Ron Paul: "They're Terrorists Because We're Occupiers".

[The Rabbi]

We have gone to war to defend Muslim interests, specifically in Kosovo and former Yugoslavia. We have defended them in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. We have aided them against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And none of that has done anything.

If it hasn't done anything why do it in the first place?

Because it served our own interests at the time. In Afghanistan it was a proxy war against our enemy the Soviet Union. In Desert Storm it was to roll back the regime of Saddam Hussein and guarantee stability. In Kosova it was...hmmm. I don't know on that one. The Libs were screaming to "do something" and the Euro's were busy sitting around and fapping, as usual, so Clinton decided to go this route.

 

[The Rabbi]

In my opinion Blow Back does only go one way for the most part. I think you just helped prove Dr. Paul correct on that Rabbi. What have all these foreign entanglements gotten us in the end? Most people can't even begin to understand all the confusing and failed entanglements our Government has gotten us into these past several decades. I don't even think our Government understands them either. No foreign entanglements. That's what our Founding Fathers believed in and so do i.

OK, so blow back goes only one way. That's why Poland and the new democracies in E.Europe have been our strongest allies. At least until this president.

Most people cannot understand anything more difficult than "free salad bar." That doesn't obviate the need for involvement or render the policies bad. If Ron Paul had been in charge Hitler's grandson would be commanding most of Europe to this day.

 

[2Parties]

Most people cannot understand anything more difficult than "free salad bar."

Agreed.

That doesn't obviate the need for involvement or render the policies bad. If Ron Paul had been in charge Hitler's grandson would be commanding most of Europe to this day.

And this proves your point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ron Paul is a looney.

RP makes far more sense that do the neo-conservatives who nearly broke our country. mike, you are the loon.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I never agreed with Clinton when he was bombing the Serbs. There is now a new established Muslim State in the heart of Europe as a result of Clinton's bombing. Tell me there wont be some blow back for us on that one someday? A new Muslim State in the heart of Europe was not a good result for us. That intervention was completely wrong and unnecessary. That will likely come back to haunt us at some point in the future. Pretty sad.

 

[elvis]

Hey, Ron Paul:

IF what you say has any truth to it, then,

why were they terrorists before we responded to their acts by allegedly "occupying" any of "their" lands?



I like some of the things Dr. Paul has to say. But sometimes he says such massively stupid shit that taking him seriously is impossible.

Bin Laden has said he attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. That is where Ron Paul is coming from.

 

[elvis]

I do disagree with Dr. Paul somewhat on the "They're Terrorists because we're Occupiers" belief. These people would be Terrorists regardless of whether we're occupying or not. It's their belief in an extremist version of Islam that causes them to be Terrorists. However i agree with Dr. Paul that bombing & occupying them sure doesn't help.

Some of them would be. some would not be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul continues to demonstrate why he will never get elected dog catcher on any national level. Conservatives don't believe this crap. No one should believe this crap.

He's been elected at the federal level 11 times. The United States House of Representatives is a federal office.

I dont see the word "Federal" in my post. Could you please point it out to me?
Ron Paul is elected by one district in TX. He has bombed out of every other race he has run outside of that district.

No, I did not see the word federal in your post. You incorrectly used the term national, but we don't have a national government. We have a federal government.

Also, he's been elected by two districts in Texas.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War is. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our political system is called "federalism", KK, and we have a national government. (sigh)

 

[2Parties]

It makes you think huh?

Nah, the people you are debating don't think. They just react.

 

[elvis]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War are. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

except Germany declared war on us before we went thru the formality of declaring war on them. Are you saying that every war we have participated in since 1945 has been illegal? 1941 was the last time Congress declared war on anyone.

 

[blu]

Ron Paul is a looney.

once again you make a useless post. what do you think of his bill to audit the federal reserve?

 

[JakeStarkey]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War are. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

I quite agree with you on this.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WWII is not a valid example of what Dr. Paul is talking about. That was not an unnecessary foreign intervention. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor and then declared war on the Axis Powers. Defending your country after being attacked is not an unnecessary foreign intervention. War was declared legally and adhered to our Constitution. People often make this mistake of mislabeling what a Foreign Intervention and a legally declared War are. There is a difference. We declared war because we were defending our nation. Btw,not every thing worked out perfectly after WWII. We got rid of the Nazis but then the Communists actually became a bigger threat. It makes you think huh?

except Germany declared war on us before we went thru the formality of declaring war on them. Are you saying that every war we have participated in since 1945 has been illegal? 1941 was the last time Congress declared war on anyone.

I can't speak for Libocalypse but for myself, yes every war since WW2 has been illegal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

KK, that's interesting. Explain how you don't think the congressional force resolutions fail to meet the constitution's restriction of war declarations to Congress. No trick question: I am curious as to your reasoning.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm not sure if they have been illegal. I would think not because i'm sure much smarter people than me would have pursued that angle if they were. I am saying that they were probably wrong and unnecessary for the most part. We should always thoroughly debate and then decide whether or not to go to war the way our Constitution requires. That just hasn't happened in many many years. It all gets back to following the Constitution in the end. Unfortunately both parties have forgotten this and have searched for all sorts of new ways to circumvent it. It is what it is i guess.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

KK, that's interesting. Explain how you don't think the congressional force resolutions fail to meet the constitution's restriction of war declarations to Congress. No trick question: I am curious as to your reasoning.

Congressional resolutions to force simply give the President authority to do whatever they want. A declaration of war lays out the objectives of the war, and removes the authority for war as soon as those objectives are met. We go in, do what we need to do, and get out.

 

[The Rabbi]

He's been elected at the federal level 11 times. The United States House of Representatives is a federal office.

I dont see the word "Federal" in my post. Could you please point it out to me?
Ron Paul is elected by one district in TX. He has bombed out of every other race he has run outside of that district.

No, I did not see the word federal in your post. You incorrectly used the term national, but we don't have a national government. We have a federal government.

Also, he's been elected by two districts in Texas.

Continuing to demonstrate bloody minded stupidity I see.
I used the term correctly. You misunderstood what I wrote, or deliberately misinterpretated it.
Two districts in TX is not a national election. Primaries in 50 states are national elections. And Paul bombed out in every one of them where he ran.

 

[2Parties]

KK, that's interesting. Explain how you don't think the congressional force resolutions fail to meet the constitution's restriction of war declarations to Congress. No trick question: I am curious as to your reasoning.

Congressional resolutions to force simply give the President authority to do whatever they want. A declaration of war lays out the objectives of the war, and removes the authority for war as soon as those objectives are met. We go in, do what we need to do, and get out.

That's one of the many areas where the Constitution fails. There is no specific definition anywhere telling what a declaration of war is. The Constitution pretty much gives government authority to do what it wants, and the only "control" people have over government is voting. The Constitution just set up a democracy, and democracies are horrendous at protecting freedoms.