Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 11 2012 at 10:43
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...
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: January 11 2012 at 12:36
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.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: January 11 2012 at 12:50
Padraic wrote:
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.
One of the things I agree with Ron Paul on kind of. If Afghanistan (Bin-Laden) or Iraq (Saddam) had been dealt with on a covert basis it would have been money better spent. It would not have been the assertion of power and glory that the W Bush administration wanted. But look at the cost in lives and money...
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
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.
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: January 11 2012 at 15:29
Slartibartfast wrote:
Padraic wrote:
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.
One of the things I agree with Ron Paul on kind of. If Afghanistan (Bin-Laden) or Iraq (Saddam) had been dealt with on a covert basis it would have been money better spent. It would not have been the assertion of power and glory that the W Bush administration wanted. But look at the cost in lives and money...
There's no way the goals for Iraq could have been achieved covertly. Saddam had loyalists and a strong party presence, not to mention doubles and a clear line of succession if assassinated, even though assassination there would have been incredibly hard.
This speculation of course ignores:
1) The U.S. has not exactly fostered good will throughout history by assassinations and regime toppling (Nicaragua, Iran, etc.)
2) You can't just go into sovereign nations and kill people you don't like. Forget that we do that for a moment and remember first of all it was easy to get a coalition together for Afghanistan (clear ties to Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc.), but Iraq it was more difficult, and we had to pull the wool over the international community's eyes to do it.
Frankly, if the US wants to be imperialistic and oil-thirsty, it DESERVES to have many casualties and financial losses. What I find disgusting is we're increasingly talking about toppling brown nations remotely, with drones and missiles. There's only a financial loss on our side, no real casualties. All things being fair, we should have lost 50,000 more soldiers in Iraq, compared to the hundreds of thousands of brown people that died at our hands (sorry about hat errant bomb guys! Whoops!)
But then again, the U.S. is Exceptional and white people are worth more than brown people. Their deaths really don't matter as much.
Well I think (hope!?) the days of supporting coups/dictators/rebels etc are behind us since yeah....we may be f**king stupid but after so many blowbacks, the most glaring being Iran and Afghanistan, you'd hope we'd learn a bit.
Maybe I played too much Splinter Cell back in the day, but I'm kind of OK with covert operations like that. Seems like a violation of sovereignty but then again would you be more upset at sneaking in, taking someone and leaving or flat out invading the country, and maybe stay for 10 years? Not sure how else you could get them unless a country actually uses their forces to do so for us. Granted they have been some help there but, well Pakistan sure missed Bin Laden hanging in that nice complex right in town for like 6 years...
I do believe that the person should of course be apprehended and forced to stand trial, though in reality that is difficult. They may always end up killing themselves instead of being captured alive.
Please correct me, is that something like Paul calls for? If a letter was issued how exactly is that person captured? Or how does anyone feel the matter should be handled?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 11 2012 at 16:06
Slartibartfast wrote:
Padraic wrote:
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.
One of the things I agree with Ron Paul on kind of. If Afghanistan (Bin-Laden) or Iraq (Saddam) had been dealt with on a covert basis it would have been money better spent. It would not have been the assertion of power and glory that the W Bush administration wanted. But look at the cost in lives and money...
Ron does not support dealing with those things on a covert basis. How could you be for transparency in government and support that?
There was nothing to deal with in Iraq. He voted for the aggression against Afghanistan, but then advocated withdraw when it became mission of neo-mercantilism.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 11 2012 at 16:09
stonebeard wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Padraic wrote:
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.
One of the things I agree with Ron Paul on kind of. If Afghanistan (Bin-Laden) or Iraq (Saddam) had been dealt with on a covert basis it would have been money better spent. It would not have been the assertion of power and glory that the W Bush administration wanted. But look at the cost in lives and money...
There's no way the goals for Iraq could have been achieved covertly. Saddam had loyalists and a strong party presence, not to mention doubles and a clear line of succession if assassinated, even though assassination there would have been incredibly hard.
This speculation of course ignores:
1) The U.S. has not exactly fostered good will throughout history by assassinations and regime toppling (Nicaragua, Iran, etc.)
2) You can't just go into sovereign nations and kill people you don't like. Forget that we do that for a moment and remember first of all it was easy to get a coalition together for Afghanistan (clear ties to Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc.), but Iraq it was more difficult, and we had to pull the wool over the international community's eyes to do it.
Frankly, if the US wants to be imperialistic and oil-thirsty, it DESERVES to have many casualties and financial losses. What I find disgusting is we're increasingly talking about toppling brown nations remotely, with drones and missiles. There's only a financial loss on our side, no real casualties. All things being fair, we should have lost 50,000 more soldiers in Iraq, compared to the hundreds of thousands of brown people that died at our hands (sorry about hat errant bomb guys! Whoops!)
But then again, the U.S. is Exceptional and white people are worth more than brown people. Their deaths really don't matter as much.
I f**king hate our foreign policy.
They're all terrorists anyway. There are no casualties, just collateral damage.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: November 14 2011
Location: In the closet
Status: Offline
Points: 89
Posted: January 11 2012 at 16:09
I'm pretty sure Paul has no problem with capturing terrorists in other countries who have committed crimes against us, but he wants to work with the governments there and work together in order to respect their sovereignty.
I'm pretty sure Paul has no problem with capturing terrorists in other countries who have committed crimes against us, but he wants to work with the governments there and work together in order to respect their sovereignty.
I'm all for that, 100% but the actual capturing. How should it be done? To respect the countries sovereignty you'd have to work with them/have them use their forces but that can lead to us being misled. To guarantee you would capture the criminal you could use covert means but that is not the best...
Maybe it's better to accept the former even if means not everyone will pay for their crimes, and focus on security here?
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16442
Posted: January 11 2012 at 17:04
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Padraic wrote:
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.
One of the things I agree with Ron Paul on kind of. If Afghanistan (Bin-Laden) or Iraq (Saddam) had been dealt with on a covert basis it would have been money better spent. It would not have been the assertion of power and glory that the W Bush administration wanted. But look at the cost in lives and money...
There's no way the goals for Iraq could have been achieved covertly. Saddam had loyalists and a strong party presence, not to mention doubles and a clear line of succession if assassinated, even though assassination there would have been incredibly hard.
This speculation of course ignores:
1) The U.S. has not exactly fostered good will throughout history by assassinations and regime toppling (Nicaragua, Iran, etc.)
2) You can't just go into sovereign nations and kill people you don't like. Forget that we do that for a moment and remember first of all it was easy to get a coalition together for Afghanistan (clear ties to Al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc.), but Iraq it was more difficult, and we had to pull the wool over the international community's eyes to do it.
Frankly, if the US wants to be imperialistic and oil-thirsty, it DESERVES to have many casualties and financial losses. What I find disgusting is we're increasingly talking about toppling brown nations remotely, with drones and missiles. There's only a financial loss on our side, no real casualties. All things being fair, we should have lost 50,000 more soldiers in Iraq, compared to the hundreds of thousands of brown people that died at our hands (sorry about hat errant bomb guys! Whoops!)
But then again, the U.S. is Exceptional and white people are worth more than brown people. Their deaths really don't matter as much.
I f**king hate our foreign policy.
They're all terrorists anyway. There are no casualties, just collateral damage.
Poor "lesser known candidates" they are there trying to make themselves known or prove their sincere point and have to look at this bum pimp wearing a leather boot on his head talking about winged monkeys.
"I'm a friendly fascist, I'm a tyrant that you should trust...because I DO know what's best for you"
I was enjoying the teeth related word play more than the sarcasm but still
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: January 11 2012 at 20:40
jammun wrote:
I have it on good authority that the Central Scrutinizer is carefully monitoring this thread. Not that I'm paranoid or anything.
Who claims Truth, Truth abandons.
If you are in the white zone do not eat that yellow snow. If you are in the white zone do not eat that yellow snow. If you are in the white zone do not eat that yellow snow. If you are in the white zone do not eat that yellow snow. If you are in the white zone do not eat that yellow snow.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: January 11 2012 at 23:59
The T wrote:
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...
Ron doesn't need to run third party. Mitt Romney is a doomed candidate because he has no base and no ability to grab independents, and also Gary Johnson. Yes, Gary Johnson will take a large enough % of voters to effect the outcome of this election (Unless Ron Paul gets the nomination in which case Johnson will drop out).
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 12 2012 at 10:29
^The article should be called "On How I refuse to grow up and face my own problems by telling people to grow up when they tell me what the real problems are".
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.367 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
Topic Options
Blacksword wrote:
