"Electability: Ron Paul Soundly Defeats Obama for These 11 Reasons"

[GALTGULCH8]

http://www.rcreader....electability/1/ Commentary/Politics - Guest Commentaries ShareThis WRITTEN BY DAVE TROTTER THURSDAY, 08 DECEMBER 2011 06:04 Page 1 | 2 | All Pages

(Editor's note: This is one of three articles on Ron Paul in the December 8 issue of theRiver Cities’ Reader. The package also includes Kathleen McCarthy’s “Ron Paul Personifies Iowa GOP Party Platform” editorial and Todd McGreevy’s “Media Manipulation and Ron Paul.”)

Establishment political personalities are quick to claim poor “electability” to diminish Ron Paul’s chances because theypresume that Paul holds no positive advantage in a head-to-head matchup against President Barack Obama in the general election. That’s an apparent premise of their calculation.

This is either a sublime miscalculation or a profound deception. If Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, the path to the White House could seem downhill by comparison. Why?

Unprecedented debt circumstances demand an unprecedented re-imagining of U.S. government priorities and obligations. The U.S. national debt is categorically unsustainable and, literally, it’s now mathematically impossible to repay, too. That the debt, banking, and finance system is increasingly proven to be a rigged Ponzi scheme in mainstream media only underlines Ron Paul’s tenured criticism of the oligarchical Federal Reserve system itself. Further, increasing numbers of voters awaken daily to the direct correlation between endless foreign interventionism and that categorically unsustainable debt that vexes the nation.

Indeed, because of wars, rumors of wars, a fading dollar, climbing prices, hopeless unemployment, and an overreaching federal police state, the time is ripe for Ron Paul’s small-government message.

There’s merely that small prerequisite for the general election: winning the Republican nomination.

The first contest, the Iowa caucus, is an activist-gathering, hand-raising event that heavily favors a strong ground organization. Ron Paul, by all accounts, enjoys a robust ground organization in Iowa – the strongest of the field. Ron’s numbers are up recently in Iowa, too, leading many previously dismissive pundits to consider seriously the prospect of a Paul victory next month.

After all, Paul fell just short of winning the Ames Straw Poll in August by a mere 150 votes to Michelle Bachmann, who’s since collapsed utterly from relevance – or posing any serious threat of repeating. Bachmann was merely the first of several anybody-but-Romney candidates to grab the “frontrunner” baton for a few precious moments of prime time.

The momentum for Ron Paul coming out of an Iowa victory could roll right through New Hampshire, considered a more libertarian-leaning electorate, and in turn trigger Romney’s long-inevitable glass-house collapse.

Despite a hiccup here or there, maybe in South Carolina, no other already-passed-the-baton “frontrunner” could stop Ron Paul after victories in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So there you go: early victories, nomination, a speech, and on to the general election.

In that general-election matchup, Ron Paul would make short work of Obama, for these 11 reasons.

(1) Ron Paul significantly outclasses Obama in any extemporaneous, conventionally conceivable economic or foreign-policy debate format not involving teleprompters.How does Obama justify expanding the bailouts, the wars, and the police state at home after promising the opposite – “hope and change” – throughout his 2008 campaign? Filling his cabinet with crony bankster speculators and lobbyists? Secretly bailing outinsiders and foreign banks alike? How does Obama defend Solyndra or Fast and Furious? Answer: He can’t.

I say “conventionally conceivable” because it seems there’d be one offsetting chance here for Obama: cancel the debates. And the election.

One thing’s clear, though: If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the debate moderators will have much more difficulty ignoring him on a stage of two or three than in the midst of eight or more in the GOP primary debates.

(2) Ron Paul wins the issue of war and foreign policy for anti-war liberals, independents, libertarians, and constitutional conservatives. Don’t look now, but that’s a sizable and growing coalition, and one that isn’t currently gauged by restricting polling samples to GOP primary likely Republican voters. There’s upside there, too, as Paul makes progress with traditional Bush-supporting “conservatives” who begin to recognize that wars cost trillions, and the U.S. is flat broke.

There’s a significant portion of Obama’s base that elected him based on his anti-war rhetoric, which he subsequently abandoned upon inauguration. These disillusioned liberals and independents have witnessed Obama expand the war in Afghanistan as he drew down symbolic numbers in Iraq (and replaced those troops with mercenaries). They watched Obama expand the front in Pakistan with collateral-damage-inflicting drone strikes – even as he launched a completely new conflict in Libya, without a declaration or even an unconstitutional authorization from Congress.

The most depraved recent offense? Obama executed an American citizen and his children in Yemen without a trial, presentation of evidence, or any authentication whatsoever of the speech crimes allegedly committed by him. (Anwar Al-Awlaki, this new Bogeyman/Goldstein/Osama, had himself questionable ties to the U.S. military industrial complex shortly after 9/11.) Consider that with Ron Paul and Barack Obama on a debate stage, Obama becomes the pro-war candidate. Needless to say, any voter who trends anti-war will likely vote for Ron Paul.

(3) Ron Paul wins the domestic-police-state issue before the debate even begins.After all, Obama is the one on that stage who must answer for gratuitous TSA abuse. Seemingly all voters have either had bad experiences themselves with the TSA, or have heard anecdotes from friends or relatives describing the rampant violations of dignity and body so common now to airport travel. Everyone’s heard the stories about TSA agents raping, stealing, leering, and murdering. Would Obama attempt to suggest that the TSA keeps us safe – by exposing our children to pat-downs by pedophiles?

With domestic surveillance, Obama essentially expanded Bush’s worst abuses and then argued for more. Even more disaffected liberals and independents will join the libertarian and constitutional-conservative coalition over these issues and vote for Ron Paul.

(4) Ron Paul wins the federal drug-war issue by arguing to end it. By killing that decades-old federal boondoggle, Paul wins the support of most California, Washington, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, and Oregon medical-marijuana patients who’ve watched as Obama’s DEA raids state-approved medical-marijuana dispensaries contrary to state law. You know who else would appreciate an end to federal drug enforcement? Minority populations, who aredisproportionately prosecuted for nonviolent federal drug crimes. Still think Obama has an unquestionable advantage with minority groups? How is this growing coalition of voters even quantified?

(5) Ron Paul wins the abortion issue. Ron Paul is unabashedly pro-life in his personal life, and as an obstetrician, he speaks with conviction – from wisdom and personal professional experience. He will own the Christian vote on this issue, obviously. But Paul argues that the federal government holds no jurisdiction over the issue, and if individual states wish to pass more restrictive or permissive laws, those states should pursue the legislation that best fits their unique populations.

It’s a compromise, in other words. So even if pro-life Christians can’t be enthusiastic about Paul’s lack of advocacy for a federal ban on abortion, “pro-choice” abortion supporters can’t credibly be existentially threatened by Paul’s 10th Amendment approach, which is less strident than sound-bite saber-rattling over a federal ban. In other words, don’t look for this issue to serve as a convincing single-issue rallying cry for Obama supporters, which qualifies it as a win for Paul.

(6) Ron Paul wins the home-school, pro-organic, anti-mandatory-vaccination, and other pro-liberty niche crowds. Who else but Ron Paul has argued for the rights of the people to consume raw milk? Who else but Ron Paul has proposed granting tax credits and more freedom to home-schooling families to set their own curricula? Contrast this with Obama’s attempts to nationalize education standards further on the back of Bush’s overreaching “No Child Left Behind,” and the more recent viral images of armed FDA goons raiding organic-food store Rawesome Foods in Venice, California. Yep, even more Californians sympathetic to Paul.

(7) Republicans will turn out en masse to support the GOP nominee – even if it’s Ron Paul. Consider how anti-Obama the lowest common denominator of GOP talking points has become, as voiced by pundits, talk radio, and primary candidates in the debates. Making Obama a “one-term president,” repealing “Obamacare,” and so on.

Republican voters, long accustomed to “lesser of two evils”-type calculated rationalizations, won’t bat an eye when pulling the lever for Ron Paul. After all, Paul’s single heresy from current GOP orthodoxy is over his principled resistance to interventionism abroad. But he’s the first to point out that it’s the current GOP that’s out-of-step with the traditional Republican party platform, not him. Those voters whom Paul can’t convert on morality can also be swayed by fiscal arguments. Wars cost trillions. The U.S. is broke. Rationalizations abound.

Either way, expect a giant anti-Obama Republican turnout in November 2012 – regardless of the GOP nominee. The advantage with a Paul nomination is that Republicans can expect Paul supporters to support the Republican nominee – something they can’t do if they nominate Romney or Gingrich.

(8) The Tea Party rallies behind Ron Paul because his Trillion Dollar Plan is a perfect ideological match. After all, Ron Paul supporters are the ones who started the Tea Party movement in 2007 – the proto-Tea Party. As far as the electorate recognizes the problem to be government spending, Ron Paul is the clear answer.

(9) Ron Paul wins on auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. Who can claim that the U.S. has a “free market” despite artificial price-fixing of interest rates at the very core of the economy? What free-market advocate supports crony, secret taxpayer-funded bailouts of speculators and foreign banks? The Tea Party and the entire GOP field now parrot Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve.

But there’s yet more upside here for Paul: The Occupy movement makes a special point to protest crony capitalism and the abuses of a corrupt, insider financial oligarchy. If Paul can tap that sentiment, which clearly overlaps with his arguments against crony capitalism and the lack of transparency of the Federal Reserve system, he can convert a portion of those Occupy voters into voting Paulistinians. Rest assured, Paul volunteers are already performing this

on the ground.

(10) Ron Paul wins on torture and the Bill of Rights. Let Obama attempt to characterize water-boarding as something other than torture, as his neo-con counterparts have, and Ron Paul will provide a stark contrast – an iconic symbol of authentic, principled “hope and change.” As for the Bill of Rights in general, Ron Paul wins clearly with any voter who cherishes the idea of not having to present his or her papers at random checkpoints; for whom government surveillance of citizens is anathema; who cherishes the idea that the government is the slave to the people and not the other way around; or, in particular relevance to the Obama record, to anyone who cherishes the idea that we have a right to be left alone.

(11) Circumstances and current events in November 2012 will play right into Ron Paul’s wheelhouse. This one is the clincher. After repeated, nefarious inflations of the money supply through bailouts and Fed treasury purchases, Obamaflation will be unmistakable at the grocery store, the doctor’s office, and the fuel pump. Gold will be well over $2,200 an ounce. And after an 11-year string of templated, bankrupting, and needless interventionist wars abroad, voters won’t be easily convinced that high gas prices are solely Iran’s fault. Ron Paul is expertly capable of clearly articulating the causation between interventionist foreign policy and poor economic circumstances at home – including the inflation that will be hitting voters right smack in their wallets as they head to the voting booths.

So there you have it. If only Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, global and domestic current events in November 2012 will assure that a Ron Paul victory in the general election is a very high pro

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: If you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neo-conservative such as Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third-party ticket. And because of the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9 percent). That would undoubtedly re-elect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Save your outrage and answer instead this question: Given your less-than-courteous opinion of Paul, how can you possibly explain your sense of entitlement toward his supporters and their votes? Answer: You can’t.

Besides, even if Ron Paul did not run third-party, and even if he were to endorse the neo-conservative Republican nominee, his supporters wouldn’t necessarily follow his lead. I know I wouldn’t.">>>

Dave Trotter is a technical communications manager in central Texas. He can be reached at .'; document.write( 'Originally published at LewRockwell.com.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul will not be the nominee. And even if he runs, he will be creamed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[GALTGULCH8]

Well, I guess there is no doubt that, given what you know about him thus far, he will not get your vote!

There is always the hope that you would be willing to listen to reason.

gg

[Selene]

Gulch:

So all his positions are, by definition, based on reason, and, therefore, should be adhered to by all who hear them?

Or, are some of his positions not adhered to by you?

And, if so, which ones?

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Adam,

You got me! We both know that Ron Paul's position on abortion is that he is a believer that life begins at the moment of conception and he holds the life of the fertilized ovum, the embryo and the fetus as higher than the right of the pregnant woman to her own liberty or pursuit of happiness.

i hesitate to say that all of his other positions are based on reason but does share the vision of the more individualistic Founders that only certain powers were granted to their creation of the central government. Try as one might the power of the Congress to establish a retirement program is just not among the listed powers in Art 1 Sec 8. Neither is a central government intrusion into the medical field, nor so many other interventionist endeavors.

Clearly Congress was granted the power to coin money not to print it, nor to delegate the creation of money to a private banking cartel.

And so on! All of which have brought this once great country to the edge of bankruptcy.

As I see it only Ron Paul has the understanding necessary to set about correcting these things. I gather that at worst the issue of abortion would be up to each State as he does not consider it to be a Federal matter.

Like it or not Ron Paul supporters are trying to enlighten the voters by sending a copy of the "ron paul super brochure" to them. You can google that to see how much information is packed into the brochure which also includes links to youtube videos and websites where those interested might explore further. Some pundits are suggesting that his whole campaign is just an attempt to spread certain libertarian ideas rather than a serious run for the presidency.

I have shown my copy of the super brochure to a few people who have never heard of Ron Paul and they are quite impressed with his career and voting record. I am eager to see if those in Iowa who do know something about him are recruiting enough of their neighbors to get his final caucus numbers over 30% or more. The situation in the country is desperate even for those with jobs given the outlook for taxation going up to cover future budgets and deficits not to mention the growing debt service which could be a hardship if interest rates go up higher.

I have found that when people who are fed up with the likes of Obama, Romney and Gingrich discover Ron Paul, they find him to be a breath of fresh air and reason to be hopeful and appreciate that we do have this one chance to set things right if we can get him elected.

That may explain why so many send in money when Ron Paul asks for it and also donate to the endeavor to send out the super brochure to voters in the primary states and beyond.

gg

[Dennis Hardin]

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: If you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neo-conservative such as Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third-party ticket. And because of the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9 percent). That would undoubtedly re-elect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want?

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

[BaalChatzaf]

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

What war act did Saadam Hussein commit against the United States of America? Which targets did he bomb? Which harbors did he mine? Where were the weapons of mass destruction he was hiding that we just had to preemt? Which Saudi oil wells did he take over? Just curious.

As far as I can make out his worst offense was DWM (Driving While Muslim).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[GALTGULCH8]

<<<"As far as I can make out his worst offense was DWM (Driving While Muslim).">>>

At the risk of quoting Nancy Pelosi, "You can't be serious!"

I think we did find a WMD in Iraq and it was Saddam Hussein himself who had tens or hundreds of thousands of his own people killed.

DIdn't you hear that he tired of putting victims head first through an industrial sized shredder so put them through feet first to savor their agony. How I wished that we had arranged to have that shredder in the courtroom during his trial so he would suffer thinking that would be his own fate.

I think that Ayn Rand once commented that anyone has the moral authority to overthrow a dictator. I belief the US was on moral high ground in its attack on Iraq. Its too bad we didn't find a way to quell the hatred between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Maybe if we had required that their children play together all day, like forced integration. IF we had maybe there would be harmony in Iraq after we left.

But remember how long it took before Bush attacked after 9/11? All the AL Quida leaders had dispersed.

IF only the CIA had not replaced the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and put the SHah of Iran in his place. If only the US did not set up over 900 military bases in over 150 countries around the world. IF only the US realized that putting military bases near Medina and Mecca in Saudi Arabia would anger the likes of Osama bin Ladin. 9/11 would not have happened!

Ron Paul is right about the reason we were attacked. BLowback is recognized as a real reaction to our foreign policy by the CIA if not by Guiliani.

Netanyahu has agreed with Ron Paul that Israel is an independent sovereign state and can take care of itself without the help of the US.

Ron Paul is correct that our foreign aid to Israel comes with strings attached to the detriment of Israel.

Meanwhile he continues to lead in Iowa and will likely win by a larger margin than he has at the moment. If anything people are excited about him for the same reason they were initially inspired by Obama but with better reasons to be hopeful given his positions and understanding of what is wrong.

Gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

To Gulch8: How will you react if

1. Ron Paul is not nominated.

2. Ron Paul runs (perhaps as an independent) and is thoroughly creamed at the polls.

You ought to start working on your apology and get it done with.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

To Gulch8: How will you react if

1. Ron Paul is not nominated.

2. Ron Paul runs (perhaps as an independent) and is thoroughly creamed at the polls.

You ought to start working on your apology and get it done with.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Careful, Baal. How would you react if

1. Ron Paul does get nominated, and then wins the election

2 Gulch 8 (an M.D) is in reality Ron Paul himself, keeping in touch with the grassroots Henry V style.

Talk about working on apologies....

[BaalChatzaf]

To Gulch8: How will you react if

1. Ron Paul is not nominated.

2. Ron Paul runs (perhaps as an independent) and is thoroughly creamed at the polls.

You ought to start working on your apology and get it done with.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Careful, Baal. How would you react if

1. Ron Paul does get nominated, and then wins the election

2 Gulch 8 (an M.D) is in reality Ron Paul himself, keeping in touch with the grassroots Henry V style.

Talk about working on apologies....

Then I will work on my apologies. I think the odds favor my pessimism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

What war act did Saadam Hussein commit against the United States of America? Which targets did he bomb? Which harbors did he mine? Where were the weapons of mass destruction he was hiding that we just had to preemt? Which Saudi oil wells did he take over? Just curious.

As far as I can make out his worst offense was DWM (Driving While Muslim).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why are you asking me? When did I say I was in favor of Bush's war against Saddam Hussein?

For the record, I was opposed to just about everything about that specific war, and I consider the waste of American lives in Iraq to have been grossly, unspeakably immoral.

There are nations who represent a major security threat to the U.S., and we should seriously consider declaring war against those nations.

[Dennis Hardin]

Netanyahu has agreed with Ron Paul that Israel is an independent sovereign state and can take care of itself without the help of the US.

Gulch

Netanyahu never said that Israel does not want any assistance from the United States. Paul’s web-based stormtroopers have done all they could to paint a picture of a Netanyahu-Paul uniformity that is a complete myth.

Here is Netanyahu’s actual statement before Congress earlier this year:

In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America's unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American. (Applause.)

My friends, you don't have to -- you don't need to do nation- building in Israel. We're already built. (Laughter, applause.) You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. (Applause.) And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves. (Cheers, applause.)

Netanyahu says he does not want the U.S. to send troops to Israel because Israel can take of herself. I don’t know of anyone who is advocating that the U.S. send troops to Israel. We do, however, need to stand with Israel against those who would wipe that nation off the face of the earth. It is vital to our own self-interest that we offer our moral support to Israel’s ongoing battle against the Palestinian challenge to their right to exist.

We might possibly need to offer our technological military assistance to Israel (air support and/or weaponry—not troops) if and when they come under future attack. Paul would obviously oppose this, just as he opposed the House Resolution condemning the Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Paul voted against the resolution because he sees a moral equivalency between Israel’s right of self-defense and the aggression perpetrated by Palestinian terrorist thugs.

Here’s what Paul said in a recent Republican debate:

"Why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way," [Paul] said when asked whether he would support an Israeli attack against Iran. If it did happen, "that's their business, but they should suffer the consequences," he added.

Paul’s refusal to stand behind Israel’s right to exist is the reason he was the one Republican candidate who was excluded from the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidates Forum earlier this month.

Ron Paul’s rabid supporters demonstrate a typically leftist contempt for facts. Their willingness to stretch the truth to help their candidate would turn Obama’s legions of True Believers green with envy.

[Dennis Hardin]

Ron Paul on Ron Paul's "electability". . .

Does Ron Paul See Himself in the Oval Office? ‘Not Really’

In an exclusive interview, I asked him: “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”

“Not really,” he said.

[Martin Radwin]

Ron Paul on Ron Paul's "electability". . .

Does Ron Paul See Himself in the Oval Office? ‘Not Really’

In an exclusive interview, I asked him: “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”

“Not really,” he said.

So, Ron Paul has the honesty to admit what he and pretty much anyone else who understands the rigged political system in this country understands -- that he has no chance whatever of becoming the next president. As opposed to the rest of the pack of lying, sniveling candidates, who would never admit such a basic truth, who would go on insisting that they can win the nomination and subsequent election, right up until the moment when they are finally forced to concede defeat. Politicians at this level are pretty much all a bunch of professional, sociopathic liars. The fact that Ron Paul has the honesty to speak the truth about his own candidacy in a field dominated by professional liars who will say or do anything to improve their polling numbers is a wonderfully refreshing departure from political campaigning as usual and is deserving of respect.

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: If you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neo-conservative such as Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third-party ticket. And because of the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9 percent). That would undoubtedly re-elect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want?

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

No, "we" do not love killing people. At least, I certainly don't. In fact, I find the killing of innocent people to be morally abhorrent. You don't seem to mind killing people, as long as they belong to groups that you consider to be of no value, such as Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, or Libyans, as long as you don't have to do the actual killing yourself. At least, this is the implication of the fact that I've never yet seen you morally condemn any of the killings of people from these countries by the U.S. government.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

[BaalChatzaf]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't know about him Bob, but I try to stand about five (5) miles or more outside the edge of the collateral damage zone!

[9thdoctor]

Just to throw in my two bits, in Iowa Romney only did as well as he did in 2008, and Santorum seems to have gotten the frothy Huckabee contingent this time around. Ron Paul doubled his score. Not that I'm optimistic, but I did send in a reregistration, changing my party so I can vote for him here in FL. I'll probably switch back to big "L" afterwards.

[Martin Radwin]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage".

I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage".

I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated.

Martin

In war you are trying to stay alive. Been there and done that. "Collateral damage" means tanks are advancing on you with civilians strapped to their fronts. What to do? You open fire. What does this mean? The enemy stops doing that because it does them no good. This is only one take on this subject, but the only one I am really qualified to write on.

--Brant

war is hell--don't go there

[Brant Gaede]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage".

I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated.

Martin

But you were not an Iraqi in that country at that time. It was much worse by far in Dresden in 1945, which was a totally gratuitous slaughter by Churchill. Do you begin to understand the difference between the bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII and the relatively mild bombings of Iraq whatever the war? In March 1945 B-29s dropped incendiarys in an cross formation to illustrate the target--Tokyo. B-29s following killed at least 80,000 Japanese in additional fire-bombings. Kyoto was the only major Japanese city spared as B-29s took off day and night from the island of Tinian. It was spared because the Secretary of State--Cordell Hull, I think--understood the cultural, religious significance of it to the Japanese. The Atom bombings broke the will of Hirohito, not the Japanese, and his role in ending the war was a close-fought thing. One Japanese high-ranking naval officer thought, correctly, that we only had two of those bombs available. If they had still resisted we would have invaded Japan. Millions more killed and wounded. So many American soldiers and Marines were delirious with joy that the war was over and they would not die. The U.S., in this totally unnecessary war, beat up Japan with its left arm while beating up Germany with its right. Great Britain was little more than a necessary airbase/invasion base for the bombing campaign over Germany/invasion of the continent after the U.S. entered the war. The irony is that once Hitler invaded Russia he was cooked. Even conquered it would have been indigestible.

--Brant

the worst is yet to come--not the threat: the big--huge--threat was General Thermonuclear War 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s--still with us and much more possible since now it's sub rosa so we'll get kicked in the ass just as the Japs did it to us in 1941

[Martin Radwin]

.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

Where do you stand on unavoidable collateral damage?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would not for a moment deny that, in instances of legitimate self-defense, there will be times when it is impossible to defend oneself without killing innocent bystanders. Utopia is not and never will be an option. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above wars fought by the U.S. government, which have led to the death of huge numbers of innocent people, since none of these wars were fought in self-defense. As such, these were all wars of aggression, so none of the deaths resulting from these wars can be morally justified as "collateral damage".

I find the very phrase "collateral damage" to be repellent. These are humal beings being maimed and killed, human lives being destroyed, unspeakable horrors being inflicted on innocent people, human beings surviving the death of their husbands, wives, parents, children, families. They are not "collateral". The very phrase is designed to dehumanize them, to make it seem as though they are nothing more than inanimate objects, to hide the true nature of the attrocities committed against them and their resultant suffering. It is especially designed to hide from the American people the magnitude of the crimes against humanity committed by their own government. If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated.

Martin

In war you are trying to stay alive. Been there and done that. "Collateral damage" means tanks are advancing on you with civilians strapped to their fronts. What to do? You open fire. What does this mean? The enemy stops doing that because it does them no good. This is only one take on this subject, but the only one I am really qualified to write on.

--Brant

war is hell--don't go there

From the perspective of soldiers in a combat situation such as you describe here, this is clearly self-defense, and any innocent people killed may be considered from the soldier's perspective to be "collateral damage" (I still hate that phrase). However, from the larger perspective of the country engaged in the war, if the war is not being fought in self-defense, it is ludicrous to argue that the deaths of innocent people are morally justified as collateral damage, since the war should not have been fought in the first place. Furthermore, in all wars, war crimes are inevitably committed, such as the targeting of innocent civilians who pose absolutely no threat.

You have a perspective on this subject lacking by most people here on OL, including me, due to your real experience in combat during the Vietnam war. I guess I was lucky not to share this experience, being as I turned 18 the year that the college deferment was eliminated and replaced with a lottery system. I had a low number and could have been drafted.

Martin

[Dennis Hardin]

One word of warning for pro-war Republicans: If you fail to nominate Ron Paul and instead nominate an establishment neo-conservative such as Romney or Gingrich, expect Paul to run on a third-party ticket. And because of the reasons outlined above, expect him to win a higher percentage of the overall vote than Perot did in the 1992 general election (greater than 18.9 percent). That would undoubtedly re-elect Obama.

Is that what you want?

Is that what Ron Paul and his rabid followers want?

BTW, very perceptive of the writer to characterize Paul's Republican opponents as "pro-war." We thought we had fooled you guys into thinking that we believed in America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us.

In truth, of course, we just love killing people.

No, "we" do not love killing people. At least, I certainly don't. In fact, I find the killing of innocent people to be morally abhorrent. You don't seem to mind killing people, as long as they belong to groups that you consider to be of no value, such as Iraqis, Iranians, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghanis, or Libyans, as long as you don't have to do the actual killing yourself. At least, this is the implication of the fact that I've never yet seen you morally condemn any of the killings of people from these countries by the U.S. government.

As to "America's right of self-defense against those who want to kill more of us", I'd love to see you prove that Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Libya were a threat to the United States, such that the attacks against them which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people living in these countries were somehow a justifiable application of self-defense, rather than the mass murder that they actually were.

Martin

I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove anything to someone for whom I have as little respect as I do for you. In fact, I wish I could take back the last two minutes I've spent replying to your puerile claptrap.

"No, 'we' do not love killing people."

Phony, self-righteous a-hole.

[BaalChatzaf]

If most Americans could experience directly for one day just what life was like in Iraq during the U.S. government bombing campaign and subsequent occupation, there would be millions of them marching on Washington, demanding that the wars end immediately. It is the job of the government to hide this reality from the American people so that the wars and the slaughter can continue unabated.

Martin

There is a much better reason for ending the Forever War. We can't afford it any longer. It is bad for us.

As to the others, particularly people in Muslim countries. I do not give a tinker's dam for them. They are nothing to me. In fact they are harmful to me. If they all dropped dead tomorrow I would not weep a single tear, not even for the babies. My heart is as hard as granite and that is the way I am going to keep it. The death of my enemies does not diminish my life one iota. I worked to develop guidance systems for cruse missiles which, in their day killed thousands. I do not regret a single drop of blood I helped to shed. Let my enemies beware.

Ba'al Chatzaf