Thread: CHRISTIAN RIGHT JUST DOESN'T GET IT

This ALIPAC member has posted this entity be it editorial opinion, news article, column, or web creation as information for the General Population (public) only. It is not intended as an endorsement for this candidate by this poster. Its use here has not been anticipated to be used as, or used to discredit any candidate mentioned herewith.





Here I found this whatever... this morning...
this guyArmstrong writes for a thing call the nolan chart...
I have a couple of issues with it ill address later today

http://www.nolanchart.com/article483.html


Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why our current policy will allow the Terrorists to win, and why leaving Iraq isn't "surrender" or "retreat"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by John Armstrong
(Libertarian)
There have been questions about Ron Paul's willingness to "fight" the radical "Islamofascists." Many in the Republican Party refuse to support Congressman Paul because they mistakenly believe that he is some sort of "pacifist hippy" since they don't understand why he doesn't support the "war." This is my attempt at explaining that position with some analogies, plain language, and references that anyone interested in actually defeating these "evil-doers" should find interesting.

The War with IslamoFascism. Let's look at that statement because it will help explain Dr. Paul's position. First of all, "war" can only be declared by Congress. America hasn't issued a real declaration of war since WWII and we haven't won a war since then. Because this "war" isn't a declared war, Ron Paul doesn't support it because as a congressman who was sworn to uphold the constitution, he understands that he has no right to do so.

Congress can only constitutionally issue a declaration of war if America is attacked or feels that an issuance of war is needed to protect us. America was attacked on September 11th, 2001. But it was attacked by 19 men who represent a larger network of men who hold similar extreme ideas. Fighting a "War" on "IslamoFascism" because of September 11th, makes about as much sense as fighting a "War" on "Depressed Asian Students" because of what happened at Virginia Tech last spring. Dr. Paul's response would have been to commit resources to catch the people who were actually responsible for and supported the attacks. This is why he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan, but now doesn't support the ongoing actions there since they are no longer designed to catch Bin Laden or others who are actually responsible for the attacks.

He also understands that part of the reason we were attacked was because of an interventionist foreign policy. Most of the Sept. 11th hijackers were Saudis. Non-coincidentally, they were upset because of our military presence in their country and the way we had influenced governments in their region. This is a priniciple the CIA calls "blowback" which is also the name of a book (by Chalmers Johnson) that was written pre-September 11th and warned that we should expect coming acts of reprisal by individuals or states because of our meddling in their affairs over the course of the previous few decades. At the time it was written, it was greeted with smug laughter (as noted in the book's introduction) exactly the same way Dr. Paul's comments were by other Republican candidates during the debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5avEmnWrtk starting around the 2:19 mark) when he suggested our current policy was a "road to disaster." Killing terrorists by unconstitutionally going into sovereign countries instead of actually removing the major cause of their hate for us is akin to killing flies instead of removing the dead carcass in the middle of the room. Worse yet, we are not only not removing the carcass we are creating more carcasses on which they feed and multiply. Dr. Paul understands that America has a problem with people who hold radical Islamic views, but doesn't think that a "War" on an "Islamo-Fascism" is the way to solve the problem.

"Islamo-Fascism" is a term used to scare people and make an enemy seem more menacing than it really is. I won't give you the history on it, but you can check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism. The 1978 Iranian revolution mentioned there as possibly the first time the word was used, was a direct result of our CIA installing the Shah into power in 1953 (again--our interventionist policy). It has been picked up on an popularized by people like David Horowitz who is a leading proponent of "swatting flies" to solve the problem. As an American citizen, you are more likely to drown in a bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist. Since we decided on this pre-emptive first strike doctrine, more American lives have been lost (soldiers are Americans too--and also support Dr. Paul more via donations than they support any other candidate) than in the September 11th attacks. The money we have spent in Iraq (and will continue to spend if we keep with this policy and move on to Iran) makes the money we lost both directly and tangentially due to the September 11th attacks seem paltry by comparison.

And Bin Laden knew this. This is what he was talking about when he talked about "bleeding America to death" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 905-7.html (I can't believe the White House has this on their website and doesn't get it). In short, Terrorists can only defeat the United States by--FEAR which leads to overreaction, overspending, and in the process creates more terrorists who believe the incredibly extreme propaganda promoted by Bin Laden and crew because they have seen the "horrors" of the United States with their own eyes. Dr. Paul is the only person who supports a policy which could actually rid the world of these "Islamo-Fascists" in the long run (or at least return them to a size and threat level which no American could fear). We are the United States of America. If a kid came up and punched you, would you pull your leg back as far as possible and try to kick its head off? If you missed, you'd hurt yourself in the fall far worse than the kid's punch hurt you. If you hit, you would incite the rage of his parents, his community, and even the population as a whole that otherwise would be disconnected from this act until they found out what you did. Compared to us, terrorists are just little kids. The best way to deal with them is to let them know what they did was wrong (tell their parents, or kill the terrorists who actually did this in our case--not overreact and bring people into the battle that have nothing to do with it) and laugh about it and move on.

On the same website, you can find all of his remarks about how important this battle in Iraq is. The current adminstration and media use these words to justify staying in Iraq. How many articles have you read saying that we can't "surrender" or "retreat" because we'll show the "terrorists" how weak we are. We have to stay and "win." Has it dawned on anyone besides me that Bin Laden and friends may want us to stay in Iraq so we can anger more normal people and help his recruitment efforts in the future? Is it possible that these words are no different than a poker player shrugging his shoulders as if he has a weak hand to make someone call--thus walking right into the trap?

By continuing with our current policy, we are playing right into their hands. Even if "blowback" isn't the only reason these people hate us, and they still wish to do us harm because they are just crazy or even if they actually do hate us because we are "rich and free"; by following the policy Dr. Paul proposes, they would be less able to harm us because their numbers would be weakened due to people who wouldn't be drawn to their cause due to our overreaction. If I tried to convince you that Mormons were an evil cult, but the only Mormons you'd known your entire life were a few neighbors who invited you to their board game night and helped you with your math homework, you'd be far less likely to believe my crazy assertions. If we aren't out actually doing the things that show otherwise neutral or even positive people that we really are a country of "evil infidels" (like killing their brothers and moms with a misplaced bomb), it will be very hard for the most extreme factions who hate us just for existing to enlist enough otherwise neutral people to actually harm us. And in the best case scenario if those neutral people actually liked us, they might even turn on the few extreme people and help us in our cause instead of joining them or at least protecting them from our efforts to find them.

Conversely on the homefront, if "someone/media" tried to convince you that "Islamofascists" were "evil-doers" and the only "Islamofascists" you'd ever seen hijacked some planes and created national panic all played out on live television, and that these "evil-doers" needed to be punished, you'd probably believe that too. If you can distance yourself from what you've been told and not hold onto to it because you don't want to feel "stupid" (four years ago I was talking to my friends about how President Bush would be known as a visionary in 40 years because he planted the seed of democracy in the Middle East and that he might not be that bright, but maybe it takes someone who didn't know something wasn't possible in order to try and accomplish the impossible), and you can objectively look at all the facts and still conclude that our current policy makes sense, then you really could be as stupid as the mainstream media and politicians want to believe you are.

More importantly than being "less able to harm us" is that they would absolutely be unable to defeat us. If every single "Islamofascist" in the world came to the United States today with all of their friends, they could not defeat us. When people say "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here", I say, "Bring it On." If there are a million of those guys, I like the 300-1 odds in our favor. Show me an Iowa Farmer that wouldn't get his 12 gauge down and do some radical-islamofascist hunting if they were ever stupid enough to come here and really fight, and I'll show you an Amish guy driving a red Hummer. They know this. The only way they can defeat us is to convince us they are a greater threat than they are.

If we spent a fraction of the money currently being spent on our current preemptive strike policy on securing our own borders (like the one that around 65,000,000 Mexicans have successfully illegally crossed) these "Islamofascists" probably wouldn't be able to get a Weapon of Mass Destruction inside our borders to begin with even if they did acquire one from a "rogue state" like Iran. And if somehow a state sponsored the attack via a missile (it would be tragic) but whichever country did it would be unihabitable for a few thousands years after we retaliated and you can bet that nobody else would attempt it again.

We are the only country in the world that can defeat us. We are at an important crossroads about which way we will go. Not that unsimilar to where Rome found itself around 146 BC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ro ... e_01.shtml. Because of the decisions the Romans made, Rome is now a city. If we make the right decisions, we can still be a City on a Hill.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think President Bush is an evil man who intentionally lied to bring us into a war. I think he did what he believed was best for the country during an extremely trying time. Someone who picks up a friend after a severe wreck and holds them in their arms instead of letting them lie there doesn't intend to break his friend's neck and paralyze him for life. Once the decision was made, Bush's strongest leadership trait (steadfastness to a commitment regardless of public opinion) became his biggest liability.

I also don't know that we can leave Iraq hanging because of our moral responsibility to make sure we get them back on their feet before we leave since we were the ones to knock them off of their feet to begin with. I do know that pulling out is not retreating and doesn't mean we "lost" (ever see a football team take an intentional safety at the end of a football game which looks weak at the time but puts them in a better position to actually win the game?).

I do know that we need to leave as soon as the Iraqis can take care of themselves. I do know that we shouldn't be building 14 permanent bases in their country including one in Baghdad the size of the Vatican. I do know that we shouldn't invade Iran. I do know that we should bring home all of our troops from all over the globe. I do know that we should never preemptively strike another country again (unless they are a true threat to our national security and Congress issues a declaration of war). I do know that if we do these things, the results could be very similar to the ones another Superpower made over 2,000 years ago. Once we get our foreign policy straight, we can start to work on the stuff at home. A safer home. A freer home. A home that actually looks a little like the one that caused us at one time to be admired by the rest of the world. A place called America. The land of the free and the home of the brave (which means "To undergo or face courageously"--as in facing the truth about where we are and where we are heading if we don't change course).

Originally Posted by kniggit

Wow Greg, if you can't buy into that maybe you would be better off in a socialist country where you can have someone tell you what to believe, what to support etc.......

You know kniggit

The More I think about this the more bothered I get and I never get uneasy over anyone’s statements here accept maybe one and that guys already gone...
But You know what? I’m going to let this one slide because of your support for Ron Paul has your mind a little clouded... we all get that way some times, it not easy finding the right man for a job that three men before him screwed up so bad it will take 1000 men and 10 more years to fix...
I certainly apologize if I’ve ever Gave you any reason to make such a statement of that magnitude about me, But after an extensive search for any alternative definition to fit the statement which led you to call me such … I simply didn’t find one… There isn’t one….

My mind is far from clouded Greg, I just get tired of people trying to discredit Dr Paul or make him out to be some kind of kook without actually thinking about what he says.

Like I said earlier this government is far from the government that I grew up with, they want to be in almost every aspect of our lives. I grew up in a time when there was discipline, you were accountable for your own actions but you were free to decide what those actions were.

I could go on but I gotta get to work, it was nothing personal Greg I am just tired of people being satisfied with the status quo that is our government today.

Greg While I think the article was a little too touchy feely, it was right on point.

We have been over there stirring up chaos for decades - since the late 1950's that I know personally. That area does seem to us to be a bunch of people who fight each other all the time - but how much of that are we responsible for.

The Shah, Saddam, Bin Laden to name a few. We have befriended all of them - how many innocents got killed in the process?

I was a small child during WWII, but remember the rationing, the scarcity of some things, etc., but after that, the federal government seldom touched our lives.

WE were taking high school civics when the desegregation ruling came down. Our Supt taught the class and we really discussed current events and how they affected our lives and their legality, how they did or didn't jive with the constitution.

He said that intergregation was long over due and that in our little town, there would be no problems. He said the real problem would come, when under the guise of civil rights, the federal government would take over our school sytem and then our education level would start to go down.

That's exactly what happened -

The federal government needs to stick to federal governing and leave the other things to the people - that is the states.

I do agree we can survive a terrorist attack, God forbid, or two - but we cannot and will not survive this invasion and infiltration into every aspect of our government - both federal and local - of illegal supporters and the LaRaza crowd.

If we had spent the money we spent on 'protecting the free world' and waging war in Iraq, to protect our borders, clean out the ones here that shouldn't be l- be they 'hardworking poor' or be they potential terrorists - we would be a cleaner, safer, and more prosperous nation right now.

I'm still trying to think of a good federal law - that couldn't have been better inacted and enforced by individual states.