Ron Paul has voted against every single Congressional pay raise

[Truth-Bringer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Plus a good article on our "honorable" congress:

"Just before the Senate voted to kill the controversial comprehensive immigration bill, House members on the other side of the Capitol voted 244-181 to kill legislation that would have stopped a cost-of-living adjustment for members of Congress from taking effect when the new fiscal year begins October 1. The 2.7 percent increase amounts to $4,400 for each member.

Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) (http://www.nlpc.org) says this action illustrates just how much of a disconnect Congress has from the American people it is suppose to serve.

"Their approval rating is 14 percent," Boehm points out. "That means that 86 percent of the American public thinks they're doing a pretty crummy job. If they were doing an absolutely sterling job -- and everybody knew it -- and working long hours and doing productive stuff and not getting caught stealing and so forth, then you might be able to make an argument about it. But that's hardly the case when their approval rating is [so low]."

The NLPC spokesman says members of Congress have perks ordinary Americans can only dream about. "We have full-time, professional politicians who get re-elected time after time after time -- because re-election rate is in the high 90s," he notes. "And part of that is because of all the perks of office. You get free postage and free travel, free this and free that."

Boehm says in reality, members of Congress really have a "cushy job" in many ways."

In the words of Patrick Kennedy: "I have never worked a *bleeping* day in my life."

[USMC the Almighty]

I could see myself voting for Paul were it not for his foreign policy views. I wish he ran on the Republican ticket (so he could have a chance) in '88, '92 or '96 but today in the age of Islamic terrorism I would not be able to vote for Paul in good faith.

[Truth-Bringer]

I could see myself voting for Paul were it not for his foreign policy views. I wish he ran on the Republican ticket (so he could have a chance) in '88, '92 or '96 but today in the age of Islamic terrorism I would not be able to vote for Paul in good faith.

The "age of Islamic terrorism" is a direct result of our foreign policy. Change it, and you limit the threat of terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Many in the military understand this and are supporting Ron Paul:

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans

07/16/2007 4:24 PM ET
Gabriel Buoys/AFP/Getty

Simi Valley, UNITED STATES: Arizona Senator John McCain (L), Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) participate in the first GOP Candidates's debate of the 2008 Presidential Race, at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners.

But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609

[USMC the Almighty]

The "age of Islamic terrorism" is a direct result of our foreign policy. Change it, and you limit the threat of terrorist attacks against the U.S.

I don't agree with this. I believe Islamic terrorism is driven by their religion much more than any foreign policy and they explicitly say as much. What foreign policy was driving the Barbary pirates in 1786? According to Paul's logic, they only attack us when we we're over.

Many in the military understand this and are supporting Ron Paul:


So? I am also in the military and I don't support Paul.

[FRYandBENDER]

I don't think that Paul would neglect our foreign policy to the point that it would put us in danger. I'm actually a little torn on the subject to be honest. I'm not too sure if I really agree with him on foreign policy, but seeing as how he cares as much as he does for the actual people of this country, not a pervasive element in todays politicians, I can not imagine that he would cut back on our "foreign interests" to the point of putting us in danger. I don't think that he is an isolationist as much as he is an anti-interventionalist. And to be quite frank, I don't see how our current "leaders" are doing much to keep us safe as it is. They can yammer on and on about keeping us safe, but untill they close the border and start taking steps to ensure our financial safety, I think it is worth the risk to see what Paul can do.

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't agree with this. I believe Islamic terrorism is driven by their religion much more than any foreign policy and they explicitly say as much. What foreign policy was driving the Barbary pirates in 1786?

The system won't be perfect. Perfection or utopia aren't options. But it will reduce the vast majority of terrorist attacks.


According to Paul's logic, they only attack us when we we're over.

Well, the Barbary pirates certainly weren't any threat to invade America. They were only a threat to our ships that had crossed the ocean and gone into foreign waters.


So? I am also in the military and I don't support Paul.

The point is - there are a lot of military people who get his foreign policy and who support him.

[USMC the Almighty]

The system won't be perfect. Perfection or utopia aren't options. But it will reduce the vast majority of terrorist attacks.

What kind of argument is this? I expose the flaw in your argument and you say "well, it won't be perfect".

And what makes you think that it will reduce terrorist attacks? The terrorists themselves say that it's not our foreign policy that drives them, and in fact, as Osama said during Clinton's time, America's lack of an aggressive stance against the terrorists allows him to portray America as a "paper tiger" that helps him recruit new terrorists.

Historically, this country has a much worse record in Central and South America than in the Middle East? Why aren't Columbians or Mexicans or Cubans driving airliners into our buildings? The answer, is because their religion doesn't tell them to. I don't really buy into Paul's "blowback" theory because it's not rooted in history.

Well, the Barbary pirates certainly weren't any threat to invade America. They were only a threat to our ships that had crossed the ocean and gone into foreign waters.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that the evidence supports the notion that it's not our "foreign policy" that drives the Islamists. It's their religion.

[heyjude]

I would be a whole lot more impressed with Paul's record if his vote had been the deciding vote. In Congress, they know in advance how everyone is going to vote. Its easy to be against something on principle when you know it isn't going to matter.

But, I like Paul. There is basically one thing that would keep me from voting for him. He is from TEXAS. I will not vote for a Texan. I am sick of Texans. I want all Texans to go back to Texas. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, all of them, go back to Texas. I don't want any more.

[Truth-Bringer]

What kind of argument is this? I expose the flaw in your argument and you say "well, it won't be perfect".

All I'm saying is, there's no policy that can guarantee the U.S. will never be attacked again. But there are certainly policies that will reduce that risk.


And what makes you think that it will reduce terrorist attacks? The terrorists themselves say that it's not our foreign policy that drives them, and in fact, as Osama said during Clinton's time, America's lack of an aggressive stance against the terrorists allows him to portray America as a "paper tiger" that helps him recruit new terrorists.

And you apparently refuse to acknowledge the points Bin Laden stated on the fatwa. I'll repost the following because you never answered it on the other thread:

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us -

http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.



It's their religion.

Then why aren't all Muslims suicide bombers? That's the flaw in your argument. Why is this religion only influencing a small sect of people within a billion + Muslims to be violent?

[Truth-Bringer]

And what makes you think that it will reduce terrorist attacks?

Because the CIA has said in their official reports that the U.S. should expect blowback - meaning violent retaliation - for meddling in the region.

This is what interventionism brings:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html

[heyjude]

We have been throwing our weight around in the ME for decades. We would have to leave the entire region, and wait maybe thirty years, to convince them we had stopped doing so. And they are probably going to keep commiting terrorist acts until they are convinced we will leave them alone. Then, if they keep commiting such act, we will know it is for some other reason.

You see the problem with this. We are not going to stand by idly and allow ourselves to be attacked without retaliation. And if we retaliate...... We have created a vicious circle.

[USMC the Almighty]

All I'm saying is, there's no policy that can guarantee the U.S. will never be attacked again. But there are certainly policies that will reduce that risk.

Right, like fighting back,

And you apparently refuse to acknowledge the points Bin Laden stated on the fatwa. I'll repost the following because you never answered it on the other thread:

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

We are currently engaged in a defensive war. Let me ask you, do you support the war in A-stan?


The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

Well what are the Islamists reasons for attacking us before these things occured? That's the flaw in your argument. To put the blame back on the U.S. for their jihad is to say that any time they attack us, it's in response to something we did first and this "blowback" theory is not supported by history.


First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

You're using your false logic again. They have attacked us before unprovoked and will continue to attempt to do so. They will always go after the most powerful non-Muslim countries and try to establish Sharia law because that's what their holy book and Prophet instruct them to do.

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

Do you think people who are willing to blow their infants up in order to kill a few civilians are reasonable enough to weigh their odds of sustaining an invasion on the American homeland? Most of them don't even care if they're successful or not. As long as they achieve their martyrdom and 72 virgins, then all is well.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

Again, you're assuming that they actually think about these things. And secondly, these Islamic fascists are not restrained to one country or even one region and they hide behind human shields, mosques, civilian cities, etc. So where would we nuke?

Then why aren't all Muslims suicide bombers? That's the flaw in your argument. Why is this religion only influencing a small sect of people within a billion + Muslims to be violent?

Because they do not adhere strictly to the religion's tenets. But more importantly, you cannot forget that even if the irreconcilable wing of Islam is only a "small sect" -- it's still anywhere between 39 and 51 million people.

[Rokerijdude11]

im starting to see the propoganda for what it is here

[USMC the Almighty]

im starting to see the propoganda for what it is here

Which is what Roker? Try saying something meaningful every once in a while.

[Rokerijdude11]

not possible with the likes of you

[Truth-Bringer]

im starting to see the propoganda for what it is here

USMC is an honest person, however, it's plain to see that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with him on this matter. He didn't answer my post on this the first go round on the other thread, and now he's just throwing up Straw Men and accussations of my alleged assumptions without acknowledging his own assumptions.

See, USMC has a conflict of interest in the matter in that as a member of the military, he is actively engaged in enforcing this view. That makes it much harder for him to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Because what if he is wrong? That means his actions have all been meaningless.

Again, one can have all the good intentions in the world, but that won't change the laws of cause and effect.

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC is an honest person, however, it's plain to see that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with him on this matter. He didn't answer my post on this the first go round on the other thread, and now he's just throwing up Straw Men and accussations of my alleged assumptions without acknowledging his own assumptions.

See, USMC has a conflict of interest in the matter in that as a member of the military, he is actively engaged in enforcing this view. That makes it much harder for him to even consider the possibility that he might be wrong. Because what if he is wrong? That means his actions have all been meaningless.

Again, one can have all the good intentions in the world, but that won't change the laws of cause and effect.

Truth, this is not about me.

Saying that every attack the Islamists make on us is because of something we have done in the past is not supported by history.

What foreign policy mishap encouraged the Islamic Barbary Pirates to attack? Why do the Islamists attack countries that positively have no foreign policy?

And please respond to my previous post before accusing me of "throwing up straw men".

[Truth-Bringer]

Saying that every attack the Islamists make on us is because of something we have done in the past is not supported by history.


It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

Regardless, in the final equation, the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur due to U.S. interference abroad and Zionist policies.

[USMC the Almighty]

It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

Excuse me if I am having a hard time fully comprehending your message because it is filled with inconsistencies. So are you saying that attacks in the name of Islam are driven by foreign policy or not? And don't keep this exclusively to the U.S.

The list is of groups enslaved and slaughtered for not submitting to the word of Allah is endless: the pagans of Arabia, the Christians and Jews of the Holy Land, the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia, Christians, Jews, and animists of North Africa and Egypt, the 70-80 million Hindus in India, the people of the Iberian Peninsula, the people of eastern Europe (Vienna -- Suleiman the Magnificent, Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, etc.), the people of Constantinople, the millions (perhaps billion) of Europeans over the centuries, the American sailors (Barbary pirates), Sudanese, Indonesians, Beslans...

Were all of these the result of their specific foreign policies?

Mohammed commanded the destruction of all civilizations except the fanatic Islamic ones in the 6th century AD. This back when the West, including Britain, didn't even know the Middle East existed. What foreign policy was driving this?

The war started back in the 500s and the 21st century extension of the conflict between Islamic imperialists and those who are unwilling to submit to the word of Allah has NOTHING to do with American foreign policy.

This is what you need to understand. The Islamists don't need a pretext for war other than refusal to submit to Sharia law, the word of their "prophet", and the word of allah.


Regardless, in the final equation, the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur due to U.S. interference abroad and Zionist policies.

Now doesn't this line make you feel silly in light of the education you have just been given above?

[vyo476]

It most certainly is. Does that account for 100% of Islamic attacks? No, and I never claimed it did. Yes, their religion has more references to violence than others, but the fact that the majority of Muslims ignore those teachings disproves your claims.

For once, we're in total agreement.

[vyo476]

This is what you need to understand. The Islamists don't need a pretext for war other than refusal to submit to Sharia law, the word of their "prophet", and the word of allah.

Kind of like how we don't need a pretext for war other than faulty intelligence reports?

[USMC the Almighty]

Kind of like how we don't need a pretext for war other than faulty intelligence reports?

No, not really.

[Truth-Bringer]

Mohammed commanded the destruction of all civilizations except the fanatic Islamic ones in the 6th century AD.

Again, you refute your own argument. If Muslims follow this teaching, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims constantly invading other nations?

Now don't you feel silly?

[USMC the Almighty]

Again, you refute your own argument. If Muslims follow this teaching, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims constantly invading other nations?

Now don't you feel silly?

This is such a terrible argument that your hinging your entire position on, Truth.

Some Muslims chose to accept the teachings and others don't. Your same logic would apply to Ron Paul's theory that it's American foreign policy which drives the Islamic terrorists: if American foreign policy created terrorists, then why aren't the vast majority of Muslims flying commerical airliners into our buildings?

So Truth, just to be clear -- do you still believe that it's foreign policy that drives the Islamic terrorists?

Back before Darfur was fashionable, whose foreign policy was driving Muslims to enter Sudanese villages, ask women "Muslims or Christian" and then gang rape and leave to die in the streets those who answered incorrectly?

Or back in the 16th century when Suleiman the Magnificent all but destroyed Vienna in the name of Islam because of their religion...

I've given you all the examples already. You just chose to ignore history and blame the victims.

[9sublime]

Remeber the crusades USMC. Its exactly the same.

[USMC the Almighty]

Remeber the crusades USMC. Its exactly the same.

Except the Crusades were about 800 years ago.

[9sublime]

Or back in the 16th century when Suleiman the Magnificent all but destroyed Vienna in the name of Islam because of their religion...

I've given you all the examples already. You just chose to ignore history and blame the victims.

I swear the 16th century was 500 years ago, and that you just told someone not to ignore history.

[USMC the Almighty]

I swear the 16th century was 500 years ago, and that you just told someone not to ignore history.

Yes, this is one example but others are much more recent. And 9sublime, I'm really not interested in another Muslim vs. Christian debate. We're discussing the validity of blaming American foreign policy for driving the Islamic terrorists. Christians and the Crusades really don't have much to do with this.

[vyo476]

Back before Darfur was fashionable, whose foreign policy was driving Muslims to enter Sudanese villages, ask women "Muslims or Christian" and then gang rape and leave to die in the streets those who answered incorrectly?

And where in the Qu'ran does it tell Muslims to rape non-Muslims?

[vyo476]

If you read the Qu'ran, you'll see that there are a number of references to how one is supposed to treat civilians and prisoners. There's even an old Muslim anecdote about Muhammad stopping to help an old woman from the opposing side who had been injured, telling his followers that attacking civilians was not okay.

The Islamic terrorists are picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow just as much as the peaceful Muslims are.

And have you ever asked yourself why suddenly we're the target? We weren't for a long time; Muslims engaged in uprisings and warfare against the French and British all during the first half of the twentieth century. Was this because Islam told them to? Or was it because when the French and British promised independence to the Middle East they instead got the League of Nations to install them as rulers?

This isn't to say that there aren't some Islamic terrorists who are mostly motivated by their faith. Fanatics exist in all religions; Islam is no different.

[Bunz]

Interesting to note that Paul has managed that one. Im of the school where the job needs to be totally volunteer or pay more than enough in an effort to have actually qualified candidates want the job. Also it could decrease the temptation of bribery. Considering the entire overall cost of operating the government. I wouldnt have much trouble with them making $500k. As long as they met attendance requirements on votes.

[Bunz]

Congress needs reform regardless. I think term limits need to have a really hard look. But also eliminating the huge influence the parties play. Minimizing it at the very least.

[USMC the Almighty]

If you read the Qu'ran, you'll see that there are a number of references to how one is supposed to treat civilians and prisoners. There's even an old Muslim anecdote about Muhammad stopping to help an old woman from the opposing side who had been injured, telling his followers that attacking civilians was not okay.

The Islamic terrorists are picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow just as much as the peaceful Muslims are.

And have you ever asked yourself why suddenly we're the target? We weren't for a long time; Muslims engaged in uprisings and warfare against the French and British all during the first half of the twentieth century. Was this because Islam told them to? Or was it because when the French and British promised independence to the Middle East they instead got the League of Nations to install them as rulers?

This isn't to say that there aren't some Islamic terrorists who are mostly motivated by their faith. Fanatics exist in all religions; Islam is no different.

Vyo, I don't disagree with you. But it's these very Islamic terrorists that are motivated by faith that I don't think Paul understands. RP believes that we can appease the terrorists by apologizing for our past "imperial" deeds and all will be forgiven. He fails to understand the concept of jihad -- holy war, motivated not by U.S. foreign policy but Muslim theology.

[vyo476]

Vyo, I don't disagree with you. But it's these very Islamic terrorists that are motivated by faith that I don't think Paul understands. RP believes that we can appease the terrorists by apologizing for our past "imperial" deeds and all will be forgiven. He fails to understand the concept of jihad -- holy war, motivated not by U.S. foreign policy but Muslim theology.

There are comparatively few terrorists who are purely religious fanatics, unless you believe the Middle East is a boiling pot of psychological disorder. It's very highly improbable that the number of people who engage in anti-US behavior all suffer from the kinds of psychological imbalances that create the pure religious maniac (people like Charles Manson).

There has to be something that makes these fanatics desirable to the common man. Think Nazi Germany. When we talk about the Nazis, we also discuss the reasons so many Germans fell in line with Hitler's rationalities. Had we addressed some of the issues that caused Germans to flock to the Nazi cause, we might have prevented World War II from happening, without firing a shot.

The Middle East today is much like Germany was in the early 30s - pliable. They have enormous potential resources (oil), mirroring Germany's potential for industrial power. They are, however, not "world powers" anymore - mirroring Germany's own fall from a powerful position to a weak one. They are disjointed and unsure of their role in the changing world. Furthermore, while a small percentage of the population have become outwardly violent, most haven't really chosen how they wish to react to the way the world treats them. It's no secret that they don't like how we treat them and if we stay on our present path, treating Muslims like second-class citizens in their own land and insisting on sticking our noses in and violating their sovereignty whenever and however we feel like it, then eventually more and more Muslims will rally to the extremist banner. As it were many have already flocked there, but far from a majority. When/if that were to happen...then we'd be in real trouble.

[USMC the Almighty]

There are comparatively few terrorists who are purely religious fanatics, unless you believe the Middle East is a boiling pot of psychological disorder. It's very highly improbable that the number of people who engage in anti-US behavior all suffer from the kinds of psychological imbalances that create the pure religious maniac (people like Charles Manson).

Most estimates I've seen are around 1-2% of the Muslim faith would be willing to carry out a terrorist attack (which would be between 39 million and 52 million people). This number isn't especially surprising considering how in some places the number is close to 50% of people who thought 9/11 and other terrorist actions against the U.S. are "justified".

This is a sizeable enemy, vyo. That is a lot of people who want to kill innocent Americans and dismissing them as mere "religious fanatics" not worth worrying about or ignoring them altogether as Ron Paul does is the reason that I will never vote for him.


There has to be something that makes these fanatics desirable to the common man. Think Nazi Germany. When we talk about the Nazis, we also discuss the reasons so many Germans fell in line with Hitler's rationalities. Had we addressed some of the issues that caused Germans to flock to the Nazi cause, we might have prevented World War II from happening, without firing a shot.

This is where we have our fundamental disagreement. I believe history is on my side in that the Irreconcilable wing of Islam needs no pretext to go to war other than their prophet Mohammad commanded them to in the name of their religion. We can address all the things that you might believe would make terrorism desirable but the Islamic imperialists will always be at war. They have been engaged in one war of cultural conquest after another since the beginning, and what we face in the 21st century is precisely the same war for precisely the same reasons that the Byzantines fell -- because they were so divided over internal political dogfighting that they failed to defend their people from the world's most adamant and dedicated racial and religious bigots.

The war started in the 6th century and it has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy as Ron Paul would have you believe.




The Middle East today is much like Germany was in the early 30s - pliable. They have enormous potential resources (oil), mirroring Germany's potential for industrial power. They are, however, not "world powers" anymore - mirroring Germany's own fall from a powerful position to a weak one. They are disjointed and unsure of their role in the changing world. Furthermore, while a small percentage of the population have become outwardly violent, most haven't really chosen how they wish to react to the way the world treats them. It's no secret that they don't like how we treat them and if we stay on our present path, treating Muslims like second-class citizens in their own land and insisting on sticking our noses in and violating their sovereignty whenever and however we feel like it, then eventually more and more Muslims will rally to the extremist banner. As it were many have already flocked there, but far from a majority. When/if that were to happen...then we'd be in real trouble.

[vyo476]

Most estimates I've seen are around 1-2% of the Muslim faith would be willing to carry out a terrorist attack (which would be between 39 million and 52 million people). This number isn't especially surprising considering how in some places the number is close to 50% of people who thought 9/11 and other terrorist actions against the U.S. are "justified".

This is a sizeable enemy, vyo. That is a lot of people who want to kill innocent Americans and dismissing them as mere "religious fanatics" not worth worrying about or ignoring them altogether as Ron Paul does is the reason that I will never vote for him.

It is a sizable enemy. A sizable enemy of human beings. Some of them are the breed of purely fanatical religious maniacs with whom there is no possible reconciliation. Others, no doubt, are extremists for other unbalanced reasons. However, are you suggesting that 39-52 million people have been overcome with religious mania simply for the sake of religious mania?

Extremism becomes more palatable to the common person as conditions worsen. As conditions improve, extremism fades. Had Germany not been mired in economic and nationalistic problems then the Nazis never would have gained power. If the Middle East wasn't being treated the way it's been treated for the last hundred years or so (and this is just in relation to their gripes with the West - if you want to go into all the details of the Middle East getting stepped on we're going to have go a lot farther back) then the extremist point of view wouldn't be nearly so appetizing to so many people.

This is where we have our fundamental disagreement. I believe history is on my side in that the Irreconcilable wing of Islam needs no pretext to go to war other than their prophet Mohammad commanded them to in the name of their religion. We can address all the things that you might believe would make terrorism desirable but the Islamic imperialists will always be at war. They have been engaged in one war of cultural conquest after another since the beginning, and what we face in the 21st century is precisely the same war for precisely the same reasons that the Byzantines fell -- because they were so divided over internal political dogfighting that they failed to defend their people from the world's most adamant and dedicated racial and religious bigots.

I like the term "Irreconcilable Wing." It's a good phrase and aptly describes the group of people who are in this for purely religious purposes. However, it is how many of the people who have arrayed themselves against us today that fit into the "Irreconcilable Wing" where I believe we disagree.

Can you honestly say that you believe that 39 million people read the violent words in the Qu'ran, ignored all the ones pertaining to peace (not to mention the proper treatment of prisoners and civilians), and have agreed to wage war against the West without being motivated by other factors, whether they be conscious or subconscious?

[vyo476]

I believe history is on my side

One last, quick thing. I think it's important to remember that we're on the same side; we just have differing views.

[USMC the Almighty]

It is a sizable enemy. A sizable enemy of human beings. Some of them are the breed of purely fanatical religious maniacs with whom there is no possible reconciliation. Others, no doubt, are extremists for other unbalanced reasons. However, are you suggesting that 39-52 million people have been overcome with religious mania simply for the sake of religious mania?

Not entirely. And this also relates to your last question. Certainly, in many cases, religion and their holy book's insistence that they "kill infidels where they reside" play the central role. But, as you noted, there are many other factors. I absolutely agree that poverty has played a role in fostering extremism and this is why I believe it's in the U.S.'s national interest to intervene and clean up and "modernize" the Middle East. And we have. Iraq, despite what the media will have you believe, is a vastly improved country in terms of modernity and standards of living. And the violence is beggining to come down as well:

Baghdad recently announced (by General Raymond Odierno and Iraqi General Abud Qanbar) that since June, terrorist attacks have dropped by 59 percent; casualties from IEDs are down 80%, secterian violence is off by 72%, and the number of killed Iraqi civilians has dropped by 81%.

These are promising signs.

I'm getting off topic but my point is that the it is in the interest of the United States to see that conditions in Iraq improve and to see the country modernized. When we have Iraqis listening to their iPods and driving to Wal-Mart, we will have a country substantially less likely so seize on to the radical ideology espoused by the mullahs.

Extremism becomes more palatable to the common person as conditions worsen. As conditions improve, extremism fades. Had Germany not been mired in economic and nationalistic problems then the Nazis never would have gained power. If the Middle East wasn't being treated the way it's been treated for the last hundred years or so (and this is just in relation to their gripes with the West - if you want to go into all the details of the Middle East getting stepped on we're going to have go a lot farther back) then the extremist point of view wouldn't be nearly so appetizing to so many people.

I agree, see my thoughts above.

I like the term "Irreconcilable Wing." It's a good phrase and aptly describes the group of people who are in this for purely religious purposes. However, it is how many of the people who have arrayed themselves against us today that fit into the "Irreconcilable Wing" where I believe we disagree.

Can you honestly say that you believe that 39 million people read the violent words in the Qu'ran, ignored all the ones pertaining to peace (not to mention the proper treatment of prisoners and civilians), and have agreed to wage war against the West without being motivated by other factors, whether they be conscious or subconscious?

[USMC the Almighty]

If the Middle East wasn't being treated the way it's been treated for the last hundred years or so (and this is just in relation to their gripes with the West - if you want to go into all the details of the Middle East getting stepped on we're going to have go a lot farther back) then the extremist point of view wouldn't be nearly so appetizing to so many people.

After reading this over, I don't entirely agree. How has the Middle East been treated by the U.S. in the last 100 years? This is the classical Ron Paul argument, that U.S. foreign policy creates terrorists. He asserts that every Islamic attack against the U.S. was a response to or effect of a U.S. attack.

The problem is that it started in 1786 with the Barbary Pirates attacking the U.S. and continued in 1801 and 1815. They were classic Islamic terrorists: harbored in North Africa and sanctioned by Islamic despots, these terrorists targetted civilians as "infidels", instilled terror with their cannons and scimitars, and were waging a "holy war" against the U.S. -- who they saw not only as infidels, but also as descendants from the Crusaders.

Did our statesmen try to appease and "talk to" the terrorists as our leaders today? Did they saw that terrorism is just a fact of life and we should learn to live with it?

Of course not. They took the necessary means to eradicate the threat as America has always done until recently. President Jefferson and General Washington built up a large navy aimed primarily at dealing with the pirates. Americans reaffirmed their commitment to democratic ideals at home -- talk of "national character" flourished and the Constitution was ratified.

Something else that is interesting to note is that we never declared war on the pirates (in part, I believe, because we didn't want to elevate their status). Jefferson authorized the use of force to hunt down these pirates and we treated them accordingly. They weren't given Constitutional protected. We didn't pull them over and arrest them on the high seas. We sank their ships.

Anyway, my point is that the Islamists were attacking the U.S. before it was even a country, let alone one with an interventionist foreign policy. The U.S. used to also be a country that would do whatever it took to defeat the enemy (see: Revolution, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2).

[vyo476]

After reading this over, I don't entirely agree. How has the Middle East been treated by the U.S. in the last 100 years? This is the classical Ron Paul argument, that U.S. foreign policy creates terrorists. He asserts that every Islamic attack against the U.S. was a response to or effect of a U.S. attack.

He asserts that terrorism is a result of bad foreign policy; if he's said that every single attack is a direct result of US foreign policy then he's wrong, but if he's said that, I've missed it. And my angle is that the mistreatment of the Middle East has come from the West, beginning with World War I.

The problem is that it started in 1786 with the Barbary Pirates attacking the U.S. and continued in 1801 and 1815. They were classic Islamic terrorists: harbored in North Africa and sanctioned by Islamic despots, these terrorists targetted civilians as "infidels", instilled terror with their cannons and scimitars, and were waging a "holy war" against the U.S. -- who they saw not only as infidels, but also as descendants from the Crusaders.

There are a few problems with citing the Barbary Wars. First, these conflicts took place a long time ago. The wars didn't cause any large impact (other than the creation of the navy, which you can bet would have happened anyway as we kept getting into scraps with Britain). I've heard enough people dismiss the Crusades as having happened a long time ago that the Barbary Wars ought to be given this same classification.

Second, many Muslims have condemned piracy as being one of the few cases in which capital punishment is a preferential punishment.

http://www.geocities.com/uk_imaan/imaan/QuranFAQ.pdf

Interpretive religion anyone? Some can take the Qur'an to mean, "Go kill everyone who isn't a Muslim," and that's that. Some take it to mean something completely different.

That said, under some interpretations of Islamic law, the Barbary Pirates would have been tried, convicted, and executed for their actions. Under the interpretations prevailing at the time, they were not. There were any number of factors for this: good old human greed, racism, fear of other cultures (especially Western cultures).

Did our statesmen try to appease and "talk to" the terrorists as our leaders today? Did they saw that terrorism is just a fact of life and we should learn to live with it?

I'm not aware of any statesmen today who think that terrorism is something we should just "learn to live with." We all recognize it as a problem and our differences come in how we believe the problem ought to be dealt with (which is where the "where the problem came from" arguments all started).

Of course not. They took the necessary means to eradicate the threat as America has always done until recently. President Jefferson and General Washington built up a large navy aimed primarily at dealing with the pirates. Americans reaffirmed their commitment to democratic ideals at home -- talk of "national character" flourished and the Constitution was ratified.

We were in a very different position then than we are now. Then, a strong show of military force could get them to back down, as they were the aggressors, and treaties could keep the peace. Today, this is not true; a strong show of military force only creates more extremists who hate us, and treaties are ineffective so long as they are attained through coercion. In short, so long as they know we're manipulating them, there won't be peace - especially not by the end of a gun.

Anyway, my point is that the Islamists were attacking the U.S. before it was even a country, let alone one with an interventionist foreign policy. The U.S. used to also be a country that would do whatever it took to defeat the enemy (see: Revolution, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2).

The "by any means necessary" philosophy isn't appealing anymore. If we simply wanted to eradicate the problem, sure, we could turn the Middle East into a pile of ash tomorrow and be done with it. If you're really an advocate of doing "whatever it takes" to defeat the enemy, why aren't you saying we should be launching missiles at them right now? That'd be the simplest, and probably most effective way to end the problem.

Of course, there'd still be the United States' own Muslim population that probably wouldn't be too happy with our eradicating their ancestral homeland. But after watching a century of systematic internal genocides in other countries I'm sure we'd figure out some way of dealing with them.

[9sublime]

Remember that 2% of Muslims saying they are willing to do it is just talk, and that I doubt even 1% would actually carry one out should they be called upon... because surely if they believed they would do it, shouldn't they be doing it now?

However, I agree, its a large enemy, worringly large.

[USMC the Almighty]

He asserts that terrorism is a result of bad foreign policy; if he's said that every single attack is a direct result of US foreign policy then he's wrong, but if he's said that, I've missed it. And my angle is that the mistreatment of the Middle East has come from the West, beginning with World War I.

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


There are a few problems with citing the Barbary Wars. First, these conflicts took place a long time ago. The wars didn't cause any large impact (other than the creation of the navy, which you can bet would have happened anyway as we kept getting into scraps with Britain). I've heard enough people dismiss the Crusades as having happened a long time ago that the Barbary Wars ought to be given this same classification.

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


Second, many Muslims have condemned piracy as being one of the few cases in which capital punishment is a preferential punishment.

http://www.geocities.com/uk_imaan/imaan/QuranFAQ.pdf

Interpretive religion anyone? Some can take the Qur'an to mean, "Go kill everyone who isn't a Muslim," and that's that. Some take it to mean something completely different.

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


I'm not aware of any statesmen today who think that terrorism is something we should just "learn to live with." We all recognize it as a problem and our differences come in how we believe the problem ought to be dealt with (which is where the "where the problem came from" arguments all started).

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

We were in a very different position then than we are now. Then, a strong show of military force could get them to back down, as they were the aggressors, and treaties could keep the peace. Today, this is not true; a strong show of military force only creates more extremists who hate us, and treaties are ineffective so long as they are attained through coercion. In short, so long as they know we're manipulating them, there won't be peace - especially not by the end of a gun.

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


The "by any means necessary" philosophy isn't appealing anymore. If we simply wanted to eradicate the problem, sure, we could turn the Middle East into a pile of ash tomorrow and be done with it. If you're really an advocate of doing "whatever it takes" to defeat the enemy, why aren't you saying we should be launching missiles at them right now? That'd be the simplest, and probably most effective way to end the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

[Bunz]

USMC and VYO, you both are two of my favorite posters here. Excellent points both of you.

A question for both.
How far back is it reasonable to have past events influence current foreign policies?
Not just on this issue, but in general.

If muslim terrorism is caused by US or whatever countries foreign policy it is targets at. What is the actual driving force behind that.

If it is religion, what is the real motivating force beneath that.

[USMC the Almighty]

USMC and VYO, you both are two of my favorite posters here. Excellent points both of you.

I appreciate that Bunz. I've told you before that you have been a great addition to this site and it's good to have people like you are willing to give both sides of an issue equal consideration, and more importantly, don't hold on to positions irrationally when you cannot defend them.


A question for both.
How far back is it reasonable to have past events influence current foreign policies?
Not just on this issue, but in general.

Well since we're usually talking about the U.S., I don't think it's often necessary to go much past 1775.


If muslim terrorism is caused by US or whatever countries foreign policy it is targets at. What is the actual driving force behind that.

If it is religion, what is the real motivating force beneath that.

As I not so eloquently put it in one of my previous posts -- yes, indoctrination into a version of Islam that may or may not be perverted is what ultimately drives these people. But as vyo pointed out, the conditions that these people live under allow for fanatic mullahs to command such a large portion of the populace into buying into their theology.

[Bunz]

Well since we're usually talking about the U.S., I don't think it's often necessary to go much past 1775.
Fair enough, I think it a good idea to learn the lessons from history however far back it is applicable. Britian would not be a good friend going back since 1775, I think you would agree Pvt. Jarhead:)
If one wants to take applicable history in terms of the middle east, I think since WWI would be fair. Considering that was when a large empire was divided into often times arbitrary lines without considering conditions on the ground. This has been compounded through the creation of Israel. I am not saying these things are right or wrong. Simply that they happened.

There certainly has been bad deeds by both sides. A difference I notice, is that one is often done peacefully in the courtrooms or the floors of congress.
The reaction to these decisions on those who it effects is to take to the streets under arms.

I think there is a certain amount of hopelessness among large parts of that population. This poverty and no end in sight to that poverty is what breeds radicalism. This allowed the rise of the facists and communists in the countries where it took hold. Peace can usually come only with prosperity. Unfortunately, prosperity often times requires war.

[vyo476]

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

Do you always take the word of killers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ArmChair General]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

[ArmChair General]

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

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

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