Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Padraic wrote: Blacksword wrote: James wrote: Not sure exactly what sh*t but just stuff the Americans deem warrants action. Ron Paul is not anti war. He's not a pacifist. He is against the 'war on terror' and all the baggage it has brought with it; the erosion of liberties etc. He has been quite clear about this. The armed forces are there to protect the US from a foreign army that poses a direct demonstable threat to the US. Sounds quite reasonable to me. What he is against is going to war with a country, on the back of a terrorist attack, when that country actually had nothing to do with the attack. In fact Ron Paul supports going after Al-Qaeda; he just wants Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal so that the action against the group is Constitutional.

Love it!
At first seemed like a crazy idea to me but after I got over the fact "just because no one does it doesn't mean it's crazy" it's brilliant really. It's actual responsible military use. Doing what it's supposed to: guarding against real threats and no more toppling nations while the real bad guys just slink all around the borderless mountains.

Blacksword wrote: James wrote: Not sure exactly what sh*t but just stuff the Americans deem warrants action. Ron Paul is not anti war. He's not a pacifist. He is against the 'war on terror' and all the baggage it has brought with it; the erosion of liberties etc. He has been quite clear about this. The armed forces are there to protect the US from a foreign army that poses a direct demonstable threat to the US. Sounds quite reasonable to me. What he is against is going to war with a country, on the back of a terrorist attack, when that country actually had nothing to do with the attack.

I just want to see when the mainstream republican etablishment turns around and starts treating Ron Paul with respect and as a wise old sage, you know, once it's clear Romney is the nominee, lest Ron runs as a third-party candidate and utterly destroys the GOP's chances...

JJLehto wrote: Could very well be, while it may not be said in such detail I've heard concerns and they are valid. Hopefully you are not implying the stuff of nightmares and internet fiction....a WW3 based in the Middle East and around the "religions" there. Well being fueled by that in the area at least. Maybe 2012 really is it after all! It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine!

Well, I don't know about WWIII, but conflict is looking incresingly likely in that region. I guess in this age of media spin, if there ever were a global conflict, it would never be referred to as 'World War Three' That kind of language is far too alarmist. If Obama had a say in its branding, I guess he would call it something like a "Kinetic weaponized interface scenario" or other such guff.

All I'm saying to folks really is keep an eye on what goes on outside your own backyard, especially when something big like an election is in the offing. Any ME conflict that ensues will have nothing to do with religion, and more to do with control, money and oil.

All this on a day when an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed in a car bomb attack, and the 'Doomsday clock' apparently moved another minute closer to midnight for the first time since 2004...

Also, for what it's worth a Goldman Sachs analyst and trends forecaster is also saying, looking at 'war/peace cycles' that a 'major conflict' is likely, late 2012. I'll try and find a link to that. We can trust Goldman Sachs to know about oblivion.

Edited by Blacksword - January 11 2012 at 09:58

I'm quite alarmed by the massive psy-op underway at the moment. While the world is watching the EU go down the swannie, and the US gears up for an election, it appears the preparations for a major conflict may be underway.

Is it not blatantly obvious to anyone who doesn't rely solely on Fox news or the BBC, that the US, Israel, France and the UK are currently building up an enormous military presence in the Persian gulf? Thousands of US troops have also recently been deployed to Israel for an 'exercise' This coincides with Iranian war games in the Straight of Hormuz, at a time when the IAEA is presenting further 'evidence' that Iran are trying to make nuclear weapons.

I mention this in passing, because if there is a strike on Iran after November this year, the anti war lobby will be blaming whoever is in the Whitehouse, when in fact - just like Afghanistan/Iraq - the infrastructure was in place long before the outbreak, and I suspect the decision, in principle at least, whether to use force against Iran, has already been made. Just a thought, while the rest of us are still squabbling over left/right issues.

Not sure exactly what sh*t but just stuff the Americans deem warrants action.

James wrote: Alas, he is still right after all these years: "Despite his earlier efforts and interest in socialism, by 1922 Steinmetz concluded that socialism would never work in the U.S. because the country lacked a "powerful, centralized government of competent men, remaining continuously in office" and because "only a small percentage of Americans accept this viewpoint today."

You mean thankfully he is right. Actually I don't even think he's right. Even if we're still opposed to socialism, the reasons are different.

James wrote: I applaud his anti-war stance but will he really keep you guys out, if the sh*t hits the fan in the Middle East?

I don't see why he wouldn't. It's not like the US could do anything about it if the sh*t hit the fan anyway.

In regards to Florida, he can't really campaign there. The State is too large and structured much differently than Iowa and New Hampshire where people meeting the candidate personally is very important. He needs to focus on caucus states unless some mega-corporations decide they want to sponsor him. He has great grass roots support, but it's not enough to fund a Florida campaign.

These communities are where most of the wealth transfers and welfare are accomplished as the central government revenue is only a small amount of their entire GDP spent. In these municipalities, it is much easier to allocate the right resources to people that need them, so there's less chance of pork and wasteful spending. In these townships and municipalities, the counselors often are community people, which guarantee the money spent is channeled directly to people!!! Washington spends the bulk of the money and that's inefficient. Better local communities spend the money.

Alas, he is still right after all these years:

"Despite his earlier efforts and interest in socialism, by 1922 Steinmetz concluded that socialism would never work in the U.S. because the country lacked a "powerful, centralized government of competent men, remaining continuously in office" and because "only a small percentage of Americans accept this viewpoint today."