Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
The foundation of our Constitution and our country is individualism not collectivism.
The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
The foundation of our Constitution and our country is individualism not collectivism.
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
Well put, I had to go in depth but your point about the idea of having the government decide what's moral is what I was aiming at.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't bring the troops home for a number of reasons: One, Iran is chomping at the bit for the US to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan to try and assert dominance over the region. This is a direct conflict of interest to the other major players in the region (the Saudis, Israel, Turkey) which are of much more strategic value than Iran. It has been the US presence in the Persian Gulf since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (Which killed the idea of Pan-Arabism) and the fall of the Soviet Union that has kept Iran in check. If we leave now we leave a gigantic power vaccum to be filled by the megalomaniac decision making of the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. A disastrous result IMO. Given the two-decade propensity for Iran to resort to supporting terror tactics, this is something that just cannot be afforded at this time. We cant have a regional hegemon that openly advocates terrorists attacks against ANYONE period. A US presence in Iraq keeps the Iranians at bey, which will be needed for overall stability in the region. Also, if Iran is left to assume the power vaccum, this will undoubtedly press Israel to ramp-up any defensive posturing it feels necessary to take, which have already been difficult enough to constrain.
As for the effect of economy, we absolutely positively must retain a strong enough contingent to secure the flow of oil through the region. This will only be guarenteed by a continual US presence in the region. At this point the region is far too unstable to merit any sort of credibility on behalf of the region to secure this dynamic. The US is like a baby-sitter in the Near East, we are a force of balance and rationality to ambitious leaders of the region. They know that oil is the stranglehold of the modern world, I dont think anyone on a position to form US policy would be willing to leave that part of the world economy equation to chance by vacating the region and hoping for the best. There is too much at stake to take a chance on idealism.
dukeanthony
New Member
You know the Great thing about the USA as a Vet I Proudly served with many of those "anchor Babies". And a point of fact which You skip over is. ILLEGALS pay more into the system then they get out of it
dukeanthony
New Member
I disagree with you to a point.
1 If we left Iraq alone. Iran would be surrounded by enemies. Turkey to the North, Iraq to the west and The USA in afghanistan.
As far as why we are there. Its about OIL. Before Hussein Invaded Kuwait He asked for permission from us. We gave it to him. And when the Saudis made a deal with Poppa Bush We betrayed Hussein. Now we are stuck there and his Idiot son weakened the Biggest Enemy Iran ever had.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
Better to head off the making of the megalomaniacal decision making of a "Supreme Leader" in the U.S.
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
I understand you point and agree it's a volatile system but it's not our job!! A US presence anywhere gets US troops dead with no real result except for our leaders saying "Ohh we are stopping something that COULD happen" it's like arresting someone before they killed someone saying "he was going to kill them and so he's getting charged with murder".
How is the US supposed to be a force of "balance and rationality" when we can't even manage our own country?!
If this "leader" is such a threat to the US how come we can't simply have the CIA take him out covertly? This may not agree with the ideal of Ron Paul but I believe the US could take out tyrants who ravage their nation and people, but we have NO say in how to run other people's countries. Also, since when does Iran have any sort of formidable military?
As for the oil, The middle East actually only supplies about 1/3 of our oil and the countries that contribute the most have enough money to which they are somewhat secure from the "rule of an unchecked Iran", and even then the USA has plenty of oil to more than replace what we get from the middle East, while we can drill our own oil for now our ultimate goal SHOULD be to convert to electric vehicles because the technology is their and untapped, and don't try to call me on this on, I've spent an entire year building and electric vehicle and learning all the ins and outs of the system and the business. Their is enough free energy available from the wind, sun, and water to power America many times over.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
I counter that Iran already has a strong Shia contingent within Iraqi Parliment which I believe controls something like 2/3 already. Turkery, of course, but militarily, Turkey is in no position to get it's hands dirty, and just cannot possibly project an effective force past their own borders. They are more diplomatically gifted in terms of positioning.
As far as Saddam and Kuwait, I don't necessarily see where he "asked" the US about anything. We didn't betray Hussein, if anyone did it was Hussein himself marginalizing himself amongst his peers. I do agree however, that we have eliminated the biggest obstacle to Iranian hegemony.
As far as Saddam and Kuwait, I don't necessarily see where he "asked" the US about anything. We didn't betray Hussein, if anyone did it was Hussein himself marginalizing himself amongst his peers. I do agree however, that we have eliminated the biggest obstacle to Iranian hegemony.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
There is no megalomaniac decision making of a "supreme leader" in the US, it simply does not exist. Even hinting at that notion destroys the idea of the "Elite ruling cabal."
Jefferson's Ghost
Member
It's nice to see some intelligent responses in here. It somewhat restores my faith in humanity, until I see videos like Luke Rudkowsky interviewing people on the streets of DC, and I just have to shake my head.
Regardless, a tireless minority CAN prevail!! That''s the way it was in the 1st revolution. There are always going to be people who say "It can't be done", "Don't go against the king" etc. There is no telling what we can manifest if we pull together. It's not about right vs left. It's about the STATE vs YOU. Some people get it, and some don't.
It's interesting to read some of the preconditioned responses from people who watch MSNBC or whatever their flavor of BS is, and regurgitate whatever they were told by some talking head.
The truth is, the there IS NO TRUE ownership of property. If you don't believe me, then just stop paying your property taxes, and see what happens. What do you actually own, besides some crap probably made in China by some 8 year old Chinese kid?
Think you own your car? Just stop paying registration taxes on it, and see how far you get.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who actually believe they are free"
It's an ILLUSION of freedom. The horse is allowed to roam the pasture, but there is always a fence around it.
Take 13 minutes to understand "the story of your enslavement", and you might have a different perspective. I'd be interested in some of your thoughts on this video.
"To see the farm is to leave the farm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
This misconception of property rights and "discrimination" being "racist" is BS that is fed to the masses from MSNBC, and the like.
What about signs that you see in businesses that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE"? That could mean, no shoes, no shirt, no service. Or, you're too drunk. Or your being an asshole to the other patrons etc. Or "we simply just don't like you and don't want to serve you for WHATEVER reason." Or "you're talking about something illegal in our business, and we can't accommodate that."
Nevermind the feared potential idiotic signs of "no blacks allowed", or "no whites allowed". If someone was stupid enough to put a sign like that in their business, word would spread so fast through the internet, and the media, that they would be out of business in a week. It's a fearmongering argument. Like we are all of the sudden go back to pre 1960's way of life or something. It's absurd.
Regardless, a tireless minority CAN prevail!! That''s the way it was in the 1st revolution. There are always going to be people who say "It can't be done", "Don't go against the king" etc. There is no telling what we can manifest if we pull together. It's not about right vs left. It's about the STATE vs YOU. Some people get it, and some don't.
It's interesting to read some of the preconditioned responses from people who watch MSNBC or whatever their flavor of BS is, and regurgitate whatever they were told by some talking head.
The truth is, the there IS NO TRUE ownership of property. If you don't believe me, then just stop paying your property taxes, and see what happens. What do you actually own, besides some crap probably made in China by some 8 year old Chinese kid?
Think you own your car? Just stop paying registration taxes on it, and see how far you get.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who actually believe they are free"
It's an ILLUSION of freedom. The horse is allowed to roam the pasture, but there is always a fence around it.
Take 13 minutes to understand "the story of your enslavement", and you might have a different perspective. I'd be interested in some of your thoughts on this video.
"To see the farm is to leave the farm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
This misconception of property rights and "discrimination" being "racist" is BS that is fed to the masses from MSNBC, and the like.
What about signs that you see in businesses that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE"? That could mean, no shoes, no shirt, no service. Or, you're too drunk. Or your being an asshole to the other patrons etc. Or "we simply just don't like you and don't want to serve you for WHATEVER reason." Or "you're talking about something illegal in our business, and we can't accommodate that."
Nevermind the feared potential idiotic signs of "no blacks allowed", or "no whites allowed". If someone was stupid enough to put a sign like that in their business, word would spread so fast through the internet, and the media, that they would be out of business in a week. It's a fearmongering argument. Like we are all of the sudden go back to pre 1960's way of life or something. It's absurd.
dukeanthony
New Member
dukeanthony
New Member
One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
“We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?”Later the transcript has Glaspie saying:
“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
It is our job, if we want to continue the way of life that we have here in the US (the high standard of living), it is imperative that we continue to pursue the unipolar world.
The US by its very nature is a balance of power to the rest of the world. Our military and economy are by and large the most powerful the world has ever seen - that's a tough cookie to crack.
Well, 75% of the worlds oil goes through Iranian waters, I wouldn't leave them the keys - and neither would the rest of the world. As for the idea that we "ha(ve) plenty of oil" I am unaware as to your sources for that idea. As for electric vehicles, where is that energy going to come from when 40% of our electricity is generated by OIL. As for the "alternative" sources, that is something that is ambitious, idealist, and unrealistic under the current conditions. It's not about "what ifs" its about WHAT IS.
dukeanthony
New Member
As Correct as you are in the current state of affairs. You sound like a neo Con. We need to get off of OIL.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
That doesn't sound like asking...
dukeanthony
New Member
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
It won't happen as quickly as anyone would like, and we cant change that.
I'm not a neo-con by any means. Just, a realist.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
"It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam Hussein believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."
dukeanthony
New Member
Unfortunatly your assessment is correct
hazyintentions
Well-Known Member
I will wholeheartedly agree to disagree with you. We are not the police of the world, we are over extended. I don't know how else I could explain it, if the simple effect it has on our economy is not easy enough to understand then how about the fact that we (USA) became this presence after 9/11 further supporting conspiracy ideals that 9/11 was an excuse to go over there and honestly you seem to have bough into this idea that somehow we BELONG over there.
As for the amount of oil traveling through Iranian waters, there should be other routes and if Iran does decide to attack shipments then I'm sure the countries of the world can ban together to protect their exports becuase as you said yourself America is a huge military power and I doubt we will have to worry much about Iran trying to take over the shipments, maybe some rag tag pirating but nothing more can be expected.
In the issue of EV's, of course we can't suddenly switch, that's not what I'm suggesting, be a slow transgression from oil to electric, start developing more efficient technologies for creating and delivering electricity, build more nuclear power plants with extreme precautions taken and build them without a time table so that Americans can trust in them versus being on the edge as promoted by some media. Start supporting the small companies who are developing more efficient batteries, electric motors, and regenerative systems.
In fact it's quite possible that given the right technology the USA can develop an electric vehicle with such an efficient self recharging system (hub generators) that in theory you can own an EV and never have to plug it in except maybe on extremely cold weather.
Similar threads
