Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#46

Post by KBCraig »

Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of NAACP, has known Ron Paul for over 20 years, and adamantly insists that Ron Paul is not a racist, and that libertarian positions are the least racist of all.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja ... racist.htm

Listen to the full .mp3 interview if you have time.

Kevin

Will938
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:08 am
Location: Houston / College Station

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#47

Post by Will938 »

These always devolve in one of a few directions. Thankfully it has strayed pretty well from the finger in the ear hearsay mudslinging mode.

Another direction it will go is preference over foreign policy. Many say that we must fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. This can work two ways IMO. It would actually work if we took the gloves off, devoted most of our GDP, and killed a large portion of humanity. To think we could accomplish this with a lesser degree of devotion is foolish. You can kill the father and stop him from hurting us today, but you've enraged his children and given their teachers ammunition for the next decade. To say that our attempts are working because we haven't been attacked since is an invalid conclusion. I also haven't been attacked since I began keeping this magic rock in my pocket. Nothing is really stopping it from happening except for good police work, which can fail...you also must overlook the numerous attempts that have been foiled on our soil since then to believe that. So basically, we can pussyfoot around and continue this fight forever, or we can kill the father, the children, and the teachers now and save ourselves the trouble. And even then such brutality will likely infuriate others we might consider friends and get us into more danger.

The other way we can go is to come back and boost our border defense and customs. We have already been over this argument about the Maginot line so I'll ask the same questions again, why are you comparing an incomplete line going up against the most advanced fighting force of the time that actually did what it was designed to do; convinced the germans to bypass the eastern front. We face individuals, not tank columns. To adequately protect ourselves at home would be a steal in terms of cost compared to what we spend now for a slight edge in readiness and fighting them in a perpetual war over there. We don't need a wall and we don't need fixed armaments. We need UAV coverage most importantly, more coast guard, more customs, and a beefed border patrol. Given a UAV's range and sensor packages such as the Global Hawk, it can stay in the air for 30 hours, detect moving objects 62 miles away, and costs $35 million per. The southern border, which is the real problem, is about 2,000 miles. We can also look after the northern border (5,500 miles) and both continental coasts - about 5,000 miles.

12,500 miles of border coverage needed, 62 miles of coverage per UAV...less decrease that to less than half (30 miles) for fun. That comes to 415 UAV needed to detect anything on any border of the continental US, factor in mechanical problems and downtime; lets call for a total of 500 UAV. 17.5 billion dollar one time cost for the hardware to adequately keep eyes on our entire continental border, factor in spare parts, fuel, misc operating costs, and most importantly the man power to operate them. Lets continue being ridiculous and say we need a crew of 50 people per plane making 70,000 dollars each - that's 25,000 people @ 1.75 billion per year. Call fuel, parts, and misc operating costs $10 billion per year. We reach a total cost of the 17.5 billion (which is over estimated) for all the equipment which would have to be made over several years plus a ridiculously good incentive and 25k jobs for 1.75 billion (again overestimated) + 10 billion a year for operating costs. I can't speak for cost increases of the coast guard, border patrol, or customs; but the idea is that we save nearly a trillion dollars by reducing our presence around the world and we need only a fraction of that to drastically increase our safety here if that's what we want. That includes both unlawful and lawful attempts at entry into the country. We also save the lives of our troops and don't aggravate the situation. It might not stop every single person who tries to gain entry, but it will stop the vast majority. For the rest we have to stake our safety on good police work.

Does anyone disagree with any of that?

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#48

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Yes. I do disagree.

I have no problem with beefing up our border security. But I do not believe that a beefed up border + UAV's + a greatly expanded coast guard, etc. is the whole answer.

I believe that there are people who want to destroy us and our way of life (i.e. political freedom, individual rights, the rule of law, etc.) and substitute some version of Sharia Law,or possibly rule by the Central Committee of the Politburo of the People's Republic of China. And not only us but the Europeans as well, and everyone else on Earth. I also believe that these people tend to take a long view. If it takes 100 years that's OK with them.

Submit or die.

Hunkering down behind border security will allow these people to marshall their strength and attack, someday, at times and places of their choosing. And I do not believe they will choose times and places that will work out well for us. And I do not think that any border security could ever be air tight. So we would always be subject to being infiltrated by 9/11 style terrorists.

And as an aside, I do not agree that our current strategy and posture can be written off when explaining the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. While it is hard to know for sure about what things might have been prevented by our pursuit and harrassment of the world's Al Qaeda types, (because they never happened) I think that any fair analysis has to give our current policies the benefit of the doubt and some amount of credit for us not being attacked.

Furthermore, while we could become self-sufficient in manufactured goods,(at great disruption to our economy) we will never become self sufficient with regard to basic natural resources. And not just energy, other resources as well that have no substitutes. So for our economy to thrive we must have a huge amount of trade with the rest of the world. Most of this trade will of necessity travel across the oceans.

Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.

In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.

Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"

The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.

But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.

Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.

Different opinions, different philosophies.

That's why we have elections.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body

Will938
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:08 am
Location: Houston / College Station

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#49

Post by Will938 »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Yes. I do disagree.

I have no problem with beefing up our border security. But I do not believe that a beefed up border + UAV's + a greatly expanded coast guard, etc. is the whole answer.

I believe that there are people who want to destroy us and our way of life (i.e. political freedom, individual rights, the rule of law, etc.) and substitute some version of Sharia Law,or possibly rule by the Central Committee of the Politburo of the People's Republic of China. And not only us but the Europeans as well, and everyone else on Earth. I also believe that these people tend to take a long view. If it takes 100 years that's OK with them.

Submit or die.

Hunkering down behind border security will allow these people to marshall their strength and attack, someday, at times and places of their choosing. And I do not believe they will choose times and places that will work out well for us. And I do not think that any border security could ever be air tight. So we would always be subject to being infiltrated by 9/11 style terrorists.
The Europeans have their own political union, half the reason we became so involved globally was to protect them until they could establish such a network. Since we have become a nation there have been people who wanted to destroy us. When was the last foreign threat that came even in the ballpark, British, 1812? And that was due to our lack of peaceful diplomacy.

Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge. The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them. So invading their homeland and killing everyone justifies their beliefs and spreads them further. It goes on forever until, as I said, we kill a large portion of humanity or we stop justifying their beliefs. They aren't born with these ideas, its taught. Just like racism 50 years ago, might not be gone but it certainly is held only by a very small minority. And it only gets smaller.

I've already stated that the border recon could never be 100%, but it actually does something about our problem. As for them marshalling their strength, exactly what have they lost that prevents them from attacking here? What prevents them, right now, from bringing in several individuals to attack some mall in the middle of nowhere and terrifying us again? Fighting them over there certainly doesn't do it, they aren't short on manpower, money, or a good supply of Soviet weapons. Police work in the answer why they've been unsuccessful, because they HAVE tried to come back here back here and make attempts.

And as an aside, I do not agree that our current strategy and posture can be written off when explaining the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. While it is hard to know for sure about what things might have been prevented by our pursuit and harrassment of the world's Al Qaeda types, (because they never happened) I think that any fair analysis has to give our current policies the benefit of the doubt and some amount of credit for us not being attacked.

Furthermore, while we could become self-sufficient in manufactured goods,(at great disruption to our economy) we will never become self sufficient with regard to basic natural resources. And not just energy, other resources as well that have no substitutes. So for our economy to thrive we must have a huge amount of trade with the rest of the world. Most of this trade will of necessity travel across the oceans.
Well, I can point out instances where we have been attacked, unsuccessfully. Usually by domestic terrorists, sometimes not. Point being that intel and upstanding citizens have foiled all of them, not the military. Fighting them over there might hinder their structure, but it only emboldens their beliefs with everyone...also we must recognize that there are parts of the organization we can't touch due to their location. Why would I give credit to our policies, that's a dangeorus proposition. If we did that then we assume we're doing the right thing, even if it is wrong. It also doesn't give any solid evidence as to why.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't trade with anyone. Certainly not Ron Paul.


Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.

In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.

Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"

The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.

But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.

Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.

Different opinions, different philosophies.

That's why we have elections.

I don't see why the idea of private security on the high seas is ludacris. It happens all the time all over the world. If I recall Shell Oil has a private army protecting it in Africa, tanks and all. I still support the idea of the US cruising the seas and escorting merchants, but if they want to hire protection then I don't see the problem. IIRC Blackwater still has to operate under US law concerning who they contract with.

Point out any group today working outside the realm of the foreign nation's laws capable of taking down one of our major trade partners. And how are they going to destroy us once they weaken our economy? Only governments are capable of doing this to us today.

As gun owners and CHL holders we can't drive across town and kill someone because we thought they were a threat. We have to wait until a clear threat is currently endangering us.

And no, I didn't forget about Alaska or Hawaii, though admittedly I didn't consider our territories. Alaska particularly wouldn't be suited for that kind of coverage due to its huge area and small concentrations of people. It doesn't have but a few targets of interest and it isn't directly connected to the mainland so it isn't important to look after its borders as we would the continental US. No, they'd be better served by customs and border patrol with limited UAV coverage. As for Hawaii, it's so small that a huge increase in the Coast Guard is unnecessary, every other service is neglegable on the overall cost.


It all boils down to a few questions for me, all concerning 2008:

- What is the best way to stop real threats against us?
- With an unprotected border, how does the GWOT stop these threats from attacking?
- Once the border is protected, what does the GWOT net us, what do we lose by continuing it?
- What do we lose if we discontinue the GWOT?
- What do we gain/lose by attacking countries before any imminent threat has manifested?

LarryH
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:55 pm
Location: Smith County

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#50

Post by LarryH »

Will938 wrote: And no, I didn't forget about Alaska or Hawaii, though admittedly I didn't consider our territories. Alaska particularly wouldn't be suited for that kind of coverage due to its huge area and small concentrations of people. It doesn't have but a few targets of interest and it isn't directly connected to the mainland so it isn't important to look after its borders as we would the continental US.
Oil is a HUGE target of interest.

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#51

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Will938 wrote: The Europeans have their own political union, half the reason we became so involved globally was to protect them until they could establish such a network.
But no military forces to speak of. We certainly can't count on them on providing security for us, or even for being able to defend themselves.
Will938 wrote: Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge.
Yes. Children who have been taught to carry on the jihad in madrassas. Children who have been taught that Jews are monkeys and pigs.
Will938 wrote: The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them.
I think the main part of their idea is that we are evil and that they should spread their culture onto us.

Just look at what Islamic advocacy groups are doing in Europe right now, pushing for special rights for Muslims (to not be offended by what are common practices among non-Muslims) and advocating for matters involving Muslims to be settled under Sharia Law instead of the laws and courts of the country they are living in.
Will938 wrote: They aren't born with these ideas, its taught. Just like racism 50 years ago, might not be gone but it certainly is held only by a very small minority. And it only gets smaller.
The question might be how long can they keep the hate alive. But another question, just as important, is how much of our culture should we give up in attempts to appease them? Should we give up free speech? Artistic expression? Pork? What? And what if we give these things up and they STILL want to hate us and kill/conquor us?

Maybe if we all converted to Islam they might call off the jihad. Is that what we should do? And what do we do later on when some other group of violent lunatics starts attacking us in the name of some other religion?
Will938 wrote: I've already stated that the border recon could never be 100%, but it actually does something about our problem.
We agree on this. It solves part of the problem but not all.
Will938 wrote: As for them marshalling their strength, exactly what have they lost that prevents them from attacking here?
Designing, planning, and executing terror ops, especially large scale ones, is more difficult because they have to hide their activities more thoroughly. A large scale attack involves many people, and lots of planning and money. With phone lines being tapped as much as possible, and a willingness to go after the terrorists wherever they might be (that we know of), they have to keep their heads down.

No attacks since 9/11 is no accident.
Will938 wrote: What prevents them, right now, from bringing in several individuals to attack some mall in the middle of nowhere and terrifying us again? Fighting them over there certainly doesn't do it, they aren't short on manpower, money, or a good supply of Soviet weapons. Police work in the answer why they've been unsuccessful, because they HAVE tried to come back here back here and make attempts.
"Police work?" Do you mean "infringements" of the 2A? So you're agreeing with me that if anyone, felon, terrorist, LAC, insane person, could buy MP-5's out of vending machines and carry them anywhere, including on board airliners, no questions asked, it would be easier for terrorists to operate than it is now.

But I think the real answer is "all of the above." Police work and aggressive, sometimes pre-emptive tactics are all part of it.

What you're doing is taking what has been a successful strategy (in that it has prevented new attacks) and cherry picking parts of it that you don't like and asserting that they must not be having any effect.
Will938 wrote: Well, I can point out instances where we have been attacked, unsuccessfully. Usually by domestic terrorists, sometimes not. Point being that intel and upstanding citizens have foiled all of them, not the military. Fighting them over there might hinder their structure, but it only emboldens their beliefs with everyone...also we must recognize that there are parts of the organization we can't touch due to their location. Why would I give credit to our policies, that's a dangeorus proposition. If we did that then we assume we're doing the right thing, even if it is wrong. It also doesn't give any solid evidence as to why.
Well, you might give credit to our policies because there is at least a correlation between our policies and no attacks. The scientific method strives to find the simplest model that describes the data and allows for predictions. In this case, the simplest model is that the policies have, in their aggregate, prevented new attacks. Any other model, such as stipulating that this or that policy could be changed has a higher burden of proof of effectiveness because it necessarily involves speculation.

I can remember that right after 9/11, nearly everyone thought we would be attacked again in a few months. Did you? I did. It seemed to me that with all of the possible ways we could be attacked, that at least one of them could be pulled off.

But for some strange reason, we weren't. I wonder if any of President Bush's policies had anything to do with it?
frankie_the_yankee wrote: Let's agree that the idea of companies hiring Blackwater or "The People's Liberation Army Private Security Department" to provide security on the high seas is ludicrous, as is companies negotiating with foreign governments, or thinking wishfully that a bunch of lawyers, investment bankers, and insurance companies could provide such security.

In addition, before they take us on, our enemies will want to weaken us by weakening our economy. In fact, it is essential that they do so. They might try to do that by intimidating or even overwhelming countries that are important trading partners to us. These countries may be important to us and our economy, but also much smaller and weaker than us (hence easier targets). If we are hunkered down behind our borders, our enemies will have a free hand to do this.

Now some might say, "Why do we have to do it? How does Nevis-St. Kitts get by without being a global superpower with a big Navy and Air Force, and missiles, and all that?"

The answer is that Nevis-St. Kitts is stuck with being who and what they are. All they can do is hope that the powerful countries can maintain a certain order in the world that they can piggyback on. And if the big countries fail at that task, all they can do is hide out on their little islands and hope that no one notices they are there.

But we are not Nevis-St. Kitts. We are among a very small group of countries who have made the decision to take our destiny into our own hands, and who are large enough and powerful enough to make a credible effort at it. In this respect, we as a country share a certain philosophy with we as individual gun owners and CHLers. We are not willing to simply hope that some other country or countries (or hired help such as the police) take care of us. We have decided to take care of ourselves, for better or worse.

Many of us have different opinions as to how to best go about this. Some believe we should pull back to our borders and coasts. (And don't you guys forget about Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and all those Pacific Islands that we own and whose inhabitants are American citizens. Your border security/defense plans have to allow for their protection too.) Others believe that we should maintain a global presence and pursue our enemies, and the enemies of civilization itself, wherever they might try to set up or hide.

Different opinions, different philosophies.

That's why we have elections.
Will938 wrote: I don't see why the idea of private security on the high seas is ludacris. It happens all the time all over the world.
Example please. I'm especially interested in who would step forward to provide security for ships transiting The Straits of Hormuz. Whoever it is, they'd better have a heck of a Navy, a heck of an Air Force, and one whale of a logistics capability to keep all that hardware running, and the people involved eating and drinking. And they would also need an ability to protect that supply line stretching between wherever their base might be and wherever their forces are operating.
Will938 wrote: If I recall Shell Oil has a private army protecting it in Africa, tanks and all.
I think Shell hired some of the local government boys, who since then have been accused of wanton rape and slaughter. And I think this is all happening on dry land.
Will938 wrote: I still support the idea of the US cruising the seas and escorting merchants, but if they want to hire protection then I don't see the problem. IIRC Blackwater still has to operate under US law concerning who they contract with.
Not if they move their corporate HQ to China or Venezualea or some place like that.
Will938 wrote: Point out any group today working outside the realm of the foreign nation's laws capable of taking down one of our major trade partners. And how are they going to destroy us once they weaken our economy? Only governments are capable of doing this to us today.
Look at what the terror attacks on Spain did. They transformed a ally that had several thousand troops in Iraq into an essentially neutral country with zero troops in Iraq.

Once they weaken our economy over a period of time,we will no longer be able to afford the best and most modern military equipment and forces to successfully defend ourselves. So we won't have them. An enemy with a stronger economy could have 3 or 4 times as much stuff, and better stuff, than we have.

And yes, it would probably be an enemy government at that point.
Will938 wrote: And no, I didn't forget about Alaska or Hawaii, though admittedly I didn't consider our territories. Alaska particularly wouldn't be suited for that kind of coverage due to its huge area and small concentrations of people. It doesn't have but a few targets of interest and it isn't directly connected to the mainland so it isn't important to look after its borders as we would the continental US. No, they'd be better served by customs and border patrol with limited UAV coverage. As for Hawaii, it's so small that a huge increase in the Coast Guard is unnecessary, every other service is neglegable on the overall cost.
Alaska has huge oil reserves and the Alaska Pipeline. Obvious strategic targets. The pipeline is around 800+ miles long.

The guard force isn't only sized according to the size of the place being guarded. It must also be sized to withstand any potential attack at least until relief forces can be brought in from somewhere else.

This is the problem with a static defense. It has to be strong everywhere. The enemy can mass their forces because they only have to be strong at the point of attack.

But in real life it would never work out that way. A determined enemy would knock off all of the smaller and weaker countries first. Maybe some by political means, exploiting rot from within. Some could be brought down in coups or by civil wars. The method would simply be adapted to the terraine. (We are hunkered down behind our borders, remember, and not helping any of these countries. So they are on their own.) Then the enemy would use those countries' economies to wage economic war on us to greatly weaken our economy. Then when the balance of forces were overwhelmong in their favor, they would "make us an offer we couldn't refuse."
Will938 wrote: It all boils down to a few questions for me, all concerning 2008:

- What is the best way to stop real threats against us?
Opinions vary.
Will938 wrote: - With an unprotected border, how does the GWOT stop these threats from attacking?
The borders must be secured. But secured ot not, the GWOT makes them keep their heads down. No attacks since 9/11 cannot be dismissed as an accident.
Will938 wrote: - Once the border is protected, what does the GWOT net us, what do we lose by continuing it?
See above.
Will938 wrote: - What do we lose if we discontinue the GWOT?
The terrorists get a free hand to set up shop in some "friendly" other country and build/train their forces. Other countries would more easily agree to harbor them since they would not be concerned that we would come after them in turn.

This was the deal bin Laden had with Afganistan through the 90's. Both the Taliban and bin Laden were surprised that we went after them and drove them out. They thought that the most we would do was what Clinton did on the multiple occassions when we a were attacked during the 90's - lob a few cruise missiles over there and make an angry speech or two.

bin Laden might be hiding out in Pakistan now, but he is doing it without official government support. And he spends a lot of his time looking over his shoulder and listening for that faint whistling sound, hoping it doesn't get louder and louder.
Will938 wrote: - What do we gain/lose by attacking countries before any imminent threat has manifested?
Depends on the country and the situation.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body

KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#52

Post by KBCraig »

Will938 wrote:Those who hold these beliefs will be dead in 100 years, and it will be their children's children in charge. The question no one can answer is how we're supposed to kill an idea. You can't until you kill everyone who believes it...unfortunately for us part of the idea is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them. So invading their homeland and killing everyone justifies their beliefs and spreads them further.
Exactly. I've yet to hear a rational defense of the strategy that says we must invade their countries and kill everyone who opposes us, until they stop hating us for invading their countries and killing everyone who opposes us.

If I was setting up a business model to sustain the military-industrial complex, that particular theory of foreign relations would just sound like good job security.

frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Re: Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

#53

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

KBCraig wrote: Exactly. I've yet to hear a rational defense of the strategy that says we must invade their countries and kill everyone who opposes us, until they stop hating us for invading their countries and killing everyone who opposes us.
1) I don't think that is the strategy. I think it is an exaggeration of the strategy. Military action is a part of it, in selected times and places that are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be advantageous to us.
....unfortunately for us part of the idea (of the militants) is that we're evil and want to spread our culture onto them. So invading their homeland and killing everyone justifies their beliefs and spreads them further.
2) As I said before, I think this mis-states the motives of the militants. On some level they might be irritated at what they see asa our ".....attempts to spread our culture onto them." But what they are engaged in is a long term effort to spread their culture onto us. Submit to Islamic rule or die. That is their goal.

And I'm quite sure they are glad to accept help from those of us who are willing to rationalize the idea that the best way for us to "resist" their efforts is to not fight back.

Appeasement was tried in the last century. It didn't work very well. In fact, there were some pretty spectacular failures. In my view, those who might advocate a version of it today have a heavy burden of proof to convince us why it might work this time.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”