Printable View
And I don't have a direct response from Ron Paul about your specific quote. If I ever see him maybe I will ask him. If not I think he has a library of information online of documents he has written, read some of them.
I THINK it is ronpaullibrary.com
His writings prove that he had this "pro Al Qeada" stance as you call it LONG before the terrorist attacks. A non-interventionist foreign policy is something he has held his entire political career.
We need to use preventative measures here and overseas. It would be insane to use one type of measure but not the other. I told you about my take on our history with the Middle East. Still, we cannot erase history. We have to deal with the war Islamofascism is waging against us. And we are sucking the scum out of the woodwork. Why would you claim that we are not? Those bastards are coming at our soldiers from all over the Middle East, and they are mostly getting their asses popped for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
As I call it? Show me where I called it that or even described it that way. Why do you lie like that? Search for the word "inadvertantly". I think Paul's message is inadvertantly the same as Al Qaeda's regarding how to respond to the attacks. I don't think he supports the terrorism they are about, and I don't think he is working with or for them. I have been very clear on that. You are lying again. It is really getting old.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
You no what, stop denying every single thing you say and then making the only option for refuting it is "go copy and paste every instance I did that." I can and I will if you don't knock it off.
And preemptive war is a fancy word for invasion.
You flat out made up "Pro Al Qaeda stance as you call it". You made that up. You lied. You keep doing that. Why do you want to have this debate if you don't even believe the things you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
The war in Iraq was not preemptive. It was a continuation of the 1991 war because the Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire provisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
Uhm, I think they said it as "There is no doubt in our mind that he has WMD." And "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud." and "He is working with Al Qeada"
All were false.
Those were some of the stated reasons. The ceasefire violations were also reasons. Not finding the WMD's does not prove that they were not there, just like not being able to find your car keys does not prove that they never existed. The Hussein regime did send representatives to meet with Al Qaeda, and they did harbor Al-Zarqawi. But like I said, there were many reasons for the continuation of the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
That and "The man tried to kill my dad!"
The former president? Yes, that was one more sign that we had a big problem on our hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
A problem that we created. Do you deny that?
We made them powerful, and they went bad. So we played a role by making a mistake, but they made the decisions to be evil. And saying that we created the problem was not going to make us any safer. We still had to deal with the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
It is our "dealing with the problem" that makes these mistakes. And sorry to tell you, the middle east never came over here to start the first problem.
Are you fucking serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
They just committed injustices in the Middle East, so that's not a problem? I disagree. The world is my country. Democracy should be protected worldwide, and the taking over of Kuwait greatly affected the U.S. economy. We deal with that stuff the best we can, and those problems cannot be ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
This brings up a very important issue: whether the US should pursue a sort of global socialism in order to provide to the needy and remove tyrannical governments all over the world. Is it our moral duty to protect people all over the globe or is our only imperative to protect the interests of our own country, protecting ourselves even at the expense of others?
And which is more important: democracy or safety? Can democracy be promoted by force more effectively than by example? Is a democratic world a safer one?
I think safety comes with democracy. I don't merely think it is America's responsibility to democratize the world. I think it is the world's responsibility to democratize the world. I see the world as my place before I see my country as my place. I don't think Americans are more important than the people of other countries. They are all my people, and I think they all deserve to be free. I really wish the whole world would help us with creating that freedom. But I think the United States is presently a very valuable country for the world and should not be destroyed in the name of freeing the entire world by itself, which is what would happen if we tried to do it alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
If you wish to elect and support leaders that share that common goal, of "making the world safe for democracy" (their words not yours) Then be prepared for more 9/11's
We overthrew two Islamofascist governments and have not had any domestic terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. I think overthrowing those governments sent a very strong message that such stuff will get their countries taken over. If we had withdrawn from the Middle East as a response, we would have already had more 9/11's.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
I'm not voting because I don't give a crap.
Why kill us over here if they can kill us over there?
It's about the long term future, not just a few year period. And WMD's in the hands of terrorists could kill tens of thousands or more in a single instant, not just 4,000 soldiers. We wanted to make sure that that government no longer existed so they could never use or develop WMD's to get into the hands of terrorist organizations. It was a legitimate concern. We had many other legitimate concerns, and still do.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaasum
Whomever I vote for it won't be a member of either the Republican or Democratic parties. I'm sick of the red verses blue BS.
After our war on tyranny succeeds, the people left in those former dictatorships would be left in the economic ruins of war. Ala Germany, it would be a simple matter for new leaders to seek revenge for the destruction wrought on their country by a monolithic, seemingly-imperial alliance of powers, and rally their people to launch a new war. And so on, ad infinitum. Would it not simply be trading an unjust peace for an endless war? It could be, unless we chose the new leaders of the countries we defeated.
And how, I ask, can any power or group of powers, appear interested in Democracy while they destroy governments and only allow leaders of their choice to take its place? Can we claim such universal trust, that people who are strangers to our culture and ideals would accept new leaders from the powers that brought war to their country?
We can't just leave the countries with anarchy. In such a state, the governments that rise up will be tyrranical ones. We have to choose their first new leader. Then from there, they can shape their own government with votes. I don't know of any other way to do it. We are not leaving the coutries in economic ruin. They were already better off the days they were freed. Many of them appreciate what we have done, and I believe that most of the rest eventually will. I am certain their decendents will.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
I am talking about entire US historical relations with the middle east. The 9/11 attacks were backlash for the crimes we have committed over there. Not we as in you and me but a few key policy makers over the last century. They all actually used to be our allies until oil got involved (historically).Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael