PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul supporter and pro Afghanistan war??




Eric21ND
12-06-2009, 03:39 PM
How you respond to this comment, now mind you this guy supported Ron Paul in the primary. At first he hated the him, but then looked into him and came around.

And My Support for 2008 Goes to.... Video by Paul Christian (Traditional Conservative) - MySpace Video (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=24188276)


I love my paleo friends. I am sensitive to their fine arguments, but where they miss the boat on this issue is on the purpose of war. If it were just an offensive--or a fight that we concocted--then we would be in great error. However, 9/11 is an inescapable attack on innocent Americans that we must never thrust to the wayside. If we surrender in Afghanistan, we would compromise and capsize the pure meaning of this country. Retreating would be the most disgusting and imprudent foreign policy decision in American history, in my humble opinion.

I am not a hawk. I do not laud war, but I do know when a defensive measure should be taken after an inhumane offensive. Unsuspecting Americans were murdered---families were decimated--and economic faith compromised. Our actions in Afghanistan are completely defensive. If 9/11 did not happen, then the US would not have militarily committed to Afghanistan. Paleo’s understand that when war is defensive it is principled.

When all of those that had anything to do with the September 11th attacks are captured, surrender, or killed, then it is over. In World War II, the Nazis ended up surrendering, but we did not quash Nazism. However, by destroying their top infrastructure we certainly removed any long-lasting nuisance. I guarantee if Bin Laden and his top "generals" surrendered, the war would likely come to a quicker end. There could never be absolute destruction of Al Qaeda or all terrorism, but based on the offensive against our people nothing less of a redress for the attacks is acceptable.

The stability of the volatile border should not be a concern of the US military. Our objective is not to run Afghanistan--they have had elected government for 5 years now. Our mission in this region should be to isolate the top "brass" of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and quell them. The rest of the circumstance can be dealt with by Karzai’s government.

Yes, we must leave, but only when justice is brought to the 9/11 attackers and their cohorts. You have to understand, the Taliban made it possible for Al Qaeda to muster a central station. Saudi Arabia had kicked Bin Laden to the curb. They did not want his repugnance damning their nation. Sure, remnants of Al Qaeda remained behind, but the government has been very aggressive in pursuing this network. If the Taliban could organize a revolution and repress Afghanistan again, then they would most likely allow their fundamentalist allies sanctuary. This possibility must be stoutly eliminated.

It is a defensive action. That is what makes this campaign principled. The hearts and minds of the American people should be with those that experienced the fatal day of September 11. I do not saber rattle in order to justify needless war. I do, however, understand that war is a likely inevitability when the defense of our people depend on it. We might not destroy all of Al Qaeda, but by destroying the leaders who knew about the attacks on our country we would be doing a great service for our people. Subsequent departure from this area is also a must. We should follow the principles of non-interventionism. With this analysis, I believe that I have met this purpose.

RM918
12-06-2009, 04:11 PM
He says it's justified, yet the entire direction of Afghanistan as it is is no longer about going after Al Qaeda. The war is now about turning Afghanistan into a place where Al Qaeda can't operate freely in, which is pretty pointless as they can just operate somewhere else. The position seems to make no sense because there's a logical disconnect in play where he says he's for the war because of this, even though the war isn't about it.

klamath
12-06-2009, 06:33 PM
I guess you would respond to it the same way as if a supporter was proabortion but still supported RP.

paulpwns
12-06-2009, 07:40 PM
Didn't watch. Couldn't get past the hair.

Akus
12-06-2009, 08:31 PM
He is making analogies between Afghanistan and Nazis in WWII. How refreshing?

Seriously, the World War II comparisons were never done before.

Ever.

KenInMontiMN
12-07-2009, 01:06 PM
It never hurts to open the pro-war eyes, to whatever extent is possible, to the fact that 911 was very clearly directed against the US-based military/industrial/internationalist complex, certainly did not go out of its way to target American citizenry in general. No excuse for the wholesale taking of innocent lives however, and that applies to both the 911 operation and the Afghan operation as well. That's something we should already have addressed and controlled, and as long as we allow our Federal gov't to operate as an enabler and under the control of those military/internationalist powers, it's to be understood that attacks are a strong possibility. The real question is not centered around why these people from elsewhere would stand up forcefully against forces that would destroy their sovereignty & self-determination - but rather the real question is why aren't we??

kahless
12-07-2009, 02:16 PM
I was totally onboard with Ron Paul on Iraq, agreed with him on our foreign policy failures, policy of non-intervention and bringing our empire of troops home. However I really struggle on this one since my concern is we not want to risk Pakistan losing control of their nukes and ending up in the hands of the Taliban-Al Qaeda.

If we pull out they will still hate us regardless and want to gain access to those nuke facilities. I have yet to hear Ron address this concern. Perhaps the billion dollars of aid to Pakistan will take care of that and we can assist them. However we also cannot forget Al Qeada and their allies must also be brought down for the 9/11 attacks.

acptulsa
12-07-2009, 02:19 PM
Ignorance is bliss? He doesn't seem so blissful to me.

It's possible to be informed, a true Ron Paul supporter, and in favor of a war. Just not either of the wars we have going now...

dannno
12-07-2009, 02:21 PM
I was totally onboard with Ron Paul on Iraq, agreed with him on our foreign policy failures, policy of non-intervention and bringing our empire of troops home. However I really struggle on this one since my concern is we not want to risk Pakistan losing control of their nukes and ending up in the hands of the Taliban-Al Qaeda.

If we pull out they will still hate us regardless and want to gain access to those nuke facilities. I have yet to hear Ron address this concern. Perhaps the billion dollars of aid to Pakistan will take care of that and we can assist them. However we also cannot forget Al Qeada and their allies must also be brought down for the 9/11 attacks.

You don't understand that your supposed "solutions" create MORE of the problems you are talking about.

The best thing we can possibly do is gtfo. Ron has addressed this so many times I don't understand where the failure in logic occurs. They hate us because we are over there fighting them. It's really as simple as that. They won't stop hating us right away, but it will lessen the hatred in the short term and substantially in the long-term.

kahless
12-07-2009, 04:32 PM
You don't understand that your supposed "solutions" create MORE of the problems you are talking about.

The best thing we can possibly do is gtfo. Ron has addressed this so many times I don't understand where the failure in logic occurs. They hate us because we are over there fighting them. It's really as simple as that. They won't stop hating us right away, but it will lessen the hatred in the short term and substantially in the long-term.

As usual this forum and Ron Paul never address the nuclear risk if we get out. No matter how I post a message saying I agree with all of Ron's points this fact is ALWAYS completely ignored in a reply. The risk to our nation is too great to be ignored or do people in this forum not care since they believe they live in area that is not downwind of a preferred target like DC or NYC. (smuggled nukes could show up anywhere).