Ron Paul has voted against every single Congressional pay raise

[vyo476]

I believe it's the same thing. What specific foreign policy incidents are driving the terrorists then? If you say our mistreatment can be dated to WW1, then what caused their attacks in 1801? They, themselves said it was religion.

Do you always take the word of killers?

I went into a few of the potential reasons for their aggression in the Barbary Wars. One thing I forgot to mention was that most, if not all, of North Africa was under the control of the Ottoman Empire; they did what the Sultan told them to or else.

One other thing - many foreign powers bribed or otherwise bought off the Barbary pirates. Don't you see something a bit flimsy in saying, "We are motivated by religion - but we'll take cash instead."?

Vyo, this is a weak argument and you know it. The Barbary Wars perfectly illustrate that it's not foreign policy that drives the Islamic fundamentalists, but theology and indoctrination.

It's not so weak an argument. The events of the Barbary Wars had little impact on the Middle East (and in fact didn't even involve the Middle East, which was, at the time, also languishing under Ottoman rule). Then, we had a problem with privateers attacking our ships "over there"; today we have a problem with terrorists specifically picking American targets, both overseas and here on our own shores. Then, "they" had no particular gripe against us - we were just an easy target that couldn't afford to pay them off. Now, "they" have a century of mistreatment to draw on as motivation.

Comparing the present conflict to the Barbary Wars is like comparing the American Civil War to World War II. You can do it, but you're stretching a bit.

What does this have to do with anything? My argument is that Muslim extremists (the argument over whether or not they are perverting the Koran notwithstanding) need no pretext to go to war other than religion.

And I'm not disputing that this is true for Muslim fundamentalists. I'm just saying that the actual "fundamentalists" make up a comparatively small percentage of the population of people arrayed against us today; the rest, the majority, are doing it because we've pissed them off.

It's an argument I hear all the time, vyo. That you "can't defeat terrorism" and "you can't defeat an ideology" and that the only way to solve this problem is to be nice and apologize for our past mistakes.

I believe the "you can't defeat terrorism" arguments pertain to the fact that terrorism is a tactic and so long as one person hates another it'll be a viable option. That's how Roker explained it to me, once upon a time.

As for defeating ideologies...no, you can't do that, not entirely anyway. You can beat the largest and most dangerous proponents of an ideology, but you can't kill ideas. I mean, we beat the Nazis into the ground in 1945, but there are still neo-Nazi movements in this very country (they're just not all that powerful and too scared of the law to do anything). Like I said, you can't kill ideas.

As for solving our present problems, I think there will always be Islamic fundamentalists who are just pure fanatics. Like the Nazis, no amount of killing the heck out of them will stop more from coming down the pipe later. However, if we find constructive ways to get the mainstream population to stop empathizing more with the extremists than with us, then those fundamentalists will someday be akin to the present crop of neo-Nazis - weak and unimportant.

That's not really true, vyo. Why do you think the "Pirates" (really just an 18th century word for "terrorists") kept at war for so long? Even though the Tropolitan war ended in 1805, the Algerians launched another war in 1815 and even after this war was lost, they continued to prey on French ships until around 1830. The reason given by author of The Barbary Pirates? "The pirates must have war. Otherwise, the world would soon cease to fear them."

We didn't manage to make it unprofitable for them?

Anyway, your statements could describe pirates in general, and there have been plenty of those who didn't pray towards Mecca every morning.

Any means necessary doesn't mean automatically jump to nuclear holocaust, vyo. I know you're an honest guy and don't mean to deflect the issue but that is not at all what "any means necessary" suggests.

I apologize. I jumped from "any means necessary" straight to "easiest means available."

We should start at home. I've done this before but I will do it again. Contrast the Iraq War to how we fought WW2 where we mobilized 15 million men, built a 3 ocean navy, built the B-29, completed the Manhatten project, liberated dozens of countries, defeated Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany. All in about 4 years. That's when we were a serious country and had a "do whatever it takes" mentality.

We also launched a number of entirely unnecessary civilian bombing raids that are generally reviled today (Dresden being the most prominent). We also unfairly incarcerated our own Japanese population on suspicion of treason, an entirely racist and generally unfortunate act.

There are prices that go along with such mobilization and I'm sorry if we're not willing to pay them anymore.

Here's my big question: if we start "holding Islam accountable," what happens to our own Muslim population?

It has been 6 years since 9/11 and we still haven't reorganized our government bureaucracies so they are effective, we still don't hold our enemies accountable, we still don't insist our allies pay attention, we haven't secured our borders, and the mainstream media is rooting for the wrong side.

Regardless of a state of war the government bureaucracies are in need of efficiency treatment. "Holding our enemies accountable" is a can of worms that I mentioned above. Our allies aren't paying attention because they don't agree with what we're doing. Our borders are a mess, that's very true. And as for the media...well, no one's happy with them, ever. We just received a documentary at the library here at school about how the corporate media has manipulated news coming from Iraq to downplay how much of a profit they and their peers are making off the war (which, regardless of how you feel about Iraq, you have to acknowledge as being some pretty significant coin). My War Stories professor pointed it out to me today.

Speaking of War Stories, I'm about fifty pages into Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead. Have you ever read it? It's quite good.

This is a very serious issue. We are in a global conflict against an enemy that wants to destroy us. A biological attack is very real, when you have 6 out of the 8 terrorists in Great Britain being medical doctors. A nuclear attack is looking ever more likely. Pakistan is unstable and the Iranians and N Koreans are unchecked. By all accounts, we are not taking this war seriously enough.

No one is saying that terrorism isn't a serious issue. Some people question if it's as world-shattering an issue as it is sometimes made out to be (especially by our present administration), but after living through 9/11 I doubt anyone who has a decent head on their shoulders is saying terrorism isn't, at least, a "serious" problem.

That said, I believe our priorities in terms of defense ought to lie with border security, airport security (which is somehow still a joke, albeit one entirely lacking humor), and the Coast Guard.

So by "any means necessary" -- I would say that we start at home, not right to turning the Middle East into a sheat of glass.

I guess that in an ironic twist we agree on starting at home.

 

[ArmChair General]

WASHINGTON, DC - Following through with his perfect record of having never voted for a congressional pay raise, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Thursday once again voted against an increase in the salary of Members of Congress.

"I have never and will never vote to increase Congress' pay; it's shameful that Congress seems to think that they should be raising their own pay at the same time the American people see their taxes increasing, federal spending going up, and the national debt getting larger," said Rep. Paul. "Many Members of Congress say they spend so much time in D.C. that they need more money. I say that not only does Congress not need a pay raise, we need to return to the Constitution, limit what the federal government has its fingers in, cut the time Congress spends in session, and cut the pay congressmen receive."

It is sad, said Paul, that at the same time Congress is attempting to increase its own pay, it has been examining ways to reduce the benefits paid to veterans and senior citizens.

Not only has Rep. Paul refused to ever vote for a congressional pay raise, but he is also one of the few representatives to turn down the lucrative pension Congress gives itself.

"Between the ability to increase pay at their whim and the juicy pension package they give themselves, it is no wonder so few Members of Congress ever leave their office and return to the private sector," said Rep. Paul. "How many Americans can, without thought, grant themselves a pay raise? How many Americans can take part in a pension which pays out the huge sums the congressional pension does? None, because Congress can simply increase taxes to pay the bill. Even the wealthiest of business owners have to answer to the bottom-line profitability of their company; Congress has no such accountability."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr071798.htm

Ron Paul is the only Congressman to vote against every single Congressional pay raise. Want to get paid to sit on your duff, get special privileges, and talk big but do nothing? Join the US congress. Don't you just love do-nothing congressmen who give themselves raises and a pat on the back for basically being a waste of space?

It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise.

 

[ArmChair General]

And if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some serious questions at the next debate.

In the last debate I saw, he gave strange and convoluted answers about his economic policies that neither myself or anyone I was watching it with understood. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about his ideas on how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.

Or everyone can just grow up and stop pretending like Ron Paul is anything but a fruitcake.

 

[Stevencpoynter]

My question is, almost 4 years later with the advent of war in Libya, strikes in Yemen, and still war in Iraq, Afghanistan, disregard for the rule of law in Pakistan, what are everyone's views on this topic now?

Seeing as the issue of blowback still seems to be there, this country is now officially broke, and our individual freedoms are being infringed upon...how do everyone's views appear now?

 

[clarkatticus]

There are two brutally honest Congressmen, Ron Paul and Kucinich, most the rest are empty suits. Sometimes they even agree. The problem is, both their ideologies are impossible to impliment because it would require the entire world to accomodate them and I doubt either of them could even get Wyoming to try it-but thats a thread in itself. As for the Muslims, saying that religion is the reason for their Anti-American views is like saying men read Playboy for the articles (yes, there are well written articles). Starting with the Shaw and our forming of Israel and most recently our unjustified war in Iraq, the United States has made atrocious foreign policy decisions in the belief that the Arabs of the area were too disjointed to do anything about it. Well, I guess they found some things to do. I am not againsed Israel, just how the nation was formed in such a blatant fashion. You can pick through the Koran and find all sorts verses concerning violence (the Bible too), you can point out previous conflicts that go 100's of years past, truth is, war is just politics with a hammer. We want what they have (land, oil, influence) They want what we have (influence, power, social justice, respect) don't underestimate respect, sociologists say that is a major in their animosity. Religion for both sides is the WMD of reasons.

 

[clarkatticus]

The second Gadaffi is gone, dead or out of power our interest in Libya will be over. We will let France screw it up from there. We would be out now if France had enough ordinance and equipment. We cannot pull out of A-gan faster than we are, at least not openly. A new political plan for the area is forming as we speak, critics say our policys are confusing and disjointed. Well, the Middle East is confusing and disjointed right now, no plan will last for a week in this atmosphere. Look for the Prez to start a slow pullback from all areas except Korea and to refocus our mission worldwide with a bent toward frugality. Do not look for shower buddies in the Middle East after these convulsions are over, but hopefully, the inheirant weakness of forming governments and new policies might make for a less contentious relationship with the area. This is how I see it shaking out, I hope it is this simple.

 

[BigRob]

The second Gadaffi is gone, dead or out of power our interest in Libya will be over. We will let France screw it up from there. We would be out now if France had enough ordinance and equipment.

We never had an interest in Libya in my opinion...and if we did, it certainly is not whether or not Gaddaffi is in power.

We cannot pull out of A-gan faster than we are, at least not openly. A new political plan for the area is forming as we speak, critics say our policys are confusing and disjointed. Well, the Middle East is confusing and disjointed right now, no plan will last for a week in this atmosphere.

There is no political plan for Afghanistan that is workable...where is such a plan? Until Karzai is out of the picture, there will never be a political solution.

Look for the Prez to start a slow pullback from all areas except Korea and to refocus our mission worldwide with a bent toward frugality.

This will simply not happen...especially not before the 2012 election...unless you definition of "all areas" does not really mean all areas.

Do not look for shower buddies in the Middle East after these convulsions are over, but hopefully, the inheirant weakness of forming governments and new policies might make for a less contentious relationship with the area. This is how I see it shaking out, I hope it is this simple.

What exactly do you mean by the "inherent weakness of forming governments and new policies"...and how is that going to bring stability?

 

[clarkatticus]

Our interest in Libya is NATO, nuff said. We cannot "make" our own leadership In A-gan, Iran taught us that. Pakistan is more important, but we are fighting China for influence and trying to be friendly with India at the same time, China being their mortal enemy. Truth is, there is no military or political solution to Afghanistan except for one-make the country (Afghanistan) unimportant to our affairs, get a long stick and push them out to sea (metaphorically). You are right about nothing happening until the 2012 elections and the Dems regain some control and grow some huevos. Soon, Israel will be the only stable government in the area, some governments will emerge in Syria, Yemen, Libya and maybe even Iran that will not necessarily be our buddies but their internal struggles open avenues for (reluctant?) allies as they will need recognition to achieve control. Last I looked, we still ran the Security Council and thats where they have to go. Honestly, right now, no policy (stated outloud) is the best policy. Wait for the winner, buy him a drink and see what we agree on.

 

[Openmind]

Our interest in Libya is NATO, nuff said. We cannot "make" our own leadership In A-gan, Iran taught us that. Pakistan is more important, but we are fighting China for influence and trying to be friendly with India at the same time, China being their mortal enemy. Truth is, there is no military or political solution to Afghanistan except for one-make the country (Afghanistan) unimportant to our affairs, get a long stick and push them out to sea (metaphorically). You are right about nothing happening until the 2012 elections and the Dems regain some control and grow some huevos. Soon, Israel will be the only stable government in the area, some governments will emerge in Syria, Yemen, Libya and maybe even Iran that will not necessarily be our buddies but their internal struggles open avenues for (reluctant?) allies as they will need recognition to achieve control. Last I looked, we still ran the Security Council and thats where they have to go. Honestly, right now, no policy (stated outloud) is the best policy. Wait for the winner, buy him a drink and see what we agree on.

I love your clear logic!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Our interest in Libya is also related to Egypt..

 

[BigRob]

Our interest in Libya is NATO, nuff said.

Nothing in the NATO Charter backs up your assertion...it is your assertion that we needed to get involved a war with no clear goals or end game because "NATO" wanted it to happen?

We cannot "make" our own leadership In A-gan, Iran taught us that. Pakistan is more important, but we are fighting China for influence and trying to be friendly with India at the same time, China being their mortal enemy. Truth is, there is no military or political solution to Afghanistan except for one-make the country (Afghanistan) unimportant to our affairs, get a long stick and push them out to sea (metaphorically). You are right about nothing happening until the 2012 elections and the Dems regain some control and grow some huevos.

Problem is we cannot win by any stretch of the imagination in Afghanistan with the leadership over there...so we are simply wasting our time.

As for combating Chinese influence, you are correct..that is an important factor, but that is not a reason to simply sit in Afghanistan into eternity. Yes Pakistan is the major problem, but short of actually invading, we cannot do anything about Pakistan..so our hands are tied.

Soon, Israel will be the only stable government in the area, some governments will emerge in Syria, Yemen, Libya and maybe even Iran that will not necessarily be our buddies but their internal struggles open avenues for (reluctant?) allies as they will need recognition to achieve control.

So weak governments breed stability is the premise of your argument? That flies directly in the face of 50 years of foreign policy of supporting a bad government simply because they could ensure stability.

Last I looked, we still ran the Security Council and thats where they have to go. Honestly, right now, no policy (stated outloud) is the best policy. Wait for the winner, buy him a drink and see what we agree on.

Last I looked, we ran 20% of the Security Council, and so does China...our "mortal enemy" as you stated.

I see no problem with picking winners in the region if it suits our national interest...if it doesn't (such as Libya), then I fully agree we can let them kill each other off and see who wins...the problem will of course be compounded as these states start to go nuclear..in which case weak, unstable governments are simply unacceptable.

 

[clarkatticus]

Ok, NATO is our ally in Treaty. They helped us in Afghan and Iraq (somewhat). They need a stable Libya (we could care less) This is quid pro quo. You need to stop being obtuse, you know what I was saying. The leadership in Afghan is a farce, but how do we abandon Afghan without abandoning Pakistan? This is the problem. I am for leaving and dealing with the aftermath anyway, it has to be cheaper, so we probably agree on this. Unstable governments that need stability have to go somewhere for support and that has traditionally been our forte, we just need to pick better and demand more. Please tell me Israel doesn't go to bed at night wishing for a weak syria and iran, I know I do. And you misread (another) statement, China is India's mortal enemy, not ours. You would have to have lived on another planet if you didn't notice the US control of the security Council for the last 60 years.

 

[BigRob]

Ok, NATO is our ally in Treaty. They helped us in Afghan and Iraq (somewhat).

Sort of.

They need a stable Libya (we could care less) This is quid pro quo. You need to stop being obtuse, you know what I was saying.

Hah. I know what you are saying, and it is bogus. Why does NATO need a stable Libya?

The leadership in Afghan is a farce, but how do we abandon Afghan without abandoning Pakistan?

You can't. But you can't fight a war in Pakistan if Afghanistan if your front line. You will never win.

This is the problem. I am for leaving and dealing with the aftermath anyway, it has to be cheaper, so we probably agree on this. Unstable governments that need stability have to go somewhere for support and that has traditionally been our forte, we just need to pick better and demand more.

So what exactly are you arguing for? Instability as opposed to stability?

Please tell me Israel doesn't go to bed at night wishing for a weak syria and iran, I know I do.

Israel does want a weak Syria and a weak Iran, relative to themselves...what they don't want is for those countries to fall apart.

And you misread (another) statement, China is India's mortal enemy, not ours.

All the same, they are soon to be ours.

You would have to have lived on another planet if you didn't notice the US control of the security Council for the last 60 years.

Because the USSR boycotted the UNSC, we had dominance during the Cold War for the most part, but the idea that the US dictates policy to the UNSC is idiotic. Simply look at the build up to the Iraq War to see a perfect example of that.