Newt versus Paul: Round 2

So...

you think it is LESS ridiculous, that Iranians come over here on rafts, ride camels into Washington, and attacks our F-22's and Abram's tanks with 20 year old RPG's?

Are you serious?!

 

Your example is absurd and denies the reality of the moment. This is a common theme with RP supporters. You appear to be a very intelligent person until things realted to RP come up. You seem to throw all that out the door.

For the record I believe most of the aid we give needs to come home because I seen no logical reason to just give our money away to other countries, and at this time all our troops need to come home because we cannot afford to keep them out. But to ignore actual threats around the world is just infowars weird.

 

Common misdirection technique.

Could you please explain WHO, and HOW someone is going to militarily
attack us? That idea is just absolutely absurd, and I would really like you to explain.

What threats? Military threats? Or Criminal threats? I agree there are criminal threats, but those are not helped by having our troops parading around the world. The idea of a military attack against the country that spends ten times more on military spending than the number 2 country, is just ridiculous. We have more planes, more tanks, better technology, etc. A country like Iran could not even hope to mount such an effort.

 

Just what they thought just prior to Pearl harbor and lets not forget 911. Obama held your same position until he got into office. Most likely a result of receiving classified info that others do not have. Do not assume you have all the info you need to come to your conclusion.

You are assuming that everyone is thinking logically or with reason. That is a mistake.

 

Barack Obama held that position to get elected, and NEVER planned to implement it. But he needed the anti-war crowd, particularly independents, in order to get elected.

Pearl Harbor was a different time. We were well matched by other countries in terms of our military might. We were not the world super-power. We won't be for long, if we keep spending all of our money on nation building.

9/11, for all the rhetoric, was not a military strike. It was an act of terrorism, which is a criminal act. Criminal acts cannot be prevented by military action, because there is no standing force to attack. Attacking civilians overseas, that we "think" might be terrorists, just create thousands of more REAL terrorists. Blow up the innocent dad of 4 children, and you create 4 terrorists.

You are assuming that people overseas are somehow different than they are here. That is a mistake. A terrorist is created, not born. When we start a conflict that causes the death of 200,000 civilians (Iraq), who are dads, moms, sisters, brothers, daughters and sons, do you think that causes people to have warm cuddly feelings for us? Or are they JUST LIKE US. If Iran came over to our country and deposed Obama, and in the process killed your daughter, do you not think that it MIGHT make you become a terrorist against Iran, EVEN though Obama is a horrible president that maybe you don't want in power?

This is such simple logic...but it has been systematically brainwashed out of us by media, and by our government; through scare tactics, and "us or them" talking points. The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

That is only because Al Qaeda did not have a conventional army. They used what they had and used it effectively. Bin Ladin declared a fatwah against the US and declared that good Muslims should kill Americans whenever they had an opportunity. He declaed war.

Is it customary for Westerners to kidnap others and saw their heads off on camera? Not really.

Most of those killings were committed by Muslims against other Muslims. The Fedayeen Saddam and later Al Qaeda blew up Iraqi civilians by the thousands, who were a much easier target than Americans. They didn't have to do that you know.

 

Prove it.........

 

Just look at his pro-war record before he ran for president. He voted in favor of every occupation, every war, every funding for nuclear weapons, supported the nomination of pro-war directors, pro-water boarding directors, every arms appropriations bill, etc. etc. etc.

Here is a list compiled by the anti-war, "Democratic underground."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x1712

All of these issues were flip/flopped on when he ran for president.

 

There are all kinds of gangs in the U.S. that do similar things. These are crimes, not war.

Human nature is universal. We are all desperately wicked. Our well-to-do culture has provided a semblance of comfort and civility here. Let the lights go off, and the food supply run out, and you will see how our civility evaporates.

All of those people were put into power by US!!!

 

When a group as large as terrorist are of people from a foreign land attack us in this way it is war.

Which means nothing and adds to nothing

 

I believe Gingrich and Romney are likely headed for a train wreck with each other which would open up the lead fro RP.

 

Rush is berating Ron Paul & his fans as I type this.

 

We have seen the enemy--it be us.

Have we forgotten 9-11 and Pearl Harbor? The red flags are flying. The enemy is in the camp. The sentries are asleep. Who will sound the alarm? We even trained the terrorists who drove the planes in 9-11. The love of money is the root of all evil. We have trouble--right here in River City. Let's blame it on Bernie M.

Who will repent and do the first works?

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

Post Script:

Sorry to deviate from the subject--Ron Paul has a lot of stuff right on target. Surviving the rotten barrel will take divine intervention. The system could still work--if the body politic would get out and vote. Many have given up on the status quo inside the beltway, including all municipalities and precincts. We have a lot of repenting to do.

 

A war requires back and forth attack, skirmishes, etc. The reason we have the word "terrorism" in the first place, is that it is different, by definition, than war.

"Terrorism" is a criminal act.

Actually it does. It shows that we brought about our own problems, by trying to nation build, and playing "god" overseas. Our forefathers warned us explicitly against this...yet we ignore them, we ignore the Constitution, and thus...we make a bunch of enemies.

 

Thus proving my point

So if you trust someone and they turn on you it is your fault? Not real good logic there. I do believe there is a reasonable argument that much of what we do over seas is unconstitutional. But the blow back theory is sophomoric.

 

Your point is that terrorism is not war, but a criminal act?

? So you know more than the Central Intelligence Agency (who both coined the term "blowback" and have testified about it before Congress), and more than multiple generals (who have likewise testified that our own actions have increased terrorism and aggression)??

You know, Mandy, I am beginning to think you are Googling comebacks to what I am saying. It would do you well to study the issue.

 

And in turn you want to ignore all the one's that disagree with it? And you believe that because someone makes a claim before congress it must be absolute truth? You might want to ask John Kerry about that one.

Actually I was thinking you were spouting infowars propaganda. Next you will be telling us that "Military Complex" is running the world.:laugh: But that is your right to be misled. The blowback theory is flawed because it ignores the fact that terrorists and much if Islam is set on ruling the world. It ignores the atrocities around the world that must be dealt with. And it ignores the fact that regardless of any reason they create to justify their actions the Sharia law itself is a crime against humanity. There are so many variables to consider that any sophomoric theory of blowback fades in the mix.

 

Except that the great majority of the doubters are Rhino politicians and lobbyists for arms manufacturers...

What is sophomoric is thinking that you can blow up kid's daddies, in order to install a dictator over their country, and that the kids are not going to grow up hating you and wanting to blow you up.

That is more than sophomoric. That is moronic.

 

Prove it

I mean you can play chicken or the egg game if you want but in the end the truth is when their daddy's blow people up to further islam and sharia law then it needs to be responded to. It is false that the terrorists are only reacting to our presence anywhere and that the US first blew them up for no good reason.

 

I cannot prove a negative. Can you provide some names of top ranking CIA officials, or high ranking generals, that say our attacks in the middle east have not substantially increased aggression towards us?

You need a history lesson. They didn't start it. We did, because we were trying to put up blockades to the Soviet Union and their allies during the Cold War.

Islam might teach people to be violent, but they cannot find recruits unless they find hatred to feed upon; that is how Satan works. Every time an innocent civilian is killed, you increase their ranks.