RoR: Forum

For the record: at 5:14 CST Thursday, October 18th 2007 , I cast my vote for Ron Paul.

Post 1

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 5:03pm

For the record: I voted for the unprincipled politician who would defend America, not the rationalistic moron who wouldn't.

Post 2

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 5:25pm

20 years ago, I voted for Ron Paul. But the war against terror is too important for me. I agree with Paul on almost every other issue. But, this issue is large enough that it overwhelms the others.

Post 3

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 5:44pm

Robert, What is your definition of "defending America" ? To me, it means much more than pre-emptively striking another country because they are developing a nuclear weapon. We possess 2000 with which we can dispose of a few when we have declared war. In the mean time , I do not want to be having to defend America, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution etc., tooth and nail against an Oligarchy taking form in my own country, America. "Moron" ? Why would a man , who has such a magnificent way with words, use this one ? I am sincerely suprised. And if you don't believe me , I am also very sorry that it would appear that this adhearance to this mindset, that we must make them pay or teach them a lesson or strike them before they strike (with no bomb in sight)(see a bomb , Declare War) , has left many jaded and blinded to the true strength of America, It's ideas of freedom. Anyway, that is what I believe. , Gigi
(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 10/18, 5:47pm)

Post 4

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 5:59pm

Gigi,

I've written plenty on the war, archived on my blog and in occasional articles for The New Individualist.

Here, by "rationalistic moron," I mean somebody who takes a solitary, abstract Idea, then applies deductive logic to it in the absence of any concern for context or consequence. He's more loyal to an abstraction than that which the abstraction is to serve, and which gives the abstraction meaning and purpose: human life.

The blood-soaked ledgers of history are filled with the names of such morons.

Post 5

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 8:28pm

Context and cosequence is what Dr. Paul is considering, I do not see Attn. Giuliani applying anything but bombastic fearmongering. He didn't even bother to attend one Iraqi Study Group meeting. We disagree. I do agree with your blog posts concerning the special treatment that muslims seem to think their entitled to, all around the world, and it sickens me also. In the EU it seems to be becoming the statis quo. Giuliani wants the NAU to have the same power with disregard for sovereignty. He is not a moron but a madman.

Post 6

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 8:46pm

Gigi,

When you use the phrase Iraq Study Group, are you referring to the committee headed by Baker and Hamilton? Of what value would attending their meetings have been, in your view?

In your opinion, were any of their recommendations useful for any valid purpose?

Is pointing out that Iran is developing nuclear weapons fearmongering? Is pointing out that they are supplying weapons, training, etc used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq fearmongering? Is recommending that the U.S. do something about it, something involving military force rather than diplomatic discussion, fearmongering?

If so, I am in favor of fearmongering. As much, as and as fast as we can monger it.

You write as if Iran were some kind of blank slate, a perfectly peace-loving country developing a nuclear weapon someday in the future, but that has done nothing to cause anyone concern, for the past 28 years.

Just what would Iran have to do for you to become as concerned about its (real, brutal) behavior as you are about Guiliani's (potential, oligarchic) behavior?

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/18, 9:53pm)

Post 7

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:08pm

I agree with Jeff. Iran's time is up and Guiliani has been the only candidate to say so. The US should use precision bombing to cut all communication, power and roads in and out of Iran. We should use conventional weapons and tactical nuclear weapons, if necessary, to take out Iran's underground nuclear facilities. We should isolate them as they have de facto isolated themselves with their terrorism, fanaticism and nuclear ambition. If they behave nicely, we should let them turn the lights back on.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 10/19, 7:47pm)

Post 8

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:10pm

I'm with Gigi, on this one.

I think that opposition should be crushed, but I see way too much statist exploitation in the methods being utilized (and too much rationalized emotion bursting forth in support of an increasing statism in this country).

When I hear about folks' fear about 3rd-World savages causing mass destruction -- and about how this country has to become much more statist than it already is; in order to protect itself from these potential threats -- I want to puke in disgust. It just sounds like 1984 to me. 1984 is all I hear.

And whether I'm ultimately right or not, I feel so much more intellectually-superior to the folks with those kind of (fear-based, statist) reactions to potential threats. I'm not at all about soft-playing or kow-towing to terrorists, be sure. When 911 happened, my first statement was that somebody (Osama bin Laden) needs to die. That's justice. Eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth. I can only share my truth.

Ed

Post 9

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:17pm

James,

Iran's time is up and Guiliani has been the only candidate to say so. The US should use precision bombing to cut all communicatiion,power and roads in and out of Iran.

I was watching C-SPAN the other day and the Iraq spokesman (Ambassador?) said that attacking Iran shouldn't even have ever been on the table of options. He said that it couldn't possibly have any merit. He said that everything we're attempting to do -- would be lost with an attack on Iran. I have one question (for you or any others here) ...

What do you think could have motivated him, this official spokesperson for the country with which we're engaged, to say such things?

Ed

Post 10

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:22pm

When Hitler rattled his sword, the French took an attitude of appeasement. When men of freedom and self-respect don't take up arms against a clear and present danger, all of humanity loses.

Ron Paul wants to stick his head in the sand and hope that if he prays hard enough, the bad guys will go away.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 10/19, 7:48pm)

Post 11

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:31pm

Ed,

What are we going to do? Wait until Ahmadinejad starts passing out nuclear weapons to terrorists like lollipops? Instead of lecturing the US on what it should do, the Iraqi ambassador should do what he can to make the Iraqi government functional (I'm not holding my breath).

Jim

Post 12

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:43pm

Ed,

I'm unclear about some things.

Are you suggesting that using the U.S. military to take coercive action against Iran would be by its nature statist?

Are you implying that any action taken by government outside U.S. borders would necessarily be statist?

As to the Iraqi spokesman's views there are two responses:

1. Our foreign policy should not be dictated by Iraq, but the reverse.

2. In all likelihood, as such people in such circumstances usually do (and have done in that region for over a thousand years), he is trying to play both sides. He undoubtedly wants the U.S. to protect his country against Iranian aggression, but is unsure of the outcome and so is willing to do Iran's bidding and chastise the U.S. That is Arab politics in a nutshell.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 10/18, 10:47pm)

Post 13

Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 11:01pm

I have lived in NY before and after Giuliani. The quality of life and flourishing now compared to the drug-infested crime-ridden (really, really dangerous) past is a hard fact, and a great accomplishment.

Post 14

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 1:38am

Iran's time is up and Guiliani has been the only candidate to say so. The US should use precision bombing to cut all communicatiion,power and roads in and out of Iran. We should use conventional weapons and tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to take out Iran's underground nuclear facilities. We should isolate them as they have defacto isolated themselves with their terrorism, fanaticism and nuclear ambition. If they behave nicely, we should let them turn the lights back on.

James Heaps-Nelson for President? I'd vote for the above platform.

Post 15

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 5:39am

Ron Paul wants to basically get the federal government out of our lives. With the increased productivity and pleasures from free market capitalism, will be even more kick butt and nobody will want to mess with us. And if they did mess with us, we'd have even more incredible resources to erase them from the future.

I'm much more concerned about 40% GDP going down the dumps, 4-10% inflation, and who knows how much is lost due to intervention in business, then some mad man leader in the middle east who does not have the support of the populous.

Post 16

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 7:21am

Jeff -
          Value ? The study of the situation in Iraq and th ME. Knowing what the CIA/NIE etc. information is , I think is WISE. Purposefully blinding yourself is not.
          ---"to kill US soldiers.." In IRAQ. We should get out of Iraq. Yes, using military force w/out bothering w/ diplomatic measures in combination w/ sanctions, pulling out of corporate investments w/ those who do biz w/ Iran, and now, (thanks to our blowhard ignorant armchair quarterback BS coming from politicians who have never served in the military, let alone want to listen to those who do know what their talking about, our occupation and our coruption and our willful ignoring of our Generals and Admirals in the ME and Iraq) Talking with PUTIN, seem like good ideas.

           I write as if Iran were "a peaceful loving country"? That is crazy .Where do you pull that from. Do have a quote?
          Iran's real and brutal behaviour is the ME's problem. They need to war against each other. We are the UNITER of all of these factions ,that our continued precence, has and is bringing together to fight the common enemy (the US)against Islam. Talk about context and consequence !! They ,for the most part have a common religion. It is so wrongheaded to not aknowledge that we are bringing them together. How nice!!
        And Jeff, as to post #12, You know that that's not Ed's position. You willfully misinterpreted what he said, using the same ,head in the sand, finger on the button, tactics of your Giuliani.

Post 17

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 7:37am

Jeff continued..The question is not what Iran would have to do, but what we must do --Whithdraw and prepare to declare war .
James, "Iran's time is up."
Do you think they would be isolated in the ME, from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Afghanistan etc. ? And now Russia. Hitler, he was isolated compared to this pretty picture."..passing out nuclear weapons like lollipops?" Well, the longer we are there, the more takers he will find. Unless we pull out and prepare to declare war.
Newberry,
The "quality of life" looks shiny from the outside in NYC. I suggest you watch "Giuliani Time" if for nothing else, to see how artist's are treated. His police chief quits in frustration over Giuliani's ham handed crap.
Oh, but apparently there are those who don't want to listen to real authoritive voices and will do anything in there power to rationalize doing what ever they want.

Post 18

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 8:03am

I second Michael's post 13!

Ted

Post 19

Friday, October 19, 2007 - 9:18am