basummers31
10-11-2007, 12:31 PM
I posted this reply to someone who posted why they dislike Ron Paul and they kicked me out. What do you think? Was I too disrespectful?
It seems the bottom line for most who don’t like Ron Paul is that a sizable amount of Islamic extremists want to kill the west. We are justified in attacking them preemptively to defend ourselves. Thus we are justified to attack any country harboring Islamic extremists. Ron Paul doesn’t want to preemptively attack thus allowing them to build strength until they kill us or weaken us.
Here’s the problem. There are 1.6 billion Muslims. Most Muslim countries are harboring extremists. How are we going to convert 1.6 billion Muslims to love and cherish the West by invading their countries? We didn’t have a problem conquering Iraq. That war was fought and won. We are having a problem making Iraq a nation of peace, love, democracy, and all that’s good. Is the plan to invade every Muslim country and keep them engaged overseas? The CIA stated that “blowback” is the main reason terrorists hit on 9/11. Has an invading country ever successfully won over the hearts and minds of the country they invaded or did they all eventually fail? It seems we would need nukes and a lot of soldiers to eliminate the Muslim World by shear force. That was called genocide the last time I looked in the dictionary. Seriously, what’s the end game? Are we going to continue fighting terrorism by invading countries? A smarter less expensive strategy would be to hire bounty hunters to find and dismember the terrorists. We are at war with terrorists not nations. Thus, the whole point of the post. Ron Paul’s response to 9/11 was to hire bounty hunters to find OBL and Al Queda. Attacking the terrorists directly seems like a better plan than invading countries in the hopes of spreading democracy.
It seems the bottom line for most who don’t like Ron Paul is that a sizable amount of Islamic extremists want to kill the west. We are justified in attacking them preemptively to defend ourselves. Thus we are justified to attack any country harboring Islamic extremists. Ron Paul doesn’t want to preemptively attack thus allowing them to build strength until they kill us or weaken us.
Here’s the problem. There are 1.6 billion Muslims. Most Muslim countries are harboring extremists. How are we going to convert 1.6 billion Muslims to love and cherish the West by invading their countries? We didn’t have a problem conquering Iraq. That war was fought and won. We are having a problem making Iraq a nation of peace, love, democracy, and all that’s good. Is the plan to invade every Muslim country and keep them engaged overseas? The CIA stated that “blowback” is the main reason terrorists hit on 9/11. Has an invading country ever successfully won over the hearts and minds of the country they invaded or did they all eventually fail? It seems we would need nukes and a lot of soldiers to eliminate the Muslim World by shear force. That was called genocide the last time I looked in the dictionary. Seriously, what’s the end game? Are we going to continue fighting terrorism by invading countries? A smarter less expensive strategy would be to hire bounty hunters to find and dismember the terrorists. We are at war with terrorists not nations. Thus, the whole point of the post. Ron Paul’s response to 9/11 was to hire bounty hunters to find OBL and Al Queda. Attacking the terrorists directly seems like a better plan than invading countries in the hopes of spreading democracy.