Post by: Euclidean on November 14, 2007, 07:27:00 PM
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/RonPaulPage2.htm
Quote
Ron Paul and National Defense
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
Its time to put to rest the myth that Ron Paul is weak on national defense and that he would endanger America if elected. I will list some facts about Ron Paul and national defense, and then I will provide links to numerous articles so that people can read what Dr. Paul has said on this subject in his own words.
First, some facts about Ron Paul on national defense. These facts are just some of the things that could be said about Ron Paul and national defense. Those who want a more in-depth view of where Ron Paul stands on national defense issues are encouraged to read the links in the second part of this article. The Ron Paul quotes in the following points are taken from some of the linked articles.
* All conservatives agree that border security is a critical component of national defense. Nobody is tougher than Ron Paul when it comes to border security. His position is identical to that of border-security hawks like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. In fact, Dr. Paul has called for ending immigration from countries that sponsor or aid terrorists (see below).
* A crucial part of national security is protecting our national sovereignty. Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul has repeatedly talked about the threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN, by regional trade agreements, and by attempts to make international law superior to American law. No candidate would be more aggressive in protecting our national sovereignty than Ron Paul.
* Ron Paul has proposed the following measures as part of an effective counter-terrorism strategy:
(1) Do not allow people from countries that are sponsoring or aiding terrorists to enter the U.S., not even on Student Visas. Says Dr. Paul, Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.
(2) Abolish all regulations that prevent or hinder our intelligence agencies from working together and sharing information.
(3) Treat terrorist attempts and conspiracies as harshly as completed acts, and allow the death penalty in more terrorist cases. Says Dr. Paul, The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
(4) End all legal preferences for terrorist suspects.
(5) Arm all airline pilots.
(6) Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists. Says Dr. Paul, Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. (See below for more on this approach.)
* Ron Paul voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
* Ron Paul has introduced legislation, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to give the President more tools to pursue Bin Laden and other terrorists. Dr. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan and elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S. Said Dr. Paul, "Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man. Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."
* Ron Paul condemned the fact that when terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the sailors on guard had weapons that werent loaded and werent allowed to fire at the enemy anyway. Said Dr. Paul, Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane.
* Ron Paul has been a champion of funding for veterans programs. No one has a better record when it comes to ensuring that our veterans programs are properly funded. The Disabled Veterans of America have given Congressman Paul outstanding ratings for his support of veterans programs. He has called for us to honor veterans with a better budget. He adds, We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.
* Ron Paul supported concurrent receipt for disabled veterans receiving military pensions. For decades, a retired veterans VA disability payment was counted against his military pension. Ron Paul was among those who strongly supported repealing this unfair provision.
* Ron Paul has repeatedly called for the Bush administration to refocus the militarys effort on getting Bin Laden and his supporters. For example, Dr. Paul has said, We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him dead or alive. And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaeda before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose.
* Ron Paul has proposed exempting all military personnel from income taxes during time of war. He believes that our soldiers should not be paying income taxes while they and their families are sacrificing so heavily from multiple deployments and/or from having to do extra work to make up for those who have been deployed overseas.
* Ron Paul wants to end our involvement in Iraq. Bringing our troops home from Iraq would greatly enhance our militarys readiness and morale. Our troops have done all we could reasonably ask them to do: They toppled Saddam and enabled the Iraqi people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. Leaving our troops in the middle of the ongoing civil war in Iraq is unwise and unnecessary. Everyone admits that most of the violence in Iraq is from sectarian fighting, not from Al Qaeda. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is as oppressive and corrupt as the regime in Syria. The Shiites in power have ignored the Iraqi Constitution, which calls for a diffusion of power and a federalist approach. Iraqi government officials who have tried to expose government corruption have been killed, or have had to seek U.S. protection, or have fled the country. Last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah.
* Ron Paul also wants to end our involvement in Afghanistan. As theyve done in Iraq, our troops have done all we could fairly ask of them: They toppled the Taliban and enabled the Afghani people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. But, as the Iraq Study Group noted in its report, the situation in Afghanistan is very bad. The Afghani government is harsh and corrupt, and too many of the Afghani people are more loyal to their tribe than to anyone else and are also hostile to our troops. The British and then the Soviets found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. The Soviets were unable to do so, even though they had many more troops than we have in Afghanistan and even though they were willing to use far more brutal methods than we will use. We need to realize that we cant always impose our will on an entire country. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing like Germany and Japan were after World War II.
* Ronald Reagan praised Ron Paul for being strong on national defense. Said Reagan, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
And now links to some articles and speeches on Ron Paul and national defense, most of them by Ron Paul himself:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112/effective-and-practical-counter-terrorism-measures/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terrorism/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/235/honoring-our-military-veterans/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/236/mistreating-soldiers-and-veterans/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/63/fixing-whats-wrong-with-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/111/will-we-bring-bin-laden-to-justice/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/71/before-we-bomb-baghdad/
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204914
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/234/legislation-for-our-military-families-and-veterans/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/233/honor-veterans-with-a-better-budget/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/128/paul-votes-for-stronger-border-security/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/70/arguments-against-a-war-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/68/ignoring-reality-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/66/hypocrisy-in-the-middle-east/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/62/the-price-of-delaying-the-inevitable-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr042204.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr072103.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr042903.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr032800.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul93.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
Its time to put to rest the myth that Ron Paul is weak on national defense and that he would endanger America if elected. I will list some facts about Ron Paul and national defense, and then I will provide links to numerous articles so that people can read what Dr. Paul has said on this subject in his own words.
First, some facts about Ron Paul on national defense. These facts are just some of the things that could be said about Ron Paul and national defense. Those who want a more in-depth view of where Ron Paul stands on national defense issues are encouraged to read the links in the second part of this article. The Ron Paul quotes in the following points are taken from some of the linked articles.
* All conservatives agree that border security is a critical component of national defense. Nobody is tougher than Ron Paul when it comes to border security. His position is identical to that of border-security hawks like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. In fact, Dr. Paul has called for ending immigration from countries that sponsor or aid terrorists (see below).
* A crucial part of national security is protecting our national sovereignty. Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul has repeatedly talked about the threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN, by regional trade agreements, and by attempts to make international law superior to American law. No candidate would be more aggressive in protecting our national sovereignty than Ron Paul.
* Ron Paul has proposed the following measures as part of an effective counter-terrorism strategy:
(1) Do not allow people from countries that are sponsoring or aiding terrorists to enter the U.S., not even on Student Visas. Says Dr. Paul, Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.
(2) Abolish all regulations that prevent or hinder our intelligence agencies from working together and sharing information.
(3) Treat terrorist attempts and conspiracies as harshly as completed acts, and allow the death penalty in more terrorist cases. Says Dr. Paul, The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
(4) End all legal preferences for terrorist suspects.
(5) Arm all airline pilots.
(6) Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists. Says Dr. Paul, Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. (See below for more on this approach.)
* Ron Paul voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
* Ron Paul has introduced legislation, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to give the President more tools to pursue Bin Laden and other terrorists. Dr. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan and elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S. Said Dr. Paul, "Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man. Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."
* Ron Paul condemned the fact that when terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the sailors on guard had weapons that werent loaded and werent allowed to fire at the enemy anyway. Said Dr. Paul, Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane.
* Ron Paul has been a champion of funding for veterans programs. No one has a better record when it comes to ensuring that our veterans programs are properly funded. The Disabled Veterans of America have given Congressman Paul outstanding ratings for his support of veterans programs. He has called for us to honor veterans with a better budget. He adds, We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.
* Ron Paul supported concurrent receipt for disabled veterans receiving military pensions. For decades, a retired veterans VA disability payment was counted against his military pension. Ron Paul was among those who strongly supported repealing this unfair provision.
* Ron Paul has repeatedly called for the Bush administration to refocus the militarys effort on getting Bin Laden and his supporters. For example, Dr. Paul has said, We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him dead or alive. And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaeda before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose.
* Ron Paul has proposed exempting all military personnel from income taxes during time of war. He believes that our soldiers should not be paying income taxes while they and their families are sacrificing so heavily from multiple deployments and/or from having to do extra work to make up for those who have been deployed overseas.
* Ron Paul wants to end our involvement in Iraq. Bringing our troops home from Iraq would greatly enhance our militarys readiness and morale. Our troops have done all we could reasonably ask them to do: They toppled Saddam and enabled the Iraqi people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. Leaving our troops in the middle of the ongoing civil war in Iraq is unwise and unnecessary. Everyone admits that most of the violence in Iraq is from sectarian fighting, not from Al Qaeda. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is as oppressive and corrupt as the regime in Syria. The Shiites in power have ignored the Iraqi Constitution, which calls for a diffusion of power and a federalist approach. Iraqi government officials who have tried to expose government corruption have been killed, or have had to seek U.S. protection, or have fled the country. Last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah.
* Ron Paul also wants to end our involvement in Afghanistan. As theyve done in Iraq, our troops have done all we could fairly ask of them: They toppled the Taliban and enabled the Afghani people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. But, as the Iraq Study Group noted in its report, the situation in Afghanistan is very bad. The Afghani government is harsh and corrupt, and too many of the Afghani people are more loyal to their tribe than to anyone else and are also hostile to our troops. The British and then the Soviets found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. The Soviets were unable to do so, even though they had many more troops than we have in Afghanistan and even though they were willing to use far more brutal methods than we will use. We need to realize that we cant always impose our will on an entire country. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing like Germany and Japan were after World War II.
* Ronald Reagan praised Ron Paul for being strong on national defense. Said Reagan, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
And now links to some articles and speeches on Ron Paul and national defense, most of them by Ron Paul himself:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112/effective-and-practical-counter-terrorism-measures/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terrorism/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/235/honoring-our-military-veterans/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/236/mistreating-soldiers-and-veterans/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/63/fixing-whats-wrong-with-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/111/will-we-bring-bin-laden-to-justice/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/71/before-we-bomb-baghdad/
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204914
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/234/legislation-for-our-military-families-and-veterans/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/233/honor-veterans-with-a-better-budget/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/128/paul-votes-for-stronger-border-security/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/70/arguments-against-a-war-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/68/ignoring-reality-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/66/hypocrisy-in-the-middle-east/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/62/the-price-of-delaying-the-inevitable-in-iraq/
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr042204.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr072103.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr042903.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr032800.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul93.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html
Quote
A Response to Criticisms of Ron Pauls Stand on the War in Iraq
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
"If it weren't for Ron Pauls stand on the Iraq War, I'd support him,"
I hear this statement frequently from my fellow conservatives.
As a retired Army vet, please allow me to tell you why I dont think Ron Pauls stand on the war in Iraq should be a problem. There's really no reason for us to remain in Iraq. We toppled Saddam Hussein. We enabled the Iraqis to ratify a constitution and to elect a government. Weve done our part. The rest is up to them. Now we're simply in the middle of a civil war. With us out of the way, the Shiites and the Sunnis will come to an arrangement, one way or the other.
Weve given the Shiites more than enough time to get their act together. Everyone agrees that Iraq is not going to have a functioning democratic government if theres no political reconciliation. *expletive deleted*it leaders, in and out of the government, have made it clear they have no intention of doing what needs to be done to reconcile and share power with the Sunnis.
The *expletive deleted*it-dominated government of Iraq has proven itself to be horribly corrupt and brutal (see below). The Sunni and Kurdish members of the government arent much better. As just one example of this sad truth, we need only point to the fact that last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iraqi officials who have tried to expose government corruption have either been killed, fled the country, or had to seek U.S. protection (see below).
After billions of dollars and thousands of man hours of training, the Iraqi army as a whole is still unreliable. Whole units still fail to show up for duty. In some cases Iraqi soldiers have abandoned our troops during battles. The Iraqi national police force, by all accounts, is a disgrace. In some instances, Iraqi police have attacked our troops. In countless cases, Iraqi citizens have stood back and said nothing as insurgents have planted roadside charges and other bombs to kill our troops. Yes, many Iraqis are on our side, but quite a few are not.
The Iraq War is costing us at least $10 billion a month. Were having to borrow tens of billions of dollars from foreign nations to pay for the war. Already 2007 is now the deadliest year for our troops since the war began. Weve had more troops killed and wounded this year than in any previous year. Its time we brought our troops home and let the Iraqis determine their own future.
"If we leave Iraq, wont the country become a safe haven for Al Qaeda?
This is improbable. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is not likely to tolerate the presence of a Sunni paramilitary group, which is what Al Qaeda is (in addition to being a terrorist organization). Plus, everyone now admits that most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by sectarian fighting, not by Al Qaeda attacks. Even General David Petraeus acknowledged this fact in his testimony before Congress in September.
"What will happen to the Iraqi government if we leave?"
Any Iraqi government that emerges is not going to be too much worse than the one that is in power right now. No matter how many elections are held, the government is going to be run by Shiites because the Shiites outnumber the Sunnis by at least three to two. Even with the Kurds in the north taking part in the election, the Shiites will still control the government.
The current Iraqi government is just as corrupt and just as brutal toward opponents as some of the other rotten governments in the Middle East (see below). When you invade a Muslim country that has a long tradition of violence and corruption, you're not going to get a government that's run by enlightened democrats. Maybe we should have thought about that beforehand.
"But what if Al Qaeda follows us here if we leave."
If Al Qaeda tries to follow us here, we can fight them a lot more easily here than we can over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over there they can easily blend in with the population. As long as were in the Middle East, they will be able to periodically kill and injure our troops, as theyre doing now. Over here they'd find it a lot harder to attack our troops or to stage other kinds of attacks.
In addition, with our troops gone, the terrorists will have a harder time attracting new recruits. With our troops in the region, Al Qaeda and other groups are able to rail against infidel invaders, etc., etc. Experts on terrorism tell us that groups like Al Qaeda would find it more difficult to gain new recruits if we had no troops in the region. When we and the French and the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon, the suicide attacks in Lebanon ceased.
"If we leave, will we still be able to get oil from Iraq?"
Saddam Hussein was willing to sell us oil. The current government of Iraq is likewise willing to sell us oil. The odds are that any future Iraqi government would be willing to do the same.
How quickly would Ron Paul withdraw our troops from Iraq?
Ron Paul has made it clear that he would only withdraw our troops from Iraq as quickly as was safely possible. He has said he would consult with our military commanders to determine how soon our troops could be safely withdrawn. He would change our strategy immediately, in order to get our troops out from the middle of the crossfire of sectarian fighting. But he would ensure that the troop withdrawal from the country would be done in a safe manner.
Some Sobering Facts About the Iraqi Government
Here are some articles that should sober us up to the fact that we shouldn't spend another dime, or lose another life, or see another soldier wounded in Iraq. Iraq is not worth $10 billion a month, and its certainly not worth seeing more American soldiers killed or wounded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14117853
EXTRACT: "State Department investigators in Iraq have concluded that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The investigators also say that corrupt civil servants with connections to the government are seen as untouchable, and that employees of Iraq's watchdog Commission on Public Integrity have been murdered in the line of duty." (September 2007)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401305.html
EXTRACT: "The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has thwarted investigations into corruption at the top levels of his administration, including probes of his relatives, while nearly four dozen anti-corruption employees or their family members have been brutally murdered, the former top Iraqi corruption investigator told a House panel yesterday." (October 2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131290.stm
EXTRACT: "Iraq corruption costs billion: Among its more notable findings was a report on the loss of 14,000 weapons destined for Iraqi government use. Many of these are believed to have found their way into the hands of insurgent groups after the Pentagon lost track of them." (November 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600774.html
EXTRACT: "U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker told Congress last week that "massive corruption" and "a lot of theft going on" in Iraq's government-controlled oil industry is hampering the country's ability to govern itself." (July 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297180,00.html
Col. Dave Hunt says our Iraq strategy is flawed. Although he doesnt recommend a total withdrawal, he does recognize that our strategy is fundamentally flawed and that we need to get our troops out from the middle of the ongoing Iraqi civil war.
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
"If it weren't for Ron Pauls stand on the Iraq War, I'd support him,"
I hear this statement frequently from my fellow conservatives.
As a retired Army vet, please allow me to tell you why I dont think Ron Pauls stand on the war in Iraq should be a problem. There's really no reason for us to remain in Iraq. We toppled Saddam Hussein. We enabled the Iraqis to ratify a constitution and to elect a government. Weve done our part. The rest is up to them. Now we're simply in the middle of a civil war. With us out of the way, the Shiites and the Sunnis will come to an arrangement, one way or the other.
Weve given the Shiites more than enough time to get their act together. Everyone agrees that Iraq is not going to have a functioning democratic government if theres no political reconciliation. *expletive deleted*it leaders, in and out of the government, have made it clear they have no intention of doing what needs to be done to reconcile and share power with the Sunnis.
The *expletive deleted*it-dominated government of Iraq has proven itself to be horribly corrupt and brutal (see below). The Sunni and Kurdish members of the government arent much better. As just one example of this sad truth, we need only point to the fact that last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iraqi officials who have tried to expose government corruption have either been killed, fled the country, or had to seek U.S. protection (see below).
After billions of dollars and thousands of man hours of training, the Iraqi army as a whole is still unreliable. Whole units still fail to show up for duty. In some cases Iraqi soldiers have abandoned our troops during battles. The Iraqi national police force, by all accounts, is a disgrace. In some instances, Iraqi police have attacked our troops. In countless cases, Iraqi citizens have stood back and said nothing as insurgents have planted roadside charges and other bombs to kill our troops. Yes, many Iraqis are on our side, but quite a few are not.
The Iraq War is costing us at least $10 billion a month. Were having to borrow tens of billions of dollars from foreign nations to pay for the war. Already 2007 is now the deadliest year for our troops since the war began. Weve had more troops killed and wounded this year than in any previous year. Its time we brought our troops home and let the Iraqis determine their own future.
"If we leave Iraq, wont the country become a safe haven for Al Qaeda?
This is improbable. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is not likely to tolerate the presence of a Sunni paramilitary group, which is what Al Qaeda is (in addition to being a terrorist organization). Plus, everyone now admits that most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by sectarian fighting, not by Al Qaeda attacks. Even General David Petraeus acknowledged this fact in his testimony before Congress in September.
"What will happen to the Iraqi government if we leave?"
Any Iraqi government that emerges is not going to be too much worse than the one that is in power right now. No matter how many elections are held, the government is going to be run by Shiites because the Shiites outnumber the Sunnis by at least three to two. Even with the Kurds in the north taking part in the election, the Shiites will still control the government.
The current Iraqi government is just as corrupt and just as brutal toward opponents as some of the other rotten governments in the Middle East (see below). When you invade a Muslim country that has a long tradition of violence and corruption, you're not going to get a government that's run by enlightened democrats. Maybe we should have thought about that beforehand.
"But what if Al Qaeda follows us here if we leave."
If Al Qaeda tries to follow us here, we can fight them a lot more easily here than we can over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over there they can easily blend in with the population. As long as were in the Middle East, they will be able to periodically kill and injure our troops, as theyre doing now. Over here they'd find it a lot harder to attack our troops or to stage other kinds of attacks.
In addition, with our troops gone, the terrorists will have a harder time attracting new recruits. With our troops in the region, Al Qaeda and other groups are able to rail against infidel invaders, etc., etc. Experts on terrorism tell us that groups like Al Qaeda would find it more difficult to gain new recruits if we had no troops in the region. When we and the French and the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon, the suicide attacks in Lebanon ceased.
"If we leave, will we still be able to get oil from Iraq?"
Saddam Hussein was willing to sell us oil. The current government of Iraq is likewise willing to sell us oil. The odds are that any future Iraqi government would be willing to do the same.
How quickly would Ron Paul withdraw our troops from Iraq?
Ron Paul has made it clear that he would only withdraw our troops from Iraq as quickly as was safely possible. He has said he would consult with our military commanders to determine how soon our troops could be safely withdrawn. He would change our strategy immediately, in order to get our troops out from the middle of the crossfire of sectarian fighting. But he would ensure that the troop withdrawal from the country would be done in a safe manner.
Some Sobering Facts About the Iraqi Government
Here are some articles that should sober us up to the fact that we shouldn't spend another dime, or lose another life, or see another soldier wounded in Iraq. Iraq is not worth $10 billion a month, and its certainly not worth seeing more American soldiers killed or wounded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14117853
EXTRACT: "State Department investigators in Iraq have concluded that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The investigators also say that corrupt civil servants with connections to the government are seen as untouchable, and that employees of Iraq's watchdog Commission on Public Integrity have been murdered in the line of duty." (September 2007)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401305.html
EXTRACT: "The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has thwarted investigations into corruption at the top levels of his administration, including probes of his relatives, while nearly four dozen anti-corruption employees or their family members have been brutally murdered, the former top Iraqi corruption investigator told a House panel yesterday." (October 2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131290.stm
EXTRACT: "Iraq corruption costs billion: Among its more notable findings was a report on the loss of 14,000 weapons destined for Iraqi government use. Many of these are believed to have found their way into the hands of insurgent groups after the Pentagon lost track of them." (November 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600774.html
EXTRACT: "U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker told Congress last week that "massive corruption" and "a lot of theft going on" in Iraq's government-controlled oil industry is hampering the country's ability to govern itself." (July 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297180,00.html
Col. Dave Hunt says our Iraq strategy is flawed. Although he doesnt recommend a total withdrawal, he does recognize that our strategy is fundamentally flawed and that we need to get our troops out from the middle of the ongoing Iraqi civil war.
I question you all, who else in the race is doing this much to fight terrorism and preserve our national sovereignty?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 14, 2007, 08:05:54 PM
Quote
(2) Abolish all regulations that prevent or hinder our intelligence agencies from working together and sharing information.
I thought things like that were the evil side of the Patriot Act. Only it didn't go that far.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 14, 2007, 08:22:23 PM
Post by: Finch on November 15, 2007, 01:02:00 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 15, 2007, 01:25:03 PM
All that is great you know, but if Ron Paul doesn't support the arbitrary invasion of random nations without cause, reason, or justification, he is not going to find a lot of support here.
I don't care whether he wants to fight in random arbitrary nations. Until he gets a clue about asymetric warfare, or about unconventional warfare, or about modern Islamofacism, making him Commander in Chief would be serious danger to the US. Border security is great.
Allowing intel agencies to work together is grand, but the Patriot Act already took care of that, and after Ron Paul dismantles the FBI it won't hardly matter anyway.
End legal preferences for terrorists? Use the death penalty more on terrorists? Sounds like Mr. Paul wants to deal with terrorism as a legal matter and not a military matter, which is a Very Bad Idea.
Veterans programs? Arming airline pilots? Suspending income tax for deploy soldiers? All well and good.
Leave Iraq now? Now that we're finally winning? Are you stupid, Mr. Paul? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
I didn't see ANYTHING in there that indicates Ron Paul can defend the country against modern threats that exist in the world today. The primary purpose of the war on terror is NOT to kill Bin Laden. The Islamofacist problem will NOT magically disappear after he's dead.
How are you going to keep Iran from getting nukes, Mr. Paul? Or do you think that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem?
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the more convinced I become that he is bad for America. Truly, I'd vote for a Democrat before I voted for him.
Post by: Finch on November 15, 2007, 01:38:40 PM
Sounds like Mr. Paul wants to deal with terrorism as a legal matter and not a military matter, which is a Very Bad Idea.
Yeah, because our current counter-terrorist military strategy of "Invade countries that have nothing to do with terrorism" is really effective.
[quote}but the Patriot Act already took care of that[/quote]
And those pesky civil liberties that got in the way of fighting
Quote
Now that we're finally winning?
Pick which ever Quote
The Islamofacist problem will NOT magically disappear after he's dead.
But it would have never appeared if we just minded our own business and stopped meddling in other nations affairs. I know Rudy McRomney wants you to believe that "they hate us for our freedoms" but it simply isn't true. If you quit banging on the hornets nest, your not gonna get stung.
Quote
How are you going to keep Iran from getting nukes, Mr. Paul?
How about dealing with Iran the same way we dealt with the Soviets...cold war ended rather well in our favor don't cha think?Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 15, 2007, 01:58:13 PM
Throw in a couple of Letters of Marque for good measure, and we'll be perfectly safe. "Hope for America" indeed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 15, 2007, 02:26:25 PM
[quote}but the Patriot Act already took care of that[/quote}
And those pesky civil liberties that got in the way of fighting
Were you responding to me? My point was that I thought "information-sharing" is one of those dangers to civil liberties that the Patriot Act makes easier. And Ron Paul wants to remove all restrictions on that?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 15, 2007, 04:19:59 PM
Ah, yes. Let's do another Cold War. Cause the first one was so much fun. I want my children to grow up learning about duck and cover, just like my parents did. And Mutually Assured Destruction is a brilliant strategy to use when your adversary is lead by a doomsday cultist who wants to bring about armageddon.
Throw in a couple of Letters of Marque for good measure, and we'll be perfectly safe. "Hope for America" indeed.
Throw in a couple of Letters of Marque for good measure, and we'll be perfectly safe. "Hope for America" indeed.
Yes. The Soviets were at least reasonable people who did not want to die.
Death cult sorts who honestly believe they'll get 72 virgins for dying while killing the evil America, that's something else entirely.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 15, 2007, 06:26:36 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 15, 2007, 06:56:53 PM
Wait. I can get 72 virgins? Explain how.
Read the fine print too. The virgins are not guaranteed to be young pretty women.
Post by: Len Budney on November 15, 2007, 07:02:44 PM
Wait. I can get 72 virgins? Explain how.
Read the fine print too. The virgins are not guaranteed to be young pretty women.
Yep. They're sure gonna be peeved when they find out that the 72 virgins are old, ugly linux kernel hackers with stinky feet and Birkenstocks.
Post by: beatnik on November 16, 2007, 10:04:40 AM
Quote
Death cult sorts who honestly believe they'll get 72 virgins for dying while killing the evil America, that's something else entirely.
And anyone who thinks that Iran is populated entirely of death-cultists is seriously lacking in knowledge.
I'm voting for the man because his knowledge of the middle east situation doesn't start on 11 September 2001.
He realizes that all of this is basically our attempt at cleaning up the UK's mess, and that if we just leave and let them all kill each other off for a decade or two, things will get better.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 16, 2007, 10:06:07 AM
Quote
Death cult sorts who honestly believe they'll get 72 virgins for dying while killing the evil America, that's something else entirely.
And anyone who thinks that Iran is populated entirely of death-cultists is seriously lacking in knowledge.
I'm voting for the man because his knowledge of the middle east situation doesn't start on 11 September 2001.
He realizes that all of this is basically our attempt at cleaning up the UK's mess, and that if we just leave and let them all kill each other off for a decade or two, things will get better.
Who said the whole population of Iran? YOU said that.
I'm talking about Mister Imajihad, and some of the ayatollahs and other nutcases running things there.
Post by: beatnik on November 16, 2007, 10:12:25 AM
It would have to be more than 50% populated with people who are OK with having their country wiped from the face of the earth in the name of Allah. That's not the case.
One man, regardless of whether he's the president, isn't going to be able to lob nuclear weapons around with impugnity.
Post by: roo_ster on November 16, 2007, 11:52:37 AM
Iran would need to be composed strictly of Islamic fundamentalists for a cold war strategy not to work.
It would have to be more than 50% populated with people who are OK with having their country wiped from the face of the earth in the name of Allah. That's not the case.
One man, regardless of whether he's the president, isn't going to be able to lob nuclear weapons around with impugnity.
Dude, where do you get your reality?It would have to be more than 50% populated with people who are OK with having their country wiped from the face of the earth in the name of Allah. That's not the case.
One man, regardless of whether he's the president, isn't going to be able to lob nuclear weapons around with impugnity.
America was able to successfully separate from the Brits with less than a majority in favor of revolution (~33%, IIRC).
The Bolsheviks needed much less than 33% to take over Russia.
The Nazi Party managed a takeover of Germany with a plurality, not a majority.
There are other examples of minorities brining majorities along with them for the ride. What really matters in an authoritarian regime is who has the power, not what the vast majority of powerless think.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 16, 2007, 12:10:11 PM
Iran would need to be composed strictly of Islamic fundamentalists for a cold war strategy not to work.
It would have to be more than 50% populated with people who are OK with having their country wiped from the face of the earth in the name of Allah. That's not the case.
One man, regardless of whether he's the president, isn't going to be able to lob nuclear weapons around with impugnity.
Dude, where do you get your reality?It would have to be more than 50% populated with people who are OK with having their country wiped from the face of the earth in the name of Allah. That's not the case.
One man, regardless of whether he's the president, isn't going to be able to lob nuclear weapons around with impugnity.
America was able to successfully separate from the Brits with less than a majority in favor of revolution (~33%, IIRC).
The Bolsheviks needed much less than 33% to take over Russia.
The Nazi Party managed a takeover of Germany with a plurality, not a majority.
There are other examples of minorities brining majorities along with them for the ride. What really matters in an authoritarian regime is who has the power, not what the vast majority of powerless think.
Also, in WWII, the majority of Japanese were still provincial farmers who really didn't have much to do with the war at all.
The leaders, in control of the money and resources, can do quite a bit.
Post by: Tuco on November 16, 2007, 03:09:05 PM
The leaders, in control of the money and resources, can do quite a bit.
Yes they can.
Example: The U.S. in Iraq over the last 5 years (or has it been six?)
Post by: Euclidean on November 16, 2007, 09:07:35 PM
Ah, yes. Let's do another Cold War. Cause the first one was so much fun. I want my children to grow up learning about duck and cover, just like my parents did. And Mutually Assured Destruction is a brilliant strategy to use when your adversary is led by a doomsday cultist who wants to bring about armageddon.
I grew up in the Cold War too, as did most of the people reading this. You know what? There's never been a point in my life during or after when America wasn't at a point where any second now the bombs could drop. As long as there's other powers in the world with the means to do it, it will always be that way. The surest way of guaranteeing those bombs actually do drop is to start a fight with someone who has the capability.
The USSR and USA never came to blows because we both knew if either one of us slipped first, all hell would break loose for both of us. The world today is pretty much in the same state in that regard. I don't really see it ever changing.
I'd love you to support your last assertion there with evidence by the way. The ridiculous name calling that Paul critics resort to only resonates the hollowness of their arguments.
Leave Iraq now? Now that we're finally winning? Are you stupid, Mr. Paul? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Winning what? What's there to win? What's the objective?
I didn't see ANYTHING in there that indicates Ron Paul can defend the country against modern threats that exist in the world today. The primary purpose of the war on terror is NOT to kill Bin Laden. The Islamofacist problem will NOT magically disappear after he's dead.
Nor did the Jihadists start in this century, or the last one. Or the one before that. That problem is as old as dirt, and will not go away in any of our lifetimes. What's your point? We should let Bin Laden go out of indifference because killing him really wouldn't mean that much in the grand scheme of this centuries old struggle?
How are you going to keep Iran from getting nukes, Mr. Paul? Or do you think that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem?
Cheap rhetorical ploy to discredit the candidacy with an issue that may never even come to exist. We could use that argument against any of the candidates.
"How are you going to keep Iran from getting nukes, Mr. Duncan? Or do you think that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem?"
"How are you going to keep Iran from getting nukes, Mr. Thompson? Or do you think that a nuclear Iran isn't a problem?"
Etc.
The more I learn about Ron Paul, the more convinced I become that he is bad for America. Truly, I'd vote for a Democrat before I voted for him.
And that tells me everything I need to know about Paul's critics. Hope you like Hillary or one of her many RINO clones.
RE: The idea all radical Muslims want to die... That's clearly not true. Why do they fight with IEDs and bombs and safe, cowardly tactics then? Why do they train and brainwash specially selected Hadjis (usually newcomers) to their organization to go out and carry out the suicide attacks rather than do it themselves? Yes these freaks are dangerous and ruthless and want to kill you and me and everyone else who isn't them, but the idea they actually want to die clearly isn't true.
I'm not afraid to die either really, because of my religious beliefs, but I'm not jumping out in front of buses hoping to get to the judgment early.
Post by: Bigjake on November 17, 2007, 05:06:45 PM
Quote
Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists.
My dreams of being an actual privateer/adventurer finally realized??? where do i sign up?!!? Hell, thats one of the few things I agree with Paul on. Putting a bounty/bag limit on badguys is a Good Thing.
The problem is, that the guy could be right on every level, but he comes off as a friggin nut job, and because of that I won't vote for him. His supporters at our local gun show are annoying enough that I would never want to be associated with that rabble.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 17, 2007, 06:22:22 PM
Quote
Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists.
My dreams of being an actual privateer/adventurer finally realized??? where do i sign up?!!? Hell, thats one of the few things I agree with Paul on. Putting a bounty/bag limit on badguys is a Good Thing.
The problem is, that the guy could be right on every level, but he comes off as a friggin nut job, and because of that I won't vote for him. His supporters at our local gun show are annoying enough that I would never want to be associated with that rabble.
Define "terrorist". I believe after 9/11, some wannabe "patriots" nailed themselves a Sikh in the LA area because he was wearing a turban.
Post by: Tecumseh on November 17, 2007, 10:34:56 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 18, 2007, 05:48:44 AM
Quote
Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists.
My dreams of being an actual privateer/adventurer finally realized??? where do i sign up?!!?
There's a catch. A letter of marque doesn't exempt you from obeying the laws, or give you special protection if you murder innocent people, or authorize you to commit crimes. For those things, you need a badge.
--Len.
Post by: jefnvk on November 18, 2007, 08:42:21 AM
Quote
The problem is, that the guy could be right on every level, but he comes off as a friggin nut job, and because of that I won't vote for him.
And that is why no one but whomever the to parties select will ever be President. Anyone affiliated with anyone else or pomoting any other message, is viewed as a nut job.
Post by: Finch on November 18, 2007, 12:50:46 PM
Quote
The problem is, that the guy could be right on every level, but he comes off as a friggin nut job, and because of that I won't vote for him.
And that is why no one but whomever the to parties select will ever be President. Anyone affiliated with anyone else or pomoting any other message, is viewed as a nut job.
Exactly.
Want sound money? NUTJOB!
Want to stop waging useless, economy crushing wars? NUTJOB!
Want to secure civil liberties? NUTJOB!
Want to limit the size and scope of government? NUTJOB!
Want to ensure that the executive branch does not hold the other two branches hostage? NUTJOB!
Want to actually follow the Constitution? NUTJOB!
etc...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 18, 2007, 05:05:24 PM
The fact that the man is a loon is largely coincidental. Find me a viable candidate that believes sensible libertarian principles and who isn't also crazy, and I'll definitely consider voting for him.
Post by: Finch on November 18, 2007, 06:50:10 PM
Heh. Ron Paul isn't a nutjob because he wants sound money or civil liberties or whatever. Ron Paul is a nutjob despite wanting sound money etc.
The fact that the man is a loon is largely coincidental. Find me a viable candidate that believes sensible libertarian principles and who isn't also crazy, and I'll definitely consider voting for him.
The fact that the man is a loon is largely coincidental. Find me a viable candidate that believes sensible libertarian principles and who isn't also crazy, and I'll definitely consider voting for him.
And it begins again. Here we go calling Ron Paul a nutjob/crazy/moonbat/loony/BlahBlahBlah without giving any reason or evidence as to WHY he is a nutjob/crazy/moonbat/loony/BlahBlahBlah. Maybe it is jealousy that a REAL conservative is actually running for president and that Gods gift to the
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 18, 2007, 07:01:56 PM
I don't know why he believes some of his crazy beliefs. Fact is he believes them. And that's enough.
Post by: Finch on November 18, 2007, 08:11:21 PM
How should I know why Ron Paul is crazy? Maybe his mother dropped him on his head as an infant. Maybe he has some sort of diagnosable mental illness. Maybe he's gone senile in his old age. Who knows?
I don't know why he believes some of his crazy beliefs. Fact is he believes them. And that's enough.
I don't know why he believes some of his crazy beliefs. Fact is he believes them. And that's enough.
Now Headless, you and I both know I wasn't looking for a physical or medical reason. But hey, I shouldn't have expected you to be specific in your response. Silly me, expecting logic and sound reasoning.
Edit - I can now see why you put that link in your sig Headless, it is full of limp sources and wild unfounded accusations. Just like most of Ron Pauls detractors.
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 09:55:54 AM
I don't know why he believes some of his crazy beliefs. Fact is he believes them. And that's enough.
I've seen the light. All that crap about "liberty" and "non-aggression" is just so much pabulum for liberal bleeding-heart suckers. From now on, anyone who ticks me off had better hide, because I've decided it's time to smite any pansy-*** who doesn't see things my way. I'll start with anyone who calls non-aggression "crazy." When I'm done with them, they'll either embrace non-aggression or they'll fertilize the next generation of daisies. RAAAWRR!
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 19, 2007, 04:48:10 PM
Some examples...
The gold standard proved untenable back in the early 1900s. Thankfully, we moved on to a system that doesn't limit economic growth by our ability to dig shiny yellow metal out of the ground. Ron Paul is crazy to think that reverting to a failed, obsolete monetary policy would be a good idea. Realistically, all it'd do is strangle the economy.
Saying things to the effect of "Iran would never be able to invade the mainland USA, so they aren't a threat" isn't just crazy, it's downright dangerous. An understanding of unconventional and asymmetric warfare is probably the single most important requirement of a Commander in Chief today. Of all the presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, Ron Paul is the one who seems to understand this the least. It's crazy to profess that isolationism, Letters of Marque, and a bounty on Osama bin Laden are all we need to protect the country today.
(Incidentally, we use bounties already; Saddam Hussein, Al Zarqawi, and ObL all have/had $25 million bounties on their heads. Perhaps some one should inform the Paul campaign. And if bounties are supposed to be enough to bring in ObL, where is he?)
Ron Paul rails against the Patriot Act. Then he complains that the nation's intelligence gathering agencies can't communicate with each other, which is the very problem that the Patriot Act addressed. Then he proposes abolishing the FBI, our biggest and most important investigative agency. That he holds these contradictory and irreconcilable views indicates to me that Ron Paul is crazy.
Look, we've been over all this before. I don't want to have to type all this out again and again. It's not like y'all are going to change your minds...
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 03:29:12 AM
Some examples...
Much better. Without specifics, discussion is impossible.
Quote
The gold standard proved untenable back in the early 1900s. Thankfully, we moved on to a system that doesn't limit economic growth by our ability to dig shiny yellow metal out of the ground...
You're voicing a common economic fallacy that the economy is somehow limited by its supply of currency. That's false. On a gold standard, or any other stable currency, increased wealth is accommodated very simply: prices fall. If we were still on the original gold standard, and an ounce of gold were pegged at $20, then a new Macbook Pro would cost roughly $60. That's all.
Nobody made any grand discovery in 1913. What happened was that the nation's richest men designed a system that allowed them to share the power of inflation with government. For them, unprecedented wealth. For government, the power to steal money from everyone in the nation at once without a penny in taxation. By inflating, they can steal money from your very mattress without you realizing what happened.
Quote
Saying things to the effect of "Iran would never be able to invade the mainland USA, so they aren't a threat" isn't just crazy, it's downright dangerous. An understanding of unconventional and asymmetric warfare is probably the single most important requirement of a Commander in Chief today...
I'm afraid he's right and you're wrong. The hypothetical "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" scenario, while over-hyped, proves my point. Folks who push that scenario are thinking like a Hollywood movie, where the credits roll right after the big kaboom. They ignore what happens next: Tehran, and possibly all of Iran, is wiped out in an immediate nuclear counterstrike. There is no existential threat to the United States today. The threat of a terrorist attack is genuine, but (1) Bush is doing nothing to reduce the risk, and (2) such an attack will be suicide for the country that sponsors it.
And finally, nothing justifies taking away our liberties, especially not "security." Quite frankly, I'd rather lose a city than lose the freedoms that make this country worth living in.
Quote
(Incidentally, we use bounties already; Saddam Hussein, Al Zarqawi, and ObL all have/had $25 million bounties on their heads. Perhaps some one should inform the Paul campaign. And if bounties are supposed to be enough to bring in ObL, where is he?)
They aren't being used as effectively as they could. Letters of marque are different than military-offered bounties.
Quote
Ron Paul rails against the Patriot Act. Then he complains that the nation's intelligence gathering agencies can't communicate with each other, which is the very problem that the Patriot Act addressed.
No. The USA PATRIOT act gives the agencies power to violate Americans' fourth-amendment rights. It does not simply allow the CIA to talk with the NSA and FBI. That wouldn't require an act of Congress, since all of those agencies are part of the executive branch. It just requires the President saying, "Hey, guys, share your information."
Quote
Then he proposes abolishing the FBI, our biggest and most important investigative agency.
Since when our "biggest and most important"? Pure FUD. The founders specifically didn't want the federal government having armed agents of any sort--this was central to the origin of the second amendment. There are other ways to handle interstate investigations that don't violate the Constitution.
Quote
That he holds these contradictory and irreconcilable views indicates to me that Ron Paul is crazy.
They're 100% consistent--that's what makes them seem so crazy: each and every one of his views is precisely that of the framers of the Constitution. In cases where the framers themselves were divided, Paul sides with Jefferson's faction. Not inconsistent; it's scarily consistent.
Quote
Look, we've been over all this before. I don't want to have to type all this out again and again. It's not like y'all are going to change your minds...
... nor we yours. But there's a chance. Better dialog than, say, civil war.
--Len.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 04:18:06 PM
Answer these questions for me:
What affect does deflation have on the amount of investment within an economy?
What does that mean for the general prosperity of the people?
What is asymmetric warfare, and what are the implications to our national security?
What is unconventional warfare, and what are the implications to our national security?
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:02:47 PM
What affect does deflation have on the amount of investment within an economy?
What does that mean for the general prosperity of the people?
What does that mean for the general prosperity of the people?
That question implies an erroneous understanding of economics--namely, Keynesian. To see the logical flaw, observe that the computer industry has seen steadily falling prices despite inflation, because productivity and improvement have outpaced inflation. Try to see why that's a terrible thing for the economy. Fail.
Quote
What is asymmetric warfare, and what are the implications to our national security?
What is unconventional warfare, and what are the implications to our national security?
What is unconventional warfare, and what are the implications to our national security?
Asymmetric warfare is the fashionable new name for guerrilla warfare. It's also referred to as "fourth generation" warfare, where the distinguishing characteristic is that the actors are neither national governments nor factions vying for control of the government, but instead non-governmental organizations with some other agenda. Al Qaeda is a typical example, in that it directly serves no national government, and avows the agenda of ending US intervention in all Muslim countries. (As an aside, that goal is laudable enough: the US has no business intervening around the world. It's their methods that are reprehensible.)
What makes Bush's response to Al Qaeda (and terrorism in general) ineffective is that he can't comprehend the reality of non-state actors, and insists on recasting the problem in terms of international conflict, invading first Afghanistan (which did at least harbor Al Qaeda) and then Iraq (which had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda). He doesn't comprehend that attacking some nation has minimal effect on Al Qaeda, which simply relocates. At most, the organization was temporarily inconvenienced. Bush can't "fight them over there" to avoid "fighting them over here," because they have no fixed address; there is no "there." The terrorists temporarily go quiet while they relocate and regroup. Meanwhile, Bush spends vast resources fighting people who have nothing to do with the threat, which is the best thing he could possibly do for Bin Ladin: it drains US resources, sapping our strength; it creates massive (fully justified) anger and resentment, which the terrorists can later cash in on; and it provides them protection by diverting everyone's attention elsewhere. Even Bush admitted that Bin Ladin isn't even on his radar anymore.
So while Bush is wasting our resources abroad, infringing Americans' rights at home, and busily spawning the next generation of radical terrorist, the original terrorists (remember Al Qaeda? Something about "September 11th"?) are according to Homeland Security back to pre-9/11 operational capacity. They can strike in the US at any time. The military certainly isn't in their way, since they aren't even in Iraq (never were) or Afghanistan (they've left). They can, and sooner or later will. Whatever form it takes, it will be something preventable--but we can't prevent it with Bush doing precisely the wrong thing with every resource at his disposal.
--Len.
Post by: Boomhauer on November 20, 2007, 05:17:19 PM
Radical Islam is a very real threat. We have been affected by it well before the September 11 attacks. Remember Iran taking our hostages? I'm still sore about that. Remember the Beirut barracks bombings? Remember the Achille Lauro? Remember the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center?
We finally had a president that does something about it, and all everybody does is how Bush is such a failure and invaded poor, innocent little Iraq, which never harmed anybody. Of course, Saddam was just a misunderstood, hapless cuddly-wuddly man who didn't know that genocide was wrong. And there were never any WMDs, despite the fact that our invasion preparations were quite the telegraphed punch, and Saddam would have had plenty of time to move whatever he wanted out of the country.
Quote
What makes Bush's response to Al Qaeda (and terrorism in general) ineffective is that he can't comprehend the reality of non-state actors, and insists on recasting the problem in terms of international conflict, invading first Afghanistan (which did at least harbor Al Qaeda) and then Iraq (which had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda). He doesn't comprehend that attacking some nation has minimal effect on Al Qaeda, which simply relocates. At most, the organization was temporarily inconvenienced. Bush can't "fight them over there" to avoid "fighting them over here," because they have no fixed address; there is no "there." The terrorists temporarily go quiet while they relocate and regroup. Meanwhile, Bush spends vast resources fighting people who have nothing to do with the threat, which is the best thing he could possibly do for Bin Ladin: it drains US resources, sapping our strength; it creates massive (fully justified) anger and resentment, which the terrorists can later cash in on; and it provides them protection by diverting everyone's attention elsewhere. Even Bush admitted that Bin Ladin isn't even on his radar anymore.
So while Bush is wasting our resources abroad, infringing Americans' rights at home, and busily spawning the next generation of radical terrorist, the original terrorists (remember Al Qaeda? Something about "September 11th"?) are according to Homeland Security back to pre-9/11 operational capacity. They can strike in the US at any time. The military certainly isn't in their way, since they aren't even in Iraq (never were) or Afghanistan (they've left). They can, and sooner or later will. Whatever form it takes, it will be something preventable--but we can't prevent it with Bush doing precisely the wrong thing with every resource at his disposal.
So while Bush is wasting our resources abroad, infringing Americans' rights at home, and busily spawning the next generation of radical terrorist, the original terrorists (remember Al Qaeda? Something about "September 11th"?) are according to Homeland Security back to pre-9/11 operational capacity. They can strike in the US at any time. The military certainly isn't in their way, since they aren't even in Iraq (never were) or Afghanistan (they've left). They can, and sooner or later will. Whatever form it takes, it will be something preventable--but we can't prevent it with Bush doing precisely the wrong thing with every resource at his disposal.
Your right. We haven't been doing enough to stop the threat. We have been far too restrained. We are supposed to have the world's best military, let's fight. We need to drop the restrained bullshit that we have practiced since Vietnam (and since Korea, to a lesser extent).
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:37:15 PM
Your right. We haven't been doing enough to stop the threat. We have been far too restrained. We are supposed to have the world's best military, let's fight. We need to drop the restrained bullshit that we have practiced since Vietnam (and since Korea, to a lesser extent).
Yep. Exterminate all Muslims, and the threat from Muslim terrorists will end. But that's the only way you'll do it: Al Qaeda isn't even in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we leave them alone and bomb the bejeebus out of Pakistan and Syria, where at least some of them no doubt are, they'll sneak off to oh, maybe Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere. The only way to get them is to wipe out all Muslims everywhere. And I mean everywhere, because after we've depopulated the Middle East, they'll hide in Bangor and Peoria. So we'll have to nuke those cities too.
Or maybe, just maybe, we'll realize that swinging a baseball bat isn't the way to kill a fly on your window. The whole approach is wrong.
And seriously, dude, your advocacy of genocide is truly disturbing. How does one come to actually believe it's a good idea to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?
--Len.
Post by: Boomhauer on November 20, 2007, 05:48:00 PM
Quote
your advocacy of genocide
I just get really steamed when it is demanded that a US soldier be tried because he did his job. (Remember the soldier that shot a wounded terrorist because he started moving and was crucified for it by the media?)
I also see that when it the religious police send little girls back into a burning school to die because they came out without their burkas that that religion might be a tad too far gone...
They advocate genocide by wiping Israel and the Jews off the map. They advocate wiping us off the map. They advocate enslaving everyone under Islam. Excuse me, but I'm only returning the sentiment.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 20, 2007, 05:57:40 PM
You dodged my question about the effects of deflation on investment and the economy quite nicely. Even if you won't answer publicly here, perhaps you'll at least think about the issue on your own.
You, a hardcore Paulista, say that Bush can't comprehend non-state aggressors. The irony is delicious. Somehow I doubt we'll come to terms on this point.
As for the rest of your response, given that it's predicated on the false notion that Al Queda isn't in Iraq and never was, there really isn't much that I can respond to. Other than, perhaps, to say that you need a reality check. If there isn't/wasn't ever any Al Queda in Iraq in your world, then you can't possibly be living in the same world as the rest of us.
Post by: Euclidean on November 20, 2007, 08:06:27 PM
Len, you've said repeatedly that Al Queda isn't in Iraq. You are factually misinformed. Here's one example: It's true: Iraq is a quagmire I cite this article because I want to see you squirm.
All that article does is reinforce my view as to why we need to pull out of Iraq and secure our own borders. There used to be terrorists in Iraq, I sincerely believe, and the ones who tried to actually fight the U.S. are all either dead or have fled elsewhere. Most of the fighting against us there now is against us just because those people are always going to be fighting each other for who's in charge. As we have to take a side, we're always going to have an enemy so long as we stay there. That's the way those people have lived for centuries and it will not change.
This fight is not so simple that a standing army in some arbitrarily chosen Middle Eastern nation will stop the threat forever. This is a fight which needs to involve key surgical strikes coordinated by special forces and intelligence teams, most of whom won't be doing any work we'll even know about until they accomplish their objective. But before we can get there, we've got to get our own crap together first. Why bother swimming around in the sand when anyone can just waltz right over our domestic borders?
The ridiculous out of control big government that people like W and Clinton want and have sponsored in the past is the #1 enemy right now. If we don't secure our basic values on our own soil pretty damn quick it won't matter what the Hadjis do, we'll destroy ourselves.
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 03:20:50 AM
Len, you've said repeatedly that Al Queda isn't in Iraq. You are factually misinformed. Here's one example: It's true: Iraq is a quagmire I cite this article because I want to see you squirm.
Why did you think an opinion piece would make me squirm?
Al Qaeda in Iraq is a different organization. It has no association with Bin Ladin, and was created after 9/11. Al Zarqawi formed it to cash in on the name recognition.
Quote
You dodged my question about the effects of deflation on investment and the economy quite nicely.
The entire question is misinformed. Decrease in prices is not deflation. "Inflation" and "deflation" refer to increases and decreases in the money supply. Changes in prices are only a symptom. How can one answer a question based on flawed premises and incorrect definitions?
Quote
You, a hardcore Paulista, say that Bush can't comprehend non-state aggressors. The irony is delicious.
I see your personal attack, but I don't see your point. Did you make one? What exactly is the nature of this "irony"?
--Len.
Post by: seeker_two on November 29, 2007, 07:08:51 AM
That's what B2's, cruise missles, and ICBM's are for.....
Post by: Manedwolf on November 29, 2007, 07:28:26 AM
Quote
your advocacy of genocide
I just get really steamed when it is demanded that a US soldier be tried because he did his job. (Remember the soldier that shot a wounded terrorist because he started moving and was crucified for it by the media?)
I also see that when it the religious police send little girls back into a burning school to die because they came out without their burkas that that religion might be a tad too far gone...
They advocate genocide by wiping Israel and the Jews off the map. They advocate wiping us off the map. They advocate enslaving everyone under Islam. Excuse me, but I'm only returning the sentiment.
Or possibly sentencing a 50-something grandmotherly British schoolteacher to forty lashes (which would probably kill her) for letting seven-year-olds name a teddy bear by the world's now most common name.
Of course, the British of old would have said "Release her now, or you shall pay dearly.", but the new British just said that "The British government fully respects the faith of Islam and Britain has a longstanding tradition of religious tolerance."
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2943933320071129
If it was up to me, I'd send in SAS or some other force to retrieve her, two bullets to the head of each of the thugs who want to whip her to death, and then break off all ties with and aid to the Sudan until they decide to become part of civilization.
But...you know. Got to tolerate intolerance, even if it's spreading like wildfire! Tolerance!
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 29, 2007, 08:27:16 AM
Quote
If it was up to me, I'd send in SAS or some other force to retrieve her, two bullets to the head of each of the thugs who want to whip her to death, and then break off all ties with and aid to the Sudan until they decide to become part of civilization.
Instead of invading the whole damn country, thats a great idea. Thats exactly the way I feel about terrorism. You don't invade countries and piss off entire populations and religions, you just kill terrorists. Instead of invading Afghanistan and/ or Iraq, we could have just sent in a trained team and put a big point five zero round through Osama's head from a mile out. Watching dear leader's head explode from out of nowhere kinda sends the message not to F--- with us.
Post by: GigaBuist on November 30, 2007, 12:31:58 PM
Holy Crap I agree with Maned on something.
Yeah, I came here to say that too: Holy crap I agree with Manedwolf on something!
Quote
If it was up to me, I'd send in SAS or some other force to retrieve her, two bullets to the head of each of the thugs who want to whip her to death, and then break off all ties with and aid to the Sudan until they decide to become part of civilization.
Post by: Scott on December 01, 2007, 05:59:57 PM
. The other nice thing about manedwolfs idea is it would be so much cheaper than this current nation building crap.
Post by: WeedWhacker on December 02, 2007, 04:04:18 AM
Quote
I don't care whether he wants to fight in random arbitrary nations. Until he gets a clue about asymetric warfare, or about unconventional warfare, or about modern Islamofacism, making him Commander in Chief would be serious danger to the US.
Ironically, Ron Paul is the only one (of the major candidates, that I'm aware of) that's calling the threat what it is: fundamental Islam, as opposed to "terror". Whether or not the actual root cause of jihadists was US meddling or not is rather inconsequential, because the US did meddle and the jihadists have attacked the US. Continued US meddling in other nations' affairs will only provide additional excuses for its enemies even if Ron Paul is wrong about the 'why', and if he's not wrong, then the rage of the Islamic fundamentals will be focussed on others. If other countries get zerged and have the sense to notice that a heavily armed populace isn't as succeptable to such tactics, perhaps that will ultimately be a net win for freedom in the long run.
Unconventional warfare, guerilla warfare, is only a real problem when the guerillas have a support base to hide among. Allowing the people to be armed *gasp!*, while it doesn't prevent crime outright, makes the execution of crime much, much more dangerous.
On every single matter vital to the long-term health of the United States of America, I see not a single candidate with stated goals and ideals better than Dr. Ron Paul. He's also the only *gasp* honest, principled person in the running among the "first tiers" (if you count him first tier).
I'm not sure about you, but that sure sounds like opportunity knocking to me...
Post by: WeedWhacker on December 02, 2007, 04:14:55 AM
Turns out the financial aid we're giving to Israel is only HALF that we're handing out to the sworn enemies of Israel. Ceasing all foreign giveaways would be a large net plus for Israel!
I've found that Ron Paul's stances seem all the wiser once I start learning more about them.
Post by: Len Budney on December 02, 2007, 04:24:53 AM
I had a real problem with Ron Paul's stance of ceasing foreign aid to Israel... Turns out the financial aid we're giving to Israel is only HALF that we're handing out to the sworn enemies of Israel. Ceasing all foreign giveaways would be a large net plus for Israel!
I had mixed feelings about that as well, and was impressed with that observation. How much credit can we take for helping Israel, when we help her enemies twice as much?
--Len.
Post by: DBabsJr on December 02, 2007, 05:38:24 AM
That's a huge distinction to me since most other candidates seem to want things their way while Paul seems to want things to follow the correct process whether he agrees with the outcome or not.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2007, 07:37:27 AM
The world does need to be policed. For instance, lack of policing after the Versailles Treaty led to a second world war. How many millions of lives could have been spared had France or Britain or the US bothered to "meddle" or "intervene" back then? How much worse is the problem of fundamentalist Islam going to be if we leave it alone for another couple generations without intervening now?
The other vital necessity of "policing the world" is that it makes free trade possible. Free trade is a large part of the reason why we enjoy such a fine standard of living today. The economic ramifications of shrinking the economy back to within the our own borders are downright scary. Also, international free trade is a prime factor in making the US the world's economic superpower, and thus the world's military superpower. Being the big kid on the block has considerable advantages. We determine if/where/when/how the world is going to be policed, and we are the one's who will have all the advantages should another major war break out.
It may suck to be the one who always has to fight the world's battles. But it'd suck even more if were like, say, Canada, watching other people handle this vital task and hoping to God that they don't screw it up. Libertarian Utopia looks great on paper, but like communism I doubt the reality would be nearly as pleasant as the theory.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2007, 07:46:12 AM
On every single matter vital to the long-term health of the United States of America, I see not a single candidate with stated goals and ideals better than Dr. Ron Paul. He's also the only *gasp* honest, principled person in the running among the "first tiers" (if you count him first tier).
ALL candidates have stated goals and ideals. The Democrats are particularly fond of blathering on and on and on about their good intentions for the country. But when you compare the actual results of their policies against their "stated goals", you see that they've actually made things far, far worse.
It's results that matter, not goals. I am absolutely convinced that the results of Ron Paul's policy will be detrimental to the United States. Letting large swaths of the world run amok, while glibly chanting "We're a Noninterventionist Libertarian Utopia, we don't have to care what the rest of the world is doing lalalalala" will NOT produce favorable results.
Post by: Finch on December 02, 2007, 11:16:01 AM
Quote
Isolationism isn't what I advocate, Paul told Blitzer. I advocate non-intervention, not getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and not pretending a country like Iraq is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Iraq had no army, no navy, had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, so the comparison makes no sense.
Under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world, Blitzer asked the candidate.
When Congress directed me to in the act of war, Paul replied. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.
Under what circumstances, if he were president, would Paul intervene outside the borders of the United States in some sort of crisis around the world, Blitzer asked the candidate.
When Congress directed me to in the act of war, Paul replied. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.
Is that really so bad? Is it so bad to respect the constitution and not allow the president to start wars at his whim?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 02, 2007, 11:22:54 AM
Quote
If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.
Sounds like exactly what happened with Iraq. The whole country, Democrat and Republican alike, Congress and White House alike, agreed that Iraq was a threat. So Congress approved the war, and the Pres carried it out.For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism", and for not realizing that proper procedure was followed with the Iraq war, well, that's why some folks might feel that Mr Paul is a little off his rocker.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 02, 2007, 12:33:02 PM
Quote
If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act. And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the command-in- chief, and then he acts.
Sounds like exactly what happened with Iraq. The whole country, Democrat and Republican alike, Congress and White House alike, agreed that Iraq was a threat. So Congress approved the war, and the Pres carried it out.But, what Congress did is invalid because they didn't do the secret handshake, then all stand up together and say "We Declare War" three times!
Post by: Len Budney on December 02, 2007, 03:57:15 PM
For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"...
Isolationist: China from 3,000BC until Nixon.
Non-interventionist: the Swiss, AKA bankers, watchmakers and chocolatiers to the entire world.
Non-difference?
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 02, 2007, 08:13:58 PM
For arguing the (non)differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"...
Non-interventionist: the Swiss, AKA bankers, watchmakers and chocolatiers to the entire world.
Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 03:49:31 AM
Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.
Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 03, 2007, 04:59:28 AM
Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.
Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland.
You're the only one who said that. Find another straw man.
It just gets real old how people like to hold the Swiss up as some kind of virtuous angels or example to be aspired to, when they are far from that.
They were worse collaborators than the Vichy French, who at least were open about their treasonous actions.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 06:02:54 AM
Ah, the Swiss! AKA as the bankers for the Nazis, getting rich and staying neutral off the deaths of the Jews. Now there's something to aspire too.
Yep, the Holocaust is the fault of Switzerland.
You're the only one who said that. Find another straw man.
Your quote is above, verbatim. You've associated them with the Nazis and accused them of profiteering on the Holocaust.
Quote
It just gets real old how people like to hold the Swiss up as some kind of virtuous angels...
I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything that any Swiss person might do. As a rather parochial New Englander, I don't actually like Europeans on a personal level. I'm no admirer of Germans, French or Swiss, in particular. Matter of fact I absolutely despise Sweden, but I commend their non-interventionism as well.
Quote
They were worse collaborators than the Vichy French, who at least were open about their treasonous actions.
I believe you mentioned a "straw man" above. Now they're "treasonous" and "collaborators" as well. I rest my case.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 06:16:49 AM
Quote
It's results that matter, not goals. I am absolutely convinced that the results of Ron Paul's policy will be detrimental to the United States. Letting large swaths of the world run amok, while glibly chanting "We're a Noninterventionist Libertarian Utopia, we don't have to care what the rest of the world is doing lalalalala" will NOT produce favorable results.
In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 06:20:30 AM
I guess some people like to make up their own news instead of reading the real news...?
Post by: K Frame on December 03, 2007, 06:22:53 AM
The Swiss associated themselves quite closely with the Nazis and profited quite hansomly on both the Holocaust and the collapse of Nazi Germany.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 06:34:14 AM
Quote
Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.
$99 plus change is a few pennies short of $100. Who are you, Clinton? He liked to parse words, too. Oh, and $87 won't last long after OPEC decides not to increase production.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 06:47:19 AM
"You've associated them with the Nazis and accused them of profiteering on the Holocaust."
The Swiss associated themselves quite closely with the Nazis and profited quite hansomly on both the Holocaust and the collapse of Nazi Germany.
The Swiss associated themselves quite closely with the Nazis and profited quite hansomly on both the Holocaust and the collapse of Nazi Germany.
I'm aware of some specific cases of wrong-doing, and wouldn't dream of defending them. As I'm aware of Ford, Lindberg and others' pro-Nazi sentiments, and don't defend them either.
But when you say, "The Swiss associated themselves quite closely..." you are apparently referring to the fact that they allowed Germans to hire their (banking) services. In other words, when a McDonalds in Alabama serves food to a van full of white supremacists, who lynch someone after lunch, McDonalds becomes an accomplice in the lynching. "The Swiss" didn't load Jews into boxcars, or deport Swiss Jews, or otherwise participate in the Holocaust. In that respect they beat the hell out of the Vichy French, the Polish, the Italians--in fact, than anyone except the Spanish, Swedish and Albanians, with whom they're tied at zero Jews killed.
That's not to say that there wasn't any antisemitism in Switzerland. Refugees, most of whom were Jewish, were kept apart from the general population in internment camps.
As for "profiting from the Holocaust," that's a mis-characterization. The Swiss banks are famous for withholding information about accounts with deceased owners, such that heirs can't get the money unless they already know about the account. This means that lots of money became inaccessible during WWII through the owners' deaths--including Jews, Nazis and anyone else to die in the war without leaving account numbers where the heirs can find them. I don't endorse that policy, and in the case of Holocaust survivors I find it heart-wrenching, but to suggest that this makes them complicit with the Nazis is as absurd as claiming that holding onto Nazi money makes them complicit with the Allies.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 06:52:01 AM
Quote
Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.
$99 plus change is a few pennies short of $100. Who are you, Clinton? He liked to parse words, too. Oh, and $87 won't last long after OPEC decides not to increase production.
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
Do you not even see what you wrote yourself? Don't equivocate and revise. You said "$100 a barrel and rising". It's never done that. You can't get out of it by pretending you meant to say "just short of".
Post by: K Frame on December 03, 2007, 07:08:45 AM
The Swiss government also never fulfilled commitments it made after the war to return money looted from various European nations overrun by the Nazis, or to liquidate hundreds of millions in German-government held assets to assist in the resettlement of those uprooted by the Nazis.
After 1939 when ENORMOUS amounts of gold began to flow into Switzerland, oddly enough coinciding with the fall of various European nations to the Nazis, the Swiss gladly accepted these shipments. As noted above, they also gladly kept much of it when the Nazis were defeated.
The Swiss knew what was going on. It was far MORE than simply serving food to a busload of white supremicists.
It's easy to claim that "oohhhh, the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew." You're intelligent enough to know, though, that culpability and guilt doesn't end with the individual whose finger was on the trigger.
The Swiss, individuals, corporations, and even the Swiss nation, profited hansomly from their complicity with the Nazis and full knowledge of what the Nazis were doing in Europe.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 07:13:17 AM
Quote
Do you not even see what you wrote yourself? Don't equivocate and revise. You said "$100 a barrel and rising". It's never done that. You can't get out of it by pretending you meant to say "just short of".
This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from Republicans. $99.26 is not $100.00, but the economic result is identical.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 07:19:43 AM
The Swiss no only associated their banking services with the Nazis, near the end of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the Swiss government passed numerous laws that made it easier for the banking interests to keep the loot...
Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him. I'd say it's sleazy, and potentially criminal if the facts are exactly as you present them, but it isn't collaboration.
Quote
It's easy to claim that "oohhhh, the Swiss didn't kill a single Jew." You're intelligent enough to know, though, that culpability and guilt doesn't end with the individual whose finger was on the trigger.
Agreed--but none of what you're talking about constitutes complicity in the Holocaust.
Quote
The Swiss, individuals, corporations, and even the Swiss nation, profited hansomly from their complicity with the Nazis and full knowledge of what the Nazis were doing in Europe.
Possibly true. I'm not defending individual Swiss or their actions. However, proving that Switzerland wasn't perfect (which wasn't in dispute) doesn't prove that non-interventionism is wrong. No more than proving that Jeff Dahmer was nice to his mother proves that mistreating your mother is the thing to do.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on December 03, 2007, 07:20:51 AM
Oh really?
So I guess your claim that oil is "$100 a barrel and rising is actually just the regular old standard kind of dishonesty?
You know, a blatant LIE?
You made a statement that is easily proven false, and instead of being man enough to admit that you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole, you try to claim that those who have called you out on your falsehood are themselves being dishonest.
Stop the crap.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 03, 2007, 07:21:26 AM
Quote
I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything that any Swiss person might do. As a rather parochial New Englander, I don't actually like Europeans on a personal level. I'm no admirer of Germans, French or Swiss, in particular. Matter of fact I absolutely despise Sweden, but I commend their non-interventionism as well.
Yeah, well, I despise Al Capone but I commend his donations to the soup kitchens.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 07:24:58 AM
Quote
I did neither. I commended their non-interventionism. I also commend their armed populace. That doesn't translate into a blanket endorsement of anything and everything...
Yeah, well, I despise Al Capone but I commend his donations to the soup kitchens.
Exactly. Why the eye-rolling? Hint: everyone's a sinner. Commend anyone you want (except Jesus, say) for anything you want, and I guarantee that person also deserves criticism on some front. Odds are good I can even tell you what.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on December 03, 2007, 07:30:52 AM
You're joking, right?
Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.
It's called being an accessory.
The Swiss also never refused to give the money back to the Nazis. They KEPT the money for their own purposes and benefit after the Nazis were defeated. In your example it would be the same as your keeping the proceeds of the bank robbery for your own use after finding out that the robber left your home and was hit by a bus and killed.
The Swiss knowingly and willfully provided financial services to and accepted gold from the Nazis despite their full knowledge of what was occurring in occupied Europe. Their actions made them complicit in the deaths of millions of Europeans. And their greed led them to lie about what actions they took during the war and hide the evidence of their complicity for decades.
Post by: Paddy on December 03, 2007, 07:32:43 AM
Quote
You made a statement that is easily proven false, and instead of being man enough to admit that you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole, you try to claim that those who have called you out on your falsehood are themselves being dishonest.
I already did, when I said:
Quote
$99.26 is not $100.00
However, in the interests of 'accuracy', let me correct my remark:
Quote
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100$87/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
It may be $87 today, but it will never return to any level even close to the $26/barrel when Bush took office. That is a direct result of this occupation in Iraq.
Now that I've amended my incorrect statement, you are welcome to address the substance of my remark.
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 07:39:21 AM
"Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him."
You're joking, right? Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.
You're joking, right? Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.
I'm talking morally, not legally: your own version has them operating at cross-purposes. The Swiss were, by your telling, robbing the Nazis, not helping them.
Quote
The Swiss also never refused to give the money back to the Nazis. They KEPT the money for their own purposes and benefit after the Nazis were defeated.
You just said, "They never refused to give the money back. They just never gave the money back." Um... yeah.
Quote
The Swiss knowingly and willfully provided financial services to and accepted gold from the Nazis despite their full knowledge of what was occurring in occupied Europe.
Which I oppose, exactly as I would oppose letting white supremacists patronize one's grocery store or restaurant. This observation doesn't support interventionism, though. It's irrelevant to the question at hand.
Quote
Their actions made them complicit in the deaths of millions of Europeans.
Anyone who feeds OJ Simpson is complicit in the slaying of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Everyone should refuse to sell him food, clothing or anything else. I'm not kidding; I sincerely believe that. However, selling food to OJ Simpson is not a prosecutable crime. What you're describing is a summary of many individual actions, some of which probably are prosecutable crimes, and some of which are not. Blanket statements are a blunt instrument in this case.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on December 03, 2007, 09:13:45 AM
In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
I find it funny that everyone choose to clamor about the slight hyperbole in Riley's post and totally ignore everything else. Wonder why that is...
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 03, 2007, 10:18:47 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 03, 2007, 03:52:33 PM
In the absence of some treaty violation, why is it our job to police 'large swaths of the world running amok'?
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
I find it funny that everyone choose to clamor about the slight hyperbole in Riley's post and totally ignore everything else. Wonder why that is...
It isn't out 'job' to police the world. It is, however, generally in our best interests. We do it because it's better for us than not doing so.
I woulda figured that was obvious...
Post by: Len Budney on December 03, 2007, 04:09:14 PM
It isn't out 'job' to police the world. It is, however, generally in our best interests. We do it because it's better for us than not doing so. I woulda figured that was obvious...
It's obviously wrong. For one thing, "policing the world" is hideously expensive; it's guaranteed to overwhelm our economy in the end because... For another thing, the burden continually grows without limit. Our attempts to dictate to the world pisses people off, who react by doing things that are bad for us--forcing us to escalate our control to stop them, which only pisses them off worse, and so on. Ultimately we can win only by exterminating everyone outside our borders. Anything less represents a war of attrition that simply can't be won in the long run.
The belief that policing the world can work is, funnily enough, exactly what hawks accuse doves of: it's the fantasy that sooner or later everyone will simmer down and decide to be our friends. Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal. The trouble is that terror can't produce friendship. Instead it produces asymmetrical warfare.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 03, 2007, 05:36:03 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 03, 2007, 05:40:15 PM
If we wanted to "display terrifying might" we certainly could. For example, it would be a trivial matter to glass the entire middle east. I don't think anyone is proposing that we do that. "Policing the world" doesn't mean we go Roman on everyone and salt the earth whenever anyone dares to oppose us.
What we can do, and should do, is take serious threats seriously. Depending on the situation, that might mean using diplomacy (as with North Korea right now), or that might mean engaging in a cold war (as with the Soviets), or that mioght mean forced regime change (as with Iraq and Afghanistan).
War isn't my first choice in all situations, but in some situations it makes sense. It doesn't have to bankrupt the country. We can win these things if we want to. All we have to do is fight like we want to win. The success of the surge shows that.
The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down. It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 03, 2007, 08:54:00 PM
Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal.
When you are dealing with people who respect only strength and who view diplomacy as a chance for deceit as part of war, who view concessions and negotiations as weakness, that generally works, yes.
There was one thing the Taliban in Afghanistan feared, as one prisoner said, and that was the scream of a descending A-10, for it meant death was coming.
The only thing jihadists understand is a bigger gun or bigger bomb landing on them. That, they'll respect. Nothing less.
Post by: Finch on December 03, 2007, 11:59:31 PM
Hawks believe this will happen because the US will display such terrifying might that everyone will decide that NOT being our friends is simply suicidal.
The only thing jihadists understand is a bigger gun or bigger bomb landing on them. That, they'll respect. Nothing less. Are we talking about the same guys who blow themselves up? The same guys who believe that dying a martyr in a holy jihad will bring them 72 virgins and other B.S. Somehow I doubt death is very high up on their list of fears.
Now maybe if we coated our bullets with bacon grease first...that might do something.
Post by: Len Budney on December 04, 2007, 02:11:20 AM
"Policing the world" doesn't mean we go Roman on everyone and salt the earth whenever anyone dares to oppose us.
You're correct that that's not the intention when we set out to police the world. But because policing the world is impossible, attempting to do so forces us to escalate until we are "going Roman on everyone."
Quote
What we can do, and should do, is take serious threats seriously.
That's not what the administration is doing. They're ignoring real threats, such as our porous borders, and expending trillions on non-threats.
Quote
The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down. It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.
See? The only difference between "conservatives" today and "liberals" is whether they want to spend trillions on guns, or butter. Both take trillion-dollar budgets as a given.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 04, 2007, 08:28:34 AM
Quote
The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down. It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.
Social Security would be in great shape if every President since Reagan hadn't collectively stolen trillions $ from it. Two things happened under Reagan. First he transferred the tax burden from the very wealthy to the working middle class. He did this with massive tax cuts for the rich and a huge increase in the Social Security taxes for the middle class. Then he didn't have enough money to run the government because Social Security didn't go into the general fund. So Greenspan came to his rescue and told Reagan he could 'borrow' from the SS Trust Fund and wouldn't have to report it because it was simply 'moving government money from one place to another.'
Due to the huge social security tax increases, the Boomer generation were to be the first to prepay their own social security benefits. Which the Boomers have done, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. have ripped off the money the Boomers paid. So now, working people will have to pay the benefits (which is why you think it's 'welfare') because three Republican and one Democrat president took the money and squandered it.
It won't be 'welfare' programs that bankrupt the U.S. It will be so-called 'free market' capitalism. It'll work like this. We will continue our military adventures in the world under various pretenses, but they are all false. The reason will be simply to enforce the continuing use of petrodollars throughout the world for the purpose of maintaining our artificially high standard of living. This provides us with more dollars to give (mostly) to the Chinese in exchange for their cheap crap that winds up in our landfills.
The Chinese in turn will use our dollars to buy our debt (the debt we incurred to finance the military adventures -like Iraq- in the first place), as well as to continue their military buildup. At some point in this process, we will become economically and militarily subordinate to China. And that my friend will be the end of the United States as we know it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 04, 2007, 01:42:42 PM
Quote
The United States will someday be bankrupt, but it won't be low-level brush wars like IRaq that bring us down. It'll be our newfound belief in welfare programs like Social Security that kill us.
Social Security would be in great shape if every President since Reagan hadn't collectively stolen trillions $ from it. Two things happened under Reagan. First he transferred the tax burden from the very wealthy to the working middle class. He did this with massive tax cuts for the rich and a huge increase in the Social Security taxes for the middle class. Then he didn't have enough money to run the government because Social Security didn't go into the general fund. So Greenspan came to his rescue and told Reagan he could 'borrow' from the SS Trust Fund and wouldn't have to report it because it was simply 'moving government money from one place to another.'
Due to the huge social security tax increases, the Boomer generation were to be the first to prepay their own social security benefits. Which the Boomers have done, but Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush Jr. have ripped off the money the Boomers paid. So now, working people will have to pay the benefits (which is why you think it's 'welfare') because three Republican and one Democrat president took the money and squandered it.
It won't be 'welfare' programs that bankrupt the U.S. It will be so-called 'free market' capitalism. It'll work like this. We will continue our military adventures in the world under various pretenses, but they are all false. The reason will be simply to enforce the continuing use of petrodollars throughout the world for the purpose of maintaining our artificially high standard of living. This provides us with more dollars to give (mostly) to the Chinese in exchange for their cheap crap that winds up in our landfills.
The Chinese in turn will use our dollars to buy our debt (the debt we incurred to finance the military adventures -like Iraq- in the first place), as well as to continue their military buildup. At some point in this process, we will become economically and militarily subordinate to China. And that my friend will be the end of the United States as we know it.
Post by: Scout26 on December 05, 2007, 12:53:09 PM
Quote
Pick which ever lie reason bush gave for going into Iraq, we met them all. No WMD's, Saddam's dead, let's go.
The Kaiser has abdicated, the German General Staff has been disbanded, the Versaillies Treaty has been signed, and the German Army is only 100,000 soldiers. Let's pull our troops out.
That worked out real well didn't it ??
Post by: Len Budney on December 05, 2007, 01:02:39 PM
The Kaiser has abdicated, the German General Staff has been disbanded, the Versaillies Treaty has been signed, and the German Army is only 100,000 soldiers. Let's pull our troops out. That worked out real well didn't it ??
Good point, but it's the opposite of the one you intended. Under the ruinous terms of Versailles, we made the next war inevitable. The correct thing to do was not to occupy Germany forever, but to refrain from driving them to the brink of despair with our heavy-handed treatment in the first place. To paraphrase your scenario:
"I've gotten my neighbor fired, had child services take his new baby, slept with his wife, shot his dog and slashed his tires. Time to go home and get some rest. I've earned it."
How would you expect that to work out?
--Len.
Post by: beatnik on December 05, 2007, 01:59:28 PM
I've never heard Paul say that he's going to severely cull our military - a requisite for the WWII analogy.
I've never heard Paul say that he's going to ignore our allies getting invaded - another requisite.
I seem to remember hearing about other nations like Brittain and France actually being able, militarily, to deal with a threat like the Nazis - and I believe their RKBA state of affairs now has a lot to do with our voluntary police work...
In fact, I've heard RP say a couple times things like bringing our military forces back to the US is a good start to securing our borders, or it makes no sense to fight people overseas when our front door is left open. That gets conveniently ignored.
I also like the fact that nobody ever attempts to defend the nation building thing. Ok - I'll grant that there was cassus belli with Iraq in that the 1990 war never got settled - but where, from 1990 to about 2004, did anyone say anything about nation building? Why didn't we pull Saddam out of the hole, drill him, and leave? When did it become our problem whether their trash is picked up, and why can't we just leave and let them figure it out?
Why don't I preemptively suggest this to the "they'll kill each other" argument: Give everyone in the *expletive deleted*it population tickets out of Iraq, and give every Kurd an AK and an RPG. Wouldn't that be cheaper?
Also, regarding the gold comments... I'm no economic rocket scientist, but I know that the value of gold has remained pretty constant since the beginning of time. I don't understand the argument that making the money in my pocket worth the exact same amount next week is somehow a bad thing... will someone explain that one to me?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 05, 2007, 04:23:37 PM
In fact, I've heard RP say a couple times things like bringing our military forces back to the US is a good start to securing our borders, or it makes no sense to fight people overseas when our front door is left open. That gets conveniently ignored.
I also like the fact that nobody ever attempts to defend the nation building thing. Ok - I'll grant that there was cassus belli with Iraq in that the 1990 war never got settled - but where, from 1990 to about 2004, did anyone say anything about nation building? Why didn't we pull Saddam out of the hole, drill him, and leave? When did it become our problem whether their trash is picked up, and why can't we just leave and let them figure it out?
Why don't I preemptively suggest this to the "they'll kill each other" argument: Give everyone in the *expletive deleted*it population tickets out of Iraq, and give every Kurd an AK and an RPG. Wouldn't that be cheaper?
Also, regarding the gold comments... I'm no economic rocket scientist, but I know that the value of gold has remained pretty constant since the beginning of time. I don't understand the argument that making the money in my pocket worth the exact same amount next week is somehow a bad thing... will someone explain that one to me?
Simple explanations all around.I also like the fact that nobody ever attempts to defend the nation building thing. Ok - I'll grant that there was cassus belli with Iraq in that the 1990 war never got settled - but where, from 1990 to about 2004, did anyone say anything about nation building? Why didn't we pull Saddam out of the hole, drill him, and leave? When did it become our problem whether their trash is picked up, and why can't we just leave and let them figure it out?
Why don't I preemptively suggest this to the "they'll kill each other" argument: Give everyone in the *expletive deleted*it population tickets out of Iraq, and give every Kurd an AK and an RPG. Wouldn't that be cheaper?
Also, regarding the gold comments... I'm no economic rocket scientist, but I know that the value of gold has remained pretty constant since the beginning of time. I don't understand the argument that making the money in my pocket worth the exact same amount next week is somehow a bad thing... will someone explain that one to me?
The security of our southern border has no correlation to the Iraq war. The border could be open or closed with troops in Iraq, or it could be open or closed with troops not in Iraq.
Leaving Iraq without a stable government would leave the country a safe haven for terrorists, much like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Unacceptable.
Forced eviction of the Shiites is both stupid and impractical. Arming Kurds is practical, but it doesn't solve any of the problems in Iraq. Besides, they're largely armed already.
Stable currency is certainly a noble ideal, but the gold standard will not lead to that result. It ties the value of our currency to (primarily) South Africa's ability to dig gold out of the ground. There isn't enough gold in the world to meet the needs of our growing economy.
Post by: WeedWhacker on December 10, 2007, 09:38:49 AM
Simple explanations all around.
Stable currency is certainly a noble ideal, but the gold standard will not lead to that result. It ties the value of our currency to (primarily) South Africa's ability to dig gold out of the ground. There isn't enough gold in the world to meet the needs of our growing economy.
Stable currency is certainly a noble ideal, but the gold standard will not lead to that result. It ties the value of our currency to (primarily) South Africa's ability to dig gold out of the ground. There isn't enough gold in the world to meet the needs of our growing economy.
You're assuming that the minimum transaction size is a dollar, a quarter, a penny, etc. Those of us advocating a gold standard have seen the out-and-out theft and fraud being visited heavily upon every single man and woman in the US with a positive bank account balance: inflation. Inflation is NOT necessary for economic growth - it is necessary to allow the government (and possibly associated banks) to steal the money saved by citizens right out of bank vaults, savings accounts, pocketbooks, and mattresses. We've seen how well inflation works out for We the People: check out a 1964 half dollar. Face value, 50 cents. Silver content, 0.35-ish ounces. Going rate for silver content alone is around five DOLLARS. That's a NINTY PERCENT THEFT since 1964 alone. Yeah, this fractional-reserve, fiat currency system is really working out well for us middle class folks.
Post by: K Frame on December 10, 2007, 12:34:01 PM
I hope you don't me "we" as in the United States.
Britain was against unfettered freedom of the seas as proposed in Wilson's 14 points, while France demanded harsh reparations be paid to the allies.
The peace talks at Versailles were driven primarily by Britain and France, who were in almost complete agreement on the demands made on Germany, effectively isolating the US position.
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 03:05:44 AM
"Under the ruinous terms of Versailles, we made the next war inevitable."
I hope you don't me "we" as in the United States.
I hope you don't me "we" as in the United States.
Wilson initially opposed the French and English desire to sock it to the Germans, but his opposition was weak and he promptly dropped it. He didn't want to antagonize them because he thought it would interfere with his hope to form a league of nations. But France and England wouldn't have been in a position to dictate ruinous terms in the first place if we hadn't joined a war that had nearly ended in (the usual European) stalemate, and turned it into a complete rout of the Germans.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on January 02, 2008, 09:19:13 AM
Um. Oil never got to $100 a barrel. And now it's down to $87.
I guess some people like to make up their own news instead of reading the real news...?
I guess some people like to make up their own news instead of reading the real news...?
OK. Here's the 'real news' for ya......I didn't have to wait long, did I?
Crude oil price hits record $100 mark
Violence in Nigeria helps give crude final push over $100
BREAKING NEWS
updated 34 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Oil prices soared to $100 a barrel Wednesday for the first time ever, reaching that milestone amid an unshakeable view that global demand for oil and petroleum products will continue to outstrip supplies.
Surging economies in China and India fed by oil and gasoline have sent prices soaring over the past year, while tensions in oil producing nations like Nigeria and Iran have increasingly made investors nervous and invited speculators to drive prices even higher.
Violence in Nigeria helped give crude the final push over $100. Bands of armed men invaded Port Harcourt, the center of Nigerias oil industry Tuesday, attacking two police stations and raiding the lobby of a major hotel. Word that several Mexican oil export ports were closed due to rough weather added to the gains, as did a report that OPEC may not be able to meet its share of global oil demand by 2024.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
Light, sweet crude for January delivery rose $4.02 to $100 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, according to Brenda Guzman, a Nymex spokeswoman, before slipping back to $99.48.
Crude prices, which have flirted with $100 for months, have risen in recent days on supply concerns exacerbated by Turkish attacks on Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and falling domestic inventories. However, post-holiday trading volumes were about 50 percent of normal Wednesday, meaning the price move was likely exaggerated by speculative buying.
I would imagine the speculators are the biggest drivers today, said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp., in Chicago.
Its hard to say whether prices would have risen as quickly on a normal trading day, Flynn said. While crude prices have soared on mounting supply concerns in recent months, speculators have often been cited as a reason for the swiftness of oils climb.
Moreover, many of the concerns about supply disruptions have yet to materialize, but that hasnt stopped buyers from driving prices higher.
Although the (Nigerian) violence has not impacted oil flow out of the country, it has reignited supply concerns as militant attacks have reduced Nigerias crude output by roughly 20 percent since 2006, said John Gerdes, an analyst at SunTrust Robinson Humphrey in a research note. Nigeria is Africas largest oil producer.
Separately, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said its member nations may not be able to meet demand as early as 2024, though OPEC also said that deadline could slide for decades if members increase production more quickly. Word that several Mexican oil export ports were closed due to rough weather added to the gains.
On top of those concerns, investors are anticipating that crude inventories fell by 1.8 million barrels last week, which would be the 7th weekly decline in a row.
(A decline) is not anything unusual for this time of year, but when it happens for 7 weeks in a row, it starts to add up, said Amanda Kurzendoerfer, an analyst at Summit Energy Services Inc. in Louisville, Ky.
Oil prices are within the range of inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to $103
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
Post by: K Frame on January 02, 2008, 09:33:04 AM
That still doesn't make your previous claim, at the time it was uttered, true.
At that point in time your claim was demonstratably false.
You didn't caveat your claim until AFTER you were called on it.
Post by: Paddy on January 02, 2008, 09:52:15 AM
Quote
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
And oil WILL trade at $100 and ABOVE. It's only a matter of time. A short time. The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"
Post by: TwitchALot on January 02, 2008, 01:13:08 PM
Right. My claim on Dec 3 that oil was $100 was not true. I retract that statement. However, ALL of my other claims are in fact true.
The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"
Quote
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
And oil WILL trade at $100 and ABOVE. It's only a matter of time. A short time. The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"
Kind of like... today?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 02, 2008, 08:30:37 PM
Quote
And how is a trillion dollar occupation, all time high record gov borrowing and debt, thousands of Americans killed and tens of thousands wounded, oil at $100/barrel and rising, a dollar that has lost half its value in the last 6 years, etc and on and on..........how are those 'favorable results'?
The question stands. "How are those favorable results?"
Those aren't the favorable results to which he referred. Some of the things you listed are simply the cost of fighting a war. Some of them are the cost of mis-steps in the course of fighting a war. Some are side effects of other, un-related policies.
Post by: LAK on January 04, 2008, 04:44:39 AM
Quote
It's obviously wrong. For one thing, "policing the world" is hideously expensive; it's guaranteed to overwhelm our economy in the end because... For another thing, the burden continually grows without limit.
Perfectly rational and logical. As is the fact that our socalled "policing" has not really accomplished anything longterm anywhere.It is possible to maintain control of a limited geographical area. We only actually, loosely, control a small portion of Iraq. It is almost impossible to maintain control of a whole nation though, unless you place it under martial law and have many hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground.
The purported enemy in Iraq is actually spread over an entire region much larger than the United States. And that does not even include the remoter areas such as Indonesia and a growing enclave in places like S. America. Pakistan is teetering on chaos or civil war, with tenuous stability in India and other neighboring countries like Myanmar (formerly Burma).
The idea that we are going to commit our resources to "policing" the region is outright insanity, and even shoring up segments of it are going to bankrupt us - as if we are not already about there as it is.
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Scout26 on January 04, 2008, 06:58:24 PM
Quote from: LAK
As is the fact that our socalled "policing" has not really accomplished anything longterm anywhere.
Most of Europe would like to have a word with you. And when they're done South Korea and Japan are waiting....
<---- 8th Infantry Divison, Baumholder, Germany 1987-1991. I was there when The Wall came down.
Seemed like a pretty damn important accomplishment at the time.
Post by: LAK on January 05, 2008, 03:18:40 AM
Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world - although it has jockeyed for this position with some other states from time to time. South Korea could be overrun quite rapidly.
However, these occupations were not the result of a "policing" action. Far from it. Germany was culturally and in most other ways very similar to ours and the other western occupying forces. Under a considerable occupation force, wherein the whole country was under adequate control, there was rebuilding to do, commerce to resume, and a return to business as usual right along side a swift transitional government.
The idea that we are going to do this to muslim central asia, north africa, indonesia and elsewhere is more than a bad joke. Unless you want to declare a real war on all muslim states and completely destroy them. But this again, would not be "policing", and the costs in blood and money are realistically well beyond - a long way beyond - even the combined resources of the United States and a number of other countries put together.
Post by: roo_ster on January 05, 2008, 04:49:50 AM
You do what you can, when you can, while you have the means to do so and aim for best results you can reasonable expect to get.
Post by: LAK on January 06, 2008, 02:17:24 AM
Ron Paul knows that, and recognizes that cleaning house at home, and keeping it as clean as possible is both rational and likely to be more fruitful while being affordable. He does not dismiss the idea of dealing with foreign countries that literally harbor and foster belligerents - but instead recognizes that cutting them off in other ways is better than invasion, occupation and attempts at running their affairs with our military.
Post by: MrRezister on January 07, 2008, 02:44:53 PM
Ron Paul knows that, and recognizes that cleaning house at home, and keeping it as clean as possible is both rational and likely to be more fruitful while being affordable. He does not dismiss the idea of dealing with foreign countries that literally harbor and foster belligerents - but instead recognizes that cutting them off in other ways is better than invasion, occupation and attempts at running their affairs with our military.
Eh, maybe.
But it's much more immediate to blow up the Bad Guys.
And the guys who look like the Bad Guys.
And the Potential Future Bad Guys.
That's how you win, right?