On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest.
edit: 3rd in iowa indeed
That and first 40 min had one question directed at Ron Paul. I hate how air time is so controlled by the debate organizers to force their own ideas of mainstream and fringe candidates. There's a couple campaigns on life support and it isn't Ron Paul.
Well read on economic issues, Staunch support of a foreign policy that doesn't enrich the military industrial complex at the expense of the middle class and brown people everywhere, opposes SOPA, indefinite detention of Americans (NDAA), Bank bailouts, and the criminal Federal Reserve that borrows trillions of taxpayers dollars to their buddies who use it to influence the American electorate and dictators around the world. Believes American's are best served when they keep everything they own (zero % income tax) and has a plan to cut enough government spending to make it a reality.The only candidate with a common sense approach to the failed war on drugs. I learned first about Ron Paul in 2007 when it became clear the MSM did not want his views heard. Being that there are only 5 major media corporations who all profit from war and the status quo it is easy to see why. The mans a doctor, scholar, veteran, and statesman like you have never seen before. With a 20 year voting record to back it up.
Gotta love the dumb ass people in that crowd, they don't give a shit about anything to do with war since there lazy asses aren't the ones doing the fighting or having to be a citizen living in areas were battles take place. I blame our school systems for people like that, better education and who knows, maybe people would really think about the implications of the crap they "stand up for". Living in Texas I've met tons of people that act like war is the same as mowing the yard, putting no real thought into things, I mention Texas because out of the 8 states I've lived in this is the one where people speak very openly in public about topics like that.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attacking because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attack because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
Actually this is very wrong. It seems to be a serious claim that people really don't seem to get. Al Qaeda's objective has been explicitly stated to rid US presence in the middle east. In fact, most suicide terrorism (over 95%!) cases have been found to be because of territorial reasons rather than religious ones.
Saying terrorism is a "fault" of US policy is probably not how I would phrase it. I would probably say that that is clearly the reasoning behind terrorist groups' hatred of the US. It really is a direct consequence. Military presence in Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.
Obviously, Al Qaeda is the bad guy, and I would never suggest otherwise. But if you think US foreign policy is not the cause of terrorism then you're just wrong. That goes against everything that Al Qaeda and multiple terrorist groups have all explicitly and repeatedly said what their reasonings are. If you think they aren't being defensive then I think you need to consider the idea that perhaps you are the one being naive.
Everything Ron Paul has said regarding this is actually backed up with the facts. Sorry.
Decided to read up on Mitt Romneys points to become a little less biased towards Ron Paul. Then I found out that people actually are that batshit insane and getting a lot of votes.
If this guy gets elected over Obama, I will lose all faith in America again.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attack because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
Actually this is very wrong. It seems to be a serious claim that people really don't seem to get. Al Qaeda's objective has been explicitly stated to rid US presence in the middle east. In fact, most suicide terrorism (over 95%!) cases have been found to be because of territorial reasons rather than religious ones.
Saying terrorism is a "fault" of US policy is probably not how I would phrase it. I would probably say that that is clearly the reasoning behind terrorist groups' hatred of the US. It really is a direct consequence. Military presence in Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.
Obviously, Al Qaeda is the bad guy, and I would never suggest otherwise. But if you think US foreign policy is not the cause of terrorism then you're just wrong. That goes against everything that Al Qaeda and multiple terrorist groups have all explicitly and repeatedly said what their reasonings are. If you think they aren't being defensive then I think you need to consider the idea that perhaps you are the one being naive.
Everything Ron Paul has said regarding this is actually backed up with the facts. Sorry.
Yeah, you're right, terrorist attack different countries because they hate their way of life. I've read serious papers on this case ... uhm ... three little pigs .. snow white ... oh oh and there was a really good one called Little Red Riding Hood ..
They sacrifice their life out of envy or despise , I mean let's face it...Putting troops on your country and killing .... oh well ... over 500k innocent civilians does not make you ....
I'm intrigued ... I'd say you are here for some sort of dissinformation ... then again , that comes from the paranoid me ... The rational me says your completely lacking any sense of rationality.
Ron Paul : "Let's put us in their shooes"( empathy ) - booooooooh Gingrich : "Kill them" ( psycho shit ) - YEAAAAAAAH
Ok , that's gotta be a set up audience, because with these kind of people.... you can't evolve society...you're simply doomed to your own self-destruction...
Edit: I'm sorry , I may a bit harsh here but I believe zalz deserves warn for justifing booing after a man said we must express empathy.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attacking because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
I'm glad we've gone back to the Karl Rove school of IR discussion. Another quality post, zalz.
The entire mechanism of terrorism is extremely complicated and fueled by politics, religion and culture, but the main goals of AQ and every major group are political and secular responses. I'm not sure what you're classifying as a terrorist organization, but the creations of at least several major ones are purely the result of a blowback effect. How is that not responsive? There is no underlying push to create an empire, besides a few pieces of propaganda. Where are you getting this crap from?
Not even the realists like Mearsheimer or any other conservative branch of IR are in line with what you said. It's strictly a neo-conservative position.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attacking because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
You have no clue what a real terrorist is. The US creates terrorist when we bomb their country and they want revenge on us. It's called blowback son.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attacking because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the establishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
I'm glad we've gone back to the Karl Rove school of IR discussion. Another quality post, zalz.
The entire mechanism of terrorism is extremely complicated and fueled by politics, religion and culture, but the main goals of AQ and every major group are political and secular responses. I'm not sure what you're classifying as a terrorist organization, but the creations of at least several major ones are purely the result of a blowback effect. How is that not responsive? There is no underlying push to create an empire, besides a few pieces of propaganda. Where are you getting this crap from?
Not even the realists like Mearsheimer or any other conservative branch of IR are in line with what you said. It's strictly a neo-conservative position.
lol dude that should only be called a mindless position . It's like rationalizing that 1+1=99 O_O
On January 17 2012 10:02 ninini wrote: If you criticize the Vietnam war, you're also criticizing the Korean war, because both wars had identical backgrounds, with a extremist nationalistic communistic group starting out by fighting against the imperials (japan/france) and then using their war veteran reputation to get a backing from the ppl to fight against "the resistance", the ppl who wanted a more westernized style of government.
This comparison fails historical scrutiny.
In Korea's case, both the United States and the USSR took out the imperialist aggressor. Governments on both sides of the divide were the creation of the country in charge of said divide. Revolutionary movements against Japan were not primarily communist or capitalist in nature, but were nationalist.
In Vietnam's case...let's just say one side was sending support to the imperialist aggressor, and one side was sending support to the nationalist revolutionaries.
Basically, in Korea's case, it can be seen as two former "helpers" of the revolution fighting each other after the revolution using their respective puppet states. In Vietnam's case, it's most like one side backing a revolution, and the other side backing the remnants of the imperialistic regime. To say that the backgrounds are identical is disgenuous.
Actually much of the original south korean leadership had ties to the imperialists. Many of the generals had sided to the japanese in the earlier liberation war. Park Chung-hee is an example. He later became president/dictator, but it's widely considered that he was very competent and set the wheels in motion so that they could grow to where they are today. I think people like him sided with the japanese because it was the progressive thing to do, that would help the country in the long run, but many ppl in the north probably saw him as a traitor.
There were great nationalists on the southern side too, but many were westernized. Rhee Syng-man, the original president, was probably hand-picked by USA during the split, after Japan was defeated, but so was Kim Il Sung, by Stalin. North Korea had the nationalistic advantage, while South Korea had the ideological advantage. Even though the ppl at the time probably didn't know that much about communism, the communists were probably seen as radicals, and that must have put a lot of ppl off, and made them support the south, despite of the fact that their nationalism wasn't as strong.
The situation was the same in Vietnam, although it seems like South Vietnam had a much weaker leadership than South Korea. Probably a part of the reason why is because the liberation war was extended when France got involved again after Japan had been defeated. Korea had only been occupied for a short time by Japan, while both France and Japan had been involved in Vietnam for a long while. This meant that the nationalism card was much more important in Vietnam, and that's why Ho Chi Minh was so powerful. Everybody agrees that he would have won an open election, which you couldn't say about Kim Il Sung, but it's important to point out that Ho Chi Minh never would have reached that status if he hadn't been funded from the getgo by the USSR and China. The vietnamese saw him as a nationalist, but he had received even more aid from foreigners than the South Vietnamese leaders had, especially before the outbreak of the american part of the war. Both wars were pseudo-liberation wars, with Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il Sung seeing themselves as the liberators of their ppl, but if you look at the big picture, both scenes was orchestrated by Stalin. He searched for powerful nationalists who were willing to subscribe to his communism, and then he supported them unconditionally. That's also the same way that Mao Zedong rose to power in China.
The Korean and Vietnam conflicts were very similar, but the difference is that the communists got a head-start in Vietnam. USA didn't react fast enough, which put them in a uphill battle.
USA probably couldn't have won that war, but they could've worked towards a cease-fire and split the country like they did in Korea. Instead they left and abandoned the ppl who actually wanted their help, which made the war into a waste. By moving out and abandoning the war, all the american soldiers who died in the war, had died for nothing. This is something that the ppl who were against the war never thought about. If USA had followed through on their actions and kept South Vietnam safe, then they atleast would've accomplished something.
The more debates I watched the more the candidates scare me.
The audience is even more scary. The way they cheered about the "kill them" was disgusting, especially for a group that calls themselves "pro life".
Being pro- the lives of those who want to kill you means being anti- your own life. This is not noble.
It's bloodthirsty and simple-minded. Defending yourself does not mean going around and killing everyone who might harm you.
Apparently it's not about trying to defend ourselves or making the lives of people in this country or in other countries better. It's about KILLING TEH ENEMY!!!! Bloodthirst is not a reason why modern countries go to war.
The people might have boo'ed him for the wrong reasons but they were right to boo that statement of Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is horribly naive and uninformed when it comes to terrorism. This notion that islamic terrorism is reactionairy and anti-imperialist is entirely false. It is refuted not only by facts but by the groups engaging in these acts themselves.
If America withdraws all it's troops from the middle-east, they still have a caliphate to establish.
Al-Qaeda's aimed objective involves the abolishment of more then a dozen states. They aren't attacking because they are on the defensive, they are attack because they are on the offensive.
To suggest that terrorism is the fault of US policy is simply false. It's main stated objective is not the defeat of the US, it's the estmmablishment of an empire.
People should boo Ron Paul's comment and any other uninformed and naive comment of that nature.
Actuallym this is very wrong. It seems to be a serious claim that people really don't seem to get. Al Qaeda's objective has been explicitly stated to rid US presence in the middle east. In fact, most suicide terrorism (over 95%!) cases have been found to be because of territorial reasons rather than religious ones.
Saying terrorism is a "fault" of US policy is probably not how I would phrase it. I would probably say that that is clearly the reasoning behind terrorist groups' hatred of the US. It really is a direct consequence. Military presence in Saudi Arabia and Israel etc.
Obviously, Al Qaeda is the bad guy, and I would never suggest otherwise. But if you think US foreign policy is not the cause of terrorism then you're just wrong. That goes against everything that Al Qaeda and multiple terrorist groups have all explicitly and repeatedly said what their reasonings are. If you think they aren't being defensive then I think you need to consider the idea that perhaps you are the one being naive.
Everything Ron Paul has said regarding this is actually backed up with the facts. Sorry.
Yeah, you're right, terrorist attack different countries because they hate their way of life. I've read serious papers on this case ... uhm ... three little pigs .. snow white ... oh oh and there was a really good one called Little Red Riding Hood ..
They sacrifice their life out of envy or despise , I mean let's face it...Putting troops on your country and killing .... oh well ... over 500k innocent civilians does not make you ....
I'm intrigued ... I'd say you are here for some sort of dissinformation ... then again , that comes from the paranoid me ... The rational me says your completely lacking any sense of rationality.
Ron Paul : "Let's put us in their shooes"( empathy ) - booooooooh Gingrich : "Kill them" ( psycho shit ) - YEAAAAAAAH
Ok , that's gotta be a set up audience, because with these kind of people.... you can't evolve society...you're simply doomed to your own self-destruction...
Edit: I'm sorry , I may a bit harsh here but I believe zalz deserves warn for justifing booing after a man said we must express empathy.
Were you responding to me? I'm confused.
You're being too harsh on zalz. These are common misconceptions, and personally if find it to be not obvious at all.
On January 17 2012 23:18 Velr wrote: It is not obvious to you that some people want to blow you up after you overtake their country and kill countless civilians?
It's not obvious what the stated goals of terrorists are because us Americans are fed this kind of misinformation. Many people think most suicide terrorism is due to Islam, and this just isn't true.
As far as Al Qaeda, most Americans are under the impression that they struck first.
EPT
