TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote: All experts on the region point to blowback from our foreign policy being the primary reason for the WTC attacks (1993 and 2001), the USS Cole attack, the embassy bombings, etc. The idea that "they attacked us because we're free" is simply a political soundbite with no basis in fact.

So the first basis of our foreign policy should be to approach bin Laden and other jihadists and ask them to give us a list of things we shouldn't do (or they will launch terrorist attacks on us)? This would include which other countries to support, defend, or trade with. Then we should scrupulously adhere to the wishes of the jihadists so that they do not attack us again.

Is that about right?

seamusTX wrote:Anthrax mailer, started mailing poisoned letters September 18, 2001. Killed five Americans on U.S. soil. Shut down the Senate office building. Crime never solved.

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, killed 16 Americans on U.S. soil in 2002. Is there any question that this was an incident of Muslim-inspired terrorism by people who did not come from the Middle East?

Richard Reid, British citizen and Al Queda member, prevented from blowing up an airliner only because his shoe bomb was defective and passengers piled on him.

Please explain how any amount of U.S. military action overseas will stop five, ten, or 100 terrorists from entering the country legally or illegally, or "disaffected youths" in, say, Dearborn, Michigan, or Paramus, New Jersey, from taking action without direct orders from Osama bin Laden.

Please include a detailed explanation of how action in the Middle East deters terrorist originating in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

- Jim

Sure. As soon as you establish that these incidents occurred because of American foreign policy, and provide a credible model of what the world situation would be today had that policy been different.

In case you missed it, The Maginot Line was a failure.

Will938 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

That job will never, ever end. We can't possibly.....(flawed logic, non-sequitors, and the clutching of thin reeds and straws deleted for brevity.)

I think that basically sums it up.

Will938 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

So what then do we do? I agree that their group is filled with fundamentalists who have an intense hatred for us, but we can't kill them all. There is infact a majority who will never do us any harm whatsoever.

Go on offense and keep them back on their heels. Kill as many of the BG's as possible. Kill as many of the BG's as necessary.

Will938 wrote: Suicidal nonsense huh. What exactly have we accomplished in the war on terror?

No attacks here since 9/11. You think that is just luck or an accident?

Will938 wrote: Al-Q and the Taliban are still around and infact still functioning just fine.

Not fine enough to have attacked us in the last 6 years.

Will938 wrote: ...and we infuriated this region of fundamentalists that already thought we were the worst thing since Israel.

So what exactly have we lost there? You say yourself that they already hated us. So they hate us a little more now? So what?

Will938 wrote: Inspired more people to join their ranks.

How many will be inspired to join their ranks if we pull out of Iraq in abject retreat?

You don't get any free claim on delving into their minds.

Will938 wrote: So dispite our whole sale slaughtering of them we are pretty much where we started less all those things I described.

I'd say we are 6 years down the road with no further attacks.

Will938 wrote: You laugh at hunkering down behind the borders, but what are the downsides of that?

Oh, how about giving them the time and space to regroup and launch even bigger attacks against us?

You stay on defense and wait for the next attack and it's a good bet that it will come eventually.

Will938 wrote: We get international support,..

Worthless.

Will938 wrote: we still have a better chance of stopping 9/11 style attacks that we don't even defend against today, ..

Prove it.

Will938 wrote: ....we save money, lives, credibility, etc. And most importantly we don't feed their cause. Nothing we do over there is reasonably going to stop an individual from coming here to do us harm. There are many things we can do here however, which we aren't, that could stop this.

We weren't attacked by "an individual" on 9/11. That's the Clinton/Obama/Democrat "terrorists are criminals" world view. The jihadists have declared war upon us. That is a very different matter. And some would say that we need to do things BOTH over here AND over there to protect against future attacks.

My problem with Paul is that he is too much focused on defense, and not enough on offense. I just think that is bad policy, and it is why he will not get my support.

Liberty wrote: I don't have any conflict with My Libertarian values and wanting to defend the American People. It is one of the few duties that our government is charged with.

Everybody wants to protect/defend the American people. The conflict is over how best to accomplish that.

Liberty wrote: They have attempted to kill Jews and Christians for centurys. The hatetred for the United States is not only because we we have served as protectorates for Israel, but because we are perceived as a Christian country with Christian values. Its not that they dislike us or disaprove, They hate us and want us gone.

Because we are the big dog. They don't rage against Lichtenstein because they know that when the time comes they can wipe them all out in 2 seconds.

We present them with a much bigger problem.

Bottom line: Their "civilization" is murderous and evil. There is no equivalence with ours. They want to kill us and we want to live.

Paul advocates hunkering down behind our borders. This is just Libertarian cant morphed into suicidal nonsense.

Will938,

Your argument, and Paul's, assumes a moral, social, and cultural equivalence between our society and that of the murderous terrorists and jihadists that simply does not exist.

KBCraig wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I hear you but I just don't buy it.

Oh, okay. By all means, go with your assumptions, rather than the factual research source I cited.

I'm not disparaging your source. I simply do not find the data pursuasive.

Just my opinion. I was around in '92, and most Perot people I talked to seemed to be Libertarians or Republicans who were attracted to some part of Perot's message. (And keep in mind I lived in RI at that time where there was no shortage of Democrats to encounter.)

In fairness, I did note some people who were attracted to his anti-NAFTA protectionist statements ("..that giant sucking sound...") and some of these people were certainly labor union guys who leaned Democrat.

But I myself thought Perot was right about NAFTA and GATT (and still do) even though I consider myself to be a Libertarian-leaning Republican. I think we gave up too much of our sovereignty and are watching our manufacturing base slowly being destroyed as a result.

I also thought he wiped the floor with Al Gore in that debate. My favorite takeaway line was when he put his hands on his hips, looked at Gore and said, "Would you even recognize the truth if you saw it?"

You see, I was attracted to Perot's candidacy myself to some degree. And most of his message did not strike me as appealing to people who would buy into the big government Eurosocialist redistributionist message that Bill Clinton was putting out.

So it seemed pretty obvious to me, and still does, that most of his support came from Bush. To change my mind on that would take a whole boatload of information and a solid argument.

KBCraig wrote: Say, what happened to:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion.

I didn't say I was done with the thread. Only that I was done with discussing Ron Paul's assertion (repeated by a poster) that we brought on 9/11, and that it was in some way our fault.

To me that is a complete non-starter. I do not believe that line of thought is worthy of discussion, certainly any discussion involving me.

KBCraig wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Perot got clinton in. You deny that?

I found your post reactionary and unfounded.

Not to mention unfactual. Perot drew more Democrat votes than Republican; if he'd stayed out of the race, Clinton would have won by an even larger margin.

I hear you but I just don't buy it.

In the upcoming race, if Paul ran as a 3rd party candidate he would hurt the Republican. Conversely, if Bloomberg runs as a 3rd (or 4th) party candidate, it will hurt the Democrat.

Of course neither one says they would run an independent campaign. I believe Paul. But I wouldn't trust ex-Democrat Bloomberg as far as I could throw him.

Will938 wrote: This invasive policy we set might of saved us during the cold war but it also helped to cause the hatred that was responsible for 9/11.

OK. We caused the hate. 9/11 was our fault. Fighting back will only cause more hate.

That's my problem with Paul. He and bin Ladan seem to be on the same page.

Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion.

Someone a lot smarter than me once wrote, "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."

atxgun wrote:Well I think if any of the GOP candidates are elected other than ron paul the world will deteriorate to a point to where you need to exercise your gun rights on a daily basis for survival much more so than if a dem get's in office.

Then I guess you won't mind that if a Dem gets into office, you won't have any gun rights to exercise.

boomerang wrote: I donated to Dr. Paul's campaign because I believe he's the best candidate for President. How about you?

I didn't because I don't. I think his foreign policy would be a disaster.

And if he doesn't get the nomination and any significant number of his supporters sit on their hands, Hillary will get elected and you can kiss your gun rights goodbye forever.

I wouldn't begin to know how to do a search on this, but I'll bet that if you looked at every federal case involving gun rights since 1993, you will find that Clinton/Carter-appointed judges have voted or ruled against gun rights almost every time. This includes the 5th circuit, the 9th circuit, the DC circuit, and wherever they've had the chance.

In an 8 year term, nearly half the federal judiciary turns over. Just remember that when you vote for Obama or Clinton out of a dislike for Giulianni (or even if you just think he is not "pure" enough).

Your fingers will be cold and dead, Hillary's agents will be prying your guns from them, and she will be claiming to personally support individual gun rights while "lamenting" that the courts have ruled and there's nothing she can do.