Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on December 06, 2011, 11:43:21 AM
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284972/ron-paul-factor-robert-costa
Rep. Ron Paul rarely makes news, and his candidacy is frequently ignored by Beltway reporters. But headlines, his aides say, are overrated. In fact, the Texas Republican’s low-key autumn was strategic. As Paul’s competitors stumbled and sparred, he amassed a small fortune for his campaign and built a strong ground operation. And with January fast approaching, his team is ready to surprise the political world and sweep the Iowa caucuses.
“This was a movement when he first started running in 2008,” says Trygve Olson, a senior Paul adviser. “Now it’s turned into a highly professionalized campaign, but the energy from that last run is still there, and at the heart of what’s keeping up his momentum.”
The latest polls back up that confidence. In the influential Des Moines Register poll published over the weekend, Paul placed second. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, captured 25 percent of likely Iowa GOP voters, but Paul garnered 18 percent, two points ahead of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 placed second in the caucuses.
More at the link.
Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one to submit a realistic path forward out of the spending/deficit/debt/entitlement mess.
Usually I am one of the folk who preface everything nice I say about Ron Paul with, "Except for his foreign policy..."
I am getting to the point where I am saying to myself, "Except for his foreign policy...Aw, %&@] it. I care less about Ron Paul's foreign ^&()ing policy every day."
-
I am getting to the point where I am saying to myself, "Except for his foreign policy...Aw, %&@] it. I care less about Ron Paul's foreign ^&()ing policy every day.
I am in the EXACT same place.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284972/ron-paul-factor-robert-costa
More at the link.
Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one to submit a realistic path forward out of the spending/deficit/debt/entitlement mess.
Usually I am one of the folk who preface everything nice I say about Ron Paul with, "Except for his foreign policy..."
I am getting to the point where I am saying to myself, "Except for his foreign policy...Aw, %&@] it. I care less about Ron Paul's foreign ^&()ing policy every day."
yea
-
Even his foreign policy isn't as reckless as some suggest. He does understand what we are promoting and what we are protecting. That is the only sound starting point.
We see where "smart power" is getting us, and it's not good.
-
Who is Ron Paul ?
:lol:
-
Who is Ron Paul ?
:lol:
He's the old guy you see way off to the side at all the Republican "debates". Since he never says anything and the camera tries to avoid him, I figure he must be the stage manager.
-
Even his foreign policy isn't as reckless as some suggest.
Agreed. There are detractors who are quick to shout "isolationism!!!" However, as many have pointed out, his ideas are better termed non-interventionist.
-
I am in the EXACT same place.
Sign me up.
-
Agreed. There are detractors who are quick to shout "isolationism!!!" However, as many have pointed out, his ideas are better termed non-interventionist.
Isolationism is defined as non-interventionism combined with no international trade.
Ron Paul is non-interventionist militarily and pro-free trade with all nations. As he likes to say when quoting the founders "Free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
The people you speak of still like to call him an isolationist, even when you point out that they are 50% right and also 50% wrong (for a net of 0% right) they still persist. We have a few on this board.
-
Who is Ron Paul ?
Go to the diner at the lower level of the Taggart Terminal. You might run into him there.
-
He's the old guy you see way off to the side at all the Republican "debates". Since he never says anything and the camera tries to avoid him, I figure he must be the stage manager.
I saw recently a report on an Iowa "Christian family values voter" dog and pony show. (Many R. candidates present, except Mitt.) From the report, Ron sounded uncomfortable with the venue. That's fine by me.
Who else voted for him when he ran as a Libertarian?
-
Agreed. There are detractors who are quick to shout "isolationism!!!" However, as many have pointed out, his ideas are better termed non-interventionist
I saw him on a TV interview. When asked what he would do about Iran's nuclear weapons program one part of his solution was "to start by offering them friendship". As much as I respect his ideas that one makes me go [barf]!
-
Go to the diner at the lower level of the Taggart Terminal. You might run into him there.
;)
-
I supported Ron Paul before it was cool.
-
IMHO most Americans at this point in time really don't give a damn about foreign policy. They want to know what the hell you are going to do to get our country back on track or what can the government do for me.
-
IMHO most Americans at this point in time really don't give a damn about foreign policy. They want to know what the hell you are going to do to get our country back on track or what can the government do for me and when is the government going to stop doing stuff for me.
Now it's closer to my philosophy. :)
-
Now it's closer to my philosophy. :)
As well as I and 99% of the others on this board.
-
IMHO most Americans at this point in time really don't give a damn about foreign policy. They want to know what the hell you are going to do to get our country back on track or when will the government stop doing stuff to me.
Ron Paulified.
-
Paul is by far the best of the candidates when viewed from this side of the pond, though given the rest of the candidates that probably sounds more impressive a statement than it is. I cant believe he would ever win though, you would think that every mainstream media outlet would go nuts over it and Obama's fundraising would probably go up by an immense amount.
-
The best thing Ron Paul has done for me is open my eyes to how captured the paleomedia really are. I always dismissed such claims, but if the media WASN'T controlled by entrenched interests, he would be all over the news. He's by far the most interesting/controversial candidate.
I voted for him in 2008 and I will vote for him again. I laugh at people who say "if it just wasn't for his foreign policy". Beggars can't be choosers, and with if wealth is measured in candidates, we are indeed beggars. Among the current crop of weak-lettuce candidates, Ron Paul is a steak dinner.
-
It's true: Ron Paul is an anachronism, a man who still operates "the old way," but that is better than an arachnoidism, which is what we are getting with the current regime.
-
Paul is by far the best of the candidates when viewed from this side of the pond, though given the rest of the candidates that probably sounds more impressive a statement than it is. I cant believe he would ever win though, you would think that every mainstream media outlet would go nuts over it and Obama's fundraising would probably go up by an immense amount.
Actually, if Paul somehow miraculously made it through the GOP nomination process, he'd pull in a rather large plurality from both the Left and the Right.
A few of my lefty neighbors... to the point of being annoyingly so, who bought the ugly Honda Insight hybrid two years before the much cooler Prius came out, and had lefty political signs up in their yardall year round... yeah, those people. As popularity polls for Obama began to bottom out this past summer, these folks took down all their Democratic signs, and put up exactly two Ron Paul 2012 signs.
Libertarians on social issues, namely, do whatever the hell you want that doesn't hurt someone else, resonates well enough with many otherwise hard-left types, that they're willing to eschew Keynesian/Marxist economic policy and the welfare state to line up behind the man.
Or, maybe it's just drug legalization. I dunno. :laugh:
The downside would be that Agricola is absolutely right, you'd see all sorts of crazy power shifts, and changes in PAC and individual donations and funding patterns shift to Obama. Especially a lot of traditionally conservative ones from the business, agricultural, manufacturing, and financial sectors. The common thread being they enjoy either profit, or protection from government largess.
Companies, groups, and lobby groups that may have a nominal Left/Right political predisposition, but more so have a heavily invested interest in the status quo. And for better or worse, Right or Left, anyone interested in the status quo above all else would scramble to prop up Obama.
-
Ron Paul...except for his foreign policy"
Ya know, if Romney is nominated, my write-in vote may be those exact words. :laugh:
I supported Ron Paul before it was cool.
When was that? Before 2008?
-
When was that? Before 2008?
Yup.
-
The downside would be that Agricola is absolutely right, you'd see all sorts of crazy power shifts, and changes in PAC and individual donations and funding patterns shift to Obama. Especially a lot of traditionally conservative ones from the business, agricultural, manufacturing, and financial sectors. The common thread being they enjoy either profit, or protection from government largess.
Companies, groups, and lobby groups that may have a nominal Left/Right political predisposition, but more so have a heavily invested interest in the status quo. And for better or worse, Right or Left, anyone interested in the status quo above all else would scramble to prop up Obama.
Along the same vein, I've heard that Obama has more Wall Street and Bank donations than the entire GOP field so far... combined.
This is probably because the GOP is trying to angle as the Tea Party party, the downsize government party, the "no bail out" party.
That is offensive to those who love to Privatize Gain and Socialize Loss, and are "too big to fail."
-
When was that? Before 2008?
Paul ran with an L. behind his name in 1988.
-
Paul ran with an L. behind his name in 1988.
Was Micro even born then? Yeah, I know he's been around a while. I was just curious to know when Ron Paul became "popular." 2008 is my estimate.
-
I supported Ron Paul before it was cool.
....and yet you've never voted for him.......
=D
-
Was Micro even born then? Yeah, I know he's been around a while. I was just curious to know when Ron Paul became "popular." 2008 is my estimate.
2007
-
Was Micro even born then? Yeah, I know he's been around a while. I was just curious to know when Ron Paul became "popular." 2008 is my estimate.
Wasn't all that popular. There were lots of "wookie suit" gibes due to Micro's support of Paul.
-
Wasn't all that popular. There were lots of "wookie suit" gibes due to Micro's support of Paul.
Well, yeah, but that's politics. I was thinking of whether or not people knew who he was. Supporting Paul in '08 was very, very cool, in some circles.
-
So, all of that oboma money is sure to buy his reelection? Don't count on it. Of course the Republicans are known for shooting themselves in the foot, aka McCain......Paul would be great as president and I would vote for him in a heartbeat. If bleeding heart liberal Mittens gets the nod, I probably will stay home. There is no difference between obama's policies and romney's......chris3
-
"Except for his foreign policy..."
That phrase is almost alway code that translates into unconditional support for Israel and the mistaken belief that Ron Paul doesn't support Israel because he's in favor of ending foreign aid $$$$.
This should put that baby to bed.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247 (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/paul-israel-support-wead/2011/12/07/id/420247)
-
That phrase is almost alway code that translates into unconditional support for Israel and the mistaken belief that Ron Paul doesn't support Israel because he's in favor of ending foreign aid $$$$.
No. It isn't.
-
No. It isn't.
He did say 'almost'.
-
It isn't almost or even usually.
-
So I was listening to NPR the other day as they were covering the recent Republican debates and foreign policy. The issue of Israel came up and how all the major candidates were gung ho on supporting Israel. The commentator said this is because in order to get the Evangelical vote, you have to be in favor of supporting Israel, and this is one of the few issues that both Evangelicals and the majority of the Jewish population in the US agree upon.
Not having really heard of this concept before listening to the story, is this generally correct in regards to the Evangelicals, I wonder. Is it due to the religious belief and Israel's role as the Christian Holy Land?
-
So I was listening to NPR the other day as they were covering the recent Republican debates and foreign policy. The issue of Israel came up and how all the major candidates were gung ho on supporting Israel. The commentator said this is because in order to get the Evangelical vote, you have to be in favor of supporting Israel, and this is one of the few issues that both Evangelicals and the majority of the Jewish population in the US agree upon.
Not having really heard of this concept before listening to the story, is this generally correct in regards to the Evangelicals, I wonder. Is it due to the religious belief and Israel's role as the Christian Holy Land?
Yes.
-
It isn't almost or even usually.
I think "often" would be accurate.
Not having really heard of this concept before listening to the story, is this generally correct in regards to the Evangelicals, I wonder. Is it due to the religious belief and Israel's role as the Christian Holy Land?
[/quote
There are some (a couple of my Uncles included) who believe that all of the Jews need to be back in Israel in order for the End Times prophecies to be fulfilled.
-
Not having really heard of this concept before listening to the story, is this generally correct in regards to the Evangelicals, I wonder. Is it due to the religious belief and Israel's role as the Christian Holy Land?
Yes. It's called "dispensationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism)".
-
Yes. It's called "dispensationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism)".
Wow, that was a really interesting article on a topic I know nothing about. Thanks!
-
I think "often" would be accurate.
That I could go along with.
A lot of the Christian support for Israel is motivated by the usual foreign policy concerns shared by other Americans. And a lot of it just due to the obvious affinity one would expect to see between two sister religions. Dispensation is only an addition to these motives, albeit a very prominent one in some circles.
-
My reading of the book of Revelation does not turn up any trace of the United States. I know it's Middle East-centric, and the Americas were unknown when it was written, but there should be *something* recognizable if we were relevant. It's got Russia and China and Persia and parts of Africa... maybe even Pakistan and India. Everything but the Western Hemisphere.
Maybe we've all been raptured (before the Great Tribulation) and there's no one left :angel:
-
Wow, that was a really interesting article on a topic I know nothing about. Thanks!
The Wikipedia article is accurate, based on what I know and see of dispensationalism. It is the majority belief in American evangelicalism.* Left Behind (http://www.leftbehind.com/), Late Great Planet Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth), all that stuff. Even if any given individual isn't up on all the details, it's the "air they breathe", the categories that they think in.
It's a common belief, among those I've interacted with, that we dare not do anything against the interests of the modern state of Israel, especially with respect to their occupying territory. To go against the modern state of Israel is to call down God's curse against this nation. And, it's a huge voting block that believes this.
Just for grins, contemplate this: Those popular pundits I hear, think (based on a quirky read of Isaiah 17, an oracle against Damascus) the next thing up on the "prophetic calendar" is that Israel lobs a nuke on Damascus. And I truly believe that some of these guys would be cheering wildly on the sidelines if something like this does happen.
Bad eschatology has consequences.
*not, I hope it's clear, a belief I share. I've ranted on this elsewhere. (http://www.freerepublic.com/~leenfield#eschatology)
-
I started writing a big long-winded reply about eschatology and then deleted it. Let's just say I'm watching for the building of a 3rd Jewish Temple, and it's fun to speculate on all that has to take place for that to happen.
-
Dispensationalism is a minority belief in Christianity, but some of the more prominent "evangelical" denominations picked it up in the early 20th century (since the most popular flavor was first described in theological circles in the late 19th century).
For my own part, wf buckley's admonition "do not immanentize the eschaton" applies to conservatives andChristians too.
-
Dispensationalism is a minority belief in Christianity, but some of the more prominent "evangelical" denominations picked it up in the early 20th century (since the most popular flavor was first described in theological circles in the late 19th century).
For my own part, wf buckley's admonition "do not immanentize the eschaton" applies to conservatives andChristians too.
I thought that came from Robert Anton Wilson. Wikipedia (YMMV) suggests Eric Voegelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Voegelin) and has an article on the topic itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton)).
In all these contexts it means "trying to make that which belongs to the afterlife happen here and now (on Earth)" or "trying to create heaven here on Earth."
Something I hear termed "overrealized eschatology". Usually considered a bad thing.
(See also Intrusion and the Decalogue (http://www.meredithkline.com/files/articles/The-Intrusion-and-the-Decalogue-MGKline.pdf), if you've got a couple hours with nothing else to do.)
-
Even if any given individual isn't up on all the details, it's the "air they breathe", the categories that they think in.
It's a common belief, among those I've interacted with, that we dare not do anything against the interests of the modern state of Israel, especially with respect to their occupying territory. To go against the modern state of Israel is to call down God's curse against this nation. And, it's a huge voting block that believes this.
Pretty much. I'd bet most of those have never heard the terms "dispensational" or "dispensationalism," much less "futurist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29)," but they haven't heard of any other way to interpret those passages of scripture. That was my personal experience, back before I became a wicked, Jew-hating replacement theologian. :laugh:
-
Ron Paul closes in on Gingrich (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html)
-
Saw that too, Micro.
I think Paul may end up taking some of the spotlight away from Newt, Romney and Perry for a bit here. If he wins Iowa, the media is going to have a VERY hard time ignoring him.
-
Saw that too, Micro.
I think Paul may end up taking some of the spotlight away from Newt, Romney and Perry for a bit here. If he wins Iowa, the media is going to have a VERY hard time ignoring him.
"And Ron Paul also came in first with 55% of the vote"
;/
-
If Paul does take Iowa the headlines are probably going to read "Newt/Romney loses Iowa!!"... no actual mention of who won.
-
.
-
I've changed my mind about voting for Paul. Unless something radical happens, I think I will. Even if he runs as an Independent. I like him more than the other candidates, and he seems to be a good, honest man, which outweighs everything else to me. Can he win? I seriously doubt it. But I'm no longer able to accept the alternatives.
If he would wear cowboy boots, start talking with a Texas Drawl and get more simple answers wrong, he could probably win.
-
Ron Paul doesn't count. 'Cause we say so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmOxx8ZzoU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
-
Ronnie got hammered on Iran by Bachman in last night's debate......oops.
-
Just donated $25 to Dr. Paul.
Ronnie got hammered on Iran by Bachman in last night's debate......oops.
'Splayn, plz.
-
Just donated $25 to Dr. Paul.
'Splayn, plz.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-constitutionalist-anti-war-stance-supported-by-u-s-troops/
The video, not the text. The video is what I saw this morning on the news.
-
Ron Paul is a valuable critic on many things, especially fiscal and monetary policies, but what we need right now is a realistic nationalist, and that he isn't because of his views on military preparedness and immigration. He is, in my view, the antipodes of Obama and would be just as freakish a choice to lead this nation.
-
In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an editorial about the rise of Mr. Paul, and how he taken more seriously this time around. However, the article argues that his inflexibility on foreign policy dooms his chances of getting the nomination.
The article is here if you have WSJ access: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577100730656321606.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
-
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-constitutionalist-anti-war-stance-supported-by-u-s-troops/
The video, not the text. The video is what I saw this morning on the news.
Paul biyatch-slapped her. Talking about Kennedy's resolution of the past via diplomacy (including the big stick principle, but using diplomacy).
Bachmann was wielding the "Americans COULD be in danger" bullscat fearmongering card, and Paul soundly put her in her place.
I remember cheering loudly when that happened (watched the debate at a bar last night).
-
The fact that the theaters of war we are in may well be the wrong ones or that our strategy is blind or warped does not mean we are not at war and don't need to react accordingly. Mr Paul's views on Islam are astoundingly naive, not to mention dangerous.
-
The fact that the theaters of war we are in may well be the wrong ones or that our strategy is blind or warped does not mean we are not at war and don't need to react accordingly. Mr Paul's views on Islam are astoundingly naive, not to mention dangerous.
If we are in the wrong theaters and our strategy, up to date, is blind or warped the last thing we should be doing is opening up a new front in the same theater of war to continue pursuing the same old warped strategies.
Sending more Americans into the meat grinder over contrived IAEA reports and "nuclear hysteria" not seen since the Cold War is what is really dangerous crazy. I thought we learned our lesson with Iraq and its imminent threat of "WMDs". Oh, but THIS time it's different, right?
Why should we support a military agenda that will most likely lead us to a war several times worse than what we have seen in the last decade, bankrupting the Nation and sending thousands of American lives down the drain in the process? Not to mention wreaking economic chaos across the entire globe when oil supplies get compromised. Forget the whole "Islam is out to get us because we are free" argument because it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
-
The fact that the theaters of war we are in may well be the wrong ones or that our strategy is blind or warped does not mean we are not at war and don't need to react accordingly. Mr Paul's views on Islam are astoundingly naive, not to mention dangerous.
No offence, but this is nonsense.
Islam - even as a whole (ignoring for a moment the hateful split between Sunni and Shia, and taking the religion as a whole rather than just the Sunni Caliphal fundies like al-Q who are the ones who have actually done something) - poses at most about a thousandth of the danger that the Soviet Union posed, in terms of social appeal (given how many people are still communist despite everything), funding for non-friendly regimes and terror groups, the military threat and the risk to Western civilization as a whole.
To try and make citizens of the most powerful nation on earth scared of this threat - which is what some people have been doing - is utterly irresponsible. In fact its only the complete weakness of almost every Islamic states that makes such agitation and subsequent action possible (which is of course the main reason why Iran wants the bomb in the first place).
-
If we are in the wrong theaters and our strategy, up to date, is blind or warped the last thing we should be doing is opening up a new front in the same theater of war to continue pursuing the same old warped strategies.
Sending more Americans into the meat grinder over contrived IAEA reports and "nuclear hysteria" not seen since the Cold War is what is really dangerous crazy. I thought we learned our lesson with Iraq and its imminent threat of "WMDs". Oh, but THIS time it's different, right?
Why should we support a military agenda that will most likely lead us to a war several times worse than what we have seen in the last decade, bankrupting the Nation and sending thousands of American lives down the drain in the process? Not to mention wreaking economic chaos across the entire globe when oil supplies get compromised. Forget the whole "Islam is out to get us because we are free" argument because it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Exactly. In fact, if you want to play the realpolitik game then one of the best things that could happen to US Middle East policy is for the Iranians to actually get the bomb - the rest of the region would be so terrified they would be in your pocket for years, and the whole notion of what would happen to them if they actually did use it to attack someone would probably result in their leadership being considerably more civilized than they have been lately.
-
Ronnie got hammered on Iran by Bachman in last night's debate......oops.
I didn't see it...just read about it. I disagree. As usual she just threw something out there as part of the popularity contest....and as usual, devoid of reason or logic.
The middle east (and world) witnessed the intensity of a brief military campaign against Saddam. Even that was conducted with an effort to minimize civilian casualties when possible.
The rest has been mostly "peacekeeping". There would be no restraint if Iran was to really commit an open act of war. If nuclear, they would cease to exist as a society.
You know that, I know that, the Iranian people know that, the world knows that. I fear Iran like I fear Malaysia. Bachman is a bone head trying to extend her run as class president.
-
Ronnie got hammered on Iran by Bachman in last night's debate......oops.
Only if you mean "Bachmann spouted obviously wrong statements on Iran louder than Ron Paul".
Iran is not within months of obtaining nuclear arms. Iran has also not stated they would use said arms against the United States.
-
No offence, but this is nonsense.
Islam - even as a whole (ignoring for a moment the hateful split between Sunni and Shia, and taking the religion as a whole rather than just the Sunni Caliphal fundies like al-Q who are the ones who have actually done something) - poses at most about a thousandth of the danger that the Soviet Union posed, in terms of social appeal (given how many people are still communist despite everything), funding for non-friendly regimes and terror groups, the military threat and the risk to Western civilization as a whole.
To try and make citizens of the most powerful nation on earth scared of this threat - which is what some people have been doing - is utterly irresponsible. In fact its only the complete weakness of almost every Islamic states that makes such agitation and subsequent action possible (which is of course the main reason why Iran wants the bomb in the first place).
Islam would not be a threat if The West were not collapsing from within on so many levels. Britain and America have given Islam its money, technology, and education, and seem hell-bent on conflating Islam with Leftism.
-
Islam would not be a threat if The West were not collapsing from within on so many levels. Britain and America have given Islam its money, technology, and education, and seem hell-bent on conflating Islam with Leftism.
Radical islamists have technology? Are we talking about the same radical islamists here?
-
As you know, Micro, there are plenty of Muslims, many trained in the West, with advanced skills in mathematics, engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biology.
-
As you know, Micro, there are plenty of Muslims, many trained in the West, with advanced skills in mathematics, engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biology.
As you well know, the radical Islamists do not equal all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims. Or even the majority of Islamists.
-
Islam would not be a threat if The West were not collapsing from within on so many levels. Britain and America have given Islam its money, technology, and education, and seem hell-bent on conflating Islam with Leftism.
Even if that was true, how on earth does invading Iran fix that?
-
When have I advocated invading Iran? I'm not.
Micro, you talk as if "radical Islamists" have no connections or support with major Islamic states. You really believe that? These, to you, are all unsophisticated freelancers within the Ummah?
-
Micro, you talk as if "radical Islamists" have no connections or support with major Islamic states. You really believe that? These, to you, are all unsophisticated freelancers within the Ummah?
Well, we do know that radical Islamic extremists had connections to and support from NATO countries and US-friendly Arab states when fighting in Libya...
We know that most of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of a major US ally...
We know that the US was very cozy with the likes of OBL providing them intelligence, training and hi-tech (for the time) weaponry during the 1980's...
Sure Iran has connections with what could be considered Islamic extremists, but for the US Government to bring that out as justification for military aggression is just the pot calling the kettle black.
-
You are right, and far be it from me to whitewash the contributions of our adepts at State and Langley in FUBARing the situation. We have often been our own worst enemy, but what has yet to be fully explored is who "we" really is when it comes to setting our foreign policy over the years.
-
Micro, you talk as if "radical Islamists" have no connections or support with major Islamic states. You really believe that? These, to you, are all unsophisticated freelancers within the Ummah?
What I talk of is the concept that "the Islamic world" is a multi-lingual, babylonian group that speaks dozens of languages and cannot be accommodated with simplistic speeches about the fictitious Khalifate. It - like the Western world - has its own totalitarian, liberal, moderate, anarchist, terrorist, etc. aspects. To talk as if every element of the culture is a branch of a single, hostile hive mind is madness.
-
You are right, we should avoid thinking in simplistic terms, searching for fictitious monoliths. But when you speak of Islam and you include what you call "liberal, moderate, anarchist" as descriptors I am inclined to ask you...where exactly?
-
What I talk of is the concept that "the Islamic world" is a multi-lingual, babylonian group that speaks dozens of languages and cannot be accommodated with simplistic speeches about the fictitious Khalifate. It - like the Western world - has its own totalitarian, liberal, moderate, anarchist, terrorist, etc. aspects. To talk as if every element of the culture is a branch of a single, hostile hive mind is madness.
Where I agree with you is that if there were no Caliphate-in-waiting we'd have to invent one. But let us not confuse the insanity of the West with the insanity of the East. Both are quite real.
-
You are right, we should avoid thinking in simplistic terms, searching for fictitious monoliths. But when you speak of Islam and you include what you call "liberal, moderate, anarchist" as descriptors I am inclined to ask you...where exactly?
Liberal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_the_Republic) (The leader of this party is the new leader of Tunisia)
Anarchist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Islam)
-
Okay, we'll see how long the "liberal" Tunisia lasts.
Anarchists in Islam? I'd call that anecdotal at this point, wouldn't you?
-
Okay, we'll see how long the "liberal" Tunisia lasts.
Anarchists in Islam? I'd call that anecdotal at this point, wouldn't you?
Anarchism is everywhere rare and near-anecdotal in its support at this stage in history.
-
Of course it is, but to use Islam and anarchism in the same sentence is to defy logic. Allah is the ultimate form of archism.
-
Saw clips of Paul at the debate and he managed to make his relatively sound policy sound as kooky as possible. Then, he went on some talk show and said Bachmann hated Muslims.
With friends like these, the COTUS needs no enemies.
[yoda]There is another...[/yoda]
-
Yeah, it's not really "Ron Paul except for his foreign policy." It's "Ron Paul, except for his Ron Paul."
-
Yeah, it's not really "Ron Paul except for his foreign policy." It's "Ron Paul, except for his Ron Paul."
The most vain of the vanity candidates?
We are so humped. Even our no-chance, protest-vote, idealist, constitutional candidate is a worthless sack.
To quote Mark Steyn after writing about Newt Romney, "It’s a tragedy that the Republican nomination has dwindled down to a choice not worth making."
A good piece on the GOP process and America's current state:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286115/tweedlemitt-and-tweedlenewt-mark-steyn
-
The most vain of the vanity candidates?
We are so humped. Even our no-chance, protest-vote, idealist, constitutional candidate is a worthless sack.
Because he differs with you in his opinion on the fictional Islamist threat?
Bachmann's performance was heinous. She got not a single fact right, because the quest of scaring the voters straight was more important than facts.
-
Ron Paul now leading in Iowa. (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html)
Holy s*** WTF.
-
Because he differs with you in his opinion on the fictional Islamist threat?
...............
??? The "Islamist threat" may be overhyped, mishyped, misunderstood, mislayed, underestimated, but any group that can kill 2,973 human beings and cause billions in property damage in one attack (9-11-01) is probably not best described as "fictional."
:mad:
Do you suppose we ought to ignore the Islamists?
We have gone that route before you know .... I mean, who ever would guess some bizarro with a Oliver Hardy style mustache would write a book inside a prison cell using smuggled supplies would ever be able to very nearly accomplish what his meandering bizarro nut manifesto claimed aspired to? For all the world could guess such a bizarro nutcake by all rights would remain a bizarro nutcake until he died in obscurity.
History recalls otherwise.
I don't have a crystal ball.
Just a friggin' knot in my gut that keeps telling me these Islamonazis shouldn't be ...... ignored.
-
??? The "Islamist threat" may be overhyped, mishyped, misunderstood, mislayed, underestimated, but any group that can kill 2,973 human beings and cause billions in property damage in one attack (9-11-01) is probably not best described as "fictional."
:mad:
Do you suppose we ought to ignore the Islamists?
Yes. Yes I do. Or rather: of course we should kill terrorists etc. etc. What we should not do is pretend is the concern over Islamic terrorism is more important than concerns over individual liberty and constitutional government.
There are sometimes huge emergencies, like waves of invading troops, or massive natural disasters, that call for temporary - temporary! - prioritizing of various concerns over individual liberty.
Al-Quaeda is not it. They wish they could come close. They can't. They're illiterate, worthless goons, half insane and inept and the other half cowards and the fact they got blazingly, impossibly lucky once does not change that. In fact even if they do get lucky every 20 years it will not change that.
We have gone that route before you know .... I mean, who ever would guess some bizarro with a Oliver Hardy style mustache would write a book inside a prison cell using smuggled supplies would ever be able to very nearly accomplish what his meandering bizarro nut manifesto claimed aspired to? For all the world could guess such a bizarro nutcake by all rights would remain a bizarro nutcake until he died in obscurity.
History recalls otherwise.
What we should do, of course, is operate on the assumption our enemy is full of superior military strength... just hand over Czechoslovakia. We've heard that tune, too.
-
Because he differs with you in his opinion on the fictional Islamist threat?
Bachmann's performance was heinous. She got not a single fact right, because the quest of scaring the voters straight was more important than facts.
Not quite, but keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
How's about because Paul doesn't have the sense, when given a near-miraculous chance in the Iowa caucus, to refrain from doing the political equivalent of giving his genitalia a tongue-bath on live teevee? And then go on Letterman and accuse Bachmann of hating muslims after she took after him in the debate.
Screw him. Like Perry, he has internalized the progressive critique and has begun to use their language & tools when pressed/stressed.
Besides, like many libertarians, Paul himself is dishonest about what those who wrote the COTUS said it meant and about the powers they exercised when they were elected under it. It wouldn't hurt Paul any to crack open a history book. Maybe he his quest to pop a (political) squat on national teevee is more important to him than the facts.
What we should do, of course, is operate on the assumption our enemy is full of superior military strength... just hand over Czechoslovakia. We've heard that tune, too.
You may have studied history, but it is plain from that ^^ you haven't learned anything from it.
-
Yes. Yes I do. Or rather: of course we should kill terrorists etc. etc. What we should not do is pretend is the concern over Islamic terrorism is more important than concerns over individual liberty and constitutional government.
There are sometimes huge emergencies, like waves of invading troops, or massive natural disasters, that call for temporary - temporary! - prioritizing of various concerns over individual liberty.
Al-Quaeda is not it. They wish they could come close. They can't. They're illiterate, worthless goons, half insane and inept and the other half cowards and the fact they got blazingly, impossibly lucky once does not change that. In fact even if they do get lucky every 20 years it will not change that.
What we should do, of course, is operate on the assumption our enemy is full of superior military strength... just hand over Czechoslovakia. We've heard that tune, too.
Sometimes getting blazingly impossibly lucky is enough. If a British officer in the American Revolutionary War had read the note he'd been given rather than stuff it in a pocket, Washington would have been defeated at Trenton, and if that had happen, could America have won her independence?
AQ "got lucky" on 9/11/01. And we got "un"lucky; if the FBI had followed through on reports by flight instructors that some odd people wanted to learn how to fly but didn't care about take-off or landing, 9/11 might have been prevented.
But we messed up; like the military intel guys who thought the greatest danger in Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41 would be sabotage, so they had all the planes lined up in neat rows -- making strafing them so much easier for the real attack force which, BTW, was presumed to be heading toward the Philippines.
AQ "illiterate worthless goons.? ? ?" In my earlier post I referenced Hitler. Years ago I read a analysis by a psychologist named (IIRC) Robert Waite titled The Psychopathic God. He concluded that Hitler was a borderline disfunctional personality. He had other interesting remarks about Der Fuhrer as well, none of them particularly complimentary. Despite the shortcomings Hitler accomplished a great deal of evil. I think one of the greatest "allies" he had was he had such an improbable beginning; as I said, who'd believe some nut in a prison cell would write a book, title it "My Struggle," and then actually come so close to achieving it. No one believes prisoners will ever amount to anything.
And I think relegating AQ to a one in twenty year pest is equally as dangerous. Sure, a lot of things they've tried are inept but all we need to do is ignore them, and maybe the'll learn to weed out their "little Hitlers" and develop into a real power.
Not that I agree with everything we ARE doing or everything we've done, but what we've done is better than handing off the Sudetenland one more time for an ephemeral promise of "peace in our time."
-
You may have studied history, but it is plain from that ^^ you haven't learned anything from it.
Chamberlain was not motivated by underestimating the Nazi threat. He was motivated by overestimating how dangerous Hitler was.
Sometimes getting blazingly impossibly lucky is enough. If a British officer in the American Revolutionary War had read the note he'd been given rather than stuff it in a pocket, Washington would have been defeated at Trenton, and if that had happen, could America have won her independence?/quote]
Some threats are worse than others. It's important to be able to properly rank them.
-
Some threats are worse than others. It's important to be able to properly rank them.
And deal with those which have presented, such as AQ's attack on 9/11.
China may be a threat as well .... in another generation, assuming China keeps building up a navy and a way of projecting its power outside of its own borders.
And btw, I don't think Neville Chamberlain "overestimated" the Nazi threat, I think he was severely misguided in thinking Hitler could be assuaged by a surrender of land. He simply didn't understand Hitler's ruthlessness and aggression. Churchill came closer to understanding Hitler's danger to europe. Later British history pretty much affirms that ........
-
And deal with those which have presented, such as AQ's attack on 9/11.
China may be a threat as well .... in another generation, assuming China keeps building up a navy and a way of projecting its power outside of its own borders.
Al-Quaeda should be ranked with Pancho Villa (to whom America reacted with military force when he attacked America on its own soil) rather than with Hitler.
And btw, I don't think Neville Chamberlain "overestimated" the Nazi threat, I think he was severely misguided in thinking Hitler could be assuaged by a surrender of land. He simply didn't understand Hitler's ruthlessness and aggression. Churchill came closer to understanding Hitler's danger to europe. Later British history pretty much affirms that ........
It's pretty much common agreement by the historians that Hitler could have been stopped in 1935 through 1938 had the French and English struck swiftly and boldly. But English and French commands were persuaded (in part due to successful trickery by the Germans) that the Germans were far stronger than they were in actual fact.
-
AQ is a wider (or was 10 years ago) spread force than Pancho Villa was. They also have a grander, larger set of aspirations and maybe the patience to see them through.
It's pretty much common agreement by the historians that Hitler could have been stopped in 1935 through 1938 had the French and English struck swiftly and boldly. But English and French commands were persuaded (in part due to successful trickery by the Germans) that the Germans were far stronger than they were in actual fact.
The French could have stopped the Nazi invasion if they had deployed their tanks & personnel more wisely; they had more, and better, tanks. What killed the French tanks was the German Stukas.
As far as the Germans' "trickery" that goes back to Sun Tzu and The Brits should have seen through it. But the Brits themselves were hardly strong militarily. Neither were we. The fact that neither country armed up during this period was a serious mistake; especially on our part, as we had greater industrial facilities than Britain.
We didn't win WW2 because our war machines were superior to the Germans', we were able to outproduce them. The Germans mucked up enough in tactics and strategy so that it cost them the war in the end. Thanks mainly to none other than Hitler himself.
-
America's strength militarily since WWII has always been our ability to "throw money at the problem", whether it was in terms of numerical or technological superiority.
I'm getting a gut feeling that even if the worst (mis)representations of "Ron Paul foreign policy" are all true, his administration having the most potential to clean up American fiscal matters might well leave us more secure overall and in the long run. Even if any "hands off" or "appeasement" strategies backfire.
I do think that America has taken on the entire Radical Islam/terrorism issue with a Cold War mindset of playing Risk or Chess, where we felt like the whole map, one country at a time would turn "Red" if we weren't doing the same. A policy of, "You hit us, we'll kick your teeth in, then stomp you 10x as bad. Then go home ASAP", might well accomplish more than decades long exercises in nation building.
-
I do think that America has taken on the entire Radical Islam/terrorism issue with a Cold War mindset of playing Risk or Chess, where we felt like the whole map, one country at a time would turn "Red" if we weren't doing the same. A policy of, "You hit us, we'll kick your teeth in, then stomp you 10x as bad. Then go home ASAP", might well accomplish more than decades long exercises in nation building.
This.
And keep the option open of knocking over the board.
-
^^yes.
Failure to adopt a sensible position as that should make it clear that motives for military action in the past decade went well beyond self defense.
-
Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.
-
Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.
Didn't he help enshrine it himself?
-
Didn't he help enshrine it himself?
When Victor Frankenstein* warns you about the monster, you should listen.
*not to be confused with Froderick Fronkensteen
-
America's strength militarily since WWII has always been our ability to "throw money at the problem", whether it was in terms of numerical or technological superiority.
I'm getting a gut feeling that even if the worst (mis)representations of "Ron Paul foreign policy" are all true, his administration having the most potential to clean up American fiscal matters might well leave us more secure overall and in the long run. Even if any "hands off" or "appeasement" strategies backfire.
I do think that America has taken on the entire Radical Islam/terrorism issue with a Cold War mindset of playing Risk or Chess, where we felt like the whole map, one country at a time would turn "Red" if we weren't doing the same. A policy of, "You hit us, we'll kick your teeth in, then stomp you 10x as bad. Then go home ASAP", might well accomplish more than decades long exercises in nation building.
The above has appeal.
The current plan endorsed by Statists on both side of the aisle is not working, and is a classic definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
-
Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.
That's the part of the speech that gets all the airplay, but the counter to it, a few lines down, never does.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
-
Here's some good news, Romney is going to buy Al- Queda for $10 Trillion and lay them all off. Newt is going to debate them until they just look silly and go home...not where they've lived for 3000 years but, pre-pre-pre Ottoman. Bachman say's...huh? Is Senator Byrd still alive? Maybe Paul can recover by offering him the VP position. He makes him look both, younger, and less racist. I'm not giving up on him yet. My protest vote must be counted.
-
Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...
-
Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...
I swear I have never known anyone in politics who can vacillate between being an interesting, principled leader and an utter jackwagon as quickly and spectacularly as Ron Paul. [barf]
-
I swear I have never known anyone in politics who can vacillate between being an interesting, principled leader and an utter jackwagon as quickly and spectacularly as Ron Paul. [barf]
Well, the news is mainly on right wing leaning websites. I'm waiting to see it on more regular news sites to confirm it.
-
Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...
Here is him saying it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pbSCT2SE6U&feature=player_embedded
The point he is making is a correct one, people who blow the whistle on things that have gone wrong in government should be respected and supported.
-
I have just posted on my FB on this fascinating topic. (http://www.facebook.com/notes/boris-karpa/ron-paul-and-the-anti-new-deal-coalition/322970187733543) Perhaps the membership here will be interested.
-
I have just posted on my FB on this fascinating topic. (http://www.facebook.com/notes/boris-karpa/ron-paul-and-the-anti-new-deal-coalition/322970187733543) Perhaps the membership here will be interested.
if it had to do with ron paul, it now reads "This content is currently unavailable"
-
if it had to do with ron paul, it now reads "This content is currently unavailable"
Fixed.
-
The fact that the theaters of war we are in may well be the wrong ones or that our strategy is blind or warped does not mean we are not at war and don't need to react accordingly. Mr Paul's views on Islam are astoundingly naive, not to mention dangerous.
Eh, not really. Having spent way too much time dealing with military stuff, and Islam, as always, it's always overblown.
Islamic terrorists is not even 1% of the threat of the USSR and communism. At the moment, the only thing strong enough to destroy America is America. And we're trying to do our best to gut our economy and manufacturing base. That is the highest national security priority we have.
Overestimating a threat can be more dangerous than underestimating it, at times. If you throw too many resources at a minor threat and ignore the major ones.
-
Eh, not really. Having spent way too much time dealing with military stuff, and Islam, as always, it's always overblown.
Islamic terrorists is not even 1% of the threat of the USSR and communism. At the moment, the only thing strong enough to destroy America is America. And we're trying to do our best to gut our economy and manufacturing base. That is the highest national security priority we have.
Overestimating a threat can be more dangerous than underestimating it, at times. If you throw too many resources at a minor threat and ignore the major ones.
I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill? In American territory?
Orthodox Islam's adherents have it all over the Russki commies in that department.
-
I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill? In American territory?
Do Americans they killed by proxy count?
Do America's allies count?
-
I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill? In American territory?
Orthodox Islam's adherents have it all over the Russki commies in that department.
As I said, USSR was a lot smarter and more dangerous of an adversity. We fought the communists in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and plenty more unofficial wars all over the globe. How many Russians did we kill in Moscow?
Flashy != more dangerous
9/11 = 2,977 dead
Afghanistan = 1,780 US dead
Korea = 36,940 US dead
Vietnam = 58,220 US dead
Hell, the MIA from the communist wars outnumber the KIA from the Islamic terrorist wars.
More than the death counts, which are easy to quantify... Manufacturing base. USSR had a massive one. Islamic fundamentalists do not. If they can't build anything, long term they will never be more than an annoyance.
On the other hand, if we lose our manufacturing base, we will long term become little more than a global annoyance.
-
So, no numbers for how many Americans the USSR killed, on American soil or elsewhere?
Do Americans they killed by proxy count?
Do America's allies count?
Not for this question.
OTOH, the USSR was a huge threat, one that we succeeded in saving during "The War to Save Russian Communism" (AKA, WWII). Orthodox Islam manages the trick of doing us more damage while being a much lesser threat. The question is, "Is America up to the lesser challenge Orthodox Islam presents?"
The answer is not yet clear, as the Left has managed its march through the institutions and now holds that ground.
On the other hand, if we lose our manufacturing base, we will long term become little more than a global annoyance.
Ayup.
-
So, no numbers for how many Americans the USSR killed, on American soil or elsewhere?
Not for this question.
OTOH, the USSR was a huge threat, one that we succeeded in saving during "The War to Save Russian Communism" (AKA, WWII). Orthodox Islam manages the trick of doing us more damage while being a much lesser threat. The question is, "Is America up to the lesser challenge Orthodox Islam presents?"
How on earth is it more damage? As revdisk said, the Soviet support for revolutionary movements / communist proxy states across the world helped to cause thousands of your dead and millions of everyone elses.
Also, how on earth can WW2 be described as "The War to Save Russian Communism", given that half of your war was spent against a nation that (a) attacked you and (b) wasnt fighting the Soviets until right at the end when the Soviets invaded them? Even the half that was in Europe didnt really kick off until some time after the Soviets were clearly winning.
-
If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.
-
If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.
Well since Ron Paul plans to retire after this one it hardly matters.
This was our last chance to actually change stuff swiftly rather than nibble away at it for decades while thousands of War on Drugs/War on Drugs prisoners continue to rot in prisons.
-
If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.
I did laugh at Megyn Kelly today mention of him just now - it went something like "Will people vote for a moderate like Romney, or someone from far outside the mainstream of conservative opinion like Ron Paul? Especially in a conservative state like Iowa." Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now? Balancing the budget?*
* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true
-
Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now? Balancing the budget?*
* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true
<Jayne>
Apparently.
</Jayne>
-
I did laugh at Megyn Kelly today mention of him just now - it went something like "Will people vote for a moderate like Romney, or someone from far outside the mainstream of conservative opinion like Ron Paul? Especially in a conservative state like Iowa." Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now? Balancing the budget?*
* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true
Past 30 years?
Honestly, I think this is rudimentary human tribal/primate behavior. And I think this is the root of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment, Stockholm Syndrome, the Holocaust... any number of things.
When people look back on America's past, both pre Civil War (slavery notwithstanding) and pre "New Deal 1930's, and see them as some sort of Libertarian near-utopia, at least in the sense of freedom, they forget there were extremely authoritarian structures operating in parallel, in terms of social and religious mores, that while operating less than 100 years ago, would seem purely medieval were they to be thrust upon us now.
I've come to the conclusion, that for many people, hell... most people, whether it's the latest fad, the "Thundershirt" for neurotic dogs, or Temple Grandin's Cattle Squeezer, for both livestock and autistic children... the presence of an authority structure serves the same purpose for the populace at large.
It's probably the biggest obstacle Libertarian ideology has to overcome. While I still have modest hopes for a Ron Paul presidency, I don't think Libertarianism will ever be successfully imposed from the top down. If some sort of Libertarian minarchy comes to pass, I think it'll be some sort of organic ground-up phenomena. And it'll have to come in the guise of something deeply attractive, either personally, or fiscally, and be so strong it either causes people to overlook their need for authority, or simply not even notice until it's too late.
-
Paul-poll on Drudge.
Vote early, vote often. You can multi-vote by refreshing your browser. :lol:
-
How on earth is it more damage? As revdisk said, the Soviet support for revolutionary movements / communist proxy states across the world helped to cause thousands of your dead and millions of everyone elses.
The question was not WRT the proxies. We have declared a hot war against Orthodox Islamic terrorism, something we never did to the Russian commies. I suspect that is because the Russian commies never killed us by the thousands.
Also, how on earth can WW2 be described as "The War to Save Russian Communism", given that half of your war was spent against a nation that (a) attacked you and (b) wasnt fighting the Soviets until right at the end when the Soviets invaded them? Even the half that was in Europe didnt really kick off until some time after the Soviets were clearly winning.
1. The USSR, along with Nazi Germany, was the proximate cause of WWII. No great outcry to get involved when the two sides f ht esame totalitarian coin were chumming it up. After Hitler nearly defeated the USSR, though, the commies, lefties, and sympathizers in gov't were all sorts of eager to jump in.
2. Half of America's WW2 effort was not against the Japs. Only a small fraction of total American WW2 resources were deployed against the Japanese. The VAST majority was deployed against Germany. Were it not for MacArthur's tender pride, the Japanese could have been handled with only the USMC and small fractions of the Navy and Army Air Corps, making the ratio even more skewed.
3. The Soviets never would have come close to surviving were it not for American material aid, period. They would have been a mess of mass starvation and inadequate logistics that would have been rolled up to the Urals.
4. More square miles of Europe were under totalitarian rule after WW2 than before. We kicked the crap out of one devil only to pave the way for the next.
5. We did not go on to finish the job of destroying totalitarianism and deliberately let the Soviets penetrate farther into Europe had our leadership not deliberately delayed.
Net result; after all that blood, money, and effort; was an enlarged and strengthened evil Russian communist empire. Pardon me if I do not cheer the result.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/
Having met Santorum, I agree with the above. He is an empty suit, that runs to hold office for the perks, bribes, etc. Think Palace Guard GOP
-
3. The Soviets never would have come close to surviving were it not for American material aid, period. They would have been a mess of mass starvation and inadequate logistics that would have been rolled up to the Urals.
Soviet military logistics were superior in many aspects to those of the Germans - better logistical organization on the company level, for instance. And they had more troops. The major Soviet arms plants were in Nizhny Tagil and even further east. And the Soviets had more troops.
All the Soviets needed to do was save Moscow and turn it into a grind. Once it was a grind Germany had lost.
4. More square miles of Europe were under totalitarian rule after WW2 than before. We kicked the crap out of one devil only to pave the way for the next.
The Soviets were not anywhere as homicidal as Hitler. They were homicidal to be sure - but the Black Book of Communism overstates Stalin's horrific atrocities still further.
Not to mention the murder of millions of innocents - Russians, Poles, Czechs, Jews - in Eastern Europe by Hitler. The Soviets' retaliation was far more timid (compare the amount of German civilians killed by the Allies to the amount of Soviet civilians killed by the Nazis. While the greater Soviet military casualties can be explained merely with the Soviets'... limited tactical skill, the vast civilian casualties have only brutality as their explanation).
Stalin was an oppressor and a murderer I have no doubt.
Hitler was the international equivalent of the woman-suit wearing fellow in Silence of the Lambs.
-
Frankly the best way to do alternate-history would be to just nuke Moscow as soon as JApan surrenders. Perhaps 100,000 people would have died, but millions would be saved from Soviet slavery.
-
Soviet log may have been splendiferous at the company level, but they never would have gotten crops in from the fields or material to the front were it not for the gift of tens of thousands of American trucks.
Without them, the whole Soviet war machine grinds to a halt and millions starve.
-
The question was not WRT the proxies. We have declared a hot war against Orthodox Islamic terrorism, something we never did to the Russian commies. I suspect that is because the Russian commies never killed us by the thousands.
Nope - there were several hot wars against various proxy regimes, just as there are hot wars against various (or percieved) franchises of al-Q in various parts of the world (Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, the claims that were made before Iraq etc). Of course, the main difference is that you couldnt declare war against the Soviets in the open way that you have against al-Q because it would have lead to an actual, genuine apocalypse.
1. The USSR, along with Nazi Germany, was the proximate cause of WWII. No great outcry to get involved when the two sides f ht esame totalitarian coin were chumming it up. After Hitler nearly defeated the USSR, though, the commies, lefties, and sympathizers in gov't were all sorts of eager to jump in.
Actually it was (at least in the UK) the left who started to oppose Nazi Germany before most of the right (at least "most of the Tory Party") did. Also lets not forget that the UK and France had actually declared war on the Germans before the secret provisions of the treaty you mention came into effect.
2. Half of America's WW2 effort was not against the Japs. Only a small fraction of total American WW2 resources were deployed against the Japanese. The VAST majority was deployed against Germany. Were it not for MacArthur's tender pride, the Japanese could have been handled with only the USMC and small fractions of the Navy and Army Air Corps, making the ratio even more skewed.
I didnt say "half of America's WW2 effort".
3. The Soviets never would have come close to surviving were it not for American material aid, period. They would have been a mess of mass starvation and inadequate logistics that would have been rolled up to the Urals.
Not really. As microbalrog states, once they had won in the winter of 1941 (or rather not lost), and once Stalin had taken the important decision to trust key members of his military leadership for the duration of the war, they were always going to win a war of attrition with the Nazis.
4. More square miles of Europe were under totalitarian rule after WW2 than before. We kicked the crap out of one devil only to pave the way for the next.
This I agree with, though without starting a new - and almost certainly much worse - war right after Germany fell its difficult to see what else could have been done.
5. We did not go on to finish the job of destroying totalitarianism and deliberately let the Soviets penetrate farther into Europe had our leadership not deliberately delayed.
This was perhaps a sensible decision, given that very few people would have gone along with it.
Net result; after all that blood, money, and effort; was an enlarged and strengthened evil Russian communist empire. Pardon me if I do not cheer the result.
Would the alternative (if they had been able to win) have been any better?
[/quote]
-
Soviet log may have been splendiferous at the company level, but they never would have gotten crops in from the fields or material to the front were it not for the gift of tens of thousands of American trucks.
Without them, the whole Soviet war machine grinds to a halt and millions starve.
food shortages were already detected in the Wehrmacht in September 1941.
-
food shortages were already detected in the Wehrmacht in September 1941.
Yes, and...?
Also, am I a bad man for wanting to beat Michael Medved like a red-headed step child for not-so-subtly comparing Ron Paul to Hitler and his supporters chanting "Ron Paul" to Nazis shouting "sieg heil" on his radio show today? Man has no shame.
Ron Paul has hacked me off plenty, but I may vote for him just to spite all the right people.
-
Also, am I a bad man for wanting to beat Michael Medved like a red-headed step child for not-so-subtly comparing Ron Paul to Hitler and his supporters chanting "Ron Paul" to Nazis shouting "sieg heil" on his radio show today? Man has no shame.
Ron Paul has hacked me off plenty, but I may vote for him just to spite all the right people.
That depends upon what the point Medved was trying to make. Our local radio plays his program taped, from 2:00AM-5:00AM so it's a little unlikely I will hear this unless I wake up and can't get back to sleep (it does happen).
Medved is very knowledgeable and I usually don't find his statements outlandish.
The Nazis did yell "heil victory" and a good many of R. Paul's supporters are .... a bit, um, well, [tinfoil] - like.
-
That depends upon what the point Medved was trying to make.
That Paul was like Hitler and his supporters like Nazis? How about that point?
Paul had made a comment about, contrary to Nixon's "We're all Keynesians now," that "We're all Austrians now," what with all the attention on the debt, hard money, etc. Medved then goes on and asks, "Who was the most famous man from Austria, hmmmmm? It's Hitler."
-
Yes, and...?
Both forces suffered from starvation and cold. Hitler would have lost either way, just after killing more Soviet soldiers - and more importantly, more innocent Russians, Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen, etc. etc.
-
Paul had made a comment about, contrary to Nixon's "We're all Keynesians now," that "We're all Austrians now," what with all the attention on the debt, hard money, etc. Medved then goes on and asks, "Who was the most famous man from Austria, hmmmmm? It's Hitler."
No, it's Schubert!
Medved is allegedly a right-winger of sorts, as I understand it. He is a political commentator, and has been plying his trade for several years now. For somebody in that field to be that stupid about a subject that big... damn. It's like a church-going, WWJD-bracelet wearing Christian hearing kids singing "Jesus Loves Me" and wondering why they're singing about "some Mexican dude" at church.
-
That Paul was like Hitler and his supporters like Nazis? How about that point?
Paul had made a comment about, contrary to Nixon's "We're all Keynesians now," that "We're all Austrians now," what with all the attention on the debt, hard money, etc. Medved then goes on and asks, "Who was the most famous man from Austria, hmmmmm? It's Hitler."
Well, I think that some of Paul's supporters are as blindly devoted to him as many of Hitler's supporters were devoted to him, so the point may actually have a tip to it.
Using Hitler in any analogy or argument is a dangerous thing. It's probably best to NOT use Hitler unless one knows a lot about the Third Reich & Hitler and makes a very clear, deliniated comparison.
Paul's minions and Hitler's may be similar insofar as they are "unreasonably" devoted to their ....uh, well, "fuhrer/leader" but Hitler and Ron Paul are very very different people. Paul is an unelectable kook (Hitler by definition was "electable" [tinfoil] ). Hitler was so ruthless and murderous it is very hard to come to grips with the reality of what he was while R. Paul doesn't have a murderous bone in his body -- to the point in some peoples' opinion that he won't be tough enough on the nation's enemies.
However, I can well appreciate people who like Paul taking deep umbrage at any comparison to Hitler or the Third Reich.
Medved's point was only valid by a very very narrow definition .....and while I generally respect him, I think he made an error of judgement by using Hitler/The Third Reich in this illustration.
-
Reductio ad Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)
(fixed second link)
-
"Reductio ad Hitlerum" :laugh: :laugh:
Yea, seriously though I get it.
-
I think that some of Paul's supporters are as blindly devoted to him as many of Hitler's supporters were devoted to him
Blind devotion, or just that no one else running for president has a platform anything like his ???
Even you even mostly agree with RP then there is no one else even close.
-
Blind devotion, or just that no one else running for president has a platform anything like his ???
Even you even mostly agree with RP then there is no one else even close.
And this ladies and gentlemen is the key issue.
Ron Paul presents us with an opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress.
If Ron Paul crashes and burns, we do not have a second Ron Paul to run in 2016. We have failed to create a body of libertarian politicians from which a second, and third, and fourth Ron Paul may spring.
-
And this ladies and gentlemen is the key issue.
Ron Paul presents us with an opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress.
If Ron Paul crashes and burns, we do not have a second Ron Paul to run in 2016. We have failed to create a body of libertarian politicians from which a second, and third, and fourth Ron Paul may spring.
If he actually does do consistently well in the primaries, I predict that he will not live to see the 2012 Republican convention =(
-
If he actually does do consistently well in the primaries, I predict that he will not live to see the 2012 Republican convention =(
We'll see.
Chris
-
"Reductio ad Hitlerum" :laugh: :laugh:
Yea, seriously though I get it.
Resorting to a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis should be an automatic forfeit.
-
And this ladies and gentlemen is the key issue.
Ron Paul presents us with an opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress.
If Ron Paul crashes and burns, we do not have a second Ron Paul to run in 2016. We have failed to create a body of libertarian politicians from which a second, and third, and fourth Ron Paul may spring.
NO, he doesn't. Change doesn't come quickly. Or, rather, LASTING change doesn't come quickly absent divine intervention.
Even, heaven forbid, should Ron Paul be elected and placed in power TODAY, we wouldn't get an "opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress" because there would be a MASSIVE BACKLASH to his efforts.
Further, there is the problem that everything Ron Paul wants would have to go through Congress and, likely, the courts. Not only does that take time, but there would be significant resistance to efforts for quick, significant change.
Our polity was purposely designed for slow change. Yes, we've moved FAR from the founder's intentions. We will not get back there with some quick fix like electing your libertarian super-hero. We would likely lose ground as a result of his efforts, not gain it, ultimately. (Just as, mirabile dictu, Obama's efforts may actually cause the liberals to lose ground due to the massive backlash of 2010 and the hopefully massive backlash of 2012.)
-
If he actually does do consistently well in the primaries, I predict that he will not live to see the 2012 Republican convention =(
:facepalm:
Fortunately, I don't think you have to worry about the conditional part of that statement occurring. The later may happen simply given his age, but I think your tinfoil might need some reapplication.
-
Even, heaven forbid, should Ron Paul be elected and placed in power TODAY, we wouldn't get an "opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress" because there would be a MASSIVE BACKLASH to his efforts.
It would not be "total victory overnight". But it would get us to, say, ten-percentile-points a year and not 1005.
Further, there is the problem that everything Ron Paul wants would have to go through Congress and, likely, the courts. Not only does that take time, but there would be significant resistance to efforts for quick, significant change.
Nope. Repealing, say, Clinton's executive orders would take another executive order.
Our polity was purposely designed for slow change. Yes, we've moved FAR from the founder's intentions.
The Constitution has provisions for both a regular-system operations, with slow change, but there are also loopholes - deliberately, no doubt, left in by Madison & Co. - for a fast, peaceful revolution.
We will not get back there with some quick fix like electing your libertarian super-hero. We would likely lose ground as a result of his efforts, not gain it, ultimately.
Create a new situation and hold on to it for a year or two - and create a constituency out of whoever benefits from the new status quo.
-
Change doesn't come quickly. Or, rather, LASTING change doesn't come quickly absent divine intervention.
It can. 1989.
Divine intervention: I have a "fairly robust (http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/beliefs/heidelberg.txt)" view of providence, but don't expect it to be overtly visible until judgment day.
-
Further, there is the problem that everything Ron Paul wants would have to go through Congress
And everything Congress wants would have to go though Ron Paul. :P
-
If he actually does do consistently well in the primaries, I predict that he will not live to see the 2012 Republican convention =(
I don't know about that.....but I'm sure that the GOP would sabotage his POTUS run, preferring an Obama 2nd term over a Paul presidency......
-
Resorting to a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis should be an automatic forfeit.
;)
I don't disagree with that.
Unless the comparison is valid -- and as of now I see no one in America who really qualifies as another Hitler.
I suppose some foreign nuts might come close but that's another story for another thread.
-
I don't know about that.....but I'm sure that the GOP would sabotage his POTUS run, preferring an Obama 2nd term over a Paul presidency......
What would you consider sabotage? I may end up "sabotaging" Romney's POTUS run by not voting for him. But I hope you don't consider a lack of enthusiastic support to be sabotage. I ask, because that seems to be the way of Paul supporters - if you don't support him, they seem to think you're doing something wrong.
-
The problem with comparing everything to Hitler is this: it loses its impact when the rare situation comes up where it's apt.
-
What would you consider sabotage? I may end up "sabotaging" Romney's POTUS run by not voting for him. But I hope you don't consider a lack of enthusiastic support to be sabotage. I ask, because that seems to be the way of Paul supporters - if you don't support him, they seem to think you're doing something wrong.
Nothing like that....more like the GOP establishment will deny him money & resources even if he wins the primaries outright....you know, the "take our ball & go home" approach....
-
NO, he doesn't. Change doesn't come quickly. Or, rather, LASTING change doesn't come quickly absent divine intervention.
Even, heaven forbid, should Ron Paul be elected and placed in power TODAY, we wouldn't get an "opportunity to bypass the process of slow, torturous, one-percentile-point-a-year progress" because there would be a MASSIVE BACKLASH to his efforts.
Further, there is the problem that everything Ron Paul wants would have to go through Congress and, likely, the courts. Not only does that take time, but there would be significant resistance to efforts for quick, significant change.
Our polity was purposely designed for slow change. Yes, we've moved FAR from the founder's intentions. We will not get back there with some quick fix like electing your libertarian super-hero. We would likely lose ground as a result of his efforts, not gain it, ultimately. (Just as, mirabile dictu, Obama's efforts may actually cause the liberals to lose ground due to the massive backlash of 2010 and the hopefully massive backlash of 2012.)
When you find yourself sinking in quicksand you don't plan to master yogic breath retention. We don't have ten, 20, 30 years to re-build the Republic. We may not have five, or three.
While we talk about the coming Election, what we really need is not an Election but a LOCK-OUT. While we wrangle over choosing a candidate who can not only win but might actually do something constructive AFTER being elected, knowing that this candidate will be disemboweled by the media while our own refuse to lay a glove on the Anointed One, the ugly reality is that one of the candidates in the race should not be running at all but should be impeached. Not acknowledging this unpleasant reality is to already lose anything that really matters.
-
When you find yourself sinking in quicksand you don't plan to master yogic breath retention. We don't have ten, 20, 30 years to re-build the Republic. We may not have five, or three.
While we talk about the coming Election, what we really need is not an Election but a LOCK-OUT. While we wrangle over choosing a candidate who can not only win but might actually do something constructive AFTER being elected, knowing that this candidate will be disemboweled by the media while our own refuse to lay a glove on the Anointed One, the ugly reality is that one of the candidates in the race should not be running at all but should be impeached. Not acknowledging this unpleasant reality is to already lose anything that really matters.
You also don't need to get heavy equipment to dig out the quicksand and turn it into farmland when you are sinking in it. You need to get out and then you can make plans for removing the quicksand so you can avoid it in the future.
The ultimate solution is to return to the founder's vision. An immediate and drastic reordering of the country is not necessary yet to our survival. Until it is, gradual measures are better.
-
The ultimate solution is to return to the founder's vision. An immediate and drastic reordering of the country is not necessary yet to our survival. Until it is, gradual measures are better.
Had this been merely a question of economic efficience or American geopolitical power you might have been right. This is not the case.