Ron Paul for President!!!

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

I weep for the Republic

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

But you have to consider his ideals cannot be put into effect simply because he says so.

Congress must agree with him.

Not only that but Ron Paul, while a great, powerful voice, is a lone one in a world that is working against him.

The media pushes him down.

The other republicans ignore him.

The majority of Americans are ignorant of the way things are, and although the noble cause of enlightenment seems very upright you have to remember that one man cannot change the way every one thinks, but he can play an important role in the changing of times.

I will support Ron Paul as much as I can, but not because I want him to be elected president.

I will support him because the louder he speaks the more people he will reach, and even though he probably wont win the republican primaries, the more people that finally realize that their liberties are being taken hostage the better.

This is only the beggining of a revolution.

One that I will not sit idly by and watch.

Wikipedia says that the Taliban was a splinter group from with in the Mujahideen. Basically the US/CIA trained any and everyone in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. There was no central organizations to the fighter but mostly local organizations. After the war, the different Mujahideen warlords fought each other for control and the Taliban won out. So we didn't directly fund/train the group called the Taliban, but we funded and trained all of the people who formed the Taliban. Also Osama used a lot of his own money, but was trained and supported by the CIA, just like everyone else in that region at the time.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

I weep for the Republic

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al all I have seen you do is make snide remarks about Ron Paul, but given no reason why you dislike him, other then you want to blow up all of the former Ottman Empire.

What are your objectivist/Rand views that make you dislike him?

Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

I weep for the Republic

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al all I have seen you do is make snide remarks about Ron Paul, but given no reason why you dislike him, other then you want to blow up all of the former Ottman Empire.

What are your objectivist/Rand views that make you dislike him?

Dustan

0. My remarks are not snide. I have reasons for making them. Read on and see.

1. I am NOT an Objectivist. Objectivism is a Package Deal I do not buy in the entirety. Some things I agree with (like limited government with low or no taxes) and some things I don't agree with, like Rand and L.P.'s opinions on modern physics. We all love Capitalism, so that is not an issue here.

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

I weep for the Republic

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al all I have seen you do is make snide remarks about Ron Paul, but given no reason why you dislike him, other then you want to blow up all of the former Ottman Empire.

What are your objectivist/Rand views that make you dislike him?

Dustan

0. My remarks are not snide. I have reasons for making them. Read on and see.

1. I am NOT an Objectivist. Objectivism is a Package Deal I do not buy in the entirety. Some things I agree with (like limited government with low or no taxes) and some things I don't agree with, like Rand and L.P.'s opinions on modern physics. We all love Capitalism, so that is not an issue here.

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I can respect the view that you don't support Paul because you are bloodthirsty.

I can also understand that you are bloodthirsty because you want to protect our country.

What then is your response to the problems in foreign policy that fuel the hatred of the US in the Mid-East that I posted on the Mid-East section? Or do you really buy the kool-aid that they hate us because we are good?

If a policy that was non-interventionist (such as the one we had for the first 130 years of our Democracy) made us safer than a policy of bludgeoning the Muslims to death and was more moral, would you rather see that?

What do you think the moral implications are? It is true that if we killed all the muslims and took their land we would have a problem anymore, but what would that make us?

Here is Ayn Rand's take (which is Ron Paul has adopted)

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg.526, from "The Roots of War", CUI, 38:

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interest, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war.

Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot, they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own liveilhood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens-there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact-and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses by winning the war. Thus his own economic interest are on the side of peace.

In a statist economy, where wealth is "publicly owned", a citizen has no economic interest to protect by preserving peace-he is only a drop in the common bucket-while war gives him the hope of larger handouts from his master. Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the benefit of the state.

The trader and warrior have been fundamental antagonists throughout history. Trade does not flourish on battlefields, factories do not produce under bombardments, profits do not grow on rubble. Capitalism is a society of traders-for which it has been denounced by every would-be gunman who regards trade as selfish and conquest as noble.

Let those who are actually concerned with peace observe that capitalism gave mankind the longest period of peace in history-a period from which there were no wars involving the entire civilized world-from the end of the Napoleonic wars in 1815 to the outbreak of WWI in 1914.

Ayn Rand

-Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Here are some other quotes and statements by Ayn Rand on war and statism:

The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg.527, from Ibid., 37:

Statism-in fact and in principle-is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhaust his own country's economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.

Statism needs war; a free country does not. Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

Ayn Rand

And another:

The Ayn Rand Lexicon pg. 527, from Ibid. 42

If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some alleged "good" can justify it-there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.

Ayn Rand

And another (this one is really erie):

Remember that private citizens-whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers-have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions-or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interest or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?

Ayn Rand

Concerning this last comment by Rand, what type of government do you think the Neocons subscribe to?

(They crush our rights, start wars to take oil)

They are not making us safe!!!

--Dustan

[BAMF]

I thought Al Gore was the best hope America has.

"You guys don't take me therial!"

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

[BaalChatzaf]

I can respect the view that you don't support Paul because you are bloodthirsty.

I can also understand that you are bloodthirsty because you want to protect our country.

I am bloodthirsty from zeal to protect -me- and -mine-.

If I had my own army I would not have to depend on politicians. But such is not the case. The government owns the army and the politicians control the government. My only degree of freedom is to try to choose leadership that will use the military to protect my interests.

And that is why I want a killer in the White House.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Martin Radwin]

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed.

Have a nice day.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed.

Have a nice day.

Martin

I am counting on us making a preemptive attack. The next time the Wahabites do mischief on our soil, I am counting on the U.S. doing to them, what we did to the Japs back in the 1940's.

If the right man is in the White House then he will go on the war path if we are attacked again. If the wrong man is in the White House he will figure we deserved what happens to us and will blubber and whine. Sort of like Jimmy Carter after our people were taken captive by the Iranians. A -real- man would have nuked Tehran. But Jimmy turned the other cheek and bit his lip. I don't want that happening again.

Is Ron Paul the man to go on the warpath and kill our enemies?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first -- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A.

[Aggrad02]

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed.

Have a nice day.

Martin

I am counting on us making a preemptive attack. The next time the Wahabites do mischief on our soil, I am counting on the U.S. doing to them, what we did to the Japs back in the 1940's.

If the right man is in the White House then he will go on the war path if we are attacked again. If the wrong man is in the White House he will figure we deserved what happens to us and will blubber and whine. Sort of like Jimmy Carter after our people were taken captive by the Iranians. A -real- man would have nuked Tehran. But Jimmy turned the other cheek and bit his lip. I don't want that happening again.

Is Ron Paul the man to go on the warpath and kill our enemies?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first -- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A.

You answered none of the questions that I asked you, nor did you consider any of the facts/reasoning stated. I guess so much for reason.

Any killer in the white house endangers our freedom and our safety.

-Dustan

[Martin Radwin]

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed.

Have a nice day.

Martin

I am counting on us making a preemptive attack. The next time the Wahabites do mischief on our soil, I am counting on the U.S. doing to them, what we did to the Japs back in the 1940's.

If the right man is in the White House then he will go on the war path if we are attacked again. If the wrong man is in the White House he will figure we deserved what happens to us and will blubber and whine. Sort of like Jimmy Carter after our people were taken captive by the Iranians. A -real- man would have nuked Tehran. But Jimmy turned the other cheek and bit his lip. I don't want that happening again.

Is Ron Paul the man to go on the warpath and kill our enemies?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first -- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A.

During the Iran hostage crisis, about 70 Americans were taken hostage at the American embassy. Of course, this was totally unprovoked on the part of the Iranians! It couldn't have anything to do with the history of US intervention in Iran, starting with the CIA led assassination in 1953 of the just elected prime minister, Mossadegh, and the installation of the brutal CIA supported dictator Pahlavi, who during his 26 year tenure, killed and tortured many thousands of Iranian citizens and presided over the creation of Savak, an Iranian secret police force similar to the Soviet Union's KGB, all with the full support of the US government. After Pahlavi was overthrown, the US government decided to grant the murderous dictator Pahlavi asylum in the United States.

This was the history which led up to the seizing of the American hostages, which you neglected to mention. According to your stated ethical standards, since the US government had committed these protracted crimes against the Iranian people over so many years, and since real men defend their families against such depradations, the Iranian government should have burned the Americans alive rather than just seizing them and holding them hostage. And in response to the seizing of about 70 Americans, you advocate nuking Tehran, a city with a population of about 15 million. Most of them would presumably die in the initial blast, or in subsequent fires. Those who survived would suffer horribly radiation sickness, as happened at Hiroshima and Nakasake.

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

[Roger Bissell]

It's one thing to wish to have a trained, committed killer in the White House, and quite another to want a homicidal mass murderer to be there.

Is it possible? Could it be? I'm not a linguist, but isn't "Ba'al Chatzaf" the ancient Phoenician translation of "Leonard Peikoff"? :-)

REB

[BaalChatzaf]

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars.

You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars.

You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are still ignoring the points of Martin and myself that we created this mess by meddling in the Mid-East to begin with.

I am calling you out to respond to this.

Dustan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's one thing to wish to have a trained, committed killer in the White House, and quite another to want a homicidal mass murderer to be there.

Roger,

There is that small issue of scope, but maybe that's only a detail...

As to kind, I can't help seeing a difference between Hitler and Truman. Both were killers. I would never want Hitler in the White House.

Michael

[Aggrad02]

It's one thing to wish to have a trained, committed killer in the White House, and quite another to want a homicidal mass murderer to be there.

Roger,

There is that small issue of scope, but maybe that's only a detail...

As to kind, I can't help seeing a difference between Hitler and Truman. Both were killers. I would never want Hitler in the White House.

Michael

Michael,

You do know that Hitler used trumped up patriotism to start preemptive wars for what he considered national defense.

Dustan

[Chris Grieb]

In an earlier post Mitchell said that Congress must agree with Ron Paul. This is not true. One third of Congress must agree with the President for him to stop bad bills.

In 1958 the Democrats won almost two thirds of the Congress. President Eisenhower had only one veto over ridden.

Another power the President has that is almost unrestricted is the pardon power. The only people the President can't pardon are persons who have been impeached.

Ron Paul would not have an easy time of his tenure in office but he could do a great deal.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars.

You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are still ignoring the points of Martin and myself that we created this mess by meddling in the Mid-East to begin with.

I am calling you out to respond to this.

Dustan

We did not "meddle" in the middle east any more than we meddled in Eastern Europe. We defended our interests (and badly at that). We "meddled" with the Soviet Union (now defunct) by giving stingers to bin Laden and his friends in Afghanistan (bad mistake). We have been paying the Saudis blackmail to get our oil after they stole it from us and the Europeans who found it and built the oil fields. Is this "meddling"?

We have foolishly allowed oil to become crucial to our economic survival. Given this, we have simply defended our interests. If this offends the Muslims and they get "uppity" then we will have to kill a lot of them. Shit happens and most of it flows downhill. I hope most of it flows downhill on their heads.

Such are the infelicities of modern life.

Once you realize we are living in a rough neighborhood and the world is essentially lawless, you will get used to bloodletting. Either that, or you won't survive. Morality and $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts ™. That should indicate just how valuable morality is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor killed fewer than 3000 of our people. When we got through with the Japanese we killed over three million of theirs and burned most of their cities to the ground. That is the nature of warfare. If they attack you, retaliate with overwhelming force. That is how one should fight wars.

You will notice that the Japanese have not attacked us since 1945. It is no coincidence. You will also notice that we have had little trouble from the Germans since 1945. The moral of the story is that if one is to fight a war, he should fight with overwhelming force. Proportional response can only bring woe. This is what happened in the Viet Nam War. Secretary of Defense MacNamara did not fight war, rather he sent messages to the enemy. Had we nuked Hanoi on day one, we would not have lost 60,000 of our people.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck --- Original Thought and All Mine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are still ignoring the points of Martin and myself that we created this mess by meddling in the Mid-East to begin with.

I am calling you out to respond to this.

Dustan

We did not "meddle" in the middle east any more than we meddled in Eastern Europe. We defended our interests (and badly at that). We "meddled" with the Soviet Union (now defunct) by giving stingers to bin Laden and his friends in Afghanistan (bad mistake). We have been paying the Saudis blackmail to get our oil after they stole it from us and the Europeans who found it and built the oil fields. Is this "meddling"?

We have foolishly allowed oil to become crucial to our economic survival. Given this, we have simply defended our interests. If this offends the Muslims and they get "uppity" then we will have to kill a lot of them. Shit happens and most of it flows downhill. I hope most of it flows downhill on their heads.

Such are the infelicities of modern life.

Once you realize we are living in a rough neighborhood and the world is essentially lawless, you will get used to bloodletting. Either that, or you won't survive. Morality and $1.69 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin' Donuts ™. That should indicate just how valuable morality is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How can you say that it is our oil and our interest. It isn't my oil or my interest. Its probably not yours either. That is a bull answer and is just an excuse to steal other people's resources, and is not capitalistic at all. So what if they didn't sell us their oil, the market would have figured out alternative fuels 50 years ago and we would be just fine.

Also the excuse that we meddle else where is bull also, two wrongs don't make a right.

Once you realize that no-one can threaten American Security at home if we put our resources to defending our borders and our country, the better. And we don't live in a rough neighbor hood, we live in the suburbs and we are driving across the tracks to steal oil and it is causing us problems. Government interference in the economy has never worked and this is just another case of it.

A while ago you claimed to be capitalist but this last post was clearly fascist.

From wikipedia:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism

Dustan

[Kevin Haggerty]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I really gotta ask: what happened to our American self-esteem?

Here we are, one of the richest countries the world has ever seen, perhaps the most influential and positively influential country/culture the world has ever known, with an extraordinarily enviable geographical situation with respect to any "enemy" you can name--how is it that one admittedly unprecedented and tragically destructive terror attack has been so wildly successful (that is, frightened us so profoundly) that we now believe we must fight all-out war to keep from being utterly destroyed?

9/11 was devastating, but unless it was an inside job with folks in the Administration and NORAD and wot not in on it, it was also one of the luckiest damn flukes ever to darken the door of world politics. So many different instances of incompetence and confusion and sheer coincidence had to come together that morning to make it possible. Now, I am seriously not advocating conspiracy here, just pointing out that the likelihood of anything happening even of 9/11 magnitude anytime soon is next to nil. The barn door is shut; the next time a President gets a memo of the "Osama Bin Laden is planning a terror attack in New York involving planes" sort, he (or she) is gonna take notice. Even if some terrorist gets ahold of a nuclear weapon as seems inevitable (eventually) how does one bomb translate into the destruction of America? Surely, the day any enemy is so unutterably foolish as to set off a nuclear explosion in any American city, he must know that whatever corner of the world he chooses to hide will in due time be vaporized by our reprisal.

But here's a thing, while we wring our hands over the possibility of a terrorist getting a bomb some day, history has shown that even a whole country with a full-time military as powerful as that of the old Soviet Union and warheads aplenty, could not/did not, as they expressly hoped to do, "bury us." Quite the contrary. And even though many countries on the planet have nuclear capability, not one has ever used one on an enemy, you know, except us. What are we so afraid of?

So why should we, as a nation, fear the terrorists? Why should we, as a nation, fear that the dreams of radical Islamic crazies will come true? What do these extremists have that Russia and China did not? Why have we let one lucky act of barbarity shake us so to the core?

Yes, radical Islam is a problem. Yes, we should keep an eye on them and twart their pathetic self-destructive schemes whenever and where ever they be found, but that's about it.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm an idiot, maybe I've been brainwashed by some "liberal media" or something, but this has been bothering me for a good seven years and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer anywhere.

--Kevin

[Chris Grieb]

Kevin; Cato had a Book Forum with Robert Muller and former Gov. Gilmore of Virginia in which Muller called for sanity about the terror threat. I believe you can find it at Cato.org. It is very good. Prof. Muller has also been on Book TV.

[Barbara Branden]

Michael Radwin: "They impose brutal sanctions against Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including huge numbers of Iraqi children."

"Hundreds of thousands"? Nonsense! These are Michael Moore figures. And our sanctions were an attempt to save lives. Ours.

Michael Radwin: "They send weapons to Israel which are used to kill, enslave, and humiliate thousands of Palestinians."

This is worse than nonsense. It is a wanton disregard of facts, of history, and of morality.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Michael Radwin: "They impose brutal sanctions against Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including huge numbers of Iraqi children."

"Hundreds of thousands"? Nonsense! These are Michael Moore figures. And our sanctions were an attempt to save lives. Ours.

Michael Radwin: "They send weapons to Israel which are used to kill, enslave, and humiliate thousands of Palestinians."

This is worse than nonsense. It is a wanton disregard of facts, of history, and of morality.

Barbara

We should embrace Israel and go from there.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

2. I don't think Ron Paul is a killer, so I will not vote for him. I will not vote for anyone who will not kill our enemies mercilessly and screw the collateral damage. I want our Fearless Leader to be bloodthirsty and ready to kill for us. Is Ron Paul that Leader?

Where are General Patton or Admiral Halsey when you need them? Where is Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May?

The mark of a man is one who is ready to kill for his family, his friends and his people and take pride in the killing. Is Ron Paul that man? Some day killers will make it possible for non-killers to live in safety.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are counting on the fact that the countries whose citizens you propose to slaughter without mercy don't yet have the kinds of weapons with which they could effectively retaliate. But someday in the not too distant future, they will. Nuclear proliferation will ultimately prove to be unstoppable. And because the residents of these countries are going to have some real men just like you who are also ready to kill for their family, friends, and countrymen, and who will not forget that it was the United States that killed their families, we will all be their targets. The bloodthirsty lunacy of government officials who think just like you will get us all killed.

Have a nice day.

Martin

I am counting on us making a preemptive attack. The next time the Wahabites do mischief on our soil, I am counting on the U.S. doing to them, what we did to the Japs back in the 1940's.

If the right man is in the White House then he will go on the war path if we are attacked again. If the wrong man is in the White House he will figure we deserved what happens to us and will blubber and whine. Sort of like Jimmy Carter after our people were taken captive by the Iranians. A -real- man would have nuked Tehran. But Jimmy turned the other cheek and bit his lip. I don't want that happening again.

Is Ron Paul the man to go on the warpath and kill our enemies?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If he comes to kill you, rise up early and slay him first -- Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A.

During the Iran hostage crisis, about 70 Americans were taken hostage at the American embassy. Of course, this was totally unprovoked on the part of the Iranians! It couldn't have anything to do with the history of US intervention in Iran, starting with the CIA led assassination in 1953 of the just elected prime minister, Mossadegh, and the installation of the brutal CIA supported dictator Pahlavi, who during his 26 year tenure, killed and tortured many thousands of Iranian citizens and presided over the creation of Savak, an Iranian secret police force similar to the Soviet Union's KGB, all with the full support of the US government. After Pahlavi was overthrown, the US government decided to grant the murderous dictator Pahlavi asylum in the United States.

This was the history which led up to the seizing of the American hostages, which you neglected to mention. According to your stated ethical standards, since the US government had committed these protracted crimes against the Iranian people over so many years, and since real men defend their families against such depradations, the Iranian government should have burned the Americans alive rather than just seizing them and holding them hostage. And in response to the seizing of about 70 Americans, you advocate nuking Tehran, a city with a population of about 15 million. Most of them would presumably die in the initial blast, or in subsequent fires. Those who survived would suffer horribly radiation sickness, as happened at Hiroshima and Nakasake.

What the hell, killing and horribly sickening millions of innocent men, women, and children seems like a fair retaliation for the taking of 70 hostages, doesn't it? It's good that you have made these posts and expressed your views so openly. Anyone reading them can draw their own conclusions as to your moral character.

Martin

I've killed communist(s)--literally--but I respect the enemy I once had. I could kill Muslim terrorists, make life on earth hell for them--but feel no respect or regret for them whatsoever.

The premise that Arab Muslims terrorists are acting out of justice is a perversion of Western concepts they don't even share or understand except as our weakness.

Shot them down. Bury them with pigs. Blow up that rock in Mecca. They would care about that but why should we? They hijack. They destroy the WTC. Let them have it! Only by letting "them have it" will they understand that they can't get away with shit so they best get away with decency--Western decency. Thus would we liberate hundreds of millions of Muslims from terror and anarchic force. Screw their religion; up with Muslims, as human beings!

Might makes right except philosophically. When the US gov't protects our rights it does so with FORCE!

--Brant

PS: edit--might makes right if combined with the correct and true philosophy. But philosophy without might better get a move on!

Edited July 1, 2007 by Brant Gaede