Ron Paul has voted against every single Congressional pay raise

[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.