Climb On Board The 'Ron Paul Revolution'

TheDay ^ | 9/16/2007 | Marc Guttman

[NapkinUser]

A defensive only military posture is a losing posture.....Sitting on our shores waiting to be attacked is a losing strategy.

Yeah, who wants the U.S. military to defend America's borders when it can be defending the borders of South Korea and Iraq?

[hedgetrimmer]

He’s al Qaeda’s favorite candidate;

You're saying that GW Bush, and the 'mainstream' GOP, has repudiated Saudi Arabia and their support for islamic terrorism? When did that happen?

[ulm1]

">

[billbears]

All of those criteria are currently being met. Next.

Rambling missives declaring war on a tactic do not meet the bar. Same as useless missives put forth for Korea and Vietnam

[Dr. Frank fan]

No offense but there's nothing particularly conservative about carrying out Wilsonian nation building.

You seem to think that you can slap the label "nation building" on what's going on over there and then turn off your brain. Theories about this or that being "Wilsonian" have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of what is going on in Iraq. The reality is that Iraq is a large, rich region which has a power vacuum which we created (rightly or wrongly), and that vacuum will either be filled by something barbaric or something approaching civilization. You, and Paul, wish now to surrender that field of battle to the forces of barbarism. Why? Because you're "tired of" participating.

Again: there is nothing "conservative" about surrendering for no good reason.

But rather you declare war, you go to war, and you win the war only when necessary

You're saying that conservative want to win wars "only when necessary"? and lose wars otherwise? What?

and not to 'stabilize' a region or remove a dictator that may or may not be supportive of actions against another nation not ours.

See, now you've tipped your hand.

For one thing, it's clear you're still talking about whether it was right to invade. Newsflash: the invasion occurred in 2003. Right or wrong, it's a historical event. Get over it. "Whether to invade" is not an issue anymore. We're THERE. The issue is what to do now. Contrary to what you seem to think, just saying "it was wrong to invade" (even if you're right) does not give us a meaningful guide as to what to do now.

Furthermore, you tipped your hand with that oh so subtle "another nation not ours" jazz. (What other nation might that be hmm? Why don't you just come out and say it?) But even if you're too scared to say what you really mean, at least justify what you did say. Saddam Hussein is responsible for no actions against our nation? Um, what about the war we fought against each other in 1991? What about Hussein firing upon our planes throughout the 1990s? What about the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, tracing back to Hussein, who harbored those responsible?

You probably have a bunch of reasons why none of that stuff "counts", in your mind, as actions against our country. This is another thing that is not particularly conservative, playing defense-attorney for and justifying/downplaying the belligerent actions of declared enemies of our country.

True conservatives don't make excuses for declared enemies.

[dirtboy]

Yeah, who wants the U.S. military to defend America's borders when it can be defending the borders of South Korea and Iraq?

I'd rather confront our enemies outside the United States than inside the United States, thank you.

[Petronski]

Rambling missives declaring war on a tactic do not meet the bar.

That non-sequitur is irrelevant to this topic. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Interesting. Is the coverage of the war cutting into Star Trek reruns or something? Tired of hearing about all that nasty old terrorism?

Heh :) Well done.

Nothing irks me more than people who spout this "tired of the war" crap that haven't been affected by the war one iota other than perhaps having their TV-viewing habits slightly altered.

[Ditter]

We own property in Paul’s district and used to live there and we have met him (years ago). He is a fine man and a good doctor but his stance on the war completely destroys him in the eyes of most of us. He wants to do another Viet Nam and we all know how that worked out, only this will be worse. At least the Viet Cong did not come to the US and attack us at home and that is what the terrorist are doing. He says if we come home they won’t attack us anymore, I call B***S*** on that notion.

[elhombrelibre]

I find it odd that those who are the most tired of the war and most eager to give up have had nearly nothing to do with the war. They’re just tired of hearing about it. How soft and feeble can one be that the mere mention of sacrifice and struggle makes one weary. Granted, fatigue is real, but shouldn’t it be that those who become fatigued are those who are doing something, not watching it on TV or hearing about it on the radio? We live in strange time when “manly men” can become war weary as a result of being spectators. At least in WWII, the folks on the home front were becoming war weary from sacrifice. Today’s war weary are barely worthy of their own freedom. No wonder a mountebank bozo like Run Paul can appeal to them.

[OCCASparky]

Like it or lump it he is build converts.

So did Jim Jones. Doesn't make either one of them very desirable.

[elhombrelibre]

You quote me, and then imply I said something else? What’s wrong with you, are you illiterate? YOU must be a Run Paul girl.

[George W. Bush]

Like I said like it or lump it, but these are libertarian NORML members Rand Institute types, the Libertarians who have had their fill of Washington as usual. One says it clearly, “I would not vote for L.Ron or someone like him again if there was free doobage for a year as a reward.” And they do vote in the primaries in the general election.

So you go hunting with druggie Libertarians?

How many dopers are you friends with anyway? I begin to think you might need some of that Thorazine.

[Petronski]

Poor George. Parody is lost on you.

[elhombrelibre]

Saudi Arabia has the most wealthy donators to al Qaeda, but at least the Saudi Royal family is jailing al Qaeda and killing them. You Ru Paul people are always saying that you should not be judged by the company you keep - Code Pink, Truthers, Birchers, and Buchananites - and then you want to blame a whole nations for the terrorist deeds of a few thousand people from that country. Amazing.

[Iwo Jima]

Source?

[Petronski]

Which one of those men is running in 2008?

[George W. Bush]

Tired of hearing about all that nasty old terrorism? Try living it.

Who's twisting your arm? You're paid well enough to be there. I assume no one drafted you into civilian contracting in Iraq.

[I see my hands]

His mouth.