Redstate

SIConservative can post about Ron Paul ... he's been here long enough and contributed enough (on other issues) to have earned it. You, on the other hand, have been here for not that long.

Spend a month, contribute meaningfully during that month (don't just register and come back a month later) and you can apply for your Paul Privileges.

You may get lucky and catch the big Red dogs in a good mood.

there's no reason to leave. Discuss the issues and how to address them and you'll find a welcoming audience, me included.

As I've said over and over, I have no quibble with lots if the Libertarian platform, it's RP I have the biggest problems with.

So, welcome to RS we look forward to discussing issues with you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

get lost...tool

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Reagan was in the Whitehouse
The M&A craze was in full swing
MTV played music videos
An American company was making big screen tv's (Anyone else remember advent ?)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...I've never liked being characterized as "pro-war"...as in: I'm in favor of there being war rather than peace.

Because I'm not and never have been. It's true that I supported the establishment of a front in the War on Terror in Iraq. But the war itself was something we never even chose. It chose us. It was declared on us. Even if we'd chosen not to acknowledge the declaration (which is essentially what we'd been doing for the previous 21 years or so prior to the invasion of Afghanistan).

Never fall into the rhetorical trap of saying that the opposite of anti-war is pro-war.

"Never fall into the rhetorical trap of saying that the opposite of anti-war is pro-war."

Well said...people may think that the war needed to happen, but I cannot think of anyone that I personally know that is like..."Woohoo! people dying...I like that!"

Any sane person doesn't like the 'tragedy' of war. The difference depends on if you think that it is necessary or not.

Could someone please explain to me how winning a war on something intangible, such as terror, can be accomplished.
I mean, even if we completely wiped the middle east off the face of the planet, and got rid of all of the terrorists there, what's to stop the government from designating some other group as terrifying (like Iran) and spreading the war over there? Could we stamp out happiness or sorrow? No. How can we battle an ideal? With guns? So let me get this straight, we have a lot of people who hate us, so to stop them from attacking us we send 200000 troops to their homeland? And this is supposed to help how? By making them hate us less?
I'm not some f'n hippy who is all about peace and love, I was raised in a strict military family, and actually tried, unsuccessfully to join after graduation, but couldn't (mostly deaf in one ear). I supported GHW Bush going into Kuwait to protect the Saudi's (who, by the way, asked for our assistance, which would be acceptable under a Ron Paul presidency). I even supported going into Iraq this time, but I fear that personal decision was based more on emotion that fact (facts would've led us to Saudi Arabia, all but 3 hijackers were from there).

I know I'll get some responses from jerk-offs who just want to talk some smack, but I would really like to read a lucid argument on how the whole "War on an Idea" can be won.

Nazism
communism
Fascism
Totalitarianism

All rather intangible

Or we could ask how can we defend an intangible like
Liberty
Freedom
Democracy

Seems Intangibles are what we fight for the most
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It is not safe for you to make positive statements here about Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Period. End stop.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I am in an extremely generous mood today, responding to people who really don't deserve an answer.
You have a point about battling an idea, the idiots of the left have been fighting a "war on poverty" for years now and that hasn't turned out so well. However, you have built some impressive straw men in your argument. First of all, the GWOT is not stirctly a military endeavor. It includes financial actions to remove financing, it includes intelligence gathering to prevent threats through foreknowledge, it includes law enforcement activity, and the list goes on. The one part of the GWOT that you are focusing on here is the part where we go to countries that provide cushy digs for the bad guys and blow stuff up. Not only do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan remove terrorist havens, they discourage other nations from engaging in the same activity.
Your assertion about attacking Saudi Arabia would make more sense post-911 is absurd. Saudi Arabia has lots of terrorists running around, and many would-be terrorists come from there. The difference is that the rulers of SA do cooperate with us. They are in a precarious position, but Saudi Arabia is an example where the right diplomacy and the implied threat from what happens to their neighbors will serve us better in the long run.
Terrorism is not an ideal, it is a tactic. It is one used by identifiable people. Those things can be defeated. We will never eliminate terrorism completely, and that isn't the goal. The goal is to make it so dangerous and so ineffective, that it will become obsolete.

Mac, you make several statements/arguments that don't make too much sense yourself...

1. "The idiots on the left have been fighting the war on poverty for several years now and that hasn't turned out too well." --- What about the "War on Drugs" that the idiots on both sides (especially the "right" side) have been fighting for decades. Does that war make any sense or have any chance of being won? No.

2. "bla bla bla...something about we go to countries that provide cushy digs for terrorists that blow stuff up" --- Um, in case you haven't noticed, Iraq was not a haven for terrorists until we went in there and took out Sadam, disbanded their ARMY (not terrorists), sent in our army and private trigger happy contractors, dropped thousands of bombs, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (men, women and children), etc... all of which resulted in mayhem and disorder where order and a lack of terrorism existed before. I think any reasonable person would agree that Iraq is much more of a terrorist haven now than it was before we decided to invade it.

3. "The goal is not to eliminate terrorism, it is to make it so dangerous and inefective that it will become obsolete" --- Hello? Did you make use of the Preview Comment button before you hit the Post Comment button? What could be more dangerous than willingly flying a jet airplane into a building? Or strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up? Do you really think we're going to "scare" these terrorsits into not killing themselves because the consequences enforced by our military are just too dangerous...after they just blew themselves up?

4. Referring to the same statement, you say the goal is not to "eliminate" terrorism but just make it "obsolete". Maybe you can explain the nuances of the difference you are pointing out? Like let's take Beta Max for example, we could say it is "obsolete" but would you say it has been "eliminated"? No one is making Beta Max players or tapes anymore but they still exist in the world and someone somewhere is probably watching On Golden Pond on one right now. Is that kinda what you're talking about...when we accomplish our goal, no one will be making (terrorism) anymore but (terrorism) will still exist? Whatever you were trying to get across with that one, it was lost on me.

TalkingPoint-o-Matic™: Iraq was not a haven for terrorists until we went in there and took out Sadam
Take that computer in front of you and Google "Salman Pak". Discover for yourself how Saddam Hussein was training terrorists -- not just Hesbollah and Hamas, but terrorists from other countries as well -- how he kept the foreign terrorists separated.

then look up the speech the President made to the joint session of congress following 911. Read what he said about the global war against radical Islam.

Read where he said:

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)

Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

Note that radical Islam is not JUST attacking US, but on a worldwide scale. Note that not all the places they are attacking are Christian nations.

And this:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

(emphasis mine)

Now then, even if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had NOT been firing on American planes patroling the 'no-fly zone" almost on a daily basis, he WAS hiding his WMD programs from inspectors, even though he had signed a treaty promising full cooperation.

Don't spew talking points without doing your homework!

I'm not spewing talking points. Those are 4 points that my own feeble brain happened to take issue with from Hoo Ha's post.

Here are some issues I have with your not so critical thinking:

1. You said: "Take that computer in front of you and Google "Salman Pak". Discover for yourself how Saddam Hussein was training terrorists"

I say to you: Take that computer of yours and google/news "suicide bombing" "Iraq". How many suicide bombings do you think occured in Iraq when Iraq was controlled by Sadam (probably 0 but maybe I'm just brainwashed and haven't done my homework as you suggest) and how many do you think have occured since Iraq has been controlled by US (probably several hundred but the same applies)? Unless you think more terrorism existed under Sadam then now, then I think we're wasting key strokes with this one. Sadam may well have been training Martians to ride unicycles for all I care. They weren't doing it when he was in charge and they are doing it now that we've f-d up their whole county and way of life. Can you use your own feeble brain to think about that one for a minute and re-evaluate your position on this point?

2. Do you really truly belive Bush's retarded line about, "They hate us because our freedoms"? Come on, that's ridiculous. Do you put zero credibility in what they (the terrorists) actually state themselves about why they hate us? Do you put zero credibility in what our own inteligence experts say about why they target us? I seriously doubt that the CIA and other inteligence agencies/experts have ever delivered this briefing to the White House, "Mr. President, we've analyzed our intel from the field and we've got a firm understanding of WHY these Muslim extremists want to blow us up. It turns out that they take issue with our freedoms we have here in our country. They just don't like freedom and they want to kill us all because of it."

3. Why do we get all sanctimonious about Iraq/Sadam targeting American planes patrolling the "No Fly Zone". What was the no fly zone? It was an area of airspace we drew off on a map over IRAQ where we said, "Hey Sadam, I know you're the ruler of this country and all but you're not allowed to fly your planes in this certain part of it. Ok? Ok." I think if some foreign country did that to us we probably would have done way more than throw some M-80s at them...so let's stop pretending that was such a heinous thing that he did by not respecting the sanctity of the no fly zone.

4. "...he WAS hiding his WMD programs from inspectors, even though he had signed a treaty promising full cooperation."

I haven't done my homework so I don't know (or care much) about what treaties you're talking about..but I do know this, we Americans should never get on our high horse about countries not living up to the treaties that they have signed. You can talk to the American Indians about that one. I wonder how many treaties our government made with them only to break months or years later. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you wouldn't really care much about that though. Had you been alive back then would you have cared? Or would the fact that the treaties America was breaking were helpful to you and harmful to no one you cared about been enough to get you down off your high horse? Now, I'm not saying that we should never care if treaties we care about and are involved in are broken, but it certainly wasn't justification enough for war in this circumstance.

he just rounded up over 300,000 and killed them.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

sorry, I will not waste my time or RS bandwidth to argue with AN IDIOT!

I'm not spewing talking points.

That's correct. You are not spewing talking points. Not here, anyway. Do it somewhere else.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

well, that's not gonna happen. Just as you're predjudiced to your beliefs and unwilling to understand "their" side, they are unwilling to bend or break and hear your side.

I too am a supporter of the man to not be mentioned, and agree that the majority of his supporters are overly zealous (To the point it makes me sick). I removed myself from the meetup group because of the non stop rhetoric and constant emails.

I just wish people were able to debate the different points and quit repeating the same bland statements and generalizations over and over.

I would rather debate the fact that his policies or ideas would never see the light of day if elected, rather than debate the fact that he is crazy or his ideas are radical.

We all fall into the trap of defending our opinions without fact, I am happy Redstate is making a point to stop this BS, I quit reading half of these articles because of the useless bantor/rhetoric.

As to the rest, RP tarnishes what are otherwise good ideas.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We are NOT a PRO War site. NOBODY except the radical Islamists WANTS war. Most of us here, however, understand that WAR will not go away by sticking our heads in the sand and hoping they will just leave us alone. That position always leaves the A$$ in an exposed position.

I KNOW you were not suggesting that RS is a bunch of WARMONDERERS, you never intended to suggest that at all. We are simply unwilling to surrender to terrorists.

What is immoral is Osama bin Laden still walking free. It bugs me that we have the most powerful military in the world...and he still eludes us...that my friends bugs the living tar out of me. Personal peeve though...

People who don't want to be found can be very difficult to find. The FBI couldn't find Eric Rudolph for five years, and he was hiding right here in the United States. We never found the Zodiac Killer, or Judge Crater, or Jimmy Hoffa. So far as we know, none of them fled to Pakistan.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

just would like to catch him :P. It would make me feel all fuzzy ok :D

No kidding. Biggest mass murderer in existence walking free. I think $10 million or whatever it is is a joke. We've spent hundreds of billions. Let's put $1 or even $10 billion on his head and see how long he lasts. That would get the real pros interested. You can't do anything for $10 mil. He'd be toast.

is that the man has been cave art for quite some time.

Oh, I know, from time to time he releases a tape, and our experts say, "yep, sure sounds like him."

Alive he is just another terrorist hiding from justice, unaable to lead.

Dead he is a martyr, and a rallying figure to the Jihadist cause.

Therefore, dead or alive, he is more valuable to US alive. He is more dangerous dead.