resolution are enforced. Time to come home.
Actually, he understands the threat we face completely. Have you read the book “Imperial Hubris?” It’s not as the title might have you think. Anyways, Michael Scheuer (head of the CIA bin laden unit for a number of years) who wrote the book is someone who has had major impact on how Ron Paul views the current conflict with Islamists. Why do I say this? Because they meet frequently and Ron Paul recommended the book to Rudy Giuliani so that he might better understand our policy in the middle east and the enemy we face.
Why don’t you think Israel can support herself? All we do by standing by her is hurt her. We tie Israel to the UN and by having so much influence over Israel’s foreign policy (cough Israel-Hezbollah war cough) we hurt Israel. She cannot act with the necessary force because we tell her not to (just as Condi Rice did in the Israel-Hezbollah war). We effectively tie their hand so they can’t with the enemy, the same way we tie the hands of our soldiers in Iraq. As Ron Paul says, if we’re going to fight, we fight hard and get it over with. With the rest of the neo-cons, it’s all about policing and law-enforcement tactics. Don’t believe me? Look at how we’re fighting in Iraq. Anyways, Israel has far superior nuclear capabilities to Iran. Let’s not deny this. Israel will destroy Iran if she sees fit and we should not stop her. By tying ourselves so closely to Israel, we inhibit her ability to act. We can still be allies and allow Israel’s sovereignty. I urge you to read “Imperial Hubris.” It is really an excellent book on how we can destroy our enemy.
Not quite accurate, if this indeed what you want. Simply join Code Pink to send your love to the ‘resistance’.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
LET THEM FINISH THEIR JOB!
RP hasn’t a realistic idea of geopolitics or the threat of global jihad – he never did and never will.
Have you read – Unholy Alliance, Treachery, Countdown to Terror, Bush VS the Beltway, Londonistan and Disinformation.
Mike writes:
do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed
And Herschel writes:
think of a nuclear attack on Iran all they see in the million or so dead civilians
I put these two quotes next to each other by way of highlighting my problem with blind allegiance. If some future President and Congress were to adopt Herschel’s proposal as a military strategy, I couldn’t support it, unless Iran had already hit us with a nuclear weapon. Of course it’s kind of an extreme example – but in general, I simply don’t have enough faith in the Congress and the President to uncritically support whatever military efforts they command. Think back to Clinton, and consider the criminal records of Congress, if you think we will always be led by wise men.
walking away from Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States. The nightmare that would surely follow cannot be imagined.
What nightmare is that? Israel can hold its enemies in check with its nuclear arsenal and its elite military. The Saudis and Iran would probably fight a proxy conflict in the remains of Iraq, but eventually make peace. Saudi Arabia and Iran would still be economically dependent on the West. Things would not get any better (I’m sure Hezbollah would still be killing people), but I think you overstate the degree to which we’re keeping a lid on things. But maybe you think things would play out differently.
Appeasement in Europe meant the death of 60 million people
In another post I believe I outlined the difference in capabilities between Nazi Germany and our current band of terrorist adversaries. Or is it Iran rather than Al Qaeda that you’re worrying about? Their military is also fairly insignificant, though as an actual nation-state they do weigh in a little heavier than OBL and his jihadis. But their force projection capabilities are still feeble on a global scale.
Rich said:“DEFEND YOUR CHOSEN ONE”???
John Galt burped: “Lincoln’s speech was referring to seccesion, not dissent.”
Really oh wise one? Lincoln was actually discussing slavery. I went so far as to provide you the link to the speech. the next line following “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” is “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” Go on and read the rest of the speech if you need more help.
I might also recommend to you the last lines:
“Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.”
Seems to me we could find further inspiration and warnings also from those words.
Iran aside, the problem we face today is a technological age where it doesn’t take invading, uniformed armies and missile launchpads to devastate an entire city. We’re engaged in a new kind of war. Unfortunately, for many of us, it doesn’t feel real; it doesn’t feel like a war. I suppose that’s due in part because no real sacrifices have been formally asked of us by the President; as a nation, we’re not on a war-footing with a war-face on.
It doesn’t take an army, anymore, to wrought the devastation of an army.
Bert M. wrote:
I made my opinions of Michael Scheuer’s expert analysis known already in my previous posts.
bbartlog said he was “highlighting my problem with blind allegiance.”
It’s perfectly clear to me you’re sufferring from blindness. Though I’m not sure to what you owe your allegiance. Like the rest of your Paulbot ilk, your tranference is transparent to me.
I’m very interested that you continue to insist that the consequences of our abandoning our allies will be neglible. Would you be prepared to take responsbility for those consequences should your program be enacted? I doubt it.
Forcing Israel to use nukes to retaliate against Iran is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
I’ll try ONCE AGAIN to help illuminate the dark corners of your mind. Winston Churchill said that the biggest mistake we made in the runup to World War II was abandoning the Czechs. Had we stood by them, as we were obligated to do, Germany would have been faced with war on two fronts at a time when they could not sustain such an effort. The Czechs had many men under arms and an excellent line of forts. All that was lost and the war happened anyway.
I recommend Churchill’s six volume history of World War II. In it you’ll find this paragraph which should be a lesson and warning if you’re capable of learning from the past:
“The Iraq authorization for war was made on a truly bipartisan basis and represented the clear will of the American people as expressed through the democratic process for representative government.”
America is a republic, not a democracy, as recognized and guaranteed by the first clause of the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution. Neither the Congress nor the President nor the Supreme Court nor the people of this country have the power to over-rule the Constitution. No power is delegated in the Constitution to authorize a war without Congress declaring war, thus very simply no such power exists.
“Three years before the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War, Abraham Lincoln warned that “A house divided cannot stand” ”
Lincoln was a monster, easily the worst tyrant in American history. Not only did he spill so much blood, and violate the law many times committing the most horrible of crimes, he also created the beginnings of the modern behemoth of the federal government that controls ever more of our lives on a daily basis.
United we stand, divided we stand apart.
>>You are an American. And as along as you live under the Stars and Stripes you owe an obligation to the nation which created and protects your freedom to do all you can to support victory in whatever mission the U.S. military is directed by the Congress and the President to undertake.
The obligation we have is to understand and uphold the law, and to oppose and refuse to blindly submit and obey any other man or group of men no matter what position they may hold.
“Anything less than that and you don’t deserve to benefit from the freedom won by others let alone run for President!”
Supporting the actions of the government without considering their legality is a surefire means of eroding our freedom.
F*ck Iraq, and F*ck the Iraqis. I say we get our troops out of that pit, and drop 100 megatons on Baghdad on the way out. All the raghead jihadi bitches on the planet aren’t worth the life of a single U.S. soldier. Kill ’em all, and let allah sort the bitches out.
Henry: Like your fellow Paulites, you make a mockery of your namesake who said “Give me Liberty or Give me death.”
The closest you loons come is “run away and hide.”
Bad enough don’t understand what “representative government” means but to say the savior of the Union and the man who abolished slavery is a “monster” shows the moral turpitude which is at the core of much of your Paulite perfidy.
You are a parasite on the freedom won by others and your opinions are of no value. You have no place in any meaningful, serious discussion on these critical issues.
I’ll repeat my favorite Samuel Adams quote as it fits you as it fits the rest of your crowd:
“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!
–Samuel Adams, Founding Father
Well, a main problem in this world is: there are whole groups of people who believe that islam is the only way of life. And everybody else should be converted or killed. When it comes to fanatism, they are worse then the nazis for example.
So, of course, we can try to nuke the 1200 million or so muslims (includes Indonesia for example), and destroy all copies of the koran. It’s a plan, surely, but I have my doubt that it will ever come of the ground. I’m also not sure about the fallout.
Alternative plan is to have a more appealing lifestyle ready for youngsters over there: capitalism. I mean a country like Dubai is prospering like nothing else on the planet, and the ideology is a mixture of Islam and capitalism. Especially the latter. You even see guys from Pakistan and India working together over there… If I were a 20-year old Iraki, the Dubai thing would sound way more attractive then living bitterly in a cave like mister Laden.
Now the neocon/Bush/other-9-candidates plan is a halfway measure: not really nuking them all, and also not going for peace either. So the effect can only be bad. Just being present in Irak is a bit like bitch-slapping the islam world constantly, and yeah I imagine Osama is making really good use of it.
So… My vote would actually be Paul.
“70% of americans want out of Iraq. The only divide is in your own mind. Last time I checked 70% beats 30% TIME TO COME HOME”
I believe the number’s even higher as no one wants the war despite the Bush-hate rhetoric, BUT 56% of Americans believe it’s “winnable” and want to stay until it’s won.
“I find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter; but I don’t like supporting a war that continues escalating al Qaeda’s recruiting power. And as the poster above said, paper covers rock.”
I’m always amazed at that claim. It presumes there was a known number of Al Queda before the invasion of Iraq, and a known number now. A>B ok, what’s A and what’s B?
If you don’t know either, then the claim isn’t substantiated, it’s a guess.
Additionally, the “we’re creating more terrorists” line completely ignores C. C is the number of Al Queda killed in Iraq (1000-1500 a month every month this year per MNF, 2-5000 in the invasion per first hand accounts that I’m all too happy to list, 7000 between 10/04 and 9/06 per MNF) So, the real question isn’t is A>B, it’s is C>B? Since Osama and Zawahiri are repeatedly coming out with tapes aimed at getting the US out of Iraq with rhetoric, it’s clear that they can’t do it with force, and even AQ in Iraq’s leaders have openly said they’re losing their fight. Thus C>B.
“explain the idiot in chief’s statement…
A Bush quote…freudian slip as they say…
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
DEFEND YOUR CHOSEN ONE….”
Hmm, which is more likely:
a Freudian slip
OR
Bush is a poor public speaker
Given that both Reagan and Clinton can’t hold a candle to President Bush in terms of the competition for the most motivational and inspirational American President in modern times, gosh, then it must be a slip…unless one thinks that President Bush is a poor public speaker?
All things being equal, I’d have to go with just another example of being a poor public speaker (plenty of evidence to support that, none to support the Freudian slip propagandist claim).
“Lincoln was a monster, easily the worst tyrant in American history. Not only did he spill so much blood, and violate the law many times committing the most horrible of crimes, he also created the beginnings of the modern behemoth of the federal government that controls ever more of our lives on a daily basis.
United we stand, divided we stand apart. ”
WARNING
WARNING
OXYMORON ALERT
DING
DING
DING!
Winner! The neocon label pops up again (in complete agreement and sympathy with Osama Bin Laden’s latest tape which is being parroted by Paulbots)
Can Israel defend itself?
No. No one can defend themselves against a terrorist-delivered nuke. Ever hear that expression, close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear war? All Iran has to do is have their terrorist proxies get close to Israel (perhap through occupied territories) and boom. You cannot defend against terrorism unless you attack it. To defend against terrorism is to increase security, and what is it that Paul the Great tells us? If we increase security, we lose our liberties. So which is it? Do Paulbots want to defend against terrorists here and abroad by reducing our civil liberties OR go after the terrorists?
Btw, I’ve read Imperial Hubris. I wonder if you’ve read the three other CIA first hand accts from the Bin Laden unit?
JAWBREAKER
First IN
and
The Hunt For Bin Laden (Robin Moore-not an actual CIA guy, but he was embedded with SOF/CIA teams during the invasion of Afghanistan)
Imperial Hubris is nice, but Schuer himself says it’s contradictory, poorly organized, and offers no real solutions.
I on the other hand, DO have a solution:
attack rather than defend
oppose rather than submit
dispel their casus belli rather than support and agree with it
The longer the US stays in Iraq, the longer Iraq will be unstable, the more Iraqi refugees will be created, and the more Iraqis will die. If the US had continued occupying Vietnam, not only would a lot more American soldiers have died, but Vietnam would not be a stable, peaceful country with a growing economy and growing trade and investment that it is today.
To the above poster’s comments about a nuclear bomb being delivered to Israel via “Iranian terrorist groups”. Time for a reality check:
1) Iran has had chemical and biological weapons for decades, and has never handed them off to surrogates. Iran has very long range-high payload missiles that it has never handed off to Hizbollah. There is no evidence Iran would suddenly hand off a nuke to destroy Israel. This is fear-mongering at its worse.
2) It is not US’s responsibility to protect Israel. Israel has expanded its territory numerous times and kept millions of Arabs under occupation for 4 decades against international law. Israel needs to deal with its own mess.
3) Israel can take care of itself, it has 200+ nuclear missiles
4) While Israel refuses IAEA inspections of its facilities, and has hundreds of nuclear warheads, Iran has been subject to more IAEA inspections than any other country in history, and there is no evidence it has a weapons programs, so there is no reason to take Israel’s side.
5) Jewish media moguls like Rupert Murdoch are hurting America for the sake of Israel’s imperialistic desires with their propaganda, and you have fallen for it. I guess the Iraq war didn’t wake you up, you’re as dumb and gullible as ever.
Here is what is Cookoo…. being against Bill Clinton’s pre emptive foreign policy and then turning around 100% to be totally for Bush’s pre emptive nation building foreign policy.
It can be said that Bush was simply following out Clinton’s foreign policy of regime change in Iraq.
And as for Huckabee, who’s head is so full of Honor and now sounds like Edwards and wants to go around fixing what’s broken with the world, I say, Get some Ron Paul GUTS! Only Ron Paul has the GUTS to say its time to declare victory and come Home, Israel can defend itself, the military should not be used as a local City Police doing police action in Bagdad.
If you want to catch Bin Laden there is a better way than going into the wrong Muslim country and smashing in it up, Mr. Huckabee. Get some guts Mr. Huckabee. There is no HONOR is doing the Wrong Thing. Around here, continuing doing the wrong thing is called Stupid. We “broke it” and now must fix it is silly. We destroyed a dictactorship, found no WMD’s, so its time to come home. We don’t “own it”. Earth to Huckabee, if you and your democrat friends wish to fix what was never fixed in the first place, turn in your citizenship, move there, and get to work. It will take a lifetime or several life times to bring a Jeffersonian capitalist democracy to Suni & Shia Iraq, I wish you well…but not with my money and my son’s life.
Mike, it must give you great pause to find you agree with democrats. Bill Clinton’s Madiline Halfbright agreed with you, does that not make you wonder? When it comes to Bush’s foreign policy, which not fundamentally different in anyway from the Clintons, you should stop to think. During this campaign, the Killery/Obomb-me Democratic ticket is 100% supportive of Bush and so is the Democratic house. Yes the progressive democrat anti-war base is confused (thats only because they believe the democratic party propaganda that republicans are just a bunch of racist war mongering nazis), but you should not be confused. The democrats like to pretend to be against Bush, but come on, how could they? Bush spends like a drunken sailor, creates whole new federal agencies out of thin air, nationalizes airport security (hello union!) and he is executing THEIR foreign policies.
Now Mike that fact alone ought to give you pause. Democrats LOVE nation building, building schools, “infrustructure” with our tax dollars for OTHER PEOPLE. Heck we are STILL in Bosnia doing it. Thanks Bill Clinton. The Muslim Kosovoians love their new country, love our of OUR tax payer support. Thanks Bush for Breaking THAT 2000 campaign promise to bring our troops home from there.
Mike, Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He wants this country DEFENDED here. He does not want us breaking more countries so we do not need to be there with our heads full of Honor. He wants you Mike, to show some GUTS and do an about Face on the silly democratic foreign Policy that you advocate. He wants you Mike to show some honor and face the fact that this democratic foreign policy does just what a democratic domestic foreign policy does here at home: It Bankrupts us. It does not work. Government Housing–locally, or Government housing–nation building…is a boondogle and has NOTHING to do with the Real Defense of this Country.
The question you should be asking is …where was NORAD on 9/11 and will Norad be out to lunch again? Focus on the defense of this country. What is China going to do with all our dollars? How do we reverse the rust belt of this country? I myself like the thought of the income tax gone, I can imagine easily that companies from around the world would race here to produce again. Hello “made in America”.
Ron Pauls use of the Constitution Mark & Reprisal is simply brilliant, it in effect deputizes private citizens & companies — our own Jihad–to get Bin Laden and others. And trust me, once we privatize our own Jihad, Bin Laden will be brought in Dead or Alive. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t believe in Americans.
Now Mike a switch in thinking is never easy, especially since you Mike, have hours and hours of emotional venom on this, your reputation, your friends, heck maybe even your identity, but you have been wrong just the same and it takes a real man with GUTS to admit it. Just like Fred Dead heads, two Guantonomos Romney, the Honorable Huckabee, and the Me-likes -War McCain, you also have sunk your conservative flag deep into the Democrats Foreign Policies of this country. You, like the foolish anti war democrats fall for the shinny words, but democrats always want to spend our money here and abroad. John Edwards is saying we need to “educated the world’s children”—the world’s? Not one laugh from his crowd, not one. Killer/Obomb-me will be using the military to save Africans in Darfur, “she will be using the Military”–does that not give you pause? With the powers Bush has claimed, you should be worried, so bitch about them now or don’t say a word when Killer/Obomb-me does the same thing.
Mike, “Neocons” – NEW- conservatives have bamboozeld you. They took over the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review, and made the Weekly Standard a conservative mouth piece for perpetual war. But fool me once, shame on the Neocons… don’t be fooled twice Mike.
“Mike” Stop tarnishing a good name.
Though you are right. If we leave Iraq stability will quickly return. That would occur after the deaths of at least one million who would be murdered by Iranian backed Shiite and Al Queda death squads to punish the “collaborators.”
And then Iran would control all of Southern Iraq while Al Queda would be free to use the remainder for it’s terrorist training operations.
Is that the kind of stability you want? I’d like to see you folks take some responsibility for your grossly irresponsible, naive, ignorant positions, but since most of you still shave only once a week and living in your Mom’s basement that might be asking a bit much.
And while we are on the subject of Iran: They founded, funded and trained Hezbollah which has been behind the deaths of 289 Americans prior to our invasion of Iraq. Iran’s Quods force has been behind the killing of American soldiers in Iraq.
And your only answer to that problem is to abandon ALL our friends and allies in the Middle East (not just Israel) and make the region a “no-go” zone for ALL Americans while the jihadis have free reign to sow murder and mayhem.
That’s a moral position?
And at the end of all that, The Jihadis will just demand more. Bin Laden and friends have been very clear that their goal is to liberate all “Muslim lands” and have Sharia law paramount above all others everywhere.
“Muslim lands” means Spain, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan or wherever large numbers of Muslims live. Some suburbs around Paris became “no go” zones for French Police after jihadis declared them muslim lands. Do you want to see that happen in Dearborn, Michigan?
I realize that you and your fellow Paulbots are desperate to deny that the threat is real, or that U.S. actions are the problem. But reality is something altogether different. And it’s would be a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY to allow you people to inflict your deluded, monumentally stupid ideas on the world and the United States.
Move out of your mother’s basement. Get a job. Get a life. Read a history book for crying out loud!
Trey: What I said to “Mike” above applies doubly to you. Grow a brain!
You cannot defend the United States by withdrawing COMPLETELY from the world. That’s NOT a rational position.
And during the Clinton years (when you were still riding your bike with the training wheels) I and many others did not oppose Clinton’s “pre-emptive” foreign policy. We only asked where U.S. interest was in Kosovo, but once we were there, supported the mission. And we usually found ourselves asking why he performed only half measures, or withdrew altogether as he did in Somalia.
And as for this insipid nonsense about the “neocons.” I’m willing to stack up my solid bona fide conservative credentials (I’ve worked for and/or met: Reagan, Ashbrook, Buckley, Goldwater, Schlafly, Meese, Hatch…)against any of you claiming to be “true” or “real” conservatives.
You haven’t got the slightest clue what conservatism means and your ignorance is only matched by your near total lack of experience in any meaningful, SUCCESFUL political movement.
Would you be prepared to take responsibility for those consequences should your program be enacted? I doubt it.
If everyone who argued in the public sphere were somehow held to account for their share of the bad consequences of the policies they advocated, I’d be happy to sign up. Or if both good and bad were accounted for, I’d sign up unilaterally. In the real world, though, it’s not even clear what you mean by taking responsibility for the consequences of an opinion, and I have to assume that this attempt to call me out is just a rhetorical gimmick.
Forcing Israel to use nukes to retaliate against Iran is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.
The strong presumption is that Israel will not actually have to use nukes, since the threat alone should be deterrent enough. I’m not clear on why you think Israel’s nuclear deterrent would be less effective than our own (or maybe you are saying something else).
…Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you…
As already noted, this quote isn’t very applicable to the actual positions of your opponents. Indeed, I can find many radical opinions on the web, from white nationalist secessionists to anarchocapitalists to blame-America-firsters of all kinds, and yet I don’t find any American advocating a surrender to Islam (Azzam the ‘American’ excepted, I guess). But then, you haven’t chosen this quote because it is on target; you’ve chosen it because it drips with the same contempt for your opponents that Sam had for his. There is something peculiar about an advocate for unity who is so intolerant of others’ different opinions.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between” Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like “America Deceived’ from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Yes, the House and Senate represented the will of the people when they authorized force… but where your argument falls on its face is: The people and their representatives formed their opinions based on falsified evidence presented by the Bush administration. So yes, Ron Paul is correct when he names those responsible.
Chubs: The reasons to invade Iraq goes way beyond concerns for Weapons of Mass Destruction (even though members of both parties for YEARS had cited that threat).
If Democrats REALLY believed Bush “lied them into war” they could put forward articles of impeachment against him.
If Democrats REALLY believed Bush “lied them into war” they could support legislation in both Houses to rescind the authorization.
They have NOT done so. Neither will they. And YOU simply cannot decide that YOU will have a different foreign/ national security policy than your elected government.
Do you understand why?
As for rescinding the authorization to use force, the reality is that the Democrats do not have a large enough majority in the Senate to defeat a veto, and they know it. Any attempt to do so would be futile and a waste of time and resources.
Impeachment is likely not considered for a similar reason. The task of proving that the president knowingly misled Congress is difficult… in part because he probably didn’t do it knowingly. I believe that if the evidence to go to war was intentionally falsified, it was Dick Cheney and others behind the scenes who are responsible… Moving for legal action is only wise when the evidence is strong enough to win the case. I… and the majority of the people of the US… believe that those who misled Congress did it and got away with it just as much as OJ Simpson did.
However… let’s put all of that aside for a moment and assume the American people are responsible for the decision to attack Iraq. So we as a nation have removed Saddam… we’ve stuck for years trying to establish and strengthen a democratic government… and we’ve failed. If you don’t agree (which I know you don’t), then how much longer do we wait before we accept that we are incapable of changing the sectarian dynamics of the Middle East? If the situation persists as it has for the next 20, 30, or 40 years, do we really stay there that long? Sure, it’s honorable to want to fix your mistakes as a nation… but being able to recognize the extent of your capabilities in an alarmingly backwards part of the world is equally important. At what point does resolve become stubborness?
Well Chubs at least you recognize the beauty and the soundness of a Constitutional process in a representative democracy!
As for your last remarks, the only way we fail is if we withdraw prematurely.
I’m not going to insult you by reminding you how difficult it was for us to achieve the most monumental changes which rid the world of Nazism in Germany and militarism in Japan, both nations which are now our staunch allies. But we did it despite the challenges, setbacks and carping by people who couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
Same thing with winning the Cold War. Are you old enough to remember that time? It took decades to achieve the goal of a Europe “United, whole and free.” When I was growing up, no one thought it was possible.
If you want to talk about Vietnam, we had largely won that conflict too. Vietnamization worked and our troops had largely come home until Democrats decided to play politics and stop any further help to our ally, South Vietnam.
Democrats forced us to desert our ally and we paid a huge price, both in human lives of people in the region, but also to our ability to work with other friends around the world who battled against similar threats to their freedom.
It wasn’t until President Reagan demonstrated the backbone to stand up to great challenges that we achieved great things and a wave of freedom and democracy swept around the world.
You won’t strengthen that success and progress by undermining another our latest most difficult undertaking in Iraq.
We can succeed, and we WILL do so faster, with less loss of life, if the American people are united behind the foreign policy and National Security goals that our elected representatives and President have put forward on our behalf.
The ball is in your court Chubs. Do you want peace on better terms at lower cost or are you prepared to accept the responsibility which comes from a program of weakness, vacillation and isolation?
But what side is dividing who?. united we stand divided we fall. Seems like a wise concept a 100 plus years ago and the same still holds true today. I may not agree with this war, but, my God I will support the decisions that both sides approved to invade that country.