Originally Posted by 1968
Kermit the frog.:D
Sam Brownback
Newt Gingrich (undeclared candidate)
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson (undeclared candidate)
Tommy Thompson
Other
Kermit the frog.:D
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
It's not easy being green
Name Recognition (or lack thereof).
He is not receptive to special interest groups money and therefore, is not a media christened darling ... he hasn't been out primping for the cameras like a lot of politicians do - (there are those that seem to make it their primary focus to get as much press coverage as possible).
Although I'm sure that is partly responsible, it does not fully explain why anti-war Republicans would apparently support candidates who favor US involvement in Iraq when that looks to be the single biggest issue for the next election. The more likely scenario is that anti-war Republicans will be voting Democrat.
Obtaining press coverage is one thing, but I'm sure Paul wants as much press coverage as the other candidates do. If not, then that's an error bigger than putting a dog carrier on top of your car.
A couple years ago, the keynote speakers at the AOA were Mary Matalin & James Carville (both were exceptionally entertaining). During his portion, Mr. Carville provided a vision/prediction of the type of candidate likely to win in 2008.
According to Carville, one of the contenders is likely to run on an "America First / Isolationist" type of agenda (which he predicted would resonate well with the American public). Such a candidate would favor withdrawing our troops from foreign entanglements, stiffening our border protections, and protection of US manufacturing interests. As I read through Rep. Paul's platform, I have to say he seems to fit Mr. Carville's description quite well.
As for "settling" for a candidate, there is a funny segment in a Simpson's episode on this very subject. Two aliens have taken over the bodies of Sen. Dole and Pres. Clinton. Both are revealed to be their true evil selves at a debate, but taunt the audience by reminding them that its a "two-party system- you have to vote for one of us." When a member of the audience exclaims he'll just vote for a third candidate, one of the aliens laughs and says "Go ahead, throw away your vote!" Naturally, one of the aliens wins...
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
You see, he's the Green Party candidate.
:cheers:
DragonlensmanWV N.A.O.L.
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country."
Well duhhh ..! If I had the same ideas and objectives as Osama Bin Laden (to the extent that I understand him), I'd be lining up against American policies and involvement regarding the Middle East myself. As far as I can see, everything that most Americans define as "good" is totally repulsive to Bin Laden, and vice versa. If this you doubt, then you may consider the situation in Afghanistan shortly before 9-11, when Bin Laden and his pal Mullah Omar were in charge of that country. Bad news for women ... for people who like music ... for people who are Muslim but also tolerant ... for men who prefer to shave ... for people who think that education should encompass more than young boys and men memorizing all umpteen hundred pages of the Koran backwards and forwards ... just for starters. So what was Bin Laden's "beef" ..? Afghanistan wasn't enough? He wanted to transform all the other countries in the Middle East to his liking, ala Afghanistan, so they could all have the lunatics running the asylum ..?As noted in the 9-11 Commission Report, [Osama] Bin Laden's hatred of American policies and involvement regarding the Middle East led to his 1996 fatwa; i.e. "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" ...
Was the U.S. partly to blame for the downward spiral that led to the sorry mess in Afghanistan just prior to 9-11? Absolutely. I've been looking at what's recorded online about that period ... from various commentators and viewpoints.
What concerns me about some of the OptiBoard posts that I've seen over the last few months is the idea that since we've screwed up with some of our previous foreign policies, the only way forward is to abandon foreign policy altogether. That's what I'm reading into the "Ron Paul" campaign here. That's how it strikes me ... what's been posted (above) about Ron Paul.
And how does this concern me? Because something bad will happen? No. They're just OptiBoard posts. Just like this one. And Internet posting - it's just a game, for the most part. A recreation. Especially in the Just Convo section.
So it's back in "your court", if anyone would like to keep this issue in play.
"Terrorism" was the topic of another recent discussion here, if anyone would like to go to that thread ... http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24057
Robert Pape, author of "Dying to Win", was cited (previously) in conjunction with the Ron Paul campaign as "the world's expert on suicide terrorism". I recommend this brief Washington Post column of 2005 that ran under the title "A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints In The Sand".
One last comment:
Suicide terrorists are not the only threat or consideration that foreign policy planners have to deal with.
In other words, you believe Bin Laden et al are lining up against American policies and involvement regarding the Middle East because "they hate us for our freedoms" (i.e. "our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"). Are there examples of countries that have those freedoms but have not been a target of al Qaeda?
I'm always intrigued how relationships like that (which are relatively common) can exist in apparent harmony.
Carville did not say that he thinks an isolationist will win, did he? (Although Paul considers himself to be a non-interventionist rather than an isolationist, that description does sound like him.)
Here is the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAum9TzR9WQ
Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, to just name a few.
Bin Ladin is concerned with foreigners having heavy influence in those areas. Just as some American politicians are upset with the power and influence of the UN.
Suicide bombers can be stopped. It's rather simple. If they felt that the conciqueces were so swift an terrible as to be unthinkable they would stop immeadately. The John Pershing cure worked just fine until we lost our stomach for such retaliation. The Hiroshima cure worked just fine.
Until you can convice your enemy (certianly not the approach we have used since 1945) that you are so powerfull and so ruthless that you should not be antagonised in any way, they will continue.
If Jimmy Carter had offered to destroy a city in the middle east every couple of days until our embasy hostages were released, there would have been no more attacks or hostage taking. Teddy Rosevelt made such an offer once and our ambassador was retuned in hours, if fact the ship he was held on set a steamship record for reaching shore.
I have never heard of any enemy of any country that refused to attack another because it's people were "so nice."
Chip
Chip, these are people who do not care about death.
Texas Straw Poll Results
41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes)
20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes)
16.17% Ron Paul (217 votes)
6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes)
6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes)
4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes)
2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes)
.77% John Cox (10 votes)
.62% John McCain (8 votes)
.46% Sam Brownback (6 votes)
.46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes)
.23% Hugh Cort (3 votes)
From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/015003.html
For Life: They don't appreciaate "nice" either. So what difference does it make, dead enemies are even less dangerous than terrified ones.
Because you are not stopping the terrorists. So what, you kill one. Three new join.
It's not straightforward or "cut and dried", regardless of how you try to look at it. And it's not simply a "numbers" game. Killing one experienced terrorist is probably a step forward, even if three new recruits immediately "sign up" to avenge the newly dead one. Sometimes the "rookies" don't prove out, and even if they persist, they may never become as proficient at "terrorizing", vs. the newly dead one.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
So, Chip, let me see if I understand this correctly: if our enemies were to inflict sufficient harm on us, you would be in favor of capitulation.
the terrorists doing the bombings a lot of times are inexperienced. They are rookies and given this task. The experienced people sit back and do the planning.
Or they may be more proficient. You're simply saying that you think it's a better bet to kill first, ask questions (or ponder the results of having killed) later.
How far we've come...
No Shanebaum, I would be in favor if annialation of our enemies if indicated.
OK, so, the more an enemy hurts America, the less likely you are to favor capitulation, and the more likely you are to advocate for "annihilation" of the enemy?
Now you gittin it Shanebaum.
Could I live with the annilation of untold numbers of enemies of the United States if it preserved the citizens and beliefs and all things dear to our way of life? Yep, might serve more than my time in Hell but would concider it an O.K. trade.
Chip
How about the annihilation of innocent persons, as "collateral damage"? Would a few such deaths be OK? Would a large number be OK?
Shanebaulm:
I feel no guilt over Hiroshima or Nagasaki, when it saved 1-2 million men's lives on our side alone (we didn't have to invade) my Daddy being one of those that didn't have to invade mainland Japan. If it had been only one life on our side and if the price on thier side had been all of Japan, I would have been proud of us for paying it. Do you have any idea how many "innocent lives" were taken by our side alone in WWII? Was it worth the price to our "collective concience?" Yep.
Should we be required to destroy, Russia, China, Good Part of the Pacific Rim to save one U.S. citizen (actually the US Constitution requires this), could I push the button? Yep.
Chip
Of course, I am the only one at my church that believes he's going to Hell anyway, so what's two eternities?
Chip, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done at a time when the US was the only nation that had atomic weapons. You want to bomb another nation with those? Before the bomb even hits, you will have one heading to America.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks