Tea Party Heckles Ron Paul's Hate America First Message

[Prometheus]

No we were not. We have never occupied the Middle East.

Wouldn't it just be easier if you told us what you've contrived to call occupation? I'm assuming that any type of contact, presence, or cooperation would equal occupation? Is that right? It's a heads you win, tails I lose type of thing right?

Yeah. I don't know what else to call it. Do we need to wait a FULL decade to call it an occupation, as opposed to 8 years? Disregarding the forces kept in place from the first gulf war, heck we're closing in on a quarter of century from that angle.

This entire "blame America first" sound byte crap is getting very old. It's disingenuous at best. Those parroting it cannot be THAT stupid... can they?

How many times have these same people made a snide remark about someone leaving a bar at 2am and how they "should have known better"... I saw some yahoo trying to claim it's like blaming a woman for dressing provocatively and then wondering why she got raped.

These same mental midgets would be the first to say you shouldn't be walking thru downtown Gary at 2am and be surprised if you get jumped. Rightly so, but why their pea brains can't make the connection of downtown Gary to some third world crap hole half way around the globe is truly bizarre.

The reason why America is on the fast track to third world status is abundantly clear, the majority of Americans (republicans and democrats) cannot think beyond a sound byte.

There is no personal responsibility, no reason, no logic. It's pathetic.

 

[Garb]

Wouldn't it just be easier if you told us what you've contrived to call occupation? I'm assuming that any type of contact, presence, or cooperation would equal occupation? Is that right? It's a heads you win, tails I lose type of thing right?

Again, I consider propping up dictators, overthrowing governments, and choosing favorites in the local wars to be a type of occupation. What would you call it?

 

[Garb]

Wouldn't it just be easier if you told us what you've contrived to call occupation? I'm assuming that any type of contact, presence, or cooperation would equal occupation? Is that right? It's a heads you win, tails I lose type of thing right?

I consider propping up dictators, overthrowing governments, and choosing favorites in the local wars to be a type of occupation. What would you call it?

 

[CarmelHP]

Again, I consider propping up dictators, overthrowing governments, and choosing favorites in the local wars to be a type of occupation. What would you call it?

See, wasn't that easier to get the dishonesty out at the beginning?

 

[CarmelHP]

There is no personal responsibility, no reason, no logic. It's pathetic.

You're telling me, blaming victims for getting attacked is now championing personal responsibility. Amazing the idiotic revolting crap that gets thrown out as enlightened truth around here.

 

[Garb]

See, wasn't that easier to get the dishonesty out at the beginning?

Where was the dishonesty? Where we not doing any of those things I mentioned?

 

[Garb]

You're telling me, blaming victims for getting attacked is now championing personal responsibility. Amazing the idiotic revolting crap that gets thrown out as enlightened truth around here.

We're blaming U.S. foreign policy for the death of American citizens. The American citizens were the victims, but they certainly weren't the aggressors.

 

[CarmelHP]

Where was the dishonesty? Where we not doing any of those things I mentioned?

Even if we assume that we were, none of those even remotely resembles "occupation" unless words no longer have any defined meaning.

 

[rambone]

 

[CarmelHP]

Thank you for the proof that we didn't occupy Iraq when the opportunity presented itself, otherwise there would have been no need to return and finish the job. QED

 

[Prometheus]

You're telling me, blaming victims for getting attacked is now championing personal responsibility.

We're blaming U.S. foreign policy for the death of American citizens. The American citizens were the victims, but they certainly weren't the aggressors.

It's nice to other people who get it.

It's actually a simple concept Carmel. You walk over to neighbors house ring his doorbell, punch him in the face and walk away over and over, don't be surprised when he comes to your door and punches you or one of your family members in the face.

Go stir up a hornets nest, don't be surprised when the hornets start to sting you.

Walk thru Gary at midnight wearing a KKK robe or tank top and thong, don't be surprised if you get accosted.

Trying to this around as blaming the people in the towers is a cheap and easy way to skate the actual topic.

It's sound byte blather and makes you look like a fool incapable of carrying on a conversation with adults so you stick you fingers in your ears and screaming nonsense.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It was the Taliban's policy.



How is having a entirely domestic group, which is not launching attacks against any other nation, and which would be either annihilated or offered up for annihilation by our own government even remotely the same as the Taliban's response to the 9/11 attacks? It's not, that's how.



If the KKK even set off a firecracker they would have the fury of hell rained upon them by our own government. Are you serious? This is the counter-example you came up with?

Well, for one the Taliban is not the sovereign Afghanistan government, in the same way that the KKK is not the sovereign US government. The Taliban may be an extremist group, but that does not justify occupation of Afghanistan.

And believe it or not, the KKK is an international group - and they exist, attacking people in other nations. If a government entity claims they are a terrorist organization, considering they attack people in order to instill fear, would it justify that nation invading the US? I mean, the KKK exist here, right?

If a member of the international KKK was involved in an incident in another nation, that would likely not lead to anything else being done here at home...

 

[Expat]

Well, for one the Taliban is not the sovereign Afghanistan government, in the same way that the KKK is not the sovereign US government. The Taliban may be an extremist group, but that does not justify occupation of Afghanistan.

And believe it or not, the KKK is an international group - and they exist, attacking people in other nations. If a government entity claims they are a terrorist organization, considering they attack people in order to instill fear, would it justify that nation invading the US? I mean, the KKK exist here, right?

If a member of the international KKK was involved in an incident in another nation, that would likely not lead to anything else being done here at home...

But the Taliban was the sovereign Afghan government on 9/11/01. We demanded that they hand over to us the members of al-Qaeda that were operating from their country. They refused. We invaded. Pretty simple. The KKK was not involved in the process in anyway, so I am not sure why you are babbling about them.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

But the Taliban was the sovereign Afghan government on 9/11/01. We demanded that they hand over to us the members of al-Qaeda that were operating from their country. They refused. We invaded. Pretty simple. The KKK was not involved in the process in anyway, so I am not sure why you are babbling about them.

That is a vast distinction that I accept, since our aid yielded the Taliban the force to gain sovereign control.... but they are no longer the sovereign government - yet we continue to occupy Afghanistan in order to fight al-Qaeda...

That would still be like a foreign nation demanding we hand over to them the members of the KKK that exist in our country. If we refused, would that justify occupation? The attacks the international KKK have carried out in other nations are not anywhere near the scale of the 9/11 attacks, but they do happen - and they are terrorist activities, no?

The KKK differs from al-Qaeda how exactly? Both are international groups with extreme racial and ethnic views. The views differs, and the groups are not the same - but they are extremely similar.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

No, You're stupid.


(to the room)

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Explanations are greater than random statements. (posted before your edit...)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That is a vast distinction that I accept, since our aid yielded the Taliban the force to gain sovereign control.... but they are no longer the sovereign government - yet we continue to occupy Afghanistan in order to fight al-Qaeda...

That would still be like a foreign nation demanding we hand over to them the members of the KKK that exist in our country. If we refused, would that justify occupation? The attacks the international KKK have carried out in other nations are not anywhere near the scale of the 9/11 attacks, but they do happen - and they are terrorist activities, no?

The KKK differs from al-Qaeda how exactly? Both are international groups with extreme racial and ethnic views. The views differs, and the groups are not the same - but they are extremely similar.

In fact, our aid didn't allow the Taliban to take control. Control of the country was decentralized with several rival groups claiming ascendancy when the Russians left. As I recall it, the Northern Alliance had control of Kabul until the Taliban had its leader assassinated; the ensuing power struggle allowed the Taliban to take control. There was still ongoing conflict in the country when the 9/11 incident took place, and our initial response was to work with already-existing groups to drive the Taliban out. If we had stuck with that strategy instead of attempting (with all the good will in the world) to help them become self-governing, we could have extracted ourselves with a minimum of casualties. That was a State Department decision, rather than a DoD decision.
Like the situation in Iraq, our strategic aim has been to leave a stable non-terror-supporting state behind when we leave; unlike Iraq, it's not likely to work well because the Afghanis don't have the education or the will to self-determination - an 8th Century society vs the 20th Century society of Iraq.

 

[88GT]

So let's stop giving them reasons.

A practical impossibility. While Paul seems to think that we can treat all other nations equally and without favoritism (a point I doubt very much), the reality is that we would be the only nation on earth to do so. Ergo, trading with one has the very real possibility of pissing off another. The point is that it doesn't matter what we do, someone somewhere is going to hijack that behavior as an excuse to do what they wanted to do it in the first place.

We can no more avoid pissing off someone in this world than Sharpton can avoid seeing a racial injustice in ordering a coke from McDonald's. And frankly, the claims against the "transgressions" that have earned use the ire of the rest of the world are just about as stupid as those that Sharpton sees.

 

[Hoosier8]

In spite of all the blind "America can do no wrong" ideology it should behoove us to remember what George Washington said, "Beware of foreign entanglements".

By picking "Allies", we naturally end up picking enemies. The idea behind what Washington said was that we trade with all but do not entangle ourselves in other countries business.

What Paul said was true, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to foreign entanglements and have reaped the rewards, both positive and negative. 9/11 was one of the negative rewards.

I doubt that George Washington would be considered unpatriotic.

 

[Big Naughty]

Sometimes I think people love war more than they love America.

People who love war have either never been in one or are psychopaths.