Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Ron Paul Rebuttal
Author Message
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #1
Ron Paul Rebuttal
05-17-2007 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
05-17-2007 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #3
 
Is the GOP really suggesting that there is no place in the debate for questioning whether American foreign policy creates blowback that feeds terrorist recruitment and financing?

That used to be a pretty stock conservative position. Andrew Bacevich, a Col. that served in Vietnam, and has taught international relations as a conservative scholar for a long time, pretty much coined the term blowback. And he very much believes that the exercise of American military might, has positive as well as negative consequences -- one of the negatives being that it engenders hostility to the United States.

GGNiner, you are very fond of advocating that we should listen to what the terrorists say... but you ignore them completely when they use American foreign policy to justify their actions. You and I may not think that justifies anything, but their target audience feels differently. And that is the point.

The 9/11 commission report, and every book ever written about terrorism, takes Paul's position as more or less a given -- that hostility towards American foreign policy is a contributing factor to Islamic terrorism.

That position has now been sterilized from the Republican Party. If one brings it up, they are "saying we deserved 9/11" or "blaming the victims"...

Republicans used to be known for dispassionate analysis, the party of the head as opposed to the heart. Those days are apparently over. The attempts to purge Paul's very mainstream thoughts from the Republican debate are very Orwellian.
05-18-2007 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
And another thing, Ron Paul did not say that we deserved 9/11, he said that terrorism is partly an unintended consequence of American policy in the region prior to 9/11.

Republicans attack him for this, meanwhile they eulogize and celebrate the life of a man, Jerry Falwell, who explicitly DID say that we got what we deserved on 9/11.
05-18-2007 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #5
 
There are some who wish to ban Ron Paul from future debates. What a freakin' joke.
05-18-2007 10:39 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
 
Ron Paul is in the 9/11 Conspiracy camp, he is a loon. He has no business giving Alex Jones the time of day.

He's in bed with Rosie O'Donnell on if Iran attacks for crying out loud.

He opens up one huge straman, if the GOP contenders are smart they will be making internet videos showing how wrong he is.
05-18-2007 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #7
 
Can you supply a link showing that Ron Paul is a loose changer? I can't seem to find anything that says he thinks the US government had anything to do with 9/11.

The fact that people are trying to ban him is absurd. Are they really that afraid of what he has to say?
05-18-2007 12:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
 
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Can you supply a link showing that Ron Paul is a loose changer? I can't seem to find anything that says he thinks the US government had anything to do with 9/11.

The fact that people are trying to ban him is absurd. Are they really that afraid of what he has to say?

see my link above, calling paul bircheresque....they have audio talking to Alex Jones the media wing of the truther 'movement'. there is also links to his Rosie views on Iran. He's also a North American Union conspiracy crowd too, and one of those links within has the comparison to Bircher.

he's basically pandering to the Truther crowd without outright saying the US attacked itself, http://ace.mu.nu/archives/225943.php

they should not give Alex Jones the time of day, he's gone as far as saying the VT killer was a deep cover government assassin
05-18-2007 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
 
America has been involved across the globe, including the ME for 220 years. Commerce, wars, charities, and tourism. Yet it is the radical muslims, out of all the religious, ethnic, and cultural groups that get a pass for their terrorism???....The constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact or an excuse to be pacifist.

Did their status as founders stop Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe from projecting US military power in our national interests?......or does "blowback" go back to the founders? and this was even before the global economy emerged.
05-18-2007 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bourgeois_Rage Away
That guy!
*

Posts: 6,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 106
I Root For: UC & Bushmills
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGDonatorsDonators
Post: #10
 
The fact that he's on Alex Jones' show doesn't endear him to at all, Jones is a loon. But I'm not sure he's an out and out truther. At any rate, The guy does bring a different perspective to the debates and I think it is stupid to keep him out of them. What are the other candidates afraid of? I don't think he has a chance anyway.
05-18-2007 02:04 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #11
 
GGniner Wrote:America has been involved across the globe, including the ME for 220 years. Commerce, wars, charities, and tourism. Yet it is the radical muslims, out of all the religious, ethnic, and cultural groups that get a pass for their terrorism???....The constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact or an excuse to be pacifist.

Did their status as founders stop Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe from projecting US military power in our national interests?......or does "blowback" go back to the founders? and this was even before the global economy emerged.

You're doing three things that are very indicative of sloppy thinking.

1) It isn't "a pass" to understand things from the other side. It actually helps you fight them better if you understand what enables them to recruit, get popular support, etc. This is black and white, normative thinking on your part where you should be using positive, objective analysis.

2) Just because one believes that there are unintended consequences to our actions, doesn't mean you favor isolationism. What it means is that you acknowledge that unintended consequences exist, and you factor them in to your policy-making process. To deny that they exist so that you don't have to factor them in seems to me to be the truly idealistic and naive position.

3) Because someone doesn't agree with a dumb war that has emboldened our enemies -- al Qaeda and Iran -- or believes that we should take into account the long term consequences of a heavy handed foreign policy when we formulate our strategy, doesn't mean that person's a pacifist. Its a cheap rhetorical trick for you to pull out to stack the deck in your favor.

But the world is a complicated place. One can believe that we should account for a possible backlash against our foreign policy when we make it, and still believe that in some cases its the right thing to do anyway. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive at all, except in the the black-and-white mind of a neo-conservative that sees all international relations as a profoundly moral struggle.

At the end of the day, classical realism governs international behavior. The world is not always a moral battlefield in which one side is good and the other is bad -- all are pursuing their interests. And to do a good job of pursuing your interests, you need to take into account potential unintended consequences. The neo-conservative, instead, wishes to dismiss those unintended consequences as signs of evil that simply justify more ill-considered policy choices.

My biggest fear with your thinking, which I see in a lot of your posts, is that its indicative of someone who has not served in the military nor extensively lived abroad, someone who has been seduced by a romantic vision of the world by people who write in sharp or flowery prose about international affairs in moral, apocalyptical, epic terms (the likes of Mark Steyn, whom I presume has shaped your thinking a good bit -- perhaps Christopher Hitchens, maybe the auditory stylings of a Hugh Hewitt). It is very easy then, to look at the world and think certain things are mutually exclusive -- that one either wants to go forth and spread freedom, or else be pacifist apologist for dictators and terrorists...

There's a whole other world out there, which most of the world subscribes to (including the US, when it is not caught in one of its occasional fits of moralistic -- or isolationist -- zeal) in which foreign policy is made in dispassionate, rational, pragmatic terms -- which takes the world as it finds it, rather than as it wishes it to be -- and uses that as a jumping off point to advance the interest of the state, something that in the U.S. can fortunately co-incide with doing a lot of good for the world at the same time.

Also your willingness to treat the constitution as if its something pliable, something that can and should be bent to the will of those in power and redefined -- though not material to this discussion, is illuminating all the same.
05-18-2007 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #12
 
OUGwave Wrote:The neo-conservative, instead, wishes to dismiss those unintended consequences as signs of evil that simply justify more ill-considered policy choices.


your problem, besides pompous arrogance and long winded logical fallacies, is to think that "unintended consequences" aren't factored in to "neo-conservative" policies. its ridiculous to assert it is not...


if it was all about 'fighting evil' the neo-conservative would be arguing for going into Darfur or Tibet for that matter militarly asap......but then wouldn't 'blowback' result from that? What about the 'blowback' we just witnessed at Fort Dix? hmm, but those guys were Albanian? most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's or Egyptian, we helped the Saudi's and the muslim Albanians.......hmm, maybe this isn't a national war but an ideological, imperialist war.

If it wasn't for the history of radical Islam being an Imperialist threat, going all the way back to the prophet, along with the invention of modern technology advancements and the Global Economy, I would probably be in full agreement as an isolationist position would not be foolish. Except for that its still a clear, existential threat and has been since its founder declared it so. this is an existential threat that can not be isolated, it must be defeated. To not is to argue for societal suicide. Dhimmi Laws, read up on them because they are the future.
05-19-2007 01:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RC Horn Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 234
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Texas
Location: Austin,TX
Post: #13
 
Ron Paul used to be my Congressman and I've always known him to be a very principled as well as a very honest and decent person. We need more folks like Ron Paul in Congress. It would be a better place in my honest opinion. With that said, I do not agree with his position on the Iraq War. However, banning him would look very stupid but it's very much in character with the Bushies who do no like dissention from the rank and file. After being heavily involved in Texas GOP politics from 1986-1994, I've had my share of run-ins with the Bushies in the past and I know what they're all about. It's very un-Republican like if he is excluded from any debate. By the way, Paul represents the part of the Upper Gulf Coast in Texas just north of Houston. It's very safe GOP seat and incumbent Republicans usually do not have a problem winning reelection in this state.
05-19-2007 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #14
 
Ron Paul has **TREMENDOUS** support from the online community. It's almost Howard Dean-esk.... only Ron isn't a far lefty with a shriek he'll never live down 03-razz

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_..._next.html
05-20-2007 12:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #15
 
GGniner Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:The neo-conservative, instead, wishes to dismiss those unintended consequences as signs of evil that simply justify more ill-considered policy choices.


your problem, besides pompous arrogance and long winded logical fallacies, is to think that "unintended consequences" aren't factored in to "neo-conservative" policies. its ridiculous to assert it is not...


if it was all about 'fighting evil' the neo-conservative would be arguing for going into Darfur or Tibet for that matter militarly asap......but then wouldn't 'blowback' result from that? What about the 'blowback' we just witnessed at Fort Dix? hmm, but those guys were Albanian? most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's or Egyptian, we helped the Saudi's and the muslim Albanians.......hmm, maybe this isn't a national war but an ideological, imperialist war.

If it wasn't for the history of radical Islam being an Imperialist threat, going all the way back to the prophet, along with the invention of modern technology advancements and the Global Economy, I would probably be in full agreement as an isolationist position would not be foolish. Except for that its still a clear, existential threat and has been since its founder declared it so. this is an existential threat that can not be isolated, it must be defeated. To not is to argue for societal suicide. Dhimmi Laws, read up on them because they are the future.

There is not an "existential" threat. A threat, yes, to our nationals and to our property, but this does not constitute a threat to our very existence -- our values and civilization. The major tenets of western civilization manifest in our society are habeas corpus, due process and the rule of law. Islam has not and can not strip us of these.

We can only strip them from ourselves.

Terrorism is a grave threat to our safety. It does not jeopardize who we are as a society. Only our reaction can jeopardize that.

And once again, if you took the time to read what I wrote, you'd see that I'm not an isolationist, and that I don't believe that a foreign policy of engagement is mutually exclusive from considering and weighing the strategic implications of tactical decisions, i.e. blowback.

You don't need to educate me on Islam, by the way. I have a masters in South Asia studies and economics from the top school in the field, with honors, and have spent time in the region -- in fact am leaving on Saturday to head there. I can go chapter and verse with you any day of the week. I can even put you in touch with a friend of mine who lived in Peshawar (Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan) for a year as a Christian missionary at the behest of the Islamist party (MMA) chief minister.

The world is not as black-and-white as you make it out to be.

You've read a little bit about Islam. Congrats. Read a little more before you condescend to me on it. Sayyed Qutb is not the beginning and end of Islam.

Sorry if I don't take your regurgitations of Malkin and Steyn seriously as an authority on the subject. The flowery and epic rhetoric may spark your fighting spirit, but it rings hollow in terms of how people in the Muslim world live their lives. I suggest you get out there and meet some of them, break bread with them, and see if it changes your perspective on things.

Somehow I doubt you will... its not knowledge you seek but moral unambiguity and righteousness. I can understand the draw of seeing the world as an epic battlefield of ideologies, on the brink of an existential apocalypse that threatens every societal value we hold dear. But that rhetoric, that worldview, is insufficient and obtuse at the end of the day -- and dangerous and counterproductive.
05-20-2007 12:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zero Offline
Banned

Posts: 77
Joined: Jan 2007
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #16
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Ron Paul has **TREMENDOUS** support from the online community. It's almost Howard Dean-esk.... only Ron isn't a far lefty with a shriek he'll never live down 03-razz

So he's the "Snakes on a Plane" candidate?

Stupid and computer illiterate people get just as many votes as you do, and there are more of them.
05-20-2007 07:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #17
 
Did all of these countries have terrorist attacks because of their 'involvment' in the region?

http://www.worldunderfire.com/

simple facts, along with the history of the religion(orthodox history) going back to the prophet himself, to say its not an existential threat is absurd and suicidal.(notice what is flying over the white house)

[Image: Islamwilldominate.jpg]

after the London Bombings...
Quote:"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world" ---

[quote]
05-20-2007 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #18
 
[quote="GGniner"]Did all of these countries have terrorist attacks because of their 'involvment' in the region?

http://www.worldunderfire.com/

simple facts, along with the history of the religion(orthodox history) going back to the prophet himself, to say its not an existential threat is absurd and suicidal.(notice what is flying over the white house)

[Image: Islamwilldominate.jpg]

after the London Bombings...
[quote]"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world" --- [/quote]

[quote]
05-20-2007 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #19
RE:
OUGwave Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:Did all of these countries have terrorist attacks because of their 'involvment' in the region?

http://www.worldunderfire.com/

simple facts, along with the history of the religion(orthodox history) going back to the prophet himself, to say its not an existential threat is absurd and suicidal.(notice what is flying over the white house)

[Image: Islamwilldominate.jpg]

after the London Bombings...
Quote:"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world" ---

Quote:?"The ultimate goal is the imposition of Sharia on Great Britain...Someday the black flag of Islam will fly over 10 Downing Street" " ---Sheik Omar Bakri

Quote:Omar Ahmed, chairman CAIR, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

but yeah, this isn't an imperialist enemy../sarc
insert head in sand....


So you're really scared that you're going to get converted?

Please explain the mechanism for how they are going to convert the USA to Islam, and why you find that a credible threat.

No offense, but that is dumb.

I can only hope that they are taking our propaganda as seriously as you are taking theirs.

I'm not "suicidal", as you say. I'm just not such a g*damn baby.
05-21-2007 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.