Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is what I'm talking about. Another "lol, why so serious?" maneuver.This is exactly how Fox News came to be what it is today.
I get questioned to why I think a Ron Paul is a decent dude (THATS A FIRST) through opinionated accusations which are unrelated to the thread therefore pointless for me to even continue further. Its old. Then you say this is my response, "LOL WHY SO SERIOUS?!" as if i'm desparately trying to escape such a crucial debate of so much meaning.
Dont you see how stupid you're acting whilst on my nuts?
Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, so when faced with 9/11, the response of the government should have been, "gee, serves us right"?like, I'm not asking for your history lesson about why 9/11 happened, I'm asking if you think there is any reasonable military response.
You over exadurate. Not factoring in the history is foolish.
offtopicness continues
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.
Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.
In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilians who are bystanders. That is what happened yesterday.
If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.
In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security.
Congress should consider using its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisals to meet our responsibilities.
Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the alter of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.
It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of war in which we find ourselves.
We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America, and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.
Statement on the Congressional Authorization...
September 14, 2001
Mr, Speaker,Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.
To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.
There are a couple of serious points I'd like to make.
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.
It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it's crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.
Originally posted by Oliver North
So you think there was no reasonable military response to 9-11?America should be a paper tiger?
If you're* an super Conservative Republican, you'll* believe that no matter what the US did, 9/11 would have still happened because, "The Evil Muzzies hate America and our success and would have attacked regardless!"
My response: America should cut back its defense budget, and ancillary defense spending, by half; bring home almost all foreign troops; shut down foreign bases; and open up friendly trade relations with other countries.
Other than the massive defense budget cut, those are Ron Paul's ideas.
Or do you think we should keep 35,000+ troops in Japan, still?
Do you think 9/11 would have happened if our Foreign Military activities were a tenth of what they were in 1995-2001?
*Ambiguous "you", not Oliver North "you".
Originally posted by Robtard
Has Ron Paul ever commented on what the US should have done after 9/11 and its response?
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. If you were to imagine for a moment how you would feel if another country forcibly occupied the United States, had military bases and armed soldiers present in our hometowns, you might begin to understand why foreign occupation upsets people so much. Robert Pape has extensively researched this issue and goes in depth in his book “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop Itâ€. In fact, of 2,200 incidents of suicide attacks he has studied worldwide since 1980, 95% were in response to foreign occupation.Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests. Since, then however, not only is suicide terrorism greatly on the rise, but 91% of it is now directed at us.
Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as “crusaders†with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced. Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.
Instead, we chose a course of action that led to the further loss of 8,000 American lives, left 40,000 wounded and has hundreds of thousands seeking help at the Veterans Administration. We are three to four trillion dollars poorer. Our military is spread dangerously thin around the globe, at the expense of protection here at home. Not only that, but we have allowed our freedoms to be greatly threatened and undermined from within. The Patriot Act, warrantless searches and wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpus, useless and humiliating searches at airports are just a few examples of how we’ve allowed the terrorists to “win†by making our country less free.
Suicide terrorism did not exist in Iraq before we got there. Now it does. There are no known instances of Iranians committing suicide terrorism. If we invade and occupy Iran, expect that to change, too.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Extremism FTW.I want a flat tax.
Flat taxes only benefit the rich and foster the growth of aristocracies. The purpose of progressive taxation, as in real progressive taxation that has write offs for investment and doesn't drop below 50% in the top bracket is to put a gun to the heads of the wealthy and force them to create jobs, develop industry domestically, and pay higher wages (Demand-side economics) with the correct theory that consumers create jobs and that supply side trickle down bullshit is just that. Total greedy crap.
Extremism would be using congresses own stupidity against them and getting them to vote to retroactively declare war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then using war time anti-profiteering statutes to reclaim all excess profits from any industry dubbed "wartime", using federal war powers to force manufacturing construction and hiring in all "strategic industries" ( everything from electronics, to nylon, to auto parts) domestically, and then reminding people how much war sucks and getting them into good physical shape by instituting war rationing until all foreign military operations end.
See that would be extremism. Kind of awesome, but extremist. If the word tax is something that bothers you, think of it as a negative economic stimulus on sociopaths or victims compensation.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Flat taxes only benefit the rich and foster the growth of aristocracies.
So what about a Flat tax that eliminates many of the loopholes that the rich can exploit? I believe the effective rate for the rich is 16% in the US. Some have mentioned 25%.
That's a massive jump in taxes for the rich...
So do you still believe that about a flat tax or are you talking about a very specific almost non-existent version of a flat tax?
If Obama loses this debate (which this debate is going to be a sham anyway due to the moderator that both sides do not like), the Prez loses the election. His dismal performance in the first one shocked me. I was expecting a brawl, but he [Obama] took a beating. Hopefully tonight will be better . . . if it can be.
Sham because of the moderator or sham because these debates have always been a sham with the pre agreements?
http://gawker.com/5951977/leaked-debate-agreement-shows-both-obama-and-romney-are-sniveling-cowards
Nah . . . all news networks are reporting that she is going to turn the entire "debate" into one giant hour and a half interview. Pose only the questions she wants to hear and not the American public. Seriously, I think both side need to take a pass on this. It's less than 3 weeks to election day and I'm sick of seeing interviews and the mainstream media rooting for one guy.
the issue was, the moderator said she wanted to ask follow-up questions, and now both parties are using that as a talking point, essentially exactly how DT is spinning it. Basically, they are a priori giving excuses for why the debate doesn't matter...
Because, neither side can actually deal with real questioning.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So what about a Flat tax that eliminates many of the loopholes that the rich can exploit? I believe the effective rate for the rich is 16% in the US. Some have mentioned 25%.That's a massive jump in taxes for the rich...
So do you still believe that about a flat tax or are you talking about a very specific almost non-existent version of a flat tax?
Yeah I do. The income tax needs to work as a coercive force on the rich like it has during the most prosperous period in our history. How does getting everyone to pay the same amount result in coercing rich people to hire and considering that people pay a greater or lesser percentage of their total income earned in a regressive way how is that fair, regardless of loopholes. The rich must pay no less than 50% on the top bracket or society and economics become unstable.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
You over exadurate. Not factoring in the history is foolish.
well, to be fair, I've asked what a proper response to 9/11 would be, and your answers have been "this is what we should have done 60 years ago".
I'm only exaggerating so far as you aren't actually providing answers...
In terms of letters of marque: Can you explain how they would be any different than, say, exactly what was done with Blackwater or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? I can't imagine how this would be preferable to special operations forces or something akin to that...
Originally posted by dadudemon
My response: America should cut back its defense budget, and ancillary defense spending, by half; bring home almost all foreign troops; shut down foreign bases; and open up friendly trade relations with other countries.
This is sort of my issue with what you and Mari are saying. I'm asking what to do in the wake of 9/11, and you both give me some story about what American should have done over the past few decades.
Interesting as a piece of counter-factual history, but sort of useless in determining what to do in the modern world.
I can't imagine your actual position is that, in response to 9/11, America should have slashed 90% of its military budget and brought all foreign troops home....
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you think 9/11 would have happened if our Foreign Military activities were a tenth of what they were in 1995-2001?
ugh, I'm sure you will want me to expand on this after... but honestly, this idea that America is responsible for Islamic radicalism is such hubris on the part of America. As much as you might want to feel responsible for everything that happens in modern history, you can sort of assume this would have occurred regardless of what America's policy toward the mideast was in the 1950's.
It might be accurate to say America played a role on the peripheries of the development of Islamic radicalism, but it was not the causal role people like to try and claim. More than anything, the centuries old division that allows secular ideas of individual freedom to be discussed only in the context of the mosque plays a far greater role, as does British imperialism, in this development.
Sure, America's policies of the past 25-30 years haven't helped, but no, Bin Laden was well established before 95. and it was in 96/97 that he outright declared war on America. American foreign policy since the mid 90s hasn't helped, but it is not a causal factor in the development of the ideology that sees America as the enemy of all Muslims.
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, to be fair, I've asked what a proper response to 9/11 would be, and your answers have been "this is what we should have done 60 years ago".I'm only exaggerating so far as you aren't actually providing answers...
I'd love to give you a good response. If only I were specialized in militaristic planning and obtained all the knowledge our government has collected, I could come up with something worthy. But, being in the future of said events, I can only reflect on the course of action that our government has taken and keep in mind how horrible it turned out and how much of a waste of money and human life came out of it. Live and learn.
The American people deserves their justice, sure, but at what cost? Bankrupting the nation? Losing more lives than what started the occupation in the first place? Fighting a ****in lernaean hydra and gaining more enemies? We can't look weak to the world so lets stretch ourselves outward, bankrupt the nation and get weaker doing so.
Originally posted by Oliver North
In terms of letters of marque: Can you explain how they would be any different than, say, exactly what was done with Blackwater or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? I can't imagine how this would be preferable to special operations forces or something akin to that...
For one, the American people wouldnt have been unaware of them like Blackwater. There would be support and we should get the job done quickly and precisely. From what I can understand, there was more interest in mind though.
Originally posted by Oliver North
This is sort of my issue with what you and Mari are saying. I'm asking what to do in the wake of 9/11, and you both give me some story about what American should have done over the past few decades.
You did see that I actually provided Ron Paul's answer to your question, right?
Originally posted by Oliver North
Interesting as a piece of counter-factual history, but sort of useless in determining what to do in the modern world.
This is how I would rephrase what you just said so it "felt" more correct:
"Interesting as a solution going forward that can still be implemented and successful and it is useful in determining how past events could turn out differently."
Originally posted by Oliver North
I can't imagine your actual position is that, in response to 9/11, America should have slashed 90% of its military budget and brought all foreign troops home....
I'm glad you don't think that's my actual position because that would be a very retarded strawman. That's what should have happened prior to 9/11, not as the direct response. It could function as an indirect response, however.
Originally posted by Oliver North
ugh, I'm sure you will want me to expand on this after...
No, definitely not.
Originally posted by Oliver North
but honestly, this idea that America is responsible for Islamic radicalism is such hubris on the part of America.
Uhhhh....
A couple of things:
1. That's a strawman.
2. If you wanted to be on point and direct that towards me, you would need to add in a very very important element to that: "...this idea that America is partially responsible for some of the reactions of Islamic radicalism towards America and her allies..."
So your point should read more like this: "Honestly, this idea that America is partially responsible for some of the reactions of Islamic radicalism towards America and her allies, is spot-on. Why aren't more people talking about this?"
Originally posted by Oliver North
As much as you might want to feel responsible for everything that happens in modern history,
*Barfs*. I don't feel responsible at all. Nor should most Americans. It is a handful of foreign policies and actions that are at fault over the course of several decades. And why should the US not shoulder at least some of the blame for the attacks on 9/11? Or are you one of those types (this time, I mean "Oliver North" you) that think we were attacked because, "They [Islamic Extremists] hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
This sums up my perspective, nicely:
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.
Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack – to broad public support.
Originally posted by Oliver North
...you can sort of assume this would have occurred regardless of what America's policy toward the mideast was in the 1950's.
No, I won't assume that because that would be ignorant (if I understand what you're saying, correctly). America's Middle Eastern involvements in the 1950s is part of the problem. If you're not saying that some of the actions the US took in the 1950s (and subsequent decades leading up to 9/11) had nothing to do with 9/11 (to use your words, so you do not think I am strawmanning your point: "it would have happened regardless of what America's policy" was towards the Middle East), that's obviously wrong. Do you not feel that that is ignorant? Granted, I could be misinterpreting what you're saying. Correct me if I have done so and I would concede and/or apologize.
Originally posted by Oliver North
It might be accurate to say America played a role on the peripheries of the development of Islamic radicalism, but it was not the causal role people like to try and claim. More than anything, the centuries old division that allows secular ideas of individual freedom to be discussed [b]only in the context of the mosque plays a far greater role, as does British imperialism, in this development.[/B]
That's almost unrelated to the topic/point I was making, though. Sure, radicalism would have occurred and was occurring long before America's interference. That is not the point I was making. I am saying - and this is strongly supported - that the 9/11 attacks probably would not have happened if we amended our foreign policy ways a decade or so before 2001. And I also asked a rhetorical question about our military actions 7 years prior. I strongly feel that if we had cut down or Foreign Military actions massively, 9/11 may have been avoided.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Sure, America's policies of the past 25-30 years haven't helped, but no,
Okay, cool. So I was just misunderstanding you and you are not directly replying to my post. We at least agree on my main point. The degree of agreement is what is in question, then?
Originally posted by Oliver North
Bin Laden was well established before 95. and it was in 96/97 that he outright declared war on America. American foreign policy since the mid 90s hasn't helped, but it is not a causal factor in the development of the ideology that sees America as the enemy of all Muslims.
Oh, I see. Well, I see this as really a strawman to my actual point. If you want to think my point boils down to "only 1995 and beyond", you didn't really get my point. Mairuzu even posted the "decades" quote from Ron Paul. It is not as though it is new information that that was Ron Paul's policy.
Also, are you trying to say Osama Bin Laden perpetuated the attacks of 9/11? Are you also saying that if the US had cut down their Foreign Military Activities by a massive amount, Bin Laden's warpath would have still be legitimate AND lead up to the attacks on 9/11?