Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by James_Newman, May 18, 2007.
I think that pretty much sums it up, Giuliani is an idiot and Fox News(especially Sean Hannity) are idiots for trying to make Giuliani out to appear as the voice of the American people. I hope that this incident will bite Fox and Hannity on their large posterior backside.
Ron Pauls blaming us for attacks against us is like blaming the girl for getting raped because of how she acted or dressed. It is imature and reveals that he is not readyu for office. There is certainly nothign conservative about this. This is straight out of the liberal playbook. And this it the reason why he will not be nominated As well it should be.
Ron Paul did not blame "us" for the attacks. He brought to bear the same concept that Osama said in his fatwa, the 911 Commission said in their report and what the CIA has repeatedly taught and what Chalmers Johnson wrote a book about. You don't go messing in someone else's backyard and think they're not going to react.
This is not something out of any "liberal playbook". As Ron Paul has noted effectively, this is the same policy of traditional conservatives like Taft and Russell and the same policy of founders such as Jefferson and Washington. It is the warmongering neocons that do not possess conservative principles relative to war.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson
Btw, a girl who acts like a harlot and dresses like a harlot increases her likelihood of being treated like a harlot. Doesn't mean she's to blame for the mistreatment or rape as all men should be gentlemen and they are accountable for their actions. However, it does mean that her actions had an effect on someone else's reaction and this is something that she should consider. She can continue to engage in her actions and blame the heathen when he reacts or she can take actions to prevent the reaction. A similar consideration should apply to foreign policy.
This is what Ron Paul said "they attack us because we have been over there.."
"our foreign policy has a very great deal to do with their willingness and desire to commit suicide terrorism"
Hannity asks the question "Do you think our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?" Ron Paul replies "I think it contributes significantly to it"
Ron Paul continues "policies over many years have caused an illicit hatred toward us, if someone were willing to commit suicide......putting on sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people" He goes on to add we have "been bombing Iraq for ten years" in continuing to justify his stance.
Yes this is straight out of the Liberal playbook as 2 Timothy2:1-4 said. This man's general perception is that it is our fault and then he uses the 911 commission, which is debatable and flawed in areas as experts have pointed out, if it were the infallible truth.
In addition, we along with the U.N impose sanctions in attempts to get dangerous nations to subsist and comply in being a part of the International community. However, we always give tons of food and billions of dollars directly in helping the people of those nations. As their own governments often will not. Remember the oil for food U.N. scandal and the reluctance of France/Germany/Russia in leading up to the war which possibly could have avoided it? Only to find out later they were all profiting or being paid off by Saddam. But that is another story. What should be noted is that some hopefuls complain about war in saying sanctions should have been tried, but then they also complain about sanctions!
Ron Paul shows a true lack of understanding with our enemies abroad as does part of your post. As Thomas Jefferson lead us into our first war abroad!!!
The similarities to today with Muslim extremists and nations is no different and amazingly so. Much could be learned by studying, as some military historians pointed out, of our past.
Our first war occurred against the powers of Tripoli. Our young and greatly struggling nation tried hopelessly to avoid war and free hundreds of captives held in Muslim nations. These nations had declared war on all Christian nations. We entered several treaties over many years, all were appeasements and detrimental to America, in hopes of avoiding war and saving lives. This is an highly abbreviated and light account as found in wikipedia
You can go here for another brief account http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/stream/faq45-4.htm or here for a little more on the Barbary wars. http://www.historyguy.com/Barbary_Wars.html By the way the Pasha continued to demand more money and goods from us as he had never come across a Christian nation so easily and thoroughly extorted. We created a navy and the marines arose from this conflict. The Marine hymm "From the Halls of Montezuma, To the Shores of Tripoli....."
Again though, Paul takes the stance that America is greatly to blame for many of the attacks on the U.S., which would include 911. I think this is an very poor and quite an ignorant statement. Yes, our foreign policies can incite some people to act against us. However, those thugs who crashed into the twin towers, killing thousands of innocent people, did not scream "we are doing this because of America's foreign policies". No, they said they were doing this and many other incidents in the name of their god, "Allah"!
They don't attack us because of our foreign policy as much as because they simply hate us. They hate Christians and are sworn to convert or kill us. This has always been the case as with such barbarous attitudes. They hate America, and others, for what it stands for and has stood for.
Foreign policy is such as this. When we get involved to help one party we often do so at the expense of another party. Therefore we will always create enemies. We can choose to stick our head in the sand and stay uninvolved, but again this will also create enemies. This isolationist attitude allowed Germany and Japan to ravage the world for a period.
Lastly, do not forget we, the United States of America, helped Osama Bin Laden and the Afghan nation in freeing themselves of the Russians. Liberalisms says they should have loved us! No, they simply hate us and foreign policy is an excuse to rally their evil cause!
America has stood for good and has tried to do good by others. We may not be perfect but this is true. Ron Paul does not understand our enemies but I imagine Israel does.
The "international community" is just a euphemism for the New World Order that is made up of transnational bankers, oil barons, corporations and military industrial complex among others that have enough money and influence to either buy or manipulate governments including our own into doing their bidding.
The United States wasn't founded to be the strong arm of any foreign power like this. Our "foreign policy" has come to represent the greed and craving for total control that the Malthusian global elite suffer from.
When I say International community, I mean nations that conduct themselves in friendly fashion towards its neighbors, in addition to recognizing human rights with its own people. So do not misconstrue my words please.
Sanctions are not placed upon such nations as those. They are placed upon nations/leaders which are eager to war and kill their neighbors in addition to their own people. Nations which often do not recognize the human rights of their own people.
Again, please do not misconstrue my words. If you have an issue with historical sanctions against such nations as Iraq, Iran, or North Korea etc etc start another thread. Again, many or most of these sanctions are agreed upon within the parameters of the U.N.. This in attempts to get evil rulers to initiate some change for the better versus taking military action.
If you feel we should have stayed out of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, first Gulf War etc, then start a thread for debate. This idea we war for money and oil is getting old as I do not recall hearing about us getting rich off of Iraq or other such nations as mentioned above, with billions of barrels of oil coming into our ports from it! Though that is what the liberals were screaming and hoping for, in order to scream more!
I recall we entered many of those wars in hopes of helping people and in stopping the spread of some evil and dictatorial leaders, as Hitler, Stalin etc. I recall we rebuilt Europe and Japan, in addition to most of Europe after those devastating wars and continue to help nations around the world. More so than any other nation or nations combined. Again, we may not be perfect and may have erred in some of our causes, but such as the above is our legacy.
That's a fairly good explaination within the parameters of the propaganda endlessly pumped out by the corporate media. We be good they be bad in other words. But it doesn't take into account that our government was long ago co opted by industrialists that have gone "global" and have been using our treasure and military as their personal global strong arm force to coerce any sovereign nation that has not already surrendered it's national soverignty and or natural resources to the "international commuinty" (NWO) with it's World Banks, WTO's, WHO's, IMF's, Central Banks, public private partnerships and "global harmonization".
==There is certainly nothing conservative about creating a big government that goes around the world trying to solve other people's/nations' problems. There is nothing conservative about nation building in Iraq, or anyplace else. There is nothing conservative about anything this administration, or previous administrations, have done in the area of foreign policy.
As for 9/11...I believe it very well may have been an act of Divine discipline/judgment. I don't believe God caused it, but He certainly allowed it. Why do we believe that God punished nations in the past but no longer does that today? Why do we believe the United States is somehow exempt from God's mighty hand of discipline? I've got new for everyone, we are not. God allowed 9/11, God allowed/caused Katrina, the tsunami, the great flood of Noah's day, and every other tragic event in world history for a reason. I don't know if the exact reasons God has for allowing these judgments on America, but there are certainly many possible reasons (Romans 1:18ff).
As for Ron Paul's statement, of course "part" of the reason we are hated in the Islamic world is our actions in the middle east. There are other reasons, but Ron Paul was right about that one.
Btw, Ron Paul will not get the RNC nomination because it is bought and paid for by special interest groups. The "powers that be" (media, etc) have already chosen Rudy or McCain.
Hello Martin and others,
I have appreciated many of your posts but will not entertain erred conspiracy theories.
Yes, God judges nations and people! He will and is judging America. However, I don’t think the Lord is judging us because Muslims feel we have somehow offended them; or because we have fought against terrorist Muslim factions. He will judge us on the millions of children killed with abortion and other such issues.
Personally, I have nothing against Ron Paul. He however came across very weak and is grossly mistaken, in regards to 9/11 and terrorism. He did not say we are in "part" to blame for terrorism; he emphatically stated we are in a great degree to blame for terrorism with foreign policy. This shows real ignorance toward our enemies and history.
Note Bin Laden was exiled from Saudi Arabia and we are there, at their behest as other nations. We also, along with many other nations deliver humanitarian needs to people regardless of sanctions. Ron Paul simply echoed Bin Ladins rhetoric.
cont. p. 362-364
Ron Paul states we are greatly to blame for attacks due to foreign policies and used the 9/11 Report to back his stance. The 9/11 Report however does no such thing and states our foreign policy and “ideals” need to be defended vigorously. He, as liberals, simply do not understand the enemy or history. Rudy and McCain have their own huge problems though, and rightfully so.
Here's the neocon playbook that would support their efforts to engage in pre-emptive wars, could you point me to the "Liberal playbook" as I've never read it?
Neither Thomas Jefferson nor Ron Paul have ever said, don't defend yourself. Jefferson's situation was far different than the Iraqi one. One response was just, the other was not. One had an entity directly attacking the interests of the United States of America and then declaring war on the U.S. when they didn't bribe them well enough. Surely a country that is being blackmailed and who has war declared on them has the right to declare it back. The Barbary wars did not have an entangling alliance dictating to the United States what was violated and what was not. The Iraqi Use of Military Force was authorized based on U.N. violations, even though the U.N. did not authorize the Use of Military Force. As an American, I can comfortably say, I do not care even a little bit what violation of a UN resolution any nation on the face of this planet has committed but if we did why don't we go after all nations that are in violation of UN security council resolutions? Iraq did not declare war on the United States of America and Iraq committed NO act of aggression against the United States of America and yet we shocked and awed them and are now attempting to occupy their country. Why did we do that?
Please read http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html to see the reasons cited by the gov't alleged mastermind of the 911 attacks. Irregardless of the reasons, what did bombing and occupying Iraq have to do with 911?
Alright, if we are in this game because "they simply hate us" and it is kill or be killed...why pick Iraq? Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan all have greater populations of Muslims than Iraq. Pakistan and India are Muslim nations with nukes, and Pakistan has military leadership that overthrew democratically elected leadership, shouldn't we be putting the hurt on them? The bulk of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not one came from Iraq nor Afghanistan. If the gov't theory is true we were attacked by more Saudis than Iraqis on 9/11. What did Iraq do to the United States of America?
Why support one evil to counter another evil and later have to take on the new evil? Why not support that which is good or stay out of other people's business? Saddam was our friend, then became our enemy, Osama was our friend then became our enemy. Musharaf and Kalam are our friends today, which one will we be fighting in 10 years?
Are you suggesting that Israel has something to do with this situation?
Apparently CNN's readers agree with Ron Paul.
Well I will attempt to partially sort through some of your posts but let it be known that I do not entirely disagree with your points, as nor do I other's.
However, much of your post is completely irrelevant to the O.P. and that is what I have addressed, OK.
Ron Paul made numerous comments and takes the stance We ourselves, are significantly to blame for the attacks which have occurred against us, including 9/11!
He stated our policies "contributes significantly " to this and "they attack us because we have been over there". He goes on to state our policies "have caused an illicit hatred toward us, if someone were willing to commit suicide....." and that we supported sanctions that " killed hundreds of thousands of people
Ron Paul then, in attempting to justify his comments, referenced the 9/11 Commission Report.
However, as I have pointed out the 9/11 Commission Report does no such thing and concludes differently. Yes, our policies can and will create animosity among different people. Nobody, not even Rudy Giuliani whom I dislike, would doubt that. But to take the stance that is the greatest reason for attacks against America, as Paul did, shows real ignorance of our enemy.
As I pointed out he simply echoed the "rhetoric" of Usama bin Ladin. This, as the 9/11 Commission Report blatantly refers to it as! They explain bin Ladin uses all sorts of "rhetoric" in order to recruit more terrorists.
The 9/11 Commission Report never says We are to greatly blame for attacks against us, due to our foreign policy! It does note our policies can and do cause resentment, even deep, but it properly puts this in perspective. It also stresses our foreign policies and with Muslim allies, in fighting terrorists.
Ron Paul forgets to say the Muslim terrorists, whom attack us, main goal as they state and as noted by the Commission so emphatically "to destroy America and bring the world to Islam". Again, he takes the liberal stance, that it is somehow our fault and if we only would change, then they would like us or at least would leave us alone. 9/11 and the years of planning for it, was a long time before Iraq friend. In addition, Iraq can either be the greatest victory for us with a gained ally and offering hope to many, or it can be the greatest victory thus for the terrorists. It matters not if we should have gone to Iran first or elsewhere at this point. But as fact, neither Iran nor N. Korea were threatening nukes at the time; nor had they broken 19 U.N resolutions!
With due respect your point is mute and Iraq is only one part, of the whole! You are attempting to make this an Iraq debate, which is far from the O.P. My comment was in regards to your harping about the "warmongering" "neocons" with foreign policy, then referencing Washington and Jefferson conservatism, with Jefferson's quote "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." I simply and correctly pointed out, which is also greatly relevant to today, that in fact Jefferson lead us into our first war!
Whereas George Washington, in part as the conflict was just beginning under him, but John Adams greatly, invoked passive appeasement policies. Though this was most likely due to us being a young and greatly struggling nation. Irrespective, such proved fruitless and only added to the conflict. Jefferson despised this and chose not appeasement. Consequently, the Muslim nations immediately declared war on us!
Actually, the use of force was authorized under the first or earliest U.N. resolutions 678(1990)
The U.N. sanctioned military force from the beginning and immediately after the Kuwait invasion! Only for some reason $$$$ Russia/Germany/France and Koffi, would never enforce what they continued to threaten would be enforced.
I understand your concerns and many the same are mine. However, we cannot be so naive as to think an isolationists approach will save us or protect us from these evil people. Millions more died in WWI and WWII due to that mentality as we entered late. The fact is, it would not matter if we were never in a Muslim nation, as surely was not the case in the 1800's. These terrorists Muslims have a stated goal of "destroying America and converting the world to Islam". To note, bin Ladin was never a friend to America. This as special forces personnel noted. When we were arming and helping train them to fight against the Russian's, many Afghans would warn our personnel not to let bin Ladin see them, as he would most likely kill them. This by the way, long before Iraq and many other U.S. policies.
In regards to Israel, this is something the Israelis understand and deal with everyday. We support Israel, as we should, and this alone is enough reason for many of them to hate us.
take care, In Christ
Three questions who and what is "Al Qeada" and how and when was it created?
Ron did not blame us? islamists do what they do because the evil is in their heart to do it. They kill because they see it as a sure way to heaven rather than living by the "scales" throughout their lives. What someone else does is no excuse for wrong doing on our part. Therfore Ron is wrong.
What ever happened to all them Iran Contra guys?
And what's up with that Operation Gladio?
“The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened."
'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
"The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio's masters called "the strategy of tension" -- fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn't limited to Western Europe. It was applied, with gruesome effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces -- armed, trained and supplied by the United States -- murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.
Last month, it was widely reported that the Pentagon is considering a similar program in Iraq. What was not reported, however -- except in the Iraqi press -- is that at least one pro-occupation death squad is already in operation. Just days after the Pentagon plans were revealed, a new militant group, "Saraya Iraqna," began offering big wads of American cash for insurgent scalps -- up to $50,000, the Iraqi paper Al Ittihad reports. "Our activity will not be selective," the group promised. In other words, anyone they consider an enemy of the state will be fair game."
50 grand a scalp? Good work if you can you get it.
The anti-'Secret Conspiracy' theorm
They who tell, don't know;
They who know, don't tell.
I appreciate ya Ralph. Thank you for the kind tone and spirit.
If you are saying that Ron Paul was talking about "we ourselves" is our foreign policies, then I agree. If you are saying that Ron Paul was blaming the American people then I disagree.
There are elements within the 911 Commission Report that clearly back up Ron Paul's argument, at least sufficient enough that this issue should be debated, rather than have him silenced like Anuzis, Steele and other GOP hacks seem to want to do. Here's a couple example...
"Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions.To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands.America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.”Bin Ladin has stated flatly,“Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers." - 911 Commission Report
"After the United States launched air attacks against Iraq at the end of 1998 and against Serbia in 1999, in each case provoking worldwide criticism, Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg added the argument that attacks in Afghanistan offered “little benefit, lots of blowback against [a] bomb-happy U.S.” - 911 Commission Report
As Dr. Paul has argued quite effectively, non-interventionist policies is not a liberal policy as it is the traditional conservative approach. Policing the world and building empires, is the more modern neo-con stance.
Iraq is quite germane to the original post. I don't disagree with you about Jefferson, but I did not make the claim that Jefferson's quote meant he was a pacifist and would not go to war if required to do so. I feel quite confident though that Jefferson would not have yoked up with the United Nations and Jefferson would not have attacked a country that had done nothing to provoke, attack and declare war on the United States of America. Jefferson's decision was the right one. The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter etc. policies towards the Middle East should be debated.
Dusting off a 1990 resolution does not give the United States authority to use force when 110+ United Nations members and legally more importantly the security council opposed the use of force. This makes the use of force illegal according to the UN charter which is a treaty that the United States entered into. There was no authorization from this entangling alliance to go to war.
Muslims are not more or less evil than any antichrist believing group is.
If Bin Ladin was going to kill them on sight then it seems foolish to give him weapons so he could do the job right.
This may be closer to the root of why we disagree. I do not believe we should support one antichrist group over any other.
To say that Ron Paul does not blame the US for 911 is crazy. and I am quite sure Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and the coat tail rider would all agree with him.