Response for THIS argument?

[wgadget]

pianogirl writes: "Ron Paul is a man of humility, honesty, intelligence, and consistency"

We conservatives CANNOT support Ron Paul until he starts to distinguish between noninterventionism and nonjudgmentalism.

It's one thing for you Ron Paul folks to be noninterventionists and oppose, say, bombing Iran.

It's quite another thing when I hear you guys actually making excuses for Iran. Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.

I have been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

BUT unlike you guys, I have no illusions about the nature of the enemy we're fighting. Radical Islam is completely inimical to centuries-old concepts of Western democracy and free markets.

But Ron Paul hasn't said that, even once.

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations." The Muslims have been waging jihad against the Hindus of India even before Columbus discovered America, something you Ron Paul supporters totally ignore.

Oppose war if you must. But stop making excuses for our adversaries!

[SouthernGuy15]

Iran is only an adversary because we continue to interfere in the Middle East! If we left that area of the world alone and minded our own business we would be in a far better position!

By the way, I don't blame Iran one tiny bit for their desire to obtain or build nuclear weapons. If you notice, the USA has not went to war with nations that have nuclear weapons. For example, I doubt the USA would have invaded Iraq if Saddam had a few dozen nukes! Also, the United States is letting a nation (Israel) that hates Iran have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Joining the "nuclear club" is a way that would allow Iran to defend itself!

Do I like the leadership of Iran? No way! However, if the USA and Israel have a right to build and have nuclear weapons so does Iran! There is nothing that gives the USA some special "right" to have nuclear weapons.

If the USA and Israel "really" want to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons they need to dispose of all their weapons FIRST to show a good example!

[OptionsTrader]

Oppose war if you must. But stop making excuses for our adversaries

But they are not born hating the west. It is a learned behavior. And until we stop policies that encourage this, it will not end.

Muslims are not evil people and Islam is not an evil religion.

[SouthernGuy15]

Exactly! The rest of the world will not stop hating the USA until we stop having aggressive military policies and start minding our own business!

[hard@work]

I have no illusions about the nature of the enemy we're fighting.

The core issue is that this person has major illusions. The enemy we are fighting is ourselves, and our inability to disarm the hatreds of other societies. We only have legitimized and fanned the hatred and extremism. To think otherwise is simply to be completely misinformed. You can either inform them of the facts or let them live in denial, they might do that anyways. You have eight years of neocon programming to reverse there and these types usually aren't the kind that are capable of picking up a book on Iranian culture and history.

I let them know that sometimes though.

:)

[erowe1]

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for that opinion. At a gut level I agree that I'd like to hear him denounce the ideology behind Islamo-fascism. But at the same time as doing that, we can and must understand that U.S. intervention tends to bring out those negative things, whether from Iranian Muslims or Vietnamese peasants. Considering the consequences of our actions doesn't automatically entail justifying the terrorist's violent responses.

To respond to that person's argument I would also press them on that point of their admitting to prefer a non-interventionist foreign policy. If they really hold that view, then they shouldn't be able to stomach any of the other candidates, who are all firmly committed to policing the world. And electing the next president really isn't about what they have to say about the decisions that other presidents have already made, it's about the decisions they are going to make in the future, including decisions relating to foreign conflicts that don't even exist yet. It really isn't just about whether we get out of Iraq and how quickly we do it, it's also about whether we want to get into similar conflicts over and over again.

[libertythor]

Research the dealing with the Barbary Coast Pirates not long after independence.

They demanded tribute from US vessels, meaning we were actually attacked by a terrorist organization in the middle east. The US attacked them and forced a treaty with them that would simply allow American ships freedom of the high seas. US diplomats even assured them that America wasn't against Islam. This was a very quick resolution to the problem.

The United States never had a problem with the Arab world again....UNTIL........

[Lord Xar]

The bombs israel were raining down on the palestianians are U.S. Made.

Our arms and munitions are in MANY countries aiding various sides.. etc..

Iran is ONLY looking out for "their" interests in the region.

Right now, you have USA - UK - and various other entities IN Iraq.... so it is only natural that those who oppose this intervention will involve themselves in ways to counter the U.S involvement.

[Chester Copperpot]

Think about Iran... Both its neighbors have been taken over by USA... and we've got ships off their coast... Theyre like a cornered animal right now.

[libertythor]

Combine that with the Barbary Pirates tidbit, and you have a solid argument....let me look for a link to back that up.

[libertythor]

Okay..there were two Barbary Wars!!!! But here are the links. The analogy remains the same. We only did it when provoked and once the mission was accomplished, we got the hell out of there without antagonizing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_treaties


And the biggie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_with_Tripoli_%281796%29

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."



Everyone save these links and research more. We have the ultimate historical argument agaist the neocons!!!!!!!

[Ron Paul Fan]

The last word from the IAEA was that Iran was complying with them! They do have the right to use nuclear power for friendly purposes under the NPT and so far there has been no evidence that they are building a nuclear weapon. You're falling into the same trap that we fell into in Iraq. Have you not learned the lesson from the Iraq war? Even if Iran is building a nuclear weapon, do you really think they're stupid enough to use it on us? It would be suicide for them because the U.S. and Israel and anyone else who came to our aid would come at them with everything we have. Countries typically want to acquire nuclear weapons for defensive purposes only so no one messes with them. With what happened to Iran's neighbor, who can blame them? But as of now, there's no evidence that they're building a nuclear weapon. We don't need to resort to war everytime there's a confrontation! We stood up to the Soviets when they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and now we're fretting day in and day night about 3rd world countries that have no army, navy, or airforce and we're getting ready to go to war.

[Paulestinian]

Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.


I have yet to see a shred of evidence corroborating the above claim.



Radical Islam is completely inimical to centuries-old concepts of Western democracy and free markets.


Here's a nice little article that talks about the synergy of Libertarianism and Islam.
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=2253

[Johnnybags]

It's quite another thing when I hear you guys actually making excuses for Iran. Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.


Anyone who can argue that position is lost. Iran did not attack us on 911, Saudi Wahabbiists did. No democracy in Saudia Arabia either, never mentioned. Iran probably is sending weapons in. The Saudis are sending suicide bombers in. The real tipoff this whole thing at this point is not about the people there is that Hunt OIL signed an Oil Exploration contract with the Kurds, not the central government. Its going to be partitioned eventually but the money is so good for the contractors and Military complex we are gonna stay there until we have an economic crisis here.

[cujothekitten]

This is how ideologies work:

Radical Islam begins to take root in 3rd world hellholes (be that Afghanistan or South Eastern Asia). Historically this is what happens when there is economic instability mixed with low education and a population that is frustrated... Islam could be replaced with any other radical and damaging ideology, be it communism or whatever North Korea calls itself.

Add proxy wars and dictator installment by various global super-powers (be that Russia, America, or European nations) and you have a recipe for the ideology to spread to more advanced nations that feel sympathy for their brothers in Allah.

In short, involvement is pushing radicalism across the world. The only way to combat this is either by wiping every Muslim off the planet, or by trading with them and slowly show why our way of life is a better way of life.

Condemning the leaders of these countries just makes the population living there more resolute.

Here’s a post someone made on one of the other forums I’m on. It was a response to someone saying we should assonate the President of Iran.


Oh you'll just love this then, he had a secret service detail to protect him. That's right, our secret service was keeping him from getting killed; they should have shot him in the back. :roll:

You people make some really extraordinary statements; should the US have retaliated at the Soviet Union for flying air missions for the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese during those conflicts. Should we have attacked their military forces because they were supporting and supplying the infantry who were attacking ours, or supplying the jet fighters and the pilots for them, and were attacking our military forces during our wasted interventions into the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam? Should we have glassed China when their army groups pushed back our military from North Korea, or kept the supply chains running into North Vietnam? If you all would think for a second, we didn't, and that is because of Deterrence Theory. If we'd attacked China with nuclear weapons, or struck at the Soviet military inside Russian territory, we'd have all been destroyed. Yet, people here claim that the Deterrence Theory won't work on Iran, who has no practical deterrent effect that they can leverage against us without getting their entire country wiped off the face of the Earth. Despite what you people have been herded into believing by some loud mouthed ideologues on TV and Radio, people and nations don't have death wishes.

Most people, who actually have their shit wired straight, know that the weakest of countries talk big and swagger, especially against the United States; when it suits their interests. Mostly because the countries doing so are dictatorships and the leaders know it can effect their people by giving them a common enemy to fight against, and someone to demonize for all their problems, rather than their oppressive governments. The nation of Iran and countless others, especially those Commie Russians, will continue to supply military arms and material to nations where they seek influence or wealth, whether we are there or not. The United States does the same thing, on a much grander scale, and with the same purpose. Though it's ignoble if the practice is being done by anyone other than the United States, regardless if the Russians are doing it to keep currency coming into their nation, or the Iranians are doing it to attempt to affect the Shia dominance of Iraq. But apparently, we're the only ones who can be justified in doing so, and then attacking those who do so, because they do so when we're getting caught in the cross fire of what will, in all probability, turn into a civil war. No matter when we leave.

So clearly the Iranians are attacking us. Because of this we're at war with Iran, we have always been at war with Iran since 1979. Since then the Islamic clerics, with a large group of the people, overthrew the US and British supported 'Monarch' of that country. So it has not been Iran who has been at war with the United States since 1979; it has been the United States who has been at war with Iran since 1951, because we and our allies the British needed control of the Iranian oil fields. We simply could not let the country control it's own resource interests, or have a Democratically representative Constitutional Monarchy. Strangely enough our closest ally, Britain has the same form of government. Also, perish the thought that someone try to influence and dictate how we're to conduct our own affairs in our own country, they'd be told right where to go.

Obviously the people of Iran want change, the best way to help that change is through open trade, and tactic support of this movement. We will not effect change though at the point of a sword, at best any 'change' would be temporary, and surely devastating if we are not there to enforce said change. The current warmongering will do nothing more than bolster the support for the current establishment and threaten the cohesiveness and support of the opposition.

But of course we have to kill them damned Terrorist Muzzies before they kill us. I know we have to wipe them all out so that no one is left; and thus they don't ever kill another westerner.

Blood for the Blood God! Innocence Proves Nothing! Emotions are for the Weak! Khorne requires blood! He cares not from whence it flows!

[theseus51]

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations."

Any group can use their religion as an excuse for evil. In fact most of the worst evil acts have been committed in the name of religion. If you go with Christianity, there's all kinds of stuff, including, but not limited to the Crusades, the slave trade, and the Holocaust. Where's the ideology in that?

I would say most Muslims are good, honest people. But evil-doers twist it around, and use it as an excuse to commit crimes. Same with every single religion in the world.

[micahnelson]

Ok... Step One.

We need to divide terrorists and nation states.

Iran will act in its own self interest to defend itself. This is reasonable and acceptable.

Terrorists will deliberately target civilians, often taking their own life, with the intention of forcing a political change on a group of people. This is fanatical and unacceptable.

We will have to find ways to address terrorism as it is a real threat, however it does not require a global war. Cockpit door locks, armed airline security guards on flights, border security... any one of these would have done more to protect us from true religious zealots than a Global War.

When Iran funds terrorists, obviously the waters get murkier. This is why we shouldn't be involved militarily in the middle east. The immediate threat and responsibility lies with the nations that claim to be free in the region- turkey and Israel come to mind.

[freedominnumbers]

The US is and has been doing exactly what we are accusing Iran of doing, which is supplying weapons to the enemy.

Why is that when the US does something it's just and right and when another country does the same thing it's terrorism?

To add a bit of substance to the above:
http://ciponline.org/oldiprarms.htm

The US sold 11.4 billion dollars of arms to 3rd world countries in 1999.
If we have basis to invade Iran over IED origination than hundreds of small nations have equal right to invade America.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I'm so sick of the Barbary Pirate comparison to modern day Jihadis. The pirates weren't trying to expel westerner from their territory or trying to expand the Caliphate. They were pirates, a high seas mafia strong arming merchants and other countries for protection money. They wanted treasure and they took it. There was nothing political or religious about it.

[mconder]

Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

[pcosmar]

Islamo-fascism.
This term is a neo-con creation. It is used to inflame, and to describe the "Enemy".
We (the US/CIA) overthrew the rightful government of Iran.
We(the US/CIA) trained Afghan fighters, and taught them(Osama) to radicalize Islam.
WE(theUS/CIA) armed their enemy's and provided intelligence to them in war.

I am ashamed of some of the things that have been done in MY name. It is not hard to understand that they might be angry and mistrustful.
We need to change our policy.

[1000-points-of-fright]

pianogirl writes: "Ron Paul is a man of humility, honesty, intelligence, and consistency"

I bet she doesn't even play the piano.

[libertythor]

I'm so sick of the Barbary Pirate comparison to modern day Jihadis. The pirates weren't trying to expel westerner from their territory or trying to expand the Caliphate. They were pirates, a high seas mafia strong arming merchants and other countries for protection money. They wanted treasure and they took it. There was nothing political or religious about it.

I wasn't comparing them to modern day jihadists. The point is that we only went in when directly attacked.....and only went after the culprits. After the mission was accomplished we got out of there and also made it clear that there would be no further interference in their affairs as long as they didn't attack our ships.

As far as 911....it was Al Qaeda not a national government. That is where Ron Paul's idea of a letter of Marque and Reprisal comes into play. Upon going into Afghanistan we should have focused only on capturing the Al Qaeda officials...especially Bin Laden...without resorting to occupation and nation building.

[Johnnybags]

Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq

How come most military support him? What right does a civilian have to disagree with the troops logic themselves. If your logic was true the troops would hate Paul. There are no battlefields, its been a civil war for 2000 years and it still will be, its futile. The only reason it slowed down was because of iron fisted ruler,Sadaam. Ever talk to an Iraqi? I have and he has been here for 15 years. He hates the Shia with a passion like he left Iraq yesterday?

[hambone1982]

Iran isn't a threat to the US, Europe or most of Asia.

The US has no moral obligation to prevent Iran from seeking nuclear weapons. In fact, the US government has no authority to stop Iran from seeking nuclear weapons.

There are extremists in every religion willing to die for their god.

Terrorism is not unique to Islam (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind).

Terrorism is a tactic; not a country nor a people.

The war on terrorism is a propaganda tool used to coerce people into the crippling fear of inaction (and compliance).

[Blowback]

Tell him to prove all that crap about Iran. I seriously just haven't seen any real proof that the Iranian government is actively doing or endorsing this. Zero proof.

[wgadget]

I bet she doesn't even play the piano.

LOL.

*I* am pianogirl. I had posted something about Ron Paul, and that's my quote this guy was referring to at the very beginning.

And yes, I'm a professional pianist.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Tell him to prove all that crap about Iran. I seriously just haven't seen any real proof that the Iranian government is actively doing or endorsing this. Zero proof.

And tell him to find a source other than the Bush Administration. Forgive me for not believing anything that they say anymore.

[paulitics]

Tell him to prove all that crap about Iran. I seriously just haven't seen any real proof that the Iranian government is actively doing or endorsing this. Zero proof.

bingo.

Also, there is proof in writing that we are engaging in "mischief"over there. Supplying terrorsit groups, messing with their currency, finances, and economy. It is part of our plan for regime change that is occuring right now.


The govt has zero credibilty. They said the war would be a cakewalk, and that mission would be accomplished after ousting Saddam. Even the democrats are conceding that we will be there for at least another 5 yrs. Why aren't we securing the borders if they are so worried about terrorism? this is the first thing you are supposed to do.

[freedominnumbers]

Since Darfur is such a hot topic lately let's discuss how it's related.

We are about to invade Iran because some weapons used in Iraq were made in Iran. Well in Sudan (where Darfur is located) they have weapons in the form of bombers and attack helicopters made by Russia and China which are used in the murder of innocent civilians.

Why is the US not itching to attack Russia or China over their assistance in creating the Darfur genocide?

Iran is not about nukes or supporting terrorism. Iran is about once again installing a puppet government to further the globalization agenda.

[KewlRonduderules]

I have to completely disagree with the original poster- wgadget. The main reason we are in the Middle East is to secure our energy policy and open up markets for our corporations, i.e., oil.

Yes, Jihad has been around for centuries but you need to understand in what context that these radical Muslims act on this. They are attempting to defend themselves from what they consider infidels. Do you see them here attacking us? no. We are there attacking and threatening them. If you leave them alone and let them have their own country or way of life, I am pretty sure they will leave us alone. Interesting we did not have Jihadists in Iraq prior to the invasion and now look, we have lots. why?

As for Iran, this goes way back to 1953 when the US and Britain were pissed that the leader at the time, Dr. Mossadegh, wanted to make oil a publicly owned entity in Iran and not in the hands of Western interests. So what happened? The US and Britain facilitated a coup d'etat and installed the Shah -thanks to the CIA. The Shah was brutal dictator and committed atrocious human rights abuses and was vastly corrupt. Because of his outlandish policies favoring US interests, this lead to the 1979 coup against him. Hence, the U.S. embassy hostages in Tehran.

So I can see where all this resent stems from. Does it mean that I trust Iran? no. Do I think that Iranians are radical and want to commit jihad against the West? of course not. this is just silly and naive.

Their main interest in my opinion is to be left alone because everyone else has been trying to get their oil including the former Soviet Union- why do you think they invaded Afghanistan? And why do you think the CIA facilitated the creation of the Bin Laden Muhajeen in Afghanistan? Hmmmmm... lots worth thinking about.

;-)

[1000-points-of-fright]

LOL.

*I* am pianogirl. I had posted something about Ron Paul, and that's my quote this guy was referring to at the very beginning.

And yes, I'm a professional pianist.

I was just being snotty for humor's sake.




and I wish I could play the piano.:(

[nayjevin]

But they are not born hating the west. It is a learned behavior. And until we stop policies that encourage this, it will not end.

Muslims are not evil people and Islam is not an evil religion.

well said!

[wgadget]

I have to completely disagree with the original poster- wgadget. The main reason we are in the Middle East is to secure our energy policy and open up markets for our corporations, i.e., oil.

Yes, Jihad has been around for centuries but you need to understand in what context that these radical Muslims act on this. They are attempting to defend themselves from what they consider infidels. Do you see them here attacking us? no. We are there attacking and threatening them. If you leave them alone and let them have their own country or way of life, I am pretty sure they will leave us alone. Interesting we did not have Jihadists in Iraq prior to the invasion and now look, we have lots. why?

As for Iran, this goes way back to 1953 when the US and Britain were pissed that the leader at the time, Dr. Mossadegh, wanted to make oil a publicly owned entity in Iran and not in the hands of Western interests. So what happened? The US and Britain facilitated a coup d'etat and installed the Shah -thanks to the CIA. The Shah was brutal dictator and committed atrocious human rights abuses and was vastly corrupt. Because of his outlandish policies favoring US interests, this lead to the 1979 coup against him. Hence, the U.S. embassy hostages in Tehran.

So I can see where all this resent stems from. Does it mean that I trust Iran? no. Do I think that Iranians are radical and want to commit jihad against the West? of course not. this is just silly and naive.

Their main interest in my opinion is to be left alone because everyone else has been trying to get their oil including the former Soviet Union- why do you think they invaded Afghanistan? And why do you think the CIA facilitated the creation of the Bin Laden Muhajeen in Afghanistan? Hmmmmm... lots worth thinking about.

;-)

You disagree that Ron Paul is an honest, intelligent, consistent candidate???

My original quote is at the top. Then came the rejoinder from someone on the forum.

[thomj76]

In regard to Iran, I think it is important to distinguish between full fledged governmental distribution of weapons and the personal sale, transport, etc.

In a country of 71 million people, it only takes a small percentage to equal numerical a relatively large amount of people that could be connected in the weapons being used that are made or transported in Iran to Iraq.

I don't know the particulars on who is moving the weapons to Iraq. I would submit that these terrorists have a much easier time in attacking Americans when we are right next door in several countries. It is a good recruiting tool for them.

In my personal opinion, What can we do? Making the Iraqi government aware that we shall soon be handing over the security of their country back to them is a start.

I was talking earlier to my wife and used the micro-analogy of the person who seems to be looking for a fight (they usually find them) vs. the person who has let it be known that if you mess with them, that they will fight (people may not want to mess with them if it is known they will defend themselves vigorously).

Drawing this analogy out some more, I liken it to the extended executive war powers act operation that is going on presently v. an official declaration of war. One of these can be seen as an executive branch action, while the other comes from the Congress and in my opinion presents a much more unified front.


I guess my point here is that the situation sucks; we should have handled it better. Since we didn't, what are our options now? I for one am for a strong national defense. Ron Paul's statements in regard to Iran haven't offended me. I do realize that is because I can check my emotions at the door and look at this in a logical manner (not implying that the reader does not as well [yeah! a double negative])

Its not making excuses for Iran, it is approaching this in the manner of how would we feel if we were in the other person's shoes.


That's my 2 cents worth... Thank you for your time in reading my two abes...


PS: Maybe next time I will actually be able to answer the question better :/

[Revolution9]

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for that opinion. At a gut level I agree that I'd like to hear him denounce the ideology behind Islamo-fascism. .

There is no such thing as Islamo-fascism. It is an oxymoronic neocon jingofied moniker to get idiots riled up at a falsified caricature.. What do you picture.. Nazi booted and trenchcoated goosesteppers in turbans and sandals?? What have and are you falling for? ... Are you riled up about Islamo-fascism<--what a frigging joke of the English language and derived definitions.

:cool:
Randy

[constituent]

to those who don't believe that we will invade Iran for China...

Search these terms

The White Revolution (you love Kennedy why?)

The Great Leap Forward

The Cultural Revolution

[ronpaulitician]

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations."
The jihad against the US is mostly a consequence of US interventionist foreign policies.

But stop making excuses for our adversaries!
Motive != justification.

We don't fault detectives for trying to figure out a criminal's motive.

[wgadget]

There is no such thing as Islamo-fascism. It is an oxymoronic neocon jingofied moniker to get idiots riled up at a falsified caricature.. What do you picture.. Nazi booted and trenchcoated goosesteppers in turbans and sandals?? What have and are you falling for? ... Are you riled up about Islamo-fascism<--what a frigging joke of the English language and derived definitions.

:cool:
Randy

Randy, you really have a way with words.

:)

[constituent]

Oh yeah... on the military/security/industrial complex:

The Nye Commission

and

The Winter Commission

[FreedomLover]

I have to admit, I have some sympathy for that opinion. At a gut level I agree that I'd like to hear him denounce the ideology behind Islamo-fascism. But at the same time as doing that, we can and must understand that U.S. intervention tends to bring out those negative things, whether from Iranian Muslims or Vietnamese peasants. Considering the consequences of our actions doesn't automatically entail justifying the terrorist's violent responses.

This is my view as well.

Ron Paul could make fantastic in-roads with neo-conservatives if he would just at the very least denounce the actions of islamic militants and terrorists instead of, or before, he tries to rationalize it (which in the intellectual sense is good for understanding how to stop it, but politically, especially to republicans, heresy).

In any capacity, by "throwing red meat to the dogs" on occasion, he would assuage neo-conservative fears that Ron Paul would let terrorists "off the hook." (These fears are sincere, not just to mock Ron Paul)

I think this quote by erowe1 is the most important to consider:


Considering the consequences of our actions doesn't automatically entail justifying the terrorist's violent responses.

[rodent]

pianogirl writes: "Ron Paul is a man of humility, honesty, intelligence, and consistency"

We conservatives CANNOT support Ron Paul until he starts to distinguish between noninterventionism and nonjudgmentalism.

It's one thing for you Ron Paul folks to be noninterventionists and oppose, say, bombing Iran.

It's quite another thing when I hear you guys actually making excuses for Iran. Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.

I have been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

BUT unlike you guys, I have no illusions about the nature of the enemy we're fighting. Radical Islam is completely inimical to centuries-old concepts of Western democracy and free markets.

But Ron Paul hasn't said that, even once.

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations." The Muslims have been waging jihad against the Hindus of India even before Columbus discovered America, something you Ron Paul supporters totally ignore.

Oppose war if you must. But stop making excuses for our adversaries!

Well, the reason radical Islam really isn't a threat to the US is this: War has to be financed. You're really fighting a war of attrition with regard to bank accounts, not soldiers. Soldiers don't fight unless they're bought, at the very least, weapons.

Misguided policy in the US will bankrupt us. Radical Islam never really had a base with which to operate or compete with the US as far as financing war. There are too many divisions -- Shia, Sunni. Syrian, Jordanian, Iranian, Saudi. They're all fractured. Al Qaeda came into existence because the US financed them in the war against the Soviets.

With regards to Iran: How is this nation a real threat to the US? Its domestic economic engine does not compete with ours (when we're smart.) Suppose they produce nuclear weapons. Even if they do this, they do not have the ICBM capability the US has. At best, they can hit Israel. Hitting Israel guarantees their own destruction.

Finally, when the president of Iran spoke at my University, he said this (paraphrased): "We've given money to the west for nuclear power. They took the money and never delivered. How long can we wait to satisfy our energy needs? We have a legitimate right to create power for peaceful purposes."

If what he says is true, there is most certainly a diplomatic solution that is cheaper than war. Why doesn't the press push this idea? The press is more intent on pushing mistrust of the Iranians, when there clearly exists a diplomatic solution.

If Islam were a total threat to India, then why does India buy oil from Iran? You see, the Indian fight along Kashmir has more to do with Indo-Pakistani relations than a global Islamo-fascist threat.

But that brings up yet another point: If we're so concerned with Islamo-fascism, why don't we give India (a democracy) the funding we give Israel? After all, Pakistan has a nuke and a delivery capability.

If you answer all these questions, you realize the Iranians are demonized for political purposes. We demonize them for special interests and the media doesn't report the real story.

Remember, freedom comes when there's prosperity. There's more incentive for us to remove sanctions and work with Iran than there is going to war with them.

[Mastiff]

I am sympathetic to the original poster. We have fanned the flames to a large extent, but these middle eastern dictators are psychos too. There may or may not be a case to be made that Iran is no real threat with nukes, but I think someone like Saddam would have been a threat too large to ignore. I could see him "pressing the button" on his death bed, or as his regime was falling to a coup, just because he's that crazy and doesn't give a crap about the legacy he leaves to his people.

Libertarians in general sometimes seem to want to believe that there would never be a case where it was necessary to do something, and this makes people nervous. I agree that Paul could help himself with certain segments of Republicans just by acknowledging that he would take action if it was appropriate, and not hole up here. I think he would be sensible about it, or else I couldn't support him, but he should say it more.

[KingTheoden]

pianogirl writes: "Ron Paul is a man of humility, honesty, intelligence, and consistency"

We conservatives CANNOT support Ron Paul until he starts to distinguish between noninterventionism and nonjudgmentalism.

It's one thing for you Ron Paul folks to be noninterventionists and oppose, say, bombing Iran.

It's quite another thing when I hear you guys actually making excuses for Iran. Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.

I have been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

BUT unlike you guys, I have no illusions about the nature of the enemy we're fighting. Radical Islam is completely inimical to centuries-old concepts of Western democracy and free markets.

But Ron Paul hasn't said that, even once.

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations." The Muslims have been waging jihad against the Hindus of India even before Columbus discovered America, something you Ron Paul supporters totally ignore.

Oppose war if you must. But stop making excuses for our adversaries!


If logic is discusting, it is a good thing we have not met Mr. Spock yet, because if he could have a conversation with Ron Paul, you would be rather repulsed.

If China were to invade Mexico and constantly threaten to invade the United States, how would you react? I want to be clear that I do not at all believe Iran is shipping arms to rebels in Iraq; it is much to dangerous for them to do so. But if the scenario were as I listed (US-Mexico and China), I would certainly anticipate militias smuggling weapons across the border. I would also find it nominally prudent for the US to be on a war footing, and try to develop a new weapon as a countermeasure.

You have to remember, the US invaded a nation on the other side of the world, a nation that did absolutely NOTHING to us. That is a pretty serious action. Iran now feels boxed in with Afghanistan occupation forces on their right and 200 000 others to the West. It is completely logical for that country to be expecting an attack and that it would make its own moves in this game (note I use the word game as in 'game theory,' and not at all to imply that this is 'just a game' as the neocons often will.)

To suggest that Dr. Paul and his supporters somehow support Americans being killed is an absurd insinuation. The entire theory of non-interventionism is meant to preserve our soldiers' lives. Of all people, we most are frustrated by our forces being ground down in Iraq in guerrilla fighting that has no end.

[RP4ME]

Iran is only an adversary because we continue to interfere in the Middle East! If we left that area of the world alone and minded our own business we would be in a far better position!

By the way, I don't blame Iran one tiny bit for their desire to obtain or build nuclear weapons. If you notice, the USA has not went to war with nations that have nuclear weapons. For example, I doubt the USA would have invaded Iraq if Saddam had a few dozen nukes! Also, the United States is letting a nation (Israel) that hates Iran have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Joining the "nuclear club" is a way that would allow Iran to defend itself!

Do I like the leadership of Iran? No way! However, if the USA and Israel have a right to build and have nuclear weapons so does Iran! There is nothing that gives the USA some special "right" to have nuclear weapons.

If the USA and Israel "really" want to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons they need to dispose of all their weapons FIRST to show a good example!

i dont think we need to dispose our waepons to be a good ex to Iran - we need to take care of our own business and stop propping up dicators but I belive in a strong defense. I dont want Iran to get nukes either - RP has said he doesnt want that as well. But how he might stop that might be diffrent than what we are doing....and I do belive we are being overly dramatic about Iran...

[aksmith]

I have yet to see a shred of evidence corroborating the above claim.



Here's a nice little article that talks about the synergy of Libertarianism and Islam.
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=2253

I read that article and admire the sentiment. But it is wishful thinking. There is an entire world of Muslims, Christians, and Jews who say that libertarian thinking is merely dreaming. And their real world answer to all of this is brute force. Not one in a thousand Muslims, Christians or Jews believe the sentiment in that piece on Libertarianism and Islam. If they did, this would be a wonderful world. Oh, and Ron Paul would be president of this country.

[aksmith]

pianogirl writes: "Ron Paul is a man of humility, honesty, intelligence, and consistency"

We conservatives CANNOT support Ron Paul until he starts to distinguish between noninterventionism and nonjudgmentalism.

It's one thing for you Ron Paul folks to be noninterventionists and oppose, say, bombing Iran.

It's quite another thing when I hear you guys actually making excuses for Iran. Ron Paul's statement that Iran is just acting "logically and defensively" in response to U.S. policies is absolutely disgusting in light of the fact that Iran is sending weapons to kill AMERICAN troops on the battlefields of Iraq.

I have been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

BUT unlike you guys, I have no illusions about the nature of the enemy we're fighting. Radical Islam is completely inimical to centuries-old concepts of Western democracy and free markets.

But Ron Paul hasn't said that, even once.

I keep waiting and waiting for Ron Paul to denounce the enemy IDEOLOGY at least, without twisting it into a denunciation of "U.S. policies" implying that jihad is a consequence of U.S. "provocations." The Muslims have been waging jihad against the Hindus of India even before Columbus discovered America, something you Ron Paul supporters totally ignore.

Oppose war if you must. But stop making excuses for our adversaries!

1953 we depose the elected leader of Iran for British Petroleum. We install the Shah and his hated secret police, the savak, who torture and rule by terror for the next twenty five or so years.
1979 Our embassy is overrun and taken hostage.
1980's (about 1981-1986) We encourage and then back Saddam Hussein in his brutal war against Iran.
2003 - We attack Iraq, Iran's neighbor, hoping to show we are still the toughest hombre in the world.

Yeah, Iran should just roll over and invite us in. Of course, the regime in Iran is a bunch of thugs. But there is a large percentage of Iranians who hate this regime and every time we start saber rattling, they are undercut. What we are doing is counterproductive to the inexplicable good will the Iranian people have toward the U.S.

[Bossobass]

My head is about to explode.

I can't possibly be the only person who realizes that a handful of goat herders, equipped with laptops and small arms, in no conceivable way are a threat to the United States of America.

As was mentioned earlier, the only way ANY country can wage war is by incurring debt. Once again, the real culprits of every war since Napolean, the Central Banks, who create the money out of thin air, lend it at interest and sell the arms to both sides as well as demand changes in both government's laws that are favorable to the bankers, get away with no mention whatsoever.

Take away the loans and America leaves Iraq...immediately. That means that the US is NOT the mightiest in the world...it means that the Central Banks are the mightiest in the world.

Please learn a lesson in the so-called Cold War against the 'godless Communists'. We wasted trillions of dollars in debt in this 'war'. We wasted 55,000 Americans in Vietnam to fight the 'Domino Theory', which was an invention, pure and simple, and we fled Vietnam, beaten by peasants who were armed by the Soviet Union, who incurred as much debt to do so as the US did in it's Domino Theory War.

The war against Communism lasted 50 years and was entirely financed by the Central Banks on both sides until one side had exceeded it's credit limit.

Iran is not a threat to the US...period. They are a threat to Exxon and BP.

Islamo-Fascists (whatever the hell that means...sounds like the name of an LA street gang) pose zero threat to the US. It's an invention of the Central Banks, fleshed out by the CIA and hammered home by the Central Bank owned Media.

For those who huddle underneath their beds, shivering at the thought of a terrorist victory over the US Military, so frightened as to be willing to incur trillions in debt and to allow the US Constitution to be re-written, I say:

Get the hell out of my country, you hopelessly stupid cowards...and stop defaming the only true American running for President of the United States in 2008.

Ron Paul will expose and fight to abolish the real culprits of the (every) war...The Federal Reserve Bank. You know, the ones who own USX, GM, GE, JP Morgan/Chase, Exxon/Mobil, etc., and most of the US debt, for which they hold all of the US's gold as collateral.

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate, as well as the only Congressman, who sees this war for what it is, based on the evidence and the history of war by the finances of Central Bankers.

If you need some money...ask me for it. If you kill my children and steal it from me, I'll chase you into hell with a rusty butcher knife until one of us is dead.

Why is that so f#$%king hard for some dunderheads to grasp?

Bosso

[BarryDonegan]

there is no centuries-old war between western culture and arabs. it specifically dates back to the insertion of european white people into israel, then the transfer of arabs out of israel.

prior to that the United States(i.e. our culture) has had little to no interaction with arabs other than trade.

[Tidewise]

As someone with many Persian (Iranian) friends and colleagues who closely monitor the situation in Iran, I can tell you there is a HUGE pro-United States population in Iran. If we attack Iran, we will disempower the pro-US movement in Iran that WILL EVENTUALLY OVERCOME THE MULLAHS who are ruining that country.

[hard@work]

Liberty always always always always always always comes from the people.

ALWAYS

http://www.daneshjoo.org/

Do not forget that.

[USPatriot36]

1953 we depose the elected leader of Iran for British Petroleum. We install the Shah and his hated secret police, the savak, who torture and rule by terror for the next twenty five or so years.
1979 Our embassy is overrun and taken hostage.
1980's (about 1981-1986) We encourage and then back Saddam Hussein in his brutal war against Iran.
2003 - We attack Iraq, Iran's neighbor, hoping to show we are still the toughest hombre in the world.

You left out that we helped Saddam Hussein acquire chemical weapons that he used against Iran. And then there is the time we shot down an Iranian commercial jet airliner with 200+ civililians killed. And the fact we have an army in Afghanistan on there North Border. Accused them of being part of an Axis of Evil along with Iraq which basically marked them as our enemy. We have been doing everything in our power to make them our enemy.

[klamath]

What was our reason for invading Afganistan? To capture a man that was responsible for killing over 3,000 Americans, that the Afganistan government refused to turn over to us.

What was the reason that the the Iranians took over our embassy in 1979? Because we refused to turn over a man that had killed hundreds if not thousands of their citizens.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/timeline/text/time4.html

"September 8, 1978: "Black Friday" occurs in Iran as Mohammed Reza Shah imposes martial rule to put an end to violent antigovernment demonstrations.


From the middle of 1978, street demonstrations against the Shah's policies of Westernization, as well as his authoritarian rule, are reaching an unprecedented level. Many cities are placed under martial law, but people flood the streets to defy the Shah. During one such demonstration on September 8, army tanks are used to disperse demonstrators. Soldiers are ordered to shoot. More than 600 people are killed in Zhaleh Square alone. This day becomes known as Black Friday, and the square's name is later changed to the Square of Martyrs. "