December Republican Primary Poll

[bbarrick8383]

Heard him say it several times, recently. Maybe a quote from a previous debate or speech in response to a question about why Islamists are so focused on the United Sates.

“They are coming here to attack us because we are bombing them, we are bombing them.”

It struck me as sounding quite irrational.

Lisa

I can not find those exact words.

 

[scipio337]

Sanctions can backfire and do more harm than good.

usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-11-17/iran-nuclear-sanctions-backfire/51275666/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News±+Top+Stories%29

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vNRZjh8KHGo#!

.

b, you seem like a reasonable person, and I’m sure there is much we would agree on.

What would your response be to Iran’s nuclear (or lack of) program?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Your “isolationist” definition did not include no communications or trade. Paul’s version of ‘non-intervention’ is another’s version of “isolationism.”

foreign economic commitments

Means, no trade agreements.

Paul’s version of non-intervention is non-intervention, it can not be another version of isolationism, unless you redefine isolationism. Which wouldn’t surprise me, I’ve seen others use their own definitions for words.

 

[scipio337]

I can not find those exact words.

From last night’s debate:

…But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? That is absurd.”

“They come here and explicitly explain it to us,” Paul continued. “The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them!..

mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-goes-off-on-going-to-war-with-iran-we-are-going-to-start-a-war-over-a-drone/

For the record, there was an al-Qaeda linked bombing in Sweden just this year.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

From last night’s debate:

mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-goes-off-on-going-to-war-with-iran-we-are-going-to-start-a-war-over-a-drone/

For the record, there was an** al-Qaeda linked bombing in Sweden just this year**.

Took the words right out of my mouth…

 

[bbarrick8383]

b, you seem like a reasonable person, and I’m sure there is much we would agree on.

What would your response be to Iran’s nuclear (or lack of) program?

Let them do what they want to do, they will eventually get one unless we invade them before hand. I believe the current intel says they are within a year of doing so, which means I predict we will be launching an assault on them within a couple of years. If not within the next 10 years I reckon. The more they can slow them down via sabotage, cutting off supplies and so on, the longer it will be before we start a war with them.

Peace through strength means you are so strong the other guys don’t mess with you. It does not mean you attack them to show how strong you are, it means you provide them with the intel of how quickly you can wipe them off the face of the earth.

Iran want’s a nuke, knowing Ahmadinejad’s reputation he will use it as a scare tactic/bargaining tool. The key is to call his bluff as we have done before, tell him to shut up and go sit in the corner. The second he tries to launch the slightest bit of an attack we will inform him that the assumption will be made that the attack was made with possible intentions of using the nuclear weapon and all Iranian leaders will be blown to oblivion.

I think Iran is all bark and no bite, wouldn’t you be if you were surrounded by countries that could nuke you? They seem to have a sort of napoleon complex.

 

[scipio337]

Took the words right out of my mouth…

No blood for cartoons!!

I shouldn’t make light of the situation, but I think it’s daft to think that military isolationism will bring about unicorns and rainbows.

Who knows what could offend the Islamist street next? A teddybear named ‘Muhammed’? Comments by a Miss World contestant? Who knows?

 

[bbarrick8383]

From last night’s debate:

mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-goes-off-on-going-to-war-with-iran-we-are-going-to-start-a-war-over-a-drone/

For the record, there was an al-Qaeda linked bombing in Sweden just this year.

Dr. Paul claims the CIA gave him that information.

Do we have access to any such information?

As for the Swedish bombing, this was the message from al Qaeda:

The message referred to the Swedish military presence in Afghanistan and to Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been the object of constant threats since his drawing of the Muslim prophet with the body of a dog was first published in 2007.

It’s sick that any one group would want to kill over this, but would it not be unwise to say it was at least slightly provoked?

 

[scipio337]

Let them do what they want to do, they will eventually get one unless we invade them before hand. I believe the current intel says they are within a year of doing so, which means I predict we will be launching an assault on them within a couple of years. If not within the next 10 years I reckon. The more they can slow them down via sabotage, cutting off supplies and so on, the longer it will be before we start a war with them.

Peace through strength means you are so strong the other guys don’t mess with you. It does not mean you attack them to show how strong you are, it means you provide them with the intel of how quickly you can wipe them off the face of the earth.

Iran want’s a nuke, knowing Ahmadinejad’s reputation he will use it as a scare tactic/bargaining tool. The key is to call his bluff as we have done before, tell him to shut up and go sit in the corner. The second he tries to launch the slightest bit of an attack we will inform him that the assumption will be made that the attack was made with possible intentions of using the nuclear weapon and all Iranian leaders will be blown to oblivion.

I think Iran is all bark and no bite, wouldn’t you be if you were surrounded by countries that could nuke you? They seem to have a sort of napoleon complex.

But I’m not sure if MAD is a deterrent to the Shia Twelver mullahs.

I’m against any kind of military action, by anyone, as it would only materialize their fears (they’re out to get us), and spurs the program, but I can’t agree with doing nothing. It’s not just the US and Israel who fear this happening. Turkey, India, most of the Arab states (perhaps barring Syria) don’t want to see this happen, either.

The thing is, Iran gets international aid with its nuclear program (see Russian enrichment) by signing the NPT.

 

[scipio337]

Dr. Paul claims the CIA gave him that information.

Do we have access to any such information?

As for the Swedish bombing, this was the message from al Qaeda:

It’s sick that any one group would want to kill over this, but would it not be unwise to say it was at least slightly provoked?

He said the CIA gave that information to “us”. I don’t remember any such CIA statement, and I don’t believe Paul sits on any intelligence committee.

I guess we have to hobble our first amendment, along with our foriegn policy, to temper the delicate sensibilities of the Islamist street?

 

[rlg94086]

It’s sick that any one group would want to kill over this, but would it not be unwise to say it was at least slightly provoked?

Um…sure…in the same way that a woman in sexy clothing was provoking her rape. If that’s the sort of defense Dr. Paul believes in, he will continue to lose the support of most people. But, the important thing is that he is consistent.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I guess we have to hobble our first amendment, along with our foriegn policy, to temper the delicate sensibilities of the Islamist street?

I never said that about the first.

Say what you want, I don’t really care about that. But if our foreign policy since we’ve been in the middle east is in any way provoking this sort of behavior then maybe we should reconsider our foreign policy.

I’ve served in the military as well, not in a combat sort of role, although I did some OPFOR training with troops before they were deployed.

My ultimate question is what is our final goal? To stomp the terrorists, or to stop the terrorism? They are not necessarily one and the same, and I’m not sure the prior will bring us the latter.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Um…sure…in the same way that a woman in sexy clothing was provoking her rape. If that’s the sort of defense Dr. Paul believes in, he will continue to lose the support of most people. But, the important thing is that he is consistent.

Apples and oranges.

 

[rlg94086]

Apples and oranges.

Well, sure. Drawing a picture is not nearly the same as dressing a certain way, and being killed is worse than rape. Is that your point? That it is even worse than “the rape victim asked for it?”

 

[bbarrick8383]

He said the CIA gave that information to “us”. I don’t remember any such CIA statement, and I don’t believe Paul sits on any intelligence committee.

At the base, underlying conditions such as
poverty, corruption, religious conflict and
ethnic strife create opportunities for terrorists
to exploit. Some of these conditions are
real and some manufactured. Terrorists use
these conditions to justify their actions
and expand their support. The belief that
terror is a legitimate means to address such
conditions and effect political change is a
fundamental problem enabling terrorism to
develop and grow.

According to some reports, sanctions create poverty amongst the people. According to this quote from the CIA report, poverty is one of the means for recruitment. If those who are impoverished believe that we created the poverty then it gives them reason to join the bad guy.

I think, after browsing through that report though. That the motivations of those suicide bombers and other terrorists who do the attacking are most likely different than those who are at the top doing the motivating and recruiting. If, Paul is right and you prevent sanctions that cause poverty amongst the people as the USA Today article claims, then you make it harder for those at the top to recruit.

cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well, sure. Drawing a picture is not nearly the same as dressing a certain way, and being killed is worse than rape. Is that your point? That it is even worse than “the rape victim asked for it?”

I wasn’t referring to the drawing of the picture, that is too simplistic.

Sweden sending forces into Afghanistan is what the provocation was. Does it justify the attack? Hell no. Had they not sent those forces, would they have been bombed? That’s the million dollar question.

 

[LisaA]

According to some reports, sanctions create poverty amongst the people. According to this quote from the CIA report, poverty is one of the means for recruitment. If those who are impoverished believe that we created the poverty then it gives them reason to join the bad guy.

I think, after browsing through that report though. That the motivations of those suicide bombers and other terrorists who do the attacking are most likely different than those who are at the top doing the motivating and recruiting. If, Paul is right and you prevent sanctions that cause poverty amongst the people as the USA Today article claims, then you make it harder for those at the top to recruit.

cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/Counter_Terrorism_Strategy.pdf

That poverty causes terrorism can be easily debunked. Radical Islam and its particular beliefs regarding jihad, infidels, and their holy land, is the cause of 99.999999% of the terrorism in the world today. If it were poverty, why are poor non-Islamic countries not using terrorism to protest their conditions? How many suicide bombers originate in poor countries that do NOT have radical Islamists ginning up their population?

Look at the kind of propaganda in these countries, you can find them on YouTube. Children taught that Jews are “monkeys and dogs” glorifying suicide attacks, making them heroes. This has nothing to do with conditions in those countries. It has everything to do with a radical version of Islam.

Lisa

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That poverty causes terrorism can be easily debunked. Radical Islam and its particular beliefs regarding jihad, infidels, and their holy land, is the cause of 99.999999% of the terrorism in the world today. If it were poverty, why are poor non-Islamic countries not using terrorism to protest their conditions? How many suicide bombers originate in poor countries that do NOT have radical Islamists ginning up their population?

Look at the kind of propaganda in these countries, you can find them on YouTube. Children taught that Jews are “monkeys and dogs” glorifying suicide attacks, making them heroes. This has nothing to do with conditions in those countries. It has everything to do with a radical version of Islam.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I wasn’t referring to the drawing of the picture, that is too simplistic.

Sweden sending forces into Afghanistan is what the provocation was. Does it justify the attack? Hell no. Had they not sent those forces, would they have been bombed? That’s the million dollar question.

So you believe Sweden (or the US or Germany or Japan or England) should make decisions based on the radical Islamist agenda? Many of the troops sent to Afghanistan are not allowed to engage in combat. I would be surprised if there is a Swedish Sniper or Special Ops team. More likely they were in the role of ‘peacekeepers’ or perhaps engaging in humanitarian missions. That they were not in Afghanistan for military action is apparently not relevant…infidels in an Islamist country! The horror of it all! No wonder they attack us!

Lisa

 

[bbarrick8383]

That poverty causes terrorism can be easily debunked. Radical Islam and its particular beliefs regarding jihad, infidels, and their holy land, is the cause of 99.999999% of the terrorism in the world today. If it were poverty, why are poor non-Islamic countries not using terrorism to protest their conditions? How many suicide bombers originate in poor countries that do NOT have radical Islamists ginning up their population?

Look at the kind of propaganda in these countries, you can find them on YouTube. Children taught that Jews are “monkeys and dogs” glorifying suicide attacks, making them heroes. This has nothing to do with conditions in those countries. It has everything to do with a radical version of Islam.

Lisa

Ah, so the CIA is wrong.

Of course.