good post. though i don't know quite what was with the guy at the end trying to imply that he thought Ron Paul's monetary policy ideas would take us back to the jacksonian era.
_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil. Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.
Earlier this week Ron Paul was on a radio show (not sure where, audio linked below) and compared US Marines to mall security guards and said the mall guards are better at their jobs.
Now, I'm not unwilling to concede that his words were twisted a bit, but one cannot say the things he did and expect people to not make the connection. I was expecting much more twisting done, but little was needed. Also, the basic idea that terrorists are just as happy killing Marines as they are US citizens just is flat wrong. If that was the case, 9/11 was pointless. If all one wants to do is kill Americans, there are many easier ways to do it: Beirut bombing, USS Cole, etc. Us being in Iraq is not sating Islamic fascists' desire to kill us, it's making it more difficult to kill civvies over here. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's basic foreign policy premise is completely bullshit, and that outweighs any agreements I may have with him on the domestic side.
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Joined: Thu 08-17-2006 11:38PM Posts: 118 Location: 3 South
Source: TJ South
Paul wasn't taking a stab at the military, the radio host was putting words in his mouth.
Personally, I think it is completely bullshit to be ignorant of the impact our military presence has in a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war.
Yes, and I admitted that. But when in one breath saying that our Marines are just over there getting killed whereas our mall security guards are the ones preventing any terrorist actions, it just doesn't reflect well on him at all.
And I assume the nation you are referring to is Iraq? Because we have a military presence in Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, etc and they don't seem to mind. The fact is that removing all our troops from overseas and using them to defend the border will buy us maybe a few years of domestic peace at the expense of any overseas interests. We were isolationists in the 1920s and '30s, and you can see how well that worked. Claiming that if we were just to pack up and leave the world would be a better place is just not true. It doesn't jive with reality.
/rant
_________________ The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.
Joined: Thu 08-17-2006 11:38PM Posts: 118 Location: 3 South
Source: TJ South
As far as I'm concerned there's a difference between isolationism and policing the world.. is it necessary for us to maintain an armed force in another country to carry on trade with them?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum