PDA

View Full Version : The Ron Paul Revolution 'no need to retaliate vs. an attack ever in American history'


Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 05:27 PM
he shows what a loon he is.....exact quote from Politics-n-Eggs speech.

"The President has a responsibility to retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a need to do that throughout our whole history.It was especially true in the early years that if Congress was way off and they had to come by horse and buggy, the President had the responsibility, the moral and legal responsibility, to thwart an attack on the United States, That is still the position I would hold."

5:11 into the video....

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BIbmXfteACw&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BIbmXfteACw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

wazu
12-22-2007, 05:41 PM
I didn't watch the video, but looking at your quote - I'm not seeing what's so kooky there. When was there ever a need for a president to go to war on his own, without congress having enough time to declare war first?

banyon
12-22-2007, 05:42 PM
Where's patteeu with his kook-o-meter when you need him?

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 05:56 PM
I didn't watch the video, but looking at your quote - I'm not seeing what's so kooky there. When was there ever a need for a president to go to war on his own, without congress having enough time to declare war first?
He doesn't say go to war, he says retaliate against an attack on the US.

We haven't gotten a declaration of war since 1941, and have had a lot of conflicts between now and then.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 05:58 PM
Where's patteeu with his kook-o-meter when you need him?
Hi Banyon! I'm back!

banyon
12-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Hi Banyon! I'm back!

que?

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:05 PM
que?
Olah, Y Felis Navidad!

irishjayhawk
12-22-2007, 06:08 PM
In the Beck interview, he made it clear that the only attack to warrant conflict was Pearl Harbor. And even then, he said, WWII was only an extension to WWI. Thus, if we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, WWII might not have happened and put us in that state.

Other than PH, can you really think of an event to warrant an invasion etc?

If you say 9/11, I would contend that the enemy was not a country but a group. And that group has many homes. Declaring war on the world is not possible, along with the "GWoT", the war on drugs, etc.

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:08 PM
He doesn't say go to war, he says retaliate against an attack on the US.

We haven't gotten a declaration of war since 1941, and have had a lot of conflicts between now and then.

Okay, so what's your example where the president had to retaliate before Congress had time to declare war?

Adept Havelock
12-22-2007, 06:17 PM
We haven't gotten a declaration of war since 1941, and have had a lot of conflicts between now and then.

FYI- The last time the US declared war was June 5, 1942.

Merry Christmas, Bill P.

Okay, so what's your example where the president had to retaliate before Congress had time to declare war?

Well, the Cold War comes to mind as a situation where the president would have needed that authority, if the USSR had ever launched a nuclear strike.

5-7 minutes warning (if lucky) for an SLBM strike isn't nearly enough time for Congressional Authorization.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:24 PM
Okay, so what's your example where the president had to retaliate before Congress had time to declare war?
Korea

Vietnam


We had the failed Iran Hostage rescue in 1979.

Several problems with Libya in the 80's resulting in bombing Momar in 1987.

The 1st Gulf war

Afghanistan and the second gulf war.

irishjayhawk
12-22-2007, 06:25 PM
Korea

Vietnam

1st Gulf War


Really? :spock:

Could you elaborate as to why.

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:25 PM
...if the USSR had ever launched a nuclear strike.

5-7 minutes warning (if lucky) for an SLBM strike isn't nearly enough time for Congressional Authorization.

Of course it isn't, but that hasn't happened. So again, has there been "a need to do that throughout our history" that you can list? It's pretty clear from Ron Paul's quote that he isn't pontificating about fictional historical examples, but instead referencing actual U.S. history to make the point that this need is very unlikely.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:26 PM
FYI- The last time the US declared war was June 5, 1942.

Merry Christmas, Bill P.





Eh, thanks for the correction. I was thinking of FDR's speech on December 7th. ;)

Thanks, Merry Christmas to you too!

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Korea

Vietnam


We had the failed Iran Hostage rescue in 1979.

Several problems with Libya in the 80's resulting in bombing Momar in 1987.

The 1st Gulf war

Afghanistan and the second gulf war.

What? How are any of those so urgent that we didn't have 24 hours for congress to declare war before launching a strike? When were we attacked by Vietnam or Korea? Did the 1st Gulf War explode in a period of less than 24 hours? All of these examples are vague and not a single one makes your point.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:30 PM
Really? :spock:

Could you elaborate as to why.
Well, ok. Korea was a UN joint tug of war with the Chinese. we came pretty close to going to war with the Chinese in that conflict.

Vietnam and the 1st gulf war I'm wrong about, now that I think about it.

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:32 PM
How does Ron Paul feel about that Revolutionary War deal? 1812?

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:34 PM
What? How are any of those so urgent that we didn't have 24 hours for congress to declare war before launching a strike? When were we attacked by Vietnam or Korea? Did the 1st Gulf War explode in a period of less than 24 hours? All of these examples are vague and not a single one makes your point.
The gulf of Tonkin incident started the excuse for Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

The 1st Gulf war we had to protect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, it would have crippled our economy if Iraq would have invaded Saudi Arabia too. that is acting without congressional approval.

Bush 1 wound up getting approval from congress for that attack anyway.

Korea was a UN project, I'll give you that one.

bango
12-22-2007, 06:34 PM
The first Gulf War was us coming to the aid of our allies. Korea and Vietnam were us going and getting the Commies before they came and get us. Now we are going to get the Islamies because they come and get us.

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:37 PM
How does Ron Paul feel about that Revolutionary War deal? 1812?

I'm sure he approves of how the President of the United States handled the Revolutionary War, as well as the outcome of the declared War of 1812.

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:40 PM
The gulf of Tonkin incident started the excuse for Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

The 1st Gulf war we had to protect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, it would have crippled our economy if Iraq would have invaded Saudi Arabia too. that is acting without congressional approval.

Bush 1 wound up getting approval from congress for that attack anyway.

Korea was a UN project, I'll give you that one.

If those were so important, then why didn't congress declare war? Ron Paul clearly states he believes it is the job of the president to retaliate if needed because there isn't time for Congress to come together. It sounds like you are concerned that he would not want to wage undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional war.

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:44 PM
Does Ron Paul support pulling our troops out of Afghanistan?

bango
12-22-2007, 06:45 PM
Would our Congress have declared War on Iraq a few years ago?

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:47 PM
Does Ron Paul support pulling our troops out of Afghanistan?

Yes. He supported the initial attack on Afghanistan because he supported capturing Bin Laden. Now that the original mission has long since been abandoned and it has turned into another nation-building exercise, he no longer supports U.S. troops being there.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:47 PM
If those were so important, then why didn't congress declare war? Ron Paul clearly states he believes it is the job of the president to retaliate if needed because there isn't time for Congress to come together. It sounds like you are concerned that he would not want to wage undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional war.
Because I think we have an advantage if our enemy's don't know what's going to happen before hand, don't you?

I understand and agree that if we go to war we should get congressional approval, but retaliating against an attack should not necessarily mean getting congressional approval if it means bombing and or cruise missiles or a quick assault without leaving troops on the ground for a long period of time..

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 06:48 PM
How does Ron Paul feel about that Revolutionary War deal? 1812?
I do know that a leader in the libertarian movement Murray Rothbard felt that there were only 3 legitimate or just wars in US history: The American War for Independence and the War Between the States on the side of the south.

The American War for Independence was a war for liberty as in limited govt and a war against loyalism, Toryism ( the Establishment), excessive taxes, illegal to have free political speech and press, mercantilism, free trade, centralism, colonialism and imperialism aka BIG govt. That was the status quo then and it is the status quo now. What republicans like Parcell
's defends.

Other than that, I do know the Paul feels we were attacked in WWII so that was different. I saw Paul say this on tv. I'll make an educated guess that he'd be against most of the other wars too. Since I'm similar to him I'd add WWI, definitely our imperialistic experiment in the Spanish American War, Phillipine and Hawaiin interventions. Oh. and don't forget Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbian interventions like most of the GOP was too, when it acted like the GOP and not the left.

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:49 PM
Yes. He supported the initial attack on Afghanistan because he supports capturing Bin Laden. Now that the original mission has long since been abandoned and it has turned into another nation-building exercise, he no longer supports U.S. troops being there.

How did Ron Paul (and I trust, you) reach the conclusion that we are no longer interested in capturing (or killing) bin Laden and that that mission has "been abandoned"?

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:50 PM
I do know that a leader in the libertarian movement Murray Rothbard felt that there were only 3 legitimate or just wars in US history: The American War for Independence and the War Between the States on the side of the south.

I count that as two, not three.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 06:53 PM
Because I think we have an advantage if our enemy's don't know what's going to happen before hand, don't you?
enemies

Define who they are, please. This is all we ask.

I understand and agree that if we go to war we should get congressional approval, but retaliating against an attack should not necessarily mean getting congressional approval if it means bombing and or cruise missiles or a quick assault without leaving troops on the ground for a long period of time..
I see what you're saying somewhat. But those are considered acts of war too. The only time the Constitution allows for this is to repel a sudden attack or similar situation, like rescuing hostages or trying to a special ops capture of someone like BinLaden. Getting congress to act would take some time. You cannot compare the Iraq invasion to such a situation though. That was an initiated act of aggression on a country not involved in 9/11 and would require a Declare even if they were involved.

FTR, we win the wars we declare. It's the non declared wars that get politically stalmated. When we declare Congress does it's job and everyone is in it together. However, America has a long history of anti-war protesters going back to our war for Independence. The Tories went to Canada.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 06:55 PM
I count that as two, not three.
Ooops! You count correctly. I was thinking 3 because of what Paul said regarding WWII. But it's 2, only, for Rothbard.

wazu
12-22-2007, 06:55 PM
I understand and agree that if we go to war we should get congressional approval, but retaliating against an attack should not necessarily mean getting congressional approval if it means bombing and or cruise missiles or a quick assault without leaving troops on the ground for a long period of time..

I agree with you on this. I actually think Ron Paul would as well. If Ron Paul were president and an enemy launched an attack on the U.S., in the modern world we would be able to counter-attack much more quickly than we were able to through most of our history, and if this were advantageous, the president may need to move very quickly. Ron Paul makes it clear in what you quoted that he believes the president is responsible for that. He simply makes the statement for perspective that it hasn't happened in the past. All of our "non-declared" wars so far have been unconstitutional, and weren't done out of some major, do-or-die emergency or threat to America.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 06:55 PM
enemies

Define who they are, please. This is all we ask.


Islamic terrorists, the aka ''boogie men'' that want to kill us all. and the countries that support them.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 06:58 PM
How did Ron Paul (and I trust, you) reach the conclusion that we are no longer interested in capturing (or killing) bin Laden and that that mission has "been abandoned"?
Er, well there was a general at a press conference ( I don't remember his name but there's a video somewhere of it) who said capturing bin Laden was never the object anyway. I think even without him saying this that a correct inference from the actions of this administration is that this is true. Plus, they almost had BL at ToraBora and left the Pakistani side open and the military were told to leave it open iirc.

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:58 PM
enemies

Define who they are, please. This is all we ask.


I see what you're saying somewhat. But those are considered acts of war too. The only time the Constitution allows for this is to repel a sudden attack or similar situation, like rescuing hostages or trying to a special ops capture of someone like BinLaden. Getting congress to act would take some time. You cannot compare the Iraq invasion to such a situation though. That was an initiated act of aggression on a country not involved in 9/11 and would require a Declare even if they were involved.

FTR, we win the wars we declare. It's the non declared wars that get politically stalmated. When we declare Congress does it's job and everyone is in it together. However, America has a long history of anti-war protesters going back to our war for Independence. The Tories went to Canada.

That's a good post, BEP. But, congressional authority just short of declaring war is (contrary to popular opinion) is NOT a new thing. For example, both Barbary "wars" were undeclared, if that worthless history degree is correct.

Donger
12-22-2007, 06:59 PM
Ooops! You count correctly. I was thinking 3 because of what Paul said regarding WWII. But it's 2, only, for Rothbard.

So, Ron Paul thinks we shouldn't have resisted the British invasion in the War of 1812?

Donger
12-22-2007, 07:00 PM
Er, well there was a general at a press conference ( I don't remember his name but there's a video somewhere of it) who said capturing bin Laden was never the object anyway. I think even without him saying this that a correct inference from the actions of this administration is that this is true. Plus, they almost had BL at ToraBora and left the Pakistani side open and the military were told to leave it open iirc.

I'd like to see that.

I would be surprised, however, if our intel weenies aren't still working rather hard at finding that f*ck. They are a rather pedantic bunch.

Of course, we had the prick in the cross hairs once before, but didn't pull the trigger. I really hope that that doesn't happen again.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:02 PM
Islamic terrorists, the aka ''boogie men'' that want to kill us all. and the countries that support them.
Now, see this is where imprecise language is being used to manipulate your emotions from the tragedy of 9/11. There are different Islamic terrorist groups. Cripes we funded Arafat even and the PLO at times. Specifically, which Islamic terrorist group goes after American targets? (In this era please not 27 something odd years ago that died down.) It's Al Qaeda. The others are part of an ongoing unresolved land dispute that do their dirty work in Israel.

This is the problem with our current leadership. Like unthinking lemmings and partisans we followed them over the cliff and many continue to do so. Except "freedom fries" Jones ( R) finally woke up. When are the rest of ya's gonna do so?

wazu
12-22-2007, 07:03 PM
How did Ron Paul (and I trust, you) reach the conclusion that we are no longer interested in capturing (or killing) bin Laden and that that mission has "been abandoned"?

Not sure I have a great answer for that other than the results it has produced and what is known of our troops current activities there. I'm paraphrasing Ron Paul's explanation of his reasoning as I remember it. He felt very disappointed by what that mission turned out being, and that it was now a neo-con "nation building" program first and foremost. I've never heard him explicitly say that the original goal had been abandoned, so I may be overstating that a bit.

Hasn't Bush actually come right out and made the statement himself, though? I'll bet if it was clear that a force were actively pursuing Bin Laden, Ron Paul would find room for compromise on letting them stay. I actually pledged in 2004 that if the U.S. captured or killed Bin Laden, I would vote for George W. Bush even though I didn't like him. It's about results, and the priorities are pretty transparent.

Donger
12-22-2007, 07:06 PM
Not sure I have a great answer for that other than the results it has produced and what is known of our troops current activities there. I'm paraphrasing Ron Paul's explanation of his reasoning as I remember it. He felt very disappointed by what that mission turned out being, and that it was now a neo-con "nation building" program first and foremost. I've never heard him explicitly say that the original goal had been abandoned, so I may be overstating that a bit.

Hasn't Bush actually come right out and made the statement himself, though? I'll bet if it was clear that a force were actively pursuing Bin Laden, Ron Paul would find room for compromise on letting them stay. I actually pledged in 2004 that if the U.S. captured or killed Bin Laden, I would vote for George W. Bush even though I didn't like him. It's about results, and the priorities are pretty transparent.

Thank you for the clarification.

I doubt that any politician would have any consternation about killing bin Laden if the opportunity presented itself, regardless of party. At least I hope not.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:07 PM
So, Ron Paul thinks we shouldn't have resisted the British invasion in the War of 1812?
I didn't say that. I am simply making an educated guess between a key libertarian's views of war and what Paul said on TV—which was by no means a total take on all his specific war views.

I'm not against the 1812 one, or even the Mexican one. Although, even Kotter said the Mexican one was a ruse for Manifest Destiny. Frazod says we started 1812. He seems pretty well read historically. I find these two povs interesting and wouldn't mind reading up on that pov to see why. Most history books are written by court historians. Thank God for the Freedom of Information Act these days, even if we find out some things too late. Libertarian historian Raico is great on using some FOI data, as well as omitted information to flush things out more.

Donger
12-22-2007, 07:08 PM
Frazod says we started 1812.

We did. Albeit, with a tremendous amount of poking.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:18 PM
That's a good post, BEP. But, congressional authority just short of declaring war is (contrary to popular opinion) is NOT a new thing. For example, both Barbary "wars" were undeclared, if that worthless history degree is correct.
Well, we've debated these points before. You must have missed it.

But really so what? Does that make it right?

Sorry to bring it up again but it's the NCs in DC and their media pundits/writers in the press that bring up the Barbary Pirate situation all the time but the facts don't fully back up their pov, even if partially. That's a case where our men were being taken and held captive and tortured on the high seas requiring a quick response to free them. They weren't all part of a nation either or the lines were blurred. Who were we to declare war on?

I think when Jefferson went on land later with troops that was crossing the line. And Jefferson, simply refused to pay the tribute like all other nations because he wanted to retire the debt and was a cheap azz and didn't exactly act honestly. But that doesn't make it right.

We also did not declare it in the Civil War because it was called a rebellion.
But really these two are exceptions until post WWII.

Post WWII, the reason we don't declare war anymore is due to our membership in the UN which sorta bypasses it if enforcing resolutions. I posted a Federalist Society link on this which is a conservative group. That and the passing of the UN Participation Act. This is also the reason why all other nations no longer declare war since WWII.

So we had the Korean and Vietnam conflicts executed under SEATO commitment and obligations to intervene there which were under the auspices of the UN. The role of the UN was to prevent war and make it obselete. In doing so, however, it has made more wars, that grind on longer or never resolve. Better, for the most part, let two adversaries fight it out until there is a clear winner. They will eventually operate in their own self-interests. It's when we have an expansionist empires, that want to conquer the world, where I think we have the exceptions.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:20 PM
By the same token Donger, one could say we had slavery upheld by our own SC before, in order to defend not following the Constitution and/or bring back slavery.

Someone doing it before, if wrong, is not an argument.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:21 PM
We did. Albeit, with a tremendous amount of poking.
Interesting. How so?
Any links you can refer me to or a book. I am interested sincerely.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:23 PM
I'd like to see that.

I would be surprised, however, if our intel weenies aren't still working rather hard at finding that f*ck. They are a rather pedantic bunch.

Of course, we had the prick in the cross hairs once before, but didn't pull the trigger. I really hope that that doesn't happen again.
Saw it two years ago. Went back to find it about 6 months to a year ago and it took too long so I abandoned it. This is one reason I don't bring it up because this gets asked for and it takes too long. But I do remember it.

wazu
12-22-2007, 07:30 PM
Interesting. How so?
Any links you can refer me to or a book. I am interested sincerely.

I would consider impressment of U.S. sailors into the British navy an act of war, that warranted the U.S. response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:37 PM
I would consider impressment of U.S. sailors into the British navy an act of war, that warranted the U.S. response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
I know about this impressment which is why I was never against this war.
I just heard a statement from Frazod, one day, and was curious as to what else may have been going on at the time to say we started it. I'm reserving judgement as to if we really we did for now until I hear the other case.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 07:42 PM
Thank you for the clarification.

I doubt that any politician would have any consternation about killing bin Laden if the opportunity presented itself, regardless of party. At least I hope not.
Per my reading the CIA considers BL's right hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to be the real mastermind not BL. I read that they want AZ even more. I think both have to be caught. But it's likely they have leaders in training ready to step in place. So AQ, at its roots, has to be broken up. It's franchised too. But getting these guys and the original will help. However, we have to also look at our fp too.

Donger
12-22-2007, 08:02 PM
BEP, I'm just pointing out the historical fact that undeclared wars are not a post WWII only-phenomenon in this country. Some people aren't aware of that fact.

Donger
12-22-2007, 08:05 PM
They weren't all part of a nation either or the lines were blurred. Who were we to declare war on?


Nor are radical Islamists. We weren't attacked by a country on 9/11, but rather a radical agenda. It's rather hard to declare war against an agenda, as this war has proven to be the case.

Donger
12-22-2007, 08:07 PM
So, certainly you people who support Ron Paul consider 9/11 "an act of war," yes?

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 08:52 PM
Nor are radical Islamists. We weren't attacked by a country on 9/11, but rather a radical agenda. It's rather hard to declare war against an agenda, as this war has proven to be the case.
Except that we're talking about going to war on nation states not involved in 9/11—not getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

And in the case of BL's AQ they have "declared war on the United States."
So I see no reason to do the same in return, which would still give the nation the benefit of a clearly defined enemy and victory. There's nothing that says we can't. In fact we should. It should additionally state to make it known to the world that any state we find assisting them in a collaborative manner will be deemed an ally and fair game.

Where else your argument doesn't work is that we are attacking and invading nation states using conventional nation-state warfare which is the exact opposite of what we should be using which would be using unconventional warfare for an unconventional war with an unconditional enemy. Not to mention that these countries are the wrong target again. A social personality attacks the correct target. If someone crashes into their car, a social personality doesn't kick the dog. That's what an anti-social personality does.

It's not just to go after people you just don't like, because they say nasty things about you, because they believe in weird things, because they may be threat in the future, because they decided to trade for oil in Euros, because they threw our (allegedly) UN inspectors years earlier, because they had a few talks with our enemy but didn't go anywhere or because of what they did twenty something odd years that died down.

You go after the guilty parties.

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 09:05 PM
he shows what a loon he is.....exact quote from Politics-n-Eggs speech.

"The President has a responsibility to retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a need to do that throughout our whole history.It was especially true in the early years that if Congress was way off and they had to come by horse and buggy, the President had the responsibility, the moral and legal responsibility, to thwart an attack on the United States, That is still the position I would hold."

5:11 into the video....


These lines you put up, and not exact either, are taken out of context. When I finally viewed the whole video I did not get the same idea. He said "this is different than starting a war." And it is. You missed the nuance...because you'd lump every Islamic terror group into having committed 9/11.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 09:17 PM
These lines you put up, and not exact either, are taken out of context. When I finally viewed the whole video I did not get the same idea. He said "this is different than starting a war." And it is. You missed the nuance...because you'd lump every Islamic terror group into having committed 9/11.
They are exactly what he said in the video. he never mentioned anything about a ''nuance'' from what I remember.

Every Islamic terror group supported 9/11, why shouldn't they be lumped together?

BucEyedPea
12-22-2007, 09:25 PM
They are exactly what he said in the video. he never mentioned anything about a ''nuance'' from what I remember.
I gave it to you. He said it "This was different than starting a war."
He supported the idea of the executive repelling a sudden attack should one occur. He couldn't think of "an example" where there's been a need to do that. This is different than starting a war. If you can't see the nuance in that, then you're not using any logic since there are similarities and differences in the two situations.

Every Islamic terror group supported 9/11, why shouldn't they be lumped together?
Link?
By support I mean real collaborative support not cheering our misfortune.
You're making two things similar that are dis-similar. It's illogical.

So in other words, if someone killed someone and someone else who hated them felt joy in that you'd put them in jail or execute them too? I wouldn't want to live in a country with that justice system. Sounds more like totalitarianism.

Bill Parcells
12-22-2007, 09:34 PM
I gave it to you. He said it "This was different than starting a war."
He supported the idea of the executive repelling a sudden attack should one occur. He couldn't think of "an example" where there's been a need to do that.
This is different than starting a war. If you can't see the nuance in that, then you're not using any logic since there are similarities and differences in the two situations.
Well, he said he couldn't think of an example where there's been a need to do that. what exactly is he saying then? he wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11? that's not a good enough example?


Link?
By support I mean real collaborative support not cheering our misfortune.
You're making two things similar that are dis-similar. It's illogical.
It's not illogical when those people cheering are readily being recruited to kill people, right?

Calcountry
12-23-2007, 09:06 AM
Islamic terrorists, the aka ''boogie men'' that want to kill us all. and the countries that support them.Let there be no doubt, Hussein supported terrorist organizations. Note the sentence above, supported, as in past motha fuggin tense. The bitch is dead now, and that makes me very happy.

So are his sons. Now the media doesn't have the daily body count thing going on anymore?? wtf? A lot of dumb ass fools still harp to me about "the war" "the war" what a bunch of tools, they haven't got the memo from the queen bee yet. That is, they don't want to talk about the war any more because if she gets elected, she will continue 90% of Bush's policies. You heard me right, she will spin it different, but will do the same damned things as Bush.

Why? because that is what the ruling elites want.

patteeu
12-23-2007, 10:31 PM
And in the case of BL's AQ they have "declared war on the United States."
So I see no reason to do the same in return, which would still give the nation the benefit of a clearly defined enemy and victory. There's nothing that says we can't. In fact we should. It should additionally state to make it known to the world that any state we find assisting them in a collaborative manner will be deemed an ally and fair game.

We've effectively already done just this. You just don't like the format used since it didn't include magic words.

patteeu
12-23-2007, 10:50 PM
Where else your argument doesn't work is that we are attacking and invading nation states using conventional nation-state warfare which is the exact opposite of what we should be using which would be using unconventional warfare for an unconventional war with an unconditional enemy. Not to mention that these countries are the wrong target again. A social personality attacks the correct target. If someone crashes into their car, a social personality doesn't kick the dog. That's what an anti-social personality does.

It's not just to go after people you just don't like, because they say nasty things about you, because they believe in weird things, because they may be threat in the future, because they decided to trade for oil in Euros, because they threw our (allegedly) UN inspectors years earlier, because they had a few talks with our enemy but didn't go anywhere or because of what they did twenty something odd years that died down.

Your "sources" don't seem to be serving you very well if you don't think we are waging unconventional war as a major component of the GWoT.

You go after the guilty parties.

Most of al Qaeda proper had no more to do with 9/11 than you or I did. OTOH, radical islamists in general are just as willing to respond to the call of jihad against the US as members of al Qaeda.

Bill Parcells
12-23-2007, 11:17 PM
Welcome aboard patteeu, you have been missed. :)

patteeu
12-24-2007, 07:09 AM
Welcome aboard patteeu, you have been missed. :)

Thanks BP, what happened to your username?

Bill Parcells
12-24-2007, 09:08 AM
Thanks BP, what happened to your username?
Parcells went to the Dolphins. so he's now dead to me.

It would be like Hank Stram going to the Raiders.

patteeu
12-24-2007, 09:13 AM
Parcells went to the Dolphins. so he's now dead to me.

It would be like Hank Stram going to the Raiders.

Gotcha. Are you one of the Rush fanatics we have around here?

Bill Parcells
12-24-2007, 09:16 AM
Gotcha. Are you one of the Rush fanatics we have around here?
I like Rush. I wouldn't call myself a fanatic (like Halfcan), but that song is one of my all time favorites.

BTW, Merry Christmas!

Garcia Bronco
12-24-2007, 11:47 AM
I didn't watch the video, but looking at your quote - I'm not seeing what's so kooky there. When was there ever a need for a president to go to war on his own, without congress having enough time to declare war first?

That's exactly what he said. Regardless ...only Congress can declare war. It's in the contract.

Iowanian
12-24-2007, 04:39 PM
So.....

9-11 didn't warrant retaliation.

He's a bigger dumbfug than I first thought.

Zero chance this nutjob is president.

patteeu
12-24-2007, 07:19 PM
So.....

9-11 didn't warrant retaliation.

He's a bigger dumbfug than I first thought.

Zero chance this nutjob is president.

Don't you get it? 9/11 was a wakeup call for us to change our foreign policy to something a little more acceptable to the anti-civilization crowd.

Flustrated
12-25-2007, 10:57 AM
So.....

9-11 didn't warrant retaliation.

He's a bigger dumbfug than I first thought.

Zero chance this nutjob is president.


Actually Paul voted to retaliate against al qaeda. Declaring war on an actual state is a totally different scenario. If we followed Paul's Foriegn policy no other nations would have a reason to attack us, and if they did, he would get the declaration of war from Congress. I hate it when people use Paul's quotes out of context..... :cuss:

StcChief
12-25-2007, 11:01 AM
His Russert interview sealed his fate

Flustrated
12-25-2007, 11:18 AM
His Russert interview sealed his fate as our next President

you are correct sir! :D

Hydrae
12-25-2007, 08:53 PM
So.....

9-11 didn't warrant retaliation.

He's a bigger dumbfug than I first thought.

Zero chance this nutjob is president.

Sure it did, it just needed a Congressional declaration. We certainly had time to do that before we attacked over there, didn't we? This original quote being discussed would be about retaliation that would not have the time needed for Congress to discuss the situation, like a nuclear attack from Russia back in the day for instance.

There certainly was plenty of time to get a declaration put together before we invaded Iraq several months after 9/11.

Cochise
12-26-2007, 05:15 PM
Just got 'round to this, and I still can't see the video, but more kooky than the quote in the thread starter was his saying that Lincoln never should have fought the Civil War, that he should have just bought up all the slaves with government money.

Even assuming that would have worked, does he think that Lincoln fought the Civil War to free slaves? He said he did not have any intention to end slavery.

Taco John
12-26-2007, 05:18 PM
So.....

9-11 didn't warrant retaliation.

He's a bigger dumbfug than I first thought.

Zero chance this nutjob is president.



Actually, Dr. Paul believes that 9/11 did warrant retaliation, but not against the innocent people of Iraq. Dr. Paul, as well as myself, did not feel that a bloodthirsty overreaction was necessary.

Simple justice would have been nice.

Taco John
12-26-2007, 05:23 PM
Just got 'round to this, and I still can't see the video, but more kooky than the quote in the thread starter was his saying that Lincoln never should have fought the Civil War, that he should have just bought up all the slaves with government money.

Even assuming that would have worked, does he think that Lincoln fought the Civil War to free slaves? He said he did not have any intention to end slavery.



This is an oversimplification of Dr. Paul's position, which I don't personally fully understand (as I haven't done much reading or research into this area).

I believe that according to Dr. Paul, it was well within the states rights contractually to seceed from the union. Whether you agree that this is practical or not is another matter. But from a contractual viewpoint, I believe he's correct.