If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Saul Anuzis, Chairman of GOP in Michigan is starting a petition to bar Ron Paul from future GOP debates "because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy."
Please contact and let him know:
1. You, as a REPUBLICAN, support Ron Paul (and so do your REPUBLICAN friends).
2. Ron Paul was factually correct based on the 911 Commission Report and CIA Reports.
3. Dr Paul is popular with the people because he is the ONLY 2008 candidate with a true Republican message and voting record.
Please be EXTRA nice and send a message to Saul Anuzis:
Another words, "Parrot all of our bullshit or their is no room for you here."
__________________
doublEEsta
Global Warming - A phenomenon where natural climatic cycles coincide with liberal aspirations.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Don't spread my WEALTH...Spread my WORK ETHIC!
Forgetting the fact that in some sense, yes our middle east poilicies did bring about 9/11. Of course they did.
Our policies regarding Japan in the 1930's brought about our war with them in 1941.
Our policies and NON-INTERVENTION earlier in europe in the 20's and 30's led directly to Hitler's rise and WWII.
Duh.
The point is whether that blowback is unavoidable or even the worse among other options. That is pure hindsight.
One historical fact remains- doing nothing is always bad where as doing something MIGHT be bad.
We have the entire 20th century to show that non-intervention is a failed policy. We remain isolationist while the world crumbles into anarchy, only to have to be dragged into conflict anyway- and then usually suffer badly for showing up late to the game.
Since the industrial revolution petroleum has been the GLOBAL ECONOMY. Anyone that spouts off with crap like 'war for oil' has demonstrated their total and absolute ignorance for the scope of the topic at hand and may be dismissed as simply too din to comprehend what's at stake.
You cannot have the modern world without oil. We HAVE to keep a controlling hand in the region to maintain the industrial world and advance past burning candles to read by.
We certainly can't trust the locals over there to control themselves, much less the entire global economy. They have proven that over and over. Industrialized nations must protect the petroleum supply not only to protect the entire world's economy, but also to keep our modern existence. It is THAT vital.
So it is simply naive to think that a policy of isolationism is the answer for anything. That concept didn't work in the world long before we had this integrated economy and trade we take for granted now.
Any candidate that advocates sticking our heads in the sand is a fool. You do not lead from the back row, and America is in the leadership role of the world. It is a heady responsibility, and anyone not willing to take that responsibility is not qualified to run this nation. This is why no democrat is worth even considering. They do not lead. They refuse to lead.
Leading is not done by commission, which is why the UN is a spectacular failure exactly as the League of Nations before it. Countries do not have friends, they have interests. And you better be willing to lose the high school popularity contest to protect you interests if you plan on surviving.
Our current terrorist problem is the direct result of isolationism and non-intervention. Clinton simply did nothing to run this country and certainly failed at every foreign policy turn.
the 9/11 attacks was just the last in a long chain of events that proved time and again that we would do nothing in response to terror. A dozen large scale attacks over the course of that administration and all we did was open our doors to terrorists here so they wouldn't have to travel that far to kill Americans. Clinton's gestapo was too busy killing Americans to bother with the islamic facists that ended up being the real enemy.
We were attacked with each one becoming worse, and each time our response became more and more limp dicked. We allowed Saddam to utterly thumb his nose to a surrender he himself signed. We make these high and mighty proclimations like UN resolutions, then refuse to enforece them
We let hamas and hezbollah grow more and more powerful because we were too busy trying to win some kind of popularity contest rather than protect ourselves and our global interests. Thousands paid with their lives for that non-intervention and more than needed to are paying for it today having to police terror strongholds that should have been dealt with more than a dozen years ago.
We brought on this problem thru totally inept and ineffective leadership. First under the democrats who did nothing, and now thru the republicans that do virtually everything wrong.
The US is in the driver's seat, and mostly because no one else is a reasonable candidate. No one says we are perfect, but we beat the hell out of the competition. So we cannot pretend that responsibility is someone elses. Isolationism is not an option and we've already been bitten in the ass for most of the 20th century for adopting it as a policy. Going forward into the 21st century we can doom ourselves to repeat that mistake, or do something about it.
I just spoke with a friend who knows the people who work in the Michigan GOP office. He said the office "can't handle the volume" and "don't know what to do". Saul Anuzis's blackberry is flooded with messages, his voicemail is already full, and Ron Paul supporters are starting to find new phone numbers to reach him.
They are totally freaked out. He told me "they decided to stop answering the phones for the rest of the day because right when they hung up with one Ron Paul supporter the phone started to ring with the next. They couldn't get any work done". And "Saul has turned off his blackberry because he couldn't handle the overload".
He kept telling me how surprised they were at the amount of people calling and emailing. They didn't know what was going on or who was behind it all. Total shock.
Let's not let this one die. More phone calls and messages tomorrow.
__________________
doublEEsta
Global Warming - A phenomenon where natural climatic cycles coincide with liberal aspirations.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
Don't spread my WEALTH...Spread my WORK ETHIC!
The trigger is America's post WWII foreign policy. Skip the sugar coated version of history. The Persian Gulf War wasn't the trigger but the final straw in shit going back 50 years. America has propped up friendly puppets, crushing democracy or at least populist rule, in 3rd world countries the world over. Don't get me wrong. We're better than China or Russia and I believe we're actually pretty civilized for an Empire. You can't reduce the events of 9/11 to Islamic-fascism, they're evil and hate our freedom bit. It is not entirely our fault. But to say America is completely blameless in stirring up all these crazy religious nuts is denial. Paul is saying if we hadn't been screwing with people for so long, all the shit wouldn't be rolling down now. (blowback)
Our nation has hard power and soft power. The neo-cons are strong advocates of flexing America's hard power. (military)
I think our ideas and values are more influential in the world. We were so loved before Bush invaded Iraq. No matter how much you do for people, they bitch. That's why we shouldn't go around "spreading democracy".
Paul would take the gloves off. Pakistan is completely stone walling our effort to find Bin Laden. We could probably still pull out a "win" in Iraq but we'd have to scare them into submission and dump a trillion into a Marshal Plan that we can't afford. Carpet bomb the Al-Madhi Army's section of Baghdad and watch how fast they fall in line. The problem is we're too good natured to kill 20,000 innocents to make a point. That's why these elective wars fail.
I don't think Afghanistan was elective. When the CIA sponsored Taliban harbored Bin Laden, we had to go take them down but we left before the job was done. I think if we bail from Iraq, things won't turn out as bad as predicted. Yeah a representative federalist system is out of the question, we're already too far passed any point of hope. The politicians in power like Bush will never admit they made a fatal mistake. They completely miscalculated. If we pull out from Iraq and concentrate on actually securing this country, we'll be alright.
Germany and Japan welcomed American intervention because their entire country and population were devastated. As messed up as Baghdad is, it's still there. Although anyone with brains or money has already left Iraq.
I like Dr. Paul because he doesn't buy into the globalist agenda. Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out 30 years ago official govt's are no longer in the driver's seat. It's the banking and multi-national conglomerates along with wealthy NGOs i.e. Bilderberg Group and the City of London. What Prof Quigley would call the Anglo-American Establishment. The big decisions are never gone over in public or discussed in open govt. The media/corporate establishment presents a series of distractions and false choices. How else can we explain the failure to protect the southern border when an overwhelming majority of the population want the govt to crack down on illegal immigration ? Better yet, why isn't there more disincentives to employ illegal aliens ? They're reducing the value of labor. And the dilution of individual choice and freedom.
The federal reserve and world bank, IMF etc... are all very sketchy. We appoint a private corp to invent fiat money and charge the govt and taxpayer's interest. NAFTA, the N. American Union and the other upcoming trade agreements are completely illegal and unconstitutional if you believe in what the founders intended at the start of this country. Congressmen have admitted stipulations in these agreements cede American sovereignty. We need the prohibition of corporate personhood. It's our last hope before we're all wearing collars under the NWO.
I also liked Mike Gravel having the balls to say the military-industrial complex has undue influence in govt and politics. I believe half our taxes go to corporate hand outs and kick backs to 3rd world despots. I believe this so called war on terror, will go down like the war on drugs. We need a new bad guy to justify the machine.
Dr. Werner Von Braun, one of the greatest scientific minds of the last century and the key to the beginning of America's space program, had an amazing insight. In the 1970s he predicted after winning the cold war against communism, the new designated "enemy" will become terrorists and rogue nations. And after that, a Gulf of Tonkin incident with extraterrestrials. What happens when a technologically advanced civilization encounters a primitive ? Just look at what happened to the Indians. At least I think that's what they fear, along with the loss of power.
I was going to craft a response to the "gulf war" bullshit, but this sums it all up. Bravo.
So why is he a Republican? And more precisely, a contemporary Republican?
There's little other choice. Nobody will elect a Libertarian because a) conservatives don't like anything with "liber-" in the beginning due to the similarity to "liberal"; and b) because it's the closest possible big-name party that fits (sort of) in-line with his ideals.
More specifically, RP is a libertarian running as a Repub, because that's the only chance he has, and he's aware of it.
Our current terrorist problem is the direct result of isolationism and non-intervention. Clinton simply did nothing to run this country and certainly failed at every foreign policy turn.
Clinton did fail in that respect, but it wasn't due to isolationism. The borders remained open, and we still meddled in others' affairs, just not militarily.
Quote:
the 9/11 attacks was just the last in a long chain of events that proved time and again that we would do nothing in response to terror. A dozen large scale attacks over the course of that administration and all we did was open our doors to terrorists here so they wouldn't have to travel that far to kill Americans. Clinton's gestapo was too busy killing Americans to bother with the islamic facists that ended up being the real enemy.
We were attacked with each one becoming worse, and each time our response became more and more limp dicked. We allowed Saddam to utterly thumb his nose to a surrender he himself signed. We make these high and mighty proclimations like UN resolutions, then refuse to enforece them
Agreed, but why wasn't Saddam ousted by Bush Sr? It should have been done right the first fucking time - however Clinton is nearly as guilty for not dealing with him. I still don't agree with WHY we invaded Iraq.
Quote:
We let hamas and hezbollah grow more and more powerful because we were too busy trying to win some kind of popularity contest rather than protect ourselves and our global interests. Thousands paid with their lives for that non-intervention and more than needed to are paying for it today having to police terror strongholds that should have been dealt with more than a dozen years ago.
Let's not forget who financially backed the majority of terrorist organizations around the world. Yeah, us.
Quote:
We brought on this problem thru totally inept and ineffective leadership. First under the democrats who did nothing, and now thru the republicans that do virtually everything wrong.
First through the republicans who did everything wrong, then the democrats who did everything wrong, then again the republicans who fucked up all over again. This didn't start with Clinton.
Quote:
The US is in the driver's seat, and mostly because no one else is a reasonable candidate. No one says we are perfect, but we beat the hell out of the competition. So we cannot pretend that responsibility is someone elses. Isolationism is not an option and we've already been bitten in the ass for most of the 20th century for adopting it as a policy. Going forward into the 21st century we can doom ourselves to repeat that mistake, or do something about it.
Like secure the borders, and make isolationism (in a loose sense) reality? I'm not saying ignore the goings-on around the world, but let's not be so eagar to jump the gun and invade the first country that tells us to fuck off.
SollyLama... I really hope you don't believe that it was our fault that Hitler came to power. That's just assinine. And proves that you firmly believe America should police the world. Wow. Just wow.
Not quite as shocking, but still crazy, is that you then blame Clinton for doing the non-intervention thing and that's what caused our terror problem we have now. Have you missed out on modern history? There aren't many middle eastern countries we haven't messed with since WWII, and it didn't slow down with Clinton. Although I would like to add that he created more peace in the middle east than any other President that I'm aware of.
Some of you are focusing too much on "who did what" to cause 9/11 instead of looking at the entire history of US intervention in Europe and the Middle East.
Pick up a history book. It all stems from the Cold War.
Paraphrase:
Instability close to the USSR would strain their resources and leave the US as the supreme world power.
Agreed, but why wasn't Saddam ousted by Bush Sr? It should have been done right the first fucking time - however Clinton is nearly as guilty for not dealing with him. I still don't agree with WHY we invaded Iraq.
But that wasn't the objective. Although Schwartzkopf wanted to sack Baghdad, I believe both Powell and Bush did not. They had two objectives, to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and to annihilate the Republican Guard, which did not recover to pre-Iraq/Iran war levels. They did both.
Although I wish that the market could create more supply of energy. That's where we are failing, sadly.
There's no way that existing global oil stocks will support growing American and the soon-to-explode Chinese economies. We ought to get creative here.
Fighting over it isn't working very well, and won't in the future either. The truth is that we know of several energy alternatives; the problems with them are mostly that they are more expensive than oil. So we should peacefully buy oil for as long as it's cheaper than other sources of energy, and switch when it's economically advantageous. Simple, sensible, and doesn't involve mass murder.
More nuclear plants for stationary power works;we have good uranium supplies. Wind and solar and other such things are good where they make sense. Clean coal technologies can be used; we have plenty of that stuff. Ethanol from cellulose, switchgrass,etc. can be developed. As well, there is as much oil in Canada as there is in the Middle East; it's just in tar sands that are more expensive to get the oil out of. There's *more* oil under Wyoming/Colorado/Utah than there is in the Middle East; it's just in oil shale that is more expensive to get the oil out of.
We're not fighting over the Middle East because that's the only source of energy; it's just the cheapest source of energy. But once you factor in the costs of keeping the peace (and the costs of failing to), it may not really be such a bargain.
So actually, the market *can* create more supplies of energy, if the market is allowed to function.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
So we should peacefully buy oil for as long as it's cheaper than other sources of energy, and switch when it's economically advantageous. Simple, sensible, and doesn't involve mass murder.
Nobody's advocating mass murder. But the fuel that necessitates our economies must be free. How many OPEC countries' heads-of-state are considered to be "unfriendly" to the United States? I can think of at least three right of the top of my head.
That "economically advantageous" point is fast approaching. The Middle East will no longer become an American protectorate, at least economically. However, they'll be continued political and military support for Israel, but this change you speak of would dramatically change the scale of our interest there.
They are holding us over a barrel here. We need to increase our demand (either by tapping new oil fields, increasing production from alternative, vegetable-based fuel) and lowering demand (increasing vehicle fuel economies, give more incentive to households to reduce demand, etc.)
Linear Mode
