What if the neo-cons are right this time.

[Akus]

We all know that the next question after arguing for pulling out of Iraq is "What is they follow us here?". And the rebuttal, of course, is that whoever predicts this was wrong in every other prediction and thus is not to be taken seriously.

But what if once, just this once, those who predicted that we'll be greeted as liberators in Iraq are actually right?

What would Ron Paul's action be?

[EvoPro]

The question is moot. We are in greater risk of attack now, because we are over there.

But, regardless:

Stop them before they get here. Find all involved and take them out.


We are currently in worse position for accomplishing either of these actions.

[Edit:] Added this quote from below:

The claim is countered by easily understandable historical facts. When the mujahadeen knocked the Soviets out of Afghanistan, they did not follow them home. Their goal was to drive the foreigners out so they could pursue their primay goal of insugency against apostate Middle Eastern governments, and that's what they did. That's what they are doing now. They want the United States and United States influence out of the Middle East. The will accomplish this by bankrupting us through these no-win wars. Once our soldiers and our influence are gone, they will go back to fighting each other and the apostate Middle Eastern governments (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan - basically all the Islamic police-states that we keep in power).

[0zzy]

I have a guy I know over my house right now who says "we gotta fight them over there or they'll come over here." I can't change him, he's too indoctrinated. He thinks we need to be the policemen of the world, the dicks of the world, we must have these wars to achieve peace. We coulda won Vietnam.

So I was like "nah not going to convert him." But he did respond well that Ron Paul's relationship with Reagan, that he was a flight surgeon in the Air Force, and endorsements from Barry Goldwater Jr, the Judge, Robert Novak, and other political conservatives.

[atthegates]

wow i didnt even know novak liked paul. i always thought novak was hawkish on foreign policy for some reason but obviously i was totally wrong.

[0zzy]

wow i didnt even know novak liked paul. i always thought novak was hawkish on foreign policy for some reason but obviously i was totally wrong.

Ya, he specifically said he liked Ron Paul's foreign policy, but "he has no chance of winning."

[Corydoras]

Here's how I envision it. From a domestic angle, it would really be no different from investigating the Murrah Building or Centennial Park. And letters of marque and reprisal would be issued for overseas organizers.

[entropy]

Since RP will be pulling hundreds of thousands of troops home we could deploy them to our:

1. Borders
2. Ports of entry
3. River ways
4. power supply grid
5. Nuclear plants

I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea


TO FREEDOM RON PAUL

[constituent]

Since RP will be pulling hundreds of thousands of troops home we could deploy them to our:

1. Borders
2. Ports of entry
3. River ways
4. power supply grid
5. Nuclear plants

I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea


TO FREEDOM RON PAUL

what about militarizing our infrastructure has anything to do w/ freedom?

where's the disconnect? River ways? You're kidding right? I'm assuming you mean to protect hydroelectric dams ('cuz the image of armed thugs passing by me as i'm tubing or something is preposterous)... well, since those have all be co-opted by private corporations, shouldn't the responsibility of protecting them fall on their lap as well?

I just don't get it.

[M.Bellmore]

Since RP will be pulling hundreds of thousands of troops home we could deploy them to our:

1. Borders
2. Ports of entry
3. River ways
4. power supply grid
5. Nuclear plants

I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea


TO FREEDOM RON PAUL

I was thinking that we'd actually have the $$ to upgrade & secure our infrastructure instead of spending it abroad. Not to mention the boost in local job markets, etc.

[entropy]

what about militarizing our infrastructure has anything to do w/ freedom?

where's the disconnect? River ways? You're kidding right? I'm assuming you mean to protect hydroelectric dams ('cuz the image of armed thugs passing by me as i'm tubing or something is preposterous)... well, since those have all be co-opted by private corporations, shouldn't the responsibility of protecting them fall on their lap as well?

I just don't get it.

The point of my post is to counter the fear propagated by the neo-cons that as soon as we leave the ME we will be awash in terrorists trying to destroy us. If we pull our troops back home we can use them to protect national vital interests within the US. I agree that private corporations should be protecting their own assets, but if there is a serious threat we will have all our troops here so we would be able to react immediately to any threats. I guess I should have stated this in my prior post.

Regards,
David

[constituent]

but you see, the question w/ what you've brought up is if you want an army responding to "threats" in our country?

i'm alright w/ the national guard (sorta) b/c it's on the state level (usually), but federal troops? think about what happens when you get some maniac (a la Bush) behind the wheel of that buggy. first they occupy, then they phase out the "troops" and replace them w/ private contractors like Blackwater, then God knows what.

the thing that amazes me sometimes is how many people who advocate "freedom" seem to encourage the idea of armed soldiers patrolling this nation's territory... how do we not view that as an occupation? that's what it is.

it's the standing armies thing (which i assume to be the neo-con fantasy land). it's important to remember that even when dr. paul's elected,
these folks will still be in positions of power, the will maintain much of their social stature and influence in the business and political communities.

converting neo-cons is all in showing how thoroughly flawed that sort of (conqueror/hero-culture) thinking is.

[Brutus]

If they were really such a threat to us then we wouldn't have reinstated "visa express", would we? The neo-cons don't even believe their own rhetoric.

[Brutus]

I'm willing to posit some period of slightly increased risk of terrorism here. However, since the economy WILL collapse if we go on like we are (and may collapse even if we don't) we have a choice of "some risk of issues" verses "absolute certainty of issues".

[dmitchell]

The claim is countered by easily understandable historical facts. When the mujahadeen knocked the Soviets out of Afghanistan, they did not follow them home. Their goal was to drive the foreigners out so they could pursue their primay goal of insugency against apostate Middle Eastern governments, and that's what they did. That's what they are doing now. They want the United States and United States influence out of the Middle East. The will accomplish this by bankrupting us through these no-win wars. Once our soldiers and our influence are gone, they will go back to fighting each other and the apostate Middle Eastern governments (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan - basically all the Islamic police-states that we keep in power).

[Beerhall Agitator]

Don't buy into the fear they're creating! We had ample knowledge of 9/11 months before it took place. Intelligence reports from the CIA, FBI, and Taliban foreign minister were FLOODING in between july 01 and august 01. Hell , we even captured the 20th hijacker mosuouai in august 01. Our intelligence network was and is fine, and we were perfectly capable of defending ourselves. An intelligence failure took place, and it's called george bush. the blame of 9/11 rests squarley with this incompetent fool, but no one in the media dare utter this while he's in power. see here http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_time line_key_warnings

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - Franklin Roosevelt

[bbachtung]

What navy or air force will they use to transport themselves from Iraq to the U.S.?

[Malakai0]

It doesn't matter if they are right or not, we CANNOT sustain our military presence in the middle east.

We are 1/4 of an inch away from the crash of the dollar. The fed is having to inflate like mad to keep the markets from falling apart. Even mainstream analysts who suck the fed's teet till the last minute are admitting they are buying up gold...
The fed cut rates again this week. They should have raised them months ago if they wanted to save the dollar.


I wish I had some money. I'd donate 100 bucks on nov5th (won't happen I'm sorry to say, our sewage outflow clogged, 1200 dollar job to dig up the backyard and fix it, for a family living paycheck to paycheck, we had to borrow most of it) then buy gold & silver with the rest.

[constituent]

It doesn't matter if they are right or not, we CANNOT sustain our military presence in the middle east.

We are 1/4 of an inch away from the crash of the dollar. The fed is having to inflate like mad to keep the markets from falling apart. Even mainstream analysts who suck the fed's teet till the last minute are admitting they are buying up gold...



...with this new money they're borrowing.

[terlinguatx]

...

[pcosmar]

The restoration of the 2nd amendment would make this country much safer.
Armed citizens would be a deterrent to any attack.
The constitution had provision for a Navy but no standing Army, armed citizens were to be called upon if there was a need.

[BillyDkid]

What does that mean, though, follow us here? It's just completely illogical.

[pcosmar]

Flawed Logic.
Neo-Cons being right on this? You can't be serious.
Put the pipe down, it's not legal yet.

[Primbs]

They are already here.
We have stopped many attacks.

But it doesn't help to have Visa Express and wide open borders. In essence it is almost a phony war because our borders are wide open.

Bush is proposing to give another 9000 Iraqis free passage to the US in exchange for helping us. I would bet there will be at least one percent bad guys who sneak in with that bunch.

[jm1776]

If they were fighting us here and left. Would you follow them over there?

[amonasro]

What does that mean, though, follow us here? It's just completely illogical.

It means that al-quaeda would man little invisible rafts and planes and literally fly/sail/swim across the Atlantic right behind our guys. DUH ;)