Need some help in an argument

[TexasAggie09]

Alright a guy starts a thread on another site entitled "Ronald Reagan a warmongering neocon? I think not..."

He then uses this quote by Reagan:


The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest. “

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.

Then he says


The whole thing also made me think of a flyer that we recently got on our door from a bunch of Ron Paul heads. The flyer showed a pic of Paul with Reagan, in an obvious attempt to say that with Paul you would be getting a lot of what Reagan stood for. As you can see, on foreign policy, Paul and Reagan would have been at terrible odds.



Alright after saying this I get into an arguement with a guy on the War in Iraq. I ask him what the goals of the war were and what the pretenses of the war were.

He responds by saying


There was no Gulf War II. The first gulf war never ended. A cease fire was declared, determinant upon Iraq meeting certain criteria. They were firing on our planes, funding terrorists, and quite frankly the most troublesome nation in the region. If you want the reasons for why we went in, I suggest that you read the Joint Resolution on Iraq, crafted by a bi-partisan US congress describing our purpose, intent, and goals.


Any quick facts about the Joint Resolution I could use? About 90% of them deal with WMDs and Iraq's ties with terrrorism. These are false correct? The other 10% deal with enforcing UN resolutions, attempted assasinations on 41, and them attacking us during a ceasefire.

Can anyone help me out?

[TexasAggie09]

bump

Anyone?

[Ara825]

Wish I could help you, looks like you're arguing with a warmonger.

[zakkubin]

Lesson 1- make him watch Regan speak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

[zakkubin]

The point is they are VERY close on every issues. Yes Regan differed some on foreign policy but look at the context. The COLD WAR.

Iraq:
Vincent Cannistraro
Head of CIA's counter-intelligence unit

“I think that early on in the administration—sometime within the first five to six months after Sept. 11, 2001—the decision was made that Iraq had to be dealt with. The intelligence community was tasked to collect information"

“Is there any confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? No,”

“They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it. And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can’t get him to say what they want on Iraq.”

“Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there’s a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA.”

“All I can tell you is there is a general feeling among CIA analysts that intelligence was politicized and that the CIA and (Defense Intelligence Agency) was not given full consideration because the Pentagon, the policymakers, including the vice-president’s office, did not want to hear that message. They wanted to hear a hardline message supporting a policy they already adopted.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=vincent_cannistraro

[zakkubin]

The supposed hiding place of al-queda was in Norther Iraq. Which was in control by the Kurds aka OUR ALLIES

[zakkubin]

the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations

[pacelli]

Lesson 1- make him watch Regan speak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

+1776, very effective video comparing Reagan and Paul.

[zakkubin]

Oh The join Resolutin said this,

"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."


So when did Iraq become a national threat?

[jmarinara]

Tips on heading towards winning on almost any argument.

1. Make your opponent cite sources in a chapter and verse style. Most people can't do this and are relying on hearsay evidence. Additionally, always be ready with your sources. Furthermore, if you can find contradictory sources to his, the burden of proof remains on your opponent to prove what he says.

2. Get to the heart of the matter. For example in this argument, if he says we are winning the war, the surge is working, we are better off without Saddam, blah blah blah. Don't argue those points, they don't matter. Instead, ask questions like: "Should we have this policy to begin with?" "Does this meet a constitutional test?" (be prepared to defend why that is important) Get him thinking about the heart of the matter, not the day to day events surrounding it.

3. Be logical. Calculating. Don't argue emotionally. Don't say stuff like "there is too much blood!" "American lives are being lost!" Say things like "this isn't the way we are supposed to go to war" or "Ron Paul simply is asking that we not throw out our protections from government while we try to protect ourselves from foreign powers." You can then supplement this style with antidotes, and drive home the points with emotion.

Example: (logical thesis) Ron Paul simply is asking that we not throw out our protections from government while we try to protect ourselves from foreign powers. (antidote)As we all learned from history, for instance pre-revolution America, an unfettered government is a dangerous government and a tyrant to the people. (emotion) Besides, if we are going to put brave young American's lives at risk, we darn sure better be right about the facts and at least give them the honor of making the decision through the right process.

Hope that helps. PM me if you'd like.

[zakkubin]

Justification for war:


WMD: Never found. False inteligence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12601112/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-schlesinger/reports-of-bushs-contrit_b_12286.html

Saddam & Al Queda relationship: False ( OBL hated Saddam... )

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0506deceptions.html
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=236440

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_b.pdf

[acptulsa]

Reagan was in essence saying the doctrine we learned during World War II. The problem with applying that to Iraq is that Iraq was no threat to us, and wouldn't have become a threat to us.

It is not often remembered that back in the early nineties, Saddam Hussein basically asked our permission to walk into Kuwait, and Bush gave it to him! In fact, Kuwait was our excuse the first time around. There was no reason for us to break what he's calling a "cease fire" because 1) no further expansionist moves had been made and 2) the WMD arguments have now been proven by the government, not to be a "big mistake" but to have been One Thousand (give or take) Points of Lies, to paraphrase G.H.W. Bush.

Guy's full of it. Knock him dead!

[TexasAggie09]

Alright I spliced together the information on this thread. He replied


Two questions.....did Iraq support terrorists, and was Iraq working on nuclear weapons?


The answer is no correct? I stated it in my post. He has nothing to trap me with does he?

[jglapski]

Reagan withdrew Marines from Lebanon after they were attacked, rather than invading Lebanon.

[TexasAggie09]

Al Quaida =/= all terrorists. Let's do this again....are you saying that Iraq never supported terrorism???

And, why did Israel bomb Osirak?

That's his response. Where is this going?

[dannno]

Another good argument I came upon recently is the timing between when Iraq started using Euros to pay for oil. Iran was threatening to use Euros when we started threatening them.

Just google euros oil and you will get at least 20+ really good articles about Iraq and Iran switching to Euros and more importantly why this would make certain people want to fight them over it.

[hawks4ronpaul]

Reagan allied with Saddam, so attacking Saddam must be anti-Reagan.

Do not let the person drag you off-topic down all sorts of dark alleys. Yes, make them cite sources.

I will be adding more to my site very soon but you might like to start with

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/reagan-endorses-ron-paul.html

and

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2007/12/reagan-rejected-nation-building.html

including the videos.

[hawks4ronpaul]

That's his response. Where is this going?

He is setting up a false dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[all J's in IL for RP]

That's his response. Where is this going?

Not very far, I'm afraid. A quick review of his input shows a lot of factual or characterization errors.

The only thing I've ever seen regarding Iraq and terrorism is that one guy involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking that was given safe haven in Iraq. It seemed to me at the time to have been a behind the scene deal.

You might mention that Paul supported the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear site.

[jake]

Ron Paul would have defeated the Soviets just as Reagan did

[hawks4ronpaul]

Not very far, I'm afraid. A quick review of his input shows a lot of factual or characterization errors.

The only thing I've ever seen regarding Iraq and terrorism is that one guy involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking that was given safe haven in Iraq. It seemed to me at the time to have been a behind the scene deal.

You might mention that Paul supported the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Countries_that_have_be en_removed

[all J's in IL for RP]

Exactly. The terrorists in Iraq were the PKK and such, fighting against the Iraqi regime (and Turkey, a NATO ally), and who were being protected by the overflights after the US president asked them to rise up.

[durden0]

Ron Paul would have defeated the Soviets just as Reagan did

There was no need to 'defeat the soviets'. They defeated themselves with their policies and went bankrupt.

[TexasAggie09]

Alright here is the responses

Neocon warmonger 1:


Well, I agree with Ron Paul on many of his domestic ideas, and ideals, but his foreign policy he is dead wrong, as well as the fact that he takes some of the conservative ideals that Reagan stood for too far. If Reagan wanted to go to Ron Paul’s extremes and dissolve most government departments and agencies, then he would have done so in his two terms of office. So, this being true, and Reagan’s build up of troops, and foreign policy is proof that Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan! Now a counterfeit would not be a counterfeit, did it not in some ways resemble the original, and so in the same way, I do credit Paul with championing many of the conservative causes that Reagan would have, but so do many of the other candidates

Well, first off, when it comes to WMDs, yes a lot of the resolutions dealt with them, and his desire to constitute them. It has been made clear from the documentation that has been found that his goal was to reconstitute WMD programs, as control of sanctions waned. So that aspect of WMDs was a true justification. Also, the mention of terrorism, and terrorists in the Joint Declaration were all true also. As I just went through the entire resolution, I counted 13 reasons given that were not related to terrorism, or WMDs, and 16 that were. It seems clear that you are for Ron Paul, yet, it seems like you are swept up into a kind of blind zeal that has left your positions void of the truth.

Didn’t you read the reasons given in the resolution? They were firing on our military! They tried to assassinate our president! Are neither of those things a treat to our national security? They were flaunting the ever weakening sanctions, string up and supporting terrorism by funding it!

Well, Reagan had no 911 to learn a lesson from as we did. His lesson was from the two world wars, as he stated. We learned a lesson from 911, that terrorists have been at war with us! And as I stated, the Bush doctrine declared that we would go after them, and the nations that harbor and support them! Thank God we did! Are you telling me that Ron Paul would have taken that declaration from our Congress and done nothing?

Hello. They broke the cease fire when they fired on our pilots, numerous times! Again, disagreeing with the Bush Doctrine is one thing, but denying it exists is quite another. Don’t pretend like you know Reagan would have never been for it, or that it’s entirely not justified, when you have not even built a case for it not being justified. Many of those statements in the Joint Declaration were about a WMD program, or even the desire to created WMDs, or the danger of WMDs given to terrorists. Those things were all proven true. Just because his WMD programs were in much worse shape than we thought does not mean that he did not want to reconstitute them.

Right, which is why I believe that we need much better intelligence gathering capability. Remember GWB inherited a military that had been in shambles, under funded, under staffed. No doubt we made the best decisions that we could with the information we had. Your argument here however is an argument with our intelligence gathering capabilities, not with what was done with the information. Obviously we had politicians who had too much confidence in the system, but I understand why they would trust it. I think we need to learn from our mistakes with that, and develop a real intelligence gathering apparatus that we can have confidence in. Part of our problem is we have a state department still full of a bunch of Clinton hold over’s that need to be cleaned out.


My reply to him:

I'll get to this now and the other stuff later. Paul wants to get rid of Dept. of Education(something Reagan ran on) and give the responsibility of education to the state governements, local governments, and the parents. He wants to dissolve the FBI and CIA and create one intelligence agency. As you stated our intelligence agencies are lacking, and Paul agrees with this. He wants to increase the efficiency in our intelligence and the level of communication within it. He also wants to increase the responsibilities of our military intelligence.

Reagan advocated peace through strength. This is the same principle Paul advocates. A strong defense is not necessarily one that has a presence in over 100 countries. You can build up your defense and increase R&D without an international presence. In fact doing so would decrease spending and make more funding available for R&D.

He wants to get rid of the Fed because of his strong belief in Austrian economics. He doesn't belief a central bank has a role in a free market economy. He believes in transparency in monetary policy and that the Federal Reserve answers to no congressional oversight. He believes inflation brought on by the Fed is robbing the average American. Our economy functioned without a central bank and the dollar today is worth only four cents when compared to the dollar of 1913 when the Fed was created. This inflation is in turn actually a tax brought on by a government borrowing from a quasi government entity to continue to fund its oversized budget. He doesn't believe in any government entity working behind closed doors toying with the market. The continued toying will only lead to a deeper recession as the market tries to correct itself. If you go back and watch the recent Florida Debate check out Ron's question to McCain regarding the Plunge Protection Team. McCain's response was quite funny.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The Federal Reserve always promises that it’s working to bring down inflation, but as Murray N. Rothbard shows in The Case Against the Fed, it never does. Since the Fed came into being, the dollar’s value has plummeted to less than a penny, and even at a 3% inflation rate, prices will tend to double every 25 years… The Fed wants to cover its crimes by appearing more successful at ‘battling inflation.’ What the Fed doesn’t want to talk about is the real cause of inflation: not greedy consumers, avaricious workers, or price-gouging corporations, but the central bank itself, and its power and practice of creating money out of thin air.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



An interesting quote from Ron on Monetarism and Keynesian economiists arrogance and a sound backed currency.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people know of the Gold Commission merely what the press reported — that it rejected a return to the gold standard. I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists. These advocates of the established institutions and arrangements certainly don't want any role for gold to threaten their cozy theories about scientific monetary management and macroeconomic planning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who is going to win the man or the market? What is the significance of a money backed by nothing?

His beliefs on competing currencies and a new version of a gold standard can be found here.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/843/the-political-and-economic-agenda-for-a-real-gold-standard/



Neocon warmonger 2


Al Quaida =/= all terrorists. Let's do this again....are you saying that Iraq never supported terrorism???

And, why did Israel bomb Osirak?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.

The Iraq-supported Iranian terrorist group, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), regularly claimed responsibility for armed incursions into Iran that targeted police and military outposts, as well as for mortar and bomb attacks on security organization headquarters in various Iranian cities. MEK publicists reported that in March group members killed an Iranian colonel having intelligence responsibilities. An MEK claim to have wounded a general was denied by the Iranian Government. The Iraqi regime deployed MEK forces against its domestic opponents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

Now, what are your sources that disprove Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism?




My response


fahraint, what sense does any of our intangling in foriegn affairs make. Israel bombed Osirak in 1981. What does that have to do with Iraq having WMD's in 2003? Why would we support Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war? OBL in Afghanistan against Russia? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. There are terrorist in Pakistan, and we still support there unpopular leader. We supported the Shah in Iran, yet again another unpopular dictator. What happened there? He gets overthrown and look what we have now. Saudi Arabia is "our friends", but there are more terrorists from Saudi Arabia than any other ME country. The game is tricky, and it's not ours to play. In the end our actions in the ME always end up with us being the ones getting burned. What consistency is present in our foreign policy? What about our foreign policy is consistent with the Constitution? Or the Decleration of Independence for that matter when looking at it from the other end of the spectrum. Is our foreign policy consistent with the right to self determination?

Neocon warmonger 2


you asked when Iraq threatened our security.....

In reply I asked if Iraq supported terrorism, since terrorism threatens our security.

And, I pointed out that Iraq coveted nuclear weapons, didnt come clean, and fostered the image it was working on them, which created the appearance of a threat.

Now, I believe, but have no proof, they had WMD's and spirited them to Syria with the help of the Russians.....but, even if this is not true, they were guilty of fostering an image they had them, along with all the threat that implies.



Me



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but, even if this is not true, they were guilty of fostering an image they had them, along with all the threat that implies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a very dangerous principle when coupled with pre-emptive attack. Where did they come from? You'd have to ask yourself what could come about using those two principles. That is a can of worms with some bad dju dju.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply I asked if Iraq supported terrorism, since terrorism threatens our security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I pointed out the inconsistencies in our foreign policy concerning this.

[TexasAggie09]

Neocon warmonger 1 responds


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll get to this now and the other stuff later. Paul wants to get rid of Dept. of Education(something Reagan ran on) and give the responsibility of education to the state governements, local governments, and the parents. He wants to dissolve the FBI and CIA and create one intelligence agency. As you stated our intelligence agencies are lacking, and Paul agrees with this. He wants to increase the efficiency in our intelligence and the level of communication within it. He also wants to increase the responsibilities of our military intelligence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok, you list good and reasonable stuff that he wants to do, but you leave out the rest. Stop arguing as if I didn’t know the facts. He wants to go too far. He is an extremist. That is the problem that I have with him. He says they are all not constitutional, and he wants to eliminate them all. He wants to pull all of our overseas troops home. That is key to his platform. It’s an extreme move that is an isolationist position, and please don’t try to tell me that its’ not a form of isolationism. It is in the context of what Reagan said in his speech that was in the first post of this thread.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reagan advocated peace through strength. This is the same principle Paul advocates. A strong defense is not necessarily one that has a presence in over 100 countries. You can build up your defense and increase R&D without an international presence. In fact doing so would decrease spending and make more funding available for R&D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You forgot to mention that he wants to flex all of our strength muscle with every American troop in the world pulled back here in America, with a position that we will never do anything militarily in the world unless Congress declares an act of war. Talk about sending the wrong message to the world! It’s an insane position!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He wants to get rid of the Fed because of his strong belief in Austrian economics. He doesn't belief a central bank has a role in a free market economy. He believes in transparency in monetary policy and that the Federal Reserve answers to no congressional oversight. He believes inflation brought on by the Fed is robbing the average American. Our economy functioned without a central bank and the dollar today is worth only four cents when compared to the dollar of 1913 when the Fed was created. This inflation is in turn actually a tax brought on by a government borrowing from a quasi government entity to continue to fund its oversized budget. He doesn't believe in any government entity working behind closed doors toying with the market. The continued toying will only lead to a deeper recession as the market tries to correct itself. If you go back and watch the recent Florida Debate check out Ron's question to McCain regarding the Plunge Protection Team. McCain's response was quite funny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ok, some of that stuff sounds good, but then again, Paul has some ideas, and beliefs that sound good, it’s just that he is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

[all J's in IL for RP]

Neocon 2 is a joke. Lead him to the logical conclusion of his "belief" that all terrorism is a threat to the US. Why are we not about to invade Sri Lanka to take out the Tamili Tigers? Perhaps because it's of no security threat to the United States?

So Iraq housed some terrorists. Which one of those listed had anything to do with the security interests of America? Certainly not the MEK. Is his argument that we must "make the world safe" (Wilsonian rhetoric used on purpose) for the Islamic Revolution in Iran?!? The others are groups conducted over the period of 40 odd years a very limited number of operations, none or very few against the USA. They're the ME version of the Weatherman for cryin' out loud. And ask why the PKK is still in operation against Turkey despite America's occupation.

[TexasAggie09]

my response to necon warmonger 1


Okay I'll take a guess at what you feel is too extreme concerning him. I do agree with you that a lot of what he says is extreme in today's American politics, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of discussion. Perhaps you could add on to what you mean. Again I'm just guessing.

1. Foreign Policy
2. Gold Standard
3. Anti Death Penalty
4. End the War on Drugs
5. Too Much Constitution

I too had issues with the first two, and still have some issues with the next two.

Issue 1) This is the one that really keeps him from really being a force in the GOP. It's a matter of what you believe the responsibility of our foreign policy is and how you think we should go about doing it. Like I said I was in the corner of the GOP. I read all of Coulter's, Savage's, Beck's, and O'Reilly's books. Hell last fall I thought Paul was an absolute kook. For some reason though I started looking into his policy views(I waiting on Imperial Hubris and A Foreign Policy of Freedom to be shipped in) and it just clicked for me. It just comes down to a difference in fundamental philosophies concerning the role our government plays in the global arena. It is rare to win someone over to either side on this issue.

Issue 2) The second reason he passed off by a majority of Americans. How many crazy ass 3rd party guys have ran on this position? It really has nothing to do with the policy, but more about the frame that most Americans have put the Gold Standard in. 90% of Americans could not argue why they are against this reason other than it is the stance of looned 3rd party candidates and some poll they saw showed RP sitting at 6%. Therefor, a majority of Americans do not go through the trouble of researching or evening listening to RP, not only on this position, but also on others. Looking into the different schools of economics it's interesting to see that Austrian econ is completely left out of both college level and high school level economics classes. The bias towards monetarism and Keynesian seems to be to keep economists in business. It's job preservation.

Issue 3) The death penalty is definately an issue with many conservative Republicans. I agree that if you committ the most heinous crime than you should pay for it with your life. RP says that our judicial system is not perfect and the possibility of one innocent man losing his life is too great a consequence for it to outweigh any forseeable gain. So basically the same old arguement.

Issue 4) He believes that a monolithic government has no business nosing around in a social medical problem. He believes you treat the problem not attack it. All it ends up doing is creating a black market for drugs and doesn't address the problem. We have spent way too many dollars on the War on Drugs with too little measurable gain. Prohibition didn't work, and why doesn't the government have the right to say to you that you are fat and that you should be on a diet. Both are sociomedical problems but are dealt with differently. I don't know.

Issue 5) Can you explain this one?

I don't see how he is nutty or flake other than the fact that he goes against the grain of conventional politics. I don't understand why people say he is a kook. In debates he is the only candidate respectful of other candidates. He never uses ad hominem attacks or mocks them. He doesn't have the baggage of other politicians, he doesn't act like a politician, and everything he does is based on principle. He says that Jesus Christ is his Savior, but doesn't feel that has a place in politics, unlike others. He has been married to the same women for fifty years unlike others. He served for five years in the Air Force, unlike others. He put his medical practice on hold to enter into politics to fix what he felft was fundamentally wrong in Washington and instead of Washington changing him, attempted to change Washington, unlike others. He has never accepted money from a lobbyist, unlike others. The only group that he is in the corner of is the American people. He truly believes that and his record shows that he has not changed his beliefs in what would improve the government. What is so crazy about that? He has principles and actually lives by them. notafraid I'm not attacking you (this actually one of the best discussions I've had on RP). I'm just airing out my frustration on the idea that is so prevalent of him being a tin foil hat wearing 911 truther.


response to necon warmonger 2


fahraint your arguement on terrorism in Iraq is nothing more than a false dillema. Are all terrorist groups threats to our national security? If so why don't we go after the Tamili Tigers in Sri Lanka?

So Iraq housed some terrorists. Which one of those listed had anything to do with the security interests of America? Certainly not the MEK. Is your argument that we must "make the world safe" (Wilsonian rhetoric used on purpose) for the Islamic Revolution in Iran?!? The others are groups conducted over the period of 40 odd years a very limited number of operations, none or very few against the USA. They're the ME version of the Weatherman for crying out loud. Why is the PKK still in operation against Turkey despite America's occupation.


Alright that one was pretty much a copy and paste of what you said because I'm not familiar with those issues. I may need some help if he comes back with some other info on those groups.

[kyleAF]

There was no need to 'defeat the soviets'. They defeated themselves with their policies and went bankrupt.

Which is what we're doing now...incidentally. It is the same exact story in effect.

[all J's in IL for RP]

Neocon 1 is more entrenched. The key to his resistance is the "cut and run" viewpoint, of course. And 9/11 (notafraid is his screen name? Riiiiiight) and WoT. Although it's possible that a WoT type can be won over to Paul, it's a rare bird indeed. Yet this guy still sees Clinton as the major reason our policy isn't working. Doesn't look like fertile ground here. Might want to give up on him and save yourself the frustration.

But if you're to continue, you might want to point out that as far as threats are concerned Iraq was no Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, a communist country encompassing a sixth of the globe's inhabitable landmass, possessing 40,000 nuclear weapons and a paranoid streak for having lost 20 million people in WWII, had a desire to see the United States placed on the ash heap of history and leaders pronouncing "we will bury you." They had the largest military machine in the world a crack covert agency seeking to accomplish that goal. They were a clear and present danger to us and every other sovereign nation on the planet. Iraq was a broke, 3rd world ruin of a nation after eight years of war, ruled by a half educated thug.

And he's using effect to justify cause. The Iraqi's were firing on our jets because Iraq was challenging the legitimacy of the no fly zones. There were no fly zones because Saddam cracked down on the Kurds and Shiites. Saddam cracked down on the Kurds and Shiites because they revolted. The Kurds and Shiites revolted because Bush asked them to and sent in CIA moneymen to lend assistance. Bush asked for the revolt because he was limited in what he could do by the original UN resolution to safegard Kuwait. This whole chain of events is a direct result of our following UN mandates (And Bush running his own foreign policy), and not following our constitution. By the way, the CIA funding a revolt in all fairness is a continuation of the war, and not abiding by the ceasefire.

Reagan never had a congressional majority to do everything he wanted, even when Republicans were desirous of cutting bureaucracies and departments, unlike the current minority. If Paul were elected, without congressional support, the radicalism he sees would never be implemented in full. Reagan was the radical of his time, now he's the hero of the party.

Don't copy pasta; my inputs here are not in sequence with your conversation and in part a response to others in this thread, but if you're going to, watch out for my occasional spelling and grammatical errors! ;)

[TexasAggie09]

Alright here is number 2's response


No, it is not a false dilemma. The list I gave refuted your claim that Iraq didnt support terrorism. Now you raise a different argument.....the terrorists Iraq supported didnt threaten the US.

Did Abu Nidal threaten the US? What about Ansar al Islam? What about the PLF? Are you saying that none of these terrorist organizations, among many others never threatened the US?

My argument is very simple.....Iraq sponsored terrorism, terrorism that threatened the US, and Iraq engaged in the attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, and tried to create the image that it had them, and flaunted the terms of peace imposed by the United Nations. On that point, Democrats and Republicans agreed alike. Are you saying you didnt agree with the general consensus of both parties, and the rest of the world at the time?


here ya go


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baghdad ordered its Palestinian dependents to launch terrorist operations against the United States and its coalition partners in the fall and winter of 1990; they refused to comply. Iraq made an apparently singular effort to send terrorist teams abroad prior to the initiation of hostilities with the U.S.-led coalition in 1991; it failed. One of the Intelligence Community's reported successes in the period of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm was the arrest of the teams on landing outside Iraq. They were caught by their fake passports, all of which were in consecutive sequence. The attempt to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in Kuwait in April 1993 was a botched job, using apparently ill-trained operatives in an ill-planned operation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_yaphe.htm

Read and learn


Alright. Now he's gone off on something I am completely unfamiliar with.

[all J's in IL for RP]

I see Neocon 2 skipped over the point about the MEK and the PKK and ignored the implications of his false dilemma completely other than to say "nuh uhhhh," but he fell for the Weathermen analogy.

Some cold calculations are in order. Add up the monetary cost of the war. Then throw in the human cost of some 5,000 casualties and 12,000 serious injured.

ANO, Ansar Al Islam and the PLF combined killed a total of one (1) American citizen prior to the US invasion of Iraq (that I could confirm). So, I would say no, that does not pose a threat to the U.S.

As an aside, some cursory research reveals that Abu Nidal, after having spent 22 of his last 23 years outside Iraq, was killed a year before the invasion on orders of Hussein. Now, based on his name-dropping, you can corner him and make the small point that the costs of the invasion does not justify occupying the graveyard of one deceased terrorist, if you care to rub it in.

Also, a distinction must be made between what's being discussed here. Terrorists may be a threat to individuals, or private property. But do they pose a threat to the US, as Neocon 2 states? The United States of America? A country of 300 million and a GDP of $13 trillion? Not bloody likely, but possible if the PTSD freaks that seek to change the American way of life are enduringly successful. This is the only way terrorists win.

BTW, it's hard for me to argue with WoT pukes without trying to draw out and illustrate the basic cowardice that motivates their world view. I may not be the best person to help you in your debate to convert people to Paul.

[TexasAggie09]

neocon warmonger 1

How old are you?



Me addressing neocon 2


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not a false dilemma. The list I gave refuted your claim that Iraq didnt support terrorism. Now you raise a different argument.....the terrorists Iraq supported didnt threaten the US.

Did Abu Nidal threaten the US? What about Ansar al Islam? What about the PLF? Are you saying that none of these terrorist organizations, among many others never threatened the US?

My argument is very simple.....Iraq sponsored terrorism, terrorism that threatened the US, and Iraq engaged in the attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, and tried to create the image that it had them, and flaunted the terms of peace imposed by the United Nations. On that point, Democrats and Republicans agreed alike. Are you saying you didnt agree with the general consensus of both parties, and the rest of the world at the time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the degree of eminent danger Iraq posed to our National Security. We'll have to disagree that the WOT was primary reason for entering Iraq. We'll have to disagree that the end justified the means in regards to Iraq. We'll have to disagree that our current policies and actions do more harm than good, and that our continued use of the current foreign policy can be sustained. I feel we've come to a point where if we keep going down this path of increasing global presence and stretching our assets we'll meet the same fate as other great states. Not because we didn't have good intentions or heart, but because we had bad policies. What separates us from those in the past?

I disagree with the pre-emptive strike doctorine, and I disagree with the increasing power the executive branch is getting along with the willingness of the legislature to secede this power. I disagree with the manner in which the war in Iraq was brought about, and disagree on the amount of agreeance there would have been had Congress actually debated a declaration of war. Congress took the easy way out and took the path of least responsibility. I'm not sure there was such a resounding sense of support in the global community as you put it, nor do I feel it should have an impact on our affairs. We should be friendly and unimposing in the global community but shouldn't need there approval for our actions. We both have America's best interests at heart, but disagree on the priorities and proper role America should play. I think we should have an extremely strong national defense, but disagree with you on what that means and how we need to go about doing it.

Here is a post I made a couple weeks back concerning this.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did we not fight a war 230 years ago for the right of self determination? How would our forefathers react to our actions in the name of democracy? What sense does it make to impose a leader in the name of democracy, who may be the lesser of two evils from our point of view, if that leader is disliked by a majority of the citizens of that country? That just breeds more hate and discontent. Democracy is a volatile idea, and its success is highly dependent upon the people of that country really being ready for it. How many successful democracies have we created? How many have come about due to the actions of its own people without outside influence? Why is it our responsibility to make foreign affairs our own, if the rights of American citizens are not directly being encroached upon?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A soldier's service to this country is the most unselfish and patriotic things an American can do. To set aside your personal life and incur the personal sacrifice that is involved is something that every American should commend, respect, and be most thankful for. If were not for the sacrafice of Americans such as these throughout our history, America would not be here to exist and Americans would not be able to enjoy the freedom and potential that is an American life.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly appreciate that you said this without casting any political blame. Our executive and legislative branches (read: both political parties) approved a war based on slip-shod evidence that was collected during a time when both parties shared power (executive: democrats and legislative: republicans). I get tired of hearing democrats blame just republicans, and republicans blame just Clinton. It was poor all the way around.

However, why we're there no longer matters as much as that we're there. Our politicians need to work together to forumulate a plan that saves American lives, both those in action doing the fighting and those here doing nothing but complaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree with this statement to some extent. I agree that orders from above were given and it is the duty of the American soldier to obey those orders to no end, unless otherwise illegal, and now that we are there, we have assumed responsibility to fix and rebuild Iraq to some extent. However, where I disagree with that is the importance of the why. It is imperative that the proper why be used when American lives are on the line. It is the responsibility of the higher ups to have a just cause for entering a war that will sacrafice an American life, and the utmost extreme caution and reservation must be excercised to insure this occurs. Bad intelligence is not a justifiable reason. Neither is oil or oppressive leaders. Loss of American life and in instances where potential loss of American life is known, inevitable, and taking non-action would result in such loss, are just reasons.

This is where I am torn on Iraq. We entered on the presumption that Sadamm possesed WMD and was in cahoots with Al Qaeda. When neither of these turned out to be true, then what? Oops? To me that is recklessness of American life from the very top our federal government. I can't justify American's losing their lives over it. Even if Iraq possesed WMD, was there an absolute threat to American citizens resulting from this possesion? How many countries around the world have WMD and possess an ill will towards us and we do not act on? An oppressive leader is not just cause for loss of American life either. There are untold numbers of oppressive leaders all throughout the world that we do nothing aobut. It is not our job, responsibilty, or right to bring these guys to justice. Evil is a part of human nature and has arisen all throught our history. America is the greatest country in the world, but we have finite resources in which to fight such an infite fight. This fight is not worth even one American life. America is the greatest country in the world, but we have problems of our own that need to be addressed. Problems that take a back seat by human nature and manipulation to the focus that is put on the war in Iraq. These problems at home are again an infinite fight with finite resources. However, this fight is our job, right, and responsibility. And many American lives have been justifiably lost for this fight. The fight for a continued free America, liberty, unalienable rights, and again the potential that is one American life. All promised to us in our Constitution. This is not a promise that is made for the rest of the world and not our responsibility to ensure it to the rest of the world.

How did we get these rights? By the personal sacrafice, ultimate sacrafice, bravery, will, and ambitiousness of our forefathers in their fight against an unjustifiable oppression from a foreign leader. No other country has experienced this quite like our own. The insight, reason, and foresight to ensure these rights to future generations was something that required the right social conciousness with the right time. America had to be prepared to take on the almost impossible responsibility that goes with a constitutional republic backed by democracy. The volatile nature of human life, mind, and conciousness makes the whole premise of the American way a never ending struggle. What I mean by all of this is that a country must be both willing and ready to take on the responsibility that goes along with the principles that have come to be known as American. It is not something that can be merely given to a country, because the subtle complexity of preciousness that is that gift is very easily taken for granted. How can you come to complete appreciation of it if you don't understand the premise and sacrafice behind it. I hope we never see the day that it is taken for granted in America.


Now to my final thought. What makes us think we can change these people?

Now after all of this I hope you can see how you can support the troops without supporting the war. They are mutually exclusive, and should be viewed in their own right based on their own merit, value, and principles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm ignorant, maybe I'm wrong, call me an idealist, but I honestly believe that every human being is motivated by the same thing, hapiness. It means different things to different people in different situations and we all go about finding it in different ways. I think deep down all of humanity is inately good, but is manipulated by evil into becoming evil. I think violence should be the last measure to combat this, and by taking a step back and viewing the world through another person's perspective and motives you can see what motivates them to do what they do. In a fight there are not two goods, but instead two perspectives of good. Alot of times violence is not the proper action. I think understanding and agreeance is, and that understanding and agreeance has a higher chance of success than violence. This is because violence leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those involved and more times than not that bad taste lingers and is the cause of more violence. That said there are times when action should be taken because understanding and agreeance can't be reached. Understanding and agreeance is much, much harder to achieve for many, many reasons. So we naturally go down the path of least resistance.

Now I'm not going to be standing in the streets flashing a peace sign as America falls by the way side of any enemy foreign or domestic. I'm going to stand and fight and die if need be because of what America stands for and because I know I wasn't the first nor would I be the last to do so in the hope and belief that America is everything that it stands for. That America is the country of principle and principle's and coutnry's of principle don't come easy or often. I do see America's view on principles is slipping. Fewer people care about what it means to be American and what America has given to them by the blood of those before them. For some reason our country cares more about celebrities and self indulgence instead of what allows them to care about celebrities and self sacrafice for a continued right to do so. We've become spoiled by our own prosperity. We ain't perfect and we all fall victim to this, but fewer people even care about what it takes and means to be American than a generation ago and a generation before that. Maybe I'm being pessimistic about this, but what is it going to take change this perception? Is it that the further we get away from hard times the more we lose our sense of self as an American? Is that complacency human nature? Is this the nature of progression? We don't know what we have until we lose it and then we don't even know when we will lose it. I think this is the greatest threat to America tody and not some far off terrorist.

You see those folks know struggles that we haven't experienced. That saying when things get tough the tough get going is true, because the weak don't go. When people are deprived they take desparate measures, but that doesn't mean they're right. They're still searching for happiness, but they still are succeptible to evil. It's not a cultural thing. It's human nature. Act on the motivations not the weakness. Take away the motivation, and you take away their reason. Whether it's right or wrong we are they're motivation. We give their terrorist leaders the ability to motivate, a culprit, and an enemy to attack. That evil's greatest ally is our own foreign policy. We give them a cause and a damn effect. Our freedom and prosperity is not enough to make a human sacrafice everything they have. A presence on their Allah's holiest lands and a presence influencing their oppressive governments for our own gain is. What would we do? What have we done when in that position in our own history? Our own Founding Father's signed the Declaration knowing they very well could be sacraficing their lives. They declared their independence in the hopes improving their lives and of ridding their children of a life under an oppressive foreign power. They knew hard times and they were willing to sacrafice everything for a better tommorrow.

It's hard to take a step back and take some responsibility for our own actions even when all we were trying to do was improve our own stake. Especially in this case. It's the nature of not living in a vaccum and we have to come to grips with this reality.

notafraid I'm '09.



Neocon warmonger 1's response




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

notafraid I'm '09.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you are just a kid with no real world experience?


My response



I'd like to think of it more as 21 years of real world experience. What's your point? Why can't you discuss anything without getting defensive?

Oh well. You can't win over everyone.:cool:

[all J's in IL for RP]

Ron Paul is 72. He probably has more real world experience that Neocon 1 and Neocon 2 put together. That doesn't by itself make him more right, though.

Like I said, Neocon 1 didn't seem particularly promising. Of course, there's always the audience to consider.

[Gimme Some Truth]

The 1st quote of Reagans states "with an expansionist intent"

Iran havent shown this (ever , if I remember correctly)

Iraq showed this in the early 90's ,sure, but we were heavily complicit - supplying the arms and giving the nod. During the millennium Iraq had no means to be expansionist.

I think the fact all these people give different reasons for going into Iraq shows why declaring war is so important. Only then will you get official reasons and accountability.

[hawks4ronpaul]

I do not see what most of this has to do with the Reagan topic (see my previous post for Reagan).

They are on a fishing expedition to get you to say enough to make a mistake (but never accuse people's motives in debate).

If you said Iraq NEVER supported terrorists, they will play gotcha (see previous Wikipedia SSoT link).

The false dilemma is any iota of anti-US terrorism=Bush policy is right (even though Reagan's policy is closer to RP's policy).

The age issue is an ad hominem trick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I did not read all their noise but:


Baghdad ordered its Palestinian dependents to launch terrorist operations against the United States and its coalition partners in the fall and winter of 1990;

This was AFTER Bush basically "declared war" on Iraq 8/5/90.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/