# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  ISIS debate - issues of intervention, blowback,  war propaganda & more

## cajuncocoa

> Even war dove Rand Paul, who was recently attacked by the Democratic National Committee for being insufficiently hawkish (yes you read that right), has a strategy for confronting ISIS. President Obama, on the other hand, does not.
> 
> According to an Associated Press report on Paul’s speech at an Americans For Prosperity gathering in Dallas last week:[S]ome of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”
> 
> In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”


More:http://freebeacon.com/blog/even-rand...ilitary-force/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Wrong path.  If these guys pose a legitimate threat, bring all your intell assets to bear to identify the threat down to last the individual, and then issue Marque to whomever shall manage to bring those individuals to you.  Alive preferably.  Done. Constitutionally, and at less than one-tenth of the cost.  Dog the Bounty Hunter would probably even make a hit TV show out of it.

ETA - for the record, I am not a fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter.

----------


## JK/SEA

well c'mon all you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I would like to see a full video of the speech before commenting. Tube or it didn't happen.

----------


## phill4paul

> Wrong path.  If these guys pose a legitimate threat, bring all your intell assets to bear to identify the threat down to last the individual, and then issue Marque to whomever shall manage to bring those individuals to you.  Alive preferably.  Done. Constitutionally, and at less than one-tenth of the cost.  Dog the Bounty Hunter would probably even make a hit TV show out of it.
> 
> ETA - for the record, I am not a fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter.


  ^^^

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I know it's debatable, but assuming there is a real threat, obtain Marque authorization and prepare a Company of MARSOC Marines to secure a Congressional liaison officer with cash money, staff and HQ.  Drop cash from a Navy hardpoint and return prisoners via the same route.  Keep a targetboard and adjust bounty returns like a live market as individuals become more and less critical for intelligence reasons.  The MARSOC company can provide some limited (logistics and raid level) support for non government assets obtaining targets of Marque.

This is assuming that there is a real threat, of course, then the correct process is to go to Congress for Marque, and set up a Navy and/or Marine detachment to chauffeur the cash around and strategize the payout and capture order for the most effective returns.  'Marque' will set up the bounty fund, and 'Reprisal' will allow said Navy/Marine detachment to participate to a limited extent in securing those bounties.

The point is, assuming the threat is real, there is a legitimately Constitutional way to handle it that is not actually war.  Rand should be considering this.  If people want answers, give them answers.

----------


## mac_hine

Throw on some camo, pick up a gun, and lead the charge yourself there, Ranbo.

----------


## Brett85

> Wrong path.  If these guys pose a legitimate threat, bring all your intell assets to bear to identify the threat down to last the individual, and then issue Marque to whomever shall manage to bring those individuals to you.  Alive preferably.  Done. Constitutionally, and at less than one-tenth of the cost.  Dog the Bounty Hunter would probably even make a hit TV show out of it.
> 
> ETA - for the record, I am not a fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter.


I suggested that idea and then became convinced that that probably wouldn't work in this situation.  Perhaps you can respond and give your take on the objections 69360 raised below.




> A ship full of pirates is one thing, almost 100k IS fighters with heavy weapons and SAMs is another. Who exactly is the US going to give these letters to that is equipped to deal with IS?





> It's in the 80-100k range now. Apparently once they took the Mosul area every extremist wanted in to IS.
> 
> Who's going to equip these mercenaries? IS has weaponry that US citizens can not privately own. 
> 
> Letters of marque can not be used for foreigners. They are meant to be used by a US citizen who has suffered a financial loss to a foreign government. IS is not an internationally recognized state. Also a letter of marque requires the privateer to bring the pirate/enemy to court. What court would try IS? That issue has yet to be resolved with the gitmo detainees. 
> 
> I just can't see this working out in the real world.

----------


## Brett85

> Throw on some camo, pick up a gun, and lead the charge yourself there, Ranbo.


He's talking about airstrikes, not troops on the ground.  I see nothing but straw man arguments here.

----------


## kylejack

> Wrong path.  If these guys pose a legitimate threat, bring all your intell assets to bear to identify the threat down to last the individual, and then issue Marque to whomever shall manage to bring those individuals to you.  Alive preferably.  Done. Constitutionally, and at less than one-tenth of the cost.  Dog the Bounty Hunter would probably even make a hit TV show out of it.
> 
> ETA - for the record, I am not a fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter.


Haha, bounty hunters like Dog would not be a challenge for a massive army like ISIS.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The elephant in the room on all of these actual and proposed military solutions has been the lack of anyone talking about Congressional authorization or declarations of war. It's good that Rand made that part clear.

It would be good to see all of these short quotes in full context.

----------


## orenbus

1:20 timestamp is the comment of Obama having no strategy and inferring perhaps getting a president that has one.




The quote where he says 




> If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.


Was allegedly sent via email, but I'm wondering was it sent to the audience, to the media, did he write it? Would be nice to see a copy of the email and see in what context he made the statement, if he did.

----------


## mac_hine

> He's talking about airstrikes, not troops on the ground.  I see nothing but straw man arguments here.


Do you even read any of the responses members write to you? There's no way in hell air strikes will succeed in "destroying ISIS militarily.” Ground forces will be needed, and we will be dragged into another no win quagmire.

----------


## Krugminator2

I don't know if force makes sense. But this is perfectly congruent with libertarian principles. Isis has beheaded two American journalists on camera, and it is a threat against the United States.  That is never okay.  There is absolutely no way that can ever be justified.  I will listen to more facts before I have an opinion on what should be done though. Just because it is morally okay to take them out, doesn't mean it makes sense strategically.

I would support military action if there is a clear plan. But the threshold is high.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Haha, bounty hunters like Dog would not be a challenge for a massive army like ISIS.


Sure, but he would get a hit TV show out of it.  RIP in the eighth episode will just skyrocket the residuals.

----------


## kylejack

> I don't know if force makes sense. But this is perfectly congruent with libertarian principles. Isis has beheaded two American journalists on camera, and it is a threat against the United States.  That is never okay.  There is absolutely no way that can ever be justified.  I will listen to more facts before I have an opinion on what should be done though. Just because it is morally okay to take them out, doesn't mean it makes sense strategically.
> 
> I would support military action if there is a clear plan. But the threshold is high.


Two deaths is a pretty small reason to take a country to war. Doesn't fit the proportionality requirement of Just War Theory that Ron Paul endorses.

----------


## RDM

Would really like to know what his plan is. Do we bomb Israel first? CIA Headquarters? The White House?

The former NSA and CIA agent Edward Snowden revealed that the leader  of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was trained  in Israel, various Iranien sources reported.
 Snowden added that the American CIA and the British Intelligence  collaborated with the Israeli Mossad to create a terrorist organization  that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a  strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.
 The “Hornet’s nest’’ strategy aims to bring all the major threats to  one place in order to track them, and mostly to shake the stability of  the Arab countries. The NSA agent revealed that the ISIS “Calif”,  _Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi_ went trough intense military training in the Israeli intelligence “Mossad”.
 Besides military training, Al Baghdadi studied communication and  public speaking skills in order to attract “terrorists” from all the  corners of the world.
 The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent  non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada, which focuses  on research and media, relayed a story about this as well, adding that  “three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to  attract all extremists of the world to one place,” using the  aforementioned “the hornet’s nest” strategy.

 “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state is to create an enemy near its borders,” Snowden was reported to say. http://moroccantimes.com/2014/07/nsa...sraeli-mossad/

----------


## Krugminator2

> Two deaths is a pretty small reason to take a country to war. Doesn't fit the proportionality requirement of Just War Theory that Ron Paul endorses.


i don't totally disagree.  I am very curious to know what the scope and plan of attack is. Ron Paul has a much higher threshold for when it is okay to attack than I do.  I think it would be justifiable morally to take out Iran's nuclear capability tomorrow. That doesn't mean it is practical though.

----------


## Carlybee

How do you destroy ISIS if it's global? And how the hell did no one know ISIS was becoming such a large threat (supposedly) so quickly?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100111.txt

Title: Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Author: T.E. Lawrence (1888-1935)


CHAPTER XXXIII



About ten days I lay in that tent, suffering a bodily weakness which
made my animal self crawl away and hide till the shame was passed. As
usual in such circumstances my mind cleared, my senses became more
acute, and I began at last to think consecutively of the Arab Revolt,
as an accustomed duty to rest upon against the pain. It should have
been thought out long before, but at my first landing in Hejaz there
had been a crying need for action, and we had done what seemed to
instinct best, not probing into the why, nor formulating what we really
wanted at the end of all. Instinct thus abused without a basis of past
knowledge and reflection had grown intuitive, feminine, and was now
bleaching my confidence; so in this forced inaction I looked for the
equation between my book-reading and my movements, and spent the
intervals of uneasy sleeps and dreams in plucking at the tangle of our
present.

As I have shown, I was unfortunately as much in command of the campaign
as I pleased, and was untrained. In military theory I was tolerably
read, my Oxford curiosity having taken me past Napoleon to Clausewitz
and his school, to Caemmerer and Moltke, and the recent Frenchmen. They
had all seemed to be one-sided; and after looking at Jomini and
Willisen, I had found broader principles in Saxe and Guibert and the
eighteenth century. However, Clausewitz was intellectually so much the
master of them, and his book so logical and fascinating, that
unconsciously I accepted his finality, until a comparison of Kuhne and
Foch disgusted me with soldiers, wearied me of their officious glory,
making me critical of all their light. In any case, my interest had
been abstract, concerned with the theory and philosophy of warfare
especially from the metaphysical side.

Now, in the field everything had been concrete, particularly the
tiresome problem of Medina; and to distract myself from that I began to
recall suitable maxims on the conduct of modern, scientific war. But
they would not fit, and it worried me. Hitherto, Medina had been an
obsession for us all; but now that I was ill, its image was not clear,
whether it was that we were near to it (one seldom liked the
attainable), or whether it was that my eyes were misty with too
constant staring at the butt. One afternoon I woke from a hot sleep,
running with sweat and pricking with flies, and wondered what on earth
was the good of Medina to us? Its harmfulness had been patent when we
were at Yenbo and the Turks in it were going to Mecca: but we had
changed all that by our march to Wejh. To-day we were blockading the
railway, and they only defending it. The garrison of Medina, reduced to
an inoffensive size, were sitting in trenches destroying their own
power of movement by eating the transport they could no longer feed. We
had taken away their power to harm us, and yet wanted to take away
their town. It was not a base for us like Wejh, nor a threat like Wadi
Ais. What on earth did we want it for?

The camp was bestirring itself after the torpor of the midday hours;
and noises from the world outside began to filter in to me past the
yellow lining of the tent-canvas, whose every hole and tear was stabbed
through by a long dagger of sunlight. I heard the stamping and snorting
of the horses plagued with flies where they stood in the shadow of the
trees, the complaint of camels, the ringing of coffee mortars, distant
shots. To their burden I began to drum out the aim in war. The books
gave it pat--the destruction of the armed forces of the enemy by the one
process-battle. Victory could he purchased only by blood. This was a
hard saying for us. As the Arabs had no organized forces, a Turkish
Foch would have no aim? The Arabs would not endure casualties. How
would our Clausewitz buy his victory? Von der Goltz had seemed to go
deeper, saying it was necessary not to annihilate the enemy, but to
break his courage. Only we showed no prospect of ever breaking
anybody's courage.

However, Goltz was a humbug, and these wise men must be talking
metaphors; for we were indubitably winning our war; and as I pondered
slowly, it dawned on me that we had won the Hejaz war. Out of every
thousand square miles of Hejaz nine hundred and ninety-nine were now
free. Did my provoked jape at Vickery, that rebellion was more like
peace than like war, hold as much truth as haste? Perhaps in war the
absolute did rule, but for peace a majority was good enough. If we held
the rest, the Turks were welcome to the tiny fraction on which they
stood, till peace or Doomsday showed them the futility of clinging to
our window-pane.

I brushed off the same flies once more from my face patiently, content
to know that the Hejaz War was won and finished with: won from the day
we took Wejh, if we had had wit to see it. Then I broke the thread of
my argument again to listen. The distant shots had grown and tied
themselves into long, ragged volleys. They ceased. I strained my ears
for the other sounds which I knew would follow. Sure enough across the
silence came a rustle like the dragging of a skirt over the flints,
around the thin walls of my tent. A pause, while the camel-riders drew
up: and then the soggy tapping of canes on the thick of the beasts'
necks to make them kneel.

They knelt without noise: and I timed it in my memory: first the
hesitation, as the camels, looking down, felt the soil with one foot
for a soft place; then the muffled thud and the sudden loosening of
breath as they dropped on their fore-legs, since this party had come
far and were tired; then the shuffle as the hind legs were folded in,
and the rocking as they tossed from side to side thrusting outward with
their knees to bury them in the cooler subsoil below the burning
flints, while the riders, with a quick soft patter of bare feet, like
birds over the ground, were led off tacitly either to the coffee hearth
or to Abdulla's tent, according to their business. The camels would
rest there, uneasily switching their tails across the shingle till
their masters were free and looked to their stabling.

I had made a comfortable beginning of doctrine, but was left still to
find an alternative end and means of war. Ours seemed unlike the ritual
of which Foch was priest; and I recalled him, to see a difference in
land between HIM and us. In his modern war--absolute war he called
it--two nations professing incompatible philosophies put them to the test
of force. Philosophically, it was idiotic, for while opinions were
arguable, convictons needed shooting to be cured; and the struggle
could end only when the supporters of the one immaterial principle had
no more means of resistance against the supporters of the other. It
sounded like a twentieth-century restatement of the wars of religion,
whose logical end was utter destruction of one creed, and whose
protagonists believed that God's judgement would prevail. This might do
for France and Germany, but would not represent the British attitude.
Our Army was not intelligently maintaining a philosophic conception in
Flanders or on the Canal. Efforts to make our men hate the enemy
usually made them hate the fighting. Indeed Foch had knocked out his
own argument by saying that such war depended on levy in mass, and was
impossible with professional armies; while the old army was still the
British ideal, and its manner the ambition of our ranks and our files.
To me the Foch war seemed only an exterminative variety, no more
absolute than another. One could as explicably call it 'murder war'.
Clausewitz enumerated all sorts of war . . . personal wars, joint-proxy
duels, for dynastic reasons . . . expulsive wars, in party
politics . . . commercial wars, for trade objects . . . two wars seemed
seldom alike. Often the parties did not know their aim, and blundered till
the march of events took control. Victory in general habit leaned to the
clear-sighted, though fortune and superior intelligence could make a
sad muddle of nature's 'inexorable' law.

I wondered why Feisal wanted to fight the Turks, and why the Arabs
helped him, and saw that their aim was geographical, to extrude the
Turk from all Arabic-speaking lands in Asia. Their peace ideal of
liberty could exercise itself only so. In pursuit of the ideal
conditions we might kill Turks, because we disliked them very much; but
the killing was a pure luxury. If they would go quietly the war would
end. If not, we would urge them, or try to drive them out. In the last
resort, we should be compelled to the desperate course of blood and the
maxims of 'murder war', but as cheaply as could be for ourselves, since
the Arabs fought for freedom, and that was a pleasure to be tasted only
by a man alive. Posterity was a chilly thing to work for, no matter how
much a man happened to love his own, or other people's already-produced
children.

At this point a slave slapped my tent-door, and asked if the Emir might
call. So I struggled into more clothes, and crawled over to his great
tent to sound the depth of motive in him. It was a comfortable place,
luxuriously shaded and carpeted deep in strident rugs, the aniline-dyed
spoils of Hussein Mabeirig's house in Rabegh. Abdulla passed most of
his day in it, laughing with his friends, and playing games with
Mohammed Hassan, the court jester. I set the ball of conversation
rolling between him and Shakir and the chance sheikhs, among whom was
the fire-hearted Ferhan el Aida, the son of Doughty's Motlog; and I was
rewarded, for Abdulla's words were definite. He contrasted his hearers'
present independence with their past servitude to Turkey, and roundly
said that talk of Turkish heresy, or the immoral doctrine of YENI-TURAN,
or the illegitimate Caliphate was beside the point. It was Arab
country, and the Turks were in it: that was the one issue. My argument
preened itself.

The next day a great complication of boils developed out, to conceal my
lessened fever, and to chain me down yet longer in impotence upon my
face in this stinking tent. When it grew too hot for dreamless dozing,
I picked up my tangle again, and went on ravelling it out, considering
now the whole house of war in its structural aspect, which was
strategy, in its arrangements, which were tactics, and in the sentiment
of its inhabitants, which was psychology; for my personal duty was
command, and the commander, like the master architect, was responsible
for all.

The first confusion was the false antithesis between strategy, the aim
in war, the synoptic regard seeing each part relative to the whole, and
tactics, the means towards a strategic end, the particular steps of its
staircase. They seemed only points of view from which to ponder the
elements of war, the Algebraical element of things, a Biological
element of lives, and the Psychological element of ideas.

The algebraical element looked to me a pure science, subject to
mathematical law, inhuman. It dealt with known variables, fixed
conditions, space and time, inorganic things like hills and climates
and railways, with mankind in type-masses too great for individual
variety, with all artificial aids and the extensions given our
faculties by mechanical invention. It was essentially formulable.

Here was a pompous, professorial beginning. My wits, hostile to the
abstract, took refuge in Arabia again. Translated into Arabic, the
algebraic factor would first take practical account of the area we
wished to deliver, and I began idly to calculate how many square miles:
sixty: eighty: one hundred: perhaps one hundred and forty thousand
square miles. And how would the Turks defend all that? No doubt by a
trench line across the bottom, if we came like an army with banners;
but suppose we were (as we might be) an influence, an idea, a thing
intangible, invulnerable, without front or back, drifting about like a
gas? Armies were like plants, immobile, firm-rooted, nourished through
long stems to the head. We might be a vapour, blowing where we listed.
Our kingdoms lay in each man's mind; and as we wanted nothing material
to live on, so we might offer nothing material to the killing. It
seemed a regular soldier might be helpless without a target, owning
only what he sat on, and subjugating only what, by order, he could poke
his rifle at.

Then I figured out how many men they would need to sit on all this
ground, to save it from our attack-in-depth, sedition putting up her
head in every unoccupied one of those hundred thousand square miles. I
knew the Turkish Army exactly, and even allowing for their recent
extension of faculty by aeroplanes and guns and armoured trains (which
made the earth a smaller battlefield) still it seemed they would have
need of a fortified post every four square miles, and a post could not
be less than twenty men. If so, they would need six hundred thousand
men to meet the ill-wills of all the Arab peoples, combined with the
active hostility of a few zealots.

How many zealots could we have? At present we had nearly fifty
thousand: sufficient for the day. It seemed the assets in this element
of war were ours. If we realized our raw materials and were apt with
them, then climate, railway, desert, and technical weapons could also
be attached to our interests. The Turks were stupid; the Germans behind
them dogmatical. They would believe that rebellion was absolute like
war, and deal with it on the analogy of war. Analogy in human things
was fudge, anyhow; and war upon rebellion was messy and slow, like
eating soup with a knife.

This was enough of the concrete; so I sheered off [GREEK], the
mathematical element, and plunged into the nature of the biological
factor in command. Its crisis seemed to be the breaking point, life and
death, or less finally, wear and tear. The war-philosophers had
properly made an art of it, and had elevated one item, 'effusion of
blood', to the height of an essential, which became humanity in battle,
an act touching every side of our corporal being, and very warm. A line
of variability, Man, persisted like leaven through its estimates,
making them irregular. The components were sensitive and illogical, and
generals guarded themselves by the device of a reserve, the significant
medium of their art. Goltz had said that if you knew the enemy's
strength, and he was fully deployed, then you could dispense with a
reserve: but this was never. The possibility of accident, of some flaw
in materials was always in the general's mind, and the reserve
unconsciously held to meet it.

The 'felt' element in troops, not expressible in figures, had to be
guessed at by the equivalent of Plato's (greek?), and the greatest
commander of men was he whose intuitions most nearly happened. Nine-tenths
of tactics were certain enough to be teachable in schools; but
the irrational tenth was like the kingfisher flashing across the pool,
and in it lay the test of generals. It could be ensued only by instinct
(sharpened by thought practising the stroke) until at the crisis it
came naturally, a reflex. There had been men whose [GREEK] so nearly
approached perfection that by its road they reached the certainty of
[GREEK]. The Greeks might have called such genius for command [GREEK];
had they bothered to rationalize revolt.

My mind seesawed back to apply this to ourselves, and at once knew that
it was not bounded by mankind, that it applied also to materials. In
Turkey things were scarce and precious, men less esteemed than
equipment. Our cue was to destroy, not the Turk's army, but his
minerals. The death of a Turkish bridge or rail, machine or gun or
charge of high explosive, was more profitable to us than the death of a
Turk. In the Arab Army at the moment we were chary both of materials
and of men. Governments saw men only in mass; but our men, being
irregulars, were not formations, but individuals. An individual death,
like a pebble dropped in water, might make but a brief hole; yet rings
of sorrow widened out therefrom. We could not afford casualties.

Materials were easier to replace. It was our obvious policy to be
superior in some one tangible branch; gun-cotton or machine-guns or
whatever could be made decisive. Orthodoxy had laid down the maxim,
applied to men, of being superior at the critical point and moment of
attack. We might be superior in equipment in one dominant moment or
respect; and for both things and men we might give the doctrine a
twisted negative side, for cheapness' sake, and be weaker than the
enemy everywhere except in that one point or matter. The decision of
what was critical would always be ours. Most wars were wars of contact,
both forces striving into touch to avoid tactical surprise. Ours should
be a war of detachment. We were to contain the enemy by the silent
threat of a vast unknown desert, not disclosing ourselves till we
attacked. The attack might be nominal, directed not against him, but
against his stuff; so it would not seek either his strength or his
weakness, but his most accessible material. In railway-cutting it would
be usually an empty stretch of rail; and the more empty, the greater
the tactical success. We might turn our average into a rule (not a law,
since war was antinomian) and develop a habit of never engaging the
enemy. This would chime with the numerical plea for never affording a
target. Many Turks on our front had no chance all the war to fire on
us, and we were never on the defensive except by accident and in error.

The corollary of such a rule was perfect 'intelligence', so that we
could plan in certainty. The chief agent must be the general's head;
and his understanding must be faultless, leaving no room for chance.
Morale, if built on knowledge, was broken by ignorance. When we knew
all about the enemy we should be comfortable. We must take more pains
in the service of news than any regular staff.

I was getting through my subject. The algebraical factor had been
translated into terms of Arabia, and fitted like a glove. It promised
victory. The biological factor had dictated to us a development of the
tactical line most in accord with the genius of our tribesmen. There
remained the psychological element to build up into an apt shape. I
went to Xenophon and stole, to name it, his word DIATHETICS, which had
been the art of Cyrus before he struck.

Of this our 'propaganda' was the stained and ignoble offspring. It was
the pathic, almost the ethical, in war. Some of it concerned the crowd,
an adjustment of its spirit to the point where it became useful to
exploit in action, and the pre-direction of this changing spirit to a
certain end. Some of it concerned the individual, and then it became a
rare art of human kindness, transcending, by purposed emotion, the
gradual logical sequence of the mind. It was more subtle than tactics,
and better worth doing, because it dealt with uncontrollables, with
subjects incapable of direct command. It considered the capacity for
mood of our men, their complexities and mutability, and the cultivation
of whatever in them promised to profit our intention. We had to arrange
their minds in order of battle just as carefully and as formally as
other officers would arrange their bodies. And not only our own men's
minds, though naturally they came first. We must also arrange the minds
of the enemy, so far as we could reach them; then those other minds of
the nation supporting us behind the firing line, since more than half
the battle passed there in the back; then the minds of the enemy nation
waiting the verdict; and of the neutrals looking on; circle beyond
circle.

There were many humiliating material limits, but no moral
impossibilities; so that the scope of our diathetical activities was
unbounded. On it we should mainly depend for the means of victory on
the Arab front: and the novelty of it was our advantage. The printing
press, and each newly-discovered method of communication favoured the
intellectual above the physical, civilization paying the mind always
from the body's funds. We kindergarten soldiers were beginning our art
of war in the atmosphere of the twentieth century, receiving our
weapons without prejudice. To the regular officer, with the tradition
of forty generations of service behind him, the antique arms were the
most honoured. As we had seldom to concern ourselves with what our men
did, but always with what they thought, the diathetic for us would be
more than half the command. In Europe it was set a little aside, and
entrusted to men outside the General Staff. In Asia the regular
elements were so weak that irregulars could not let the metaphysical
weapon rust unused.

Battles in Arabia were a mistake, since we profited in them only by the
ammunition the enemy fired off. Napoleon had said it was rare to find
generals willing to fight battles; but the curse of this war was that
so few would do anything else. Saxe had told us that irrational battles
were the refuges of fools: rather they seemed to me impositions on the
side which believed itself weaker, hazards made unavoidable either by
lack of land room or by the need to defend a material property dearer
than the lives of soldiers. We had nothing material to lose, so our
best line was to defend nothing and to shoot nothing. Our cards were
speed and time, not hitting power. The invention of bully beef had
profited us more than the invention of gunpowder, but gave us
strategical rather than tactical strength, since in Arabia range was
more than force, space greater than the power of armies.

I had now been eight days lying in this remote tent, keeping my ideas
general, till my brain, sick of unsupported thinking, had to be dragged
to its work by an effort of will, and went off into a doze whenever
that effort was relaxed. The fever passed: my dysentery ceased; and
with restored strength the present again became actual to me. Facts
concrete and pertinent thrust themselves into my reveries; and my
inconstant wit bore aside towards all these roads of escape. So I
hurried into line my shadowy principles, to have them once precise
before my power to evoke them faded.

It seemed to me proven that our rebellion had an unassailable base,
guarded not only from attack, but from the fear of attack. It had a
sophisticated alien enemy, disposed as an army of occupation in an area
greater than could be dominated effectively from fortified posts. It
had a friendly population, of which some two in the hundred were
active, and the rest quietly sympathetic to the point of not betraying
the movements of the minority. The active rebels had the virtues of
secrecy and self-control, and the qualities of speed, endurance and
independence of arteries of supply. They had technical equipment enough
to paralyse the enemy's communications. A province would be won when we
had taught the civilians in it to die for our ideal of freedom. The
presence of the enemy was secondary. Final victory seemed certain, if
the war lasted long enough for us to work it out.

-t

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Sure, but he would get a hit TV show out of it.  RIP in the eighth episode will just skyrocket the residuals.


Just imagine, Dog's crying wife, in weird tailored multicam, weeping openly with a machine gun hanging loose from one arm.  Camera zooms close into her face to capture the anguish.  That's reality TV gold right there.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How do you destroy ISIS if it's global? And how the hell did no one know ISIS was becoming such a large threat (supposedly) so quickly?


Ideas can gel a lot more quickly than people can be gathered.  Get 1000 people in 100 different flavors, pass on some idea and now they are all one flavor.  That's how such a thing goes global that quickly.  I am actually focusing most of my posting of late on describing how to appropriately and Constitutionally combat IS as a threat.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Wrong path. If these guys pose a legitimate threat, bring all your intell assets to bear to identify the threat down to last the individual, and then issue Marque to whomever shall manage to bring those individuals to you. Alive preferably. Done. Constitutionally, and at less than one-tenth of the cost. Dog the Bounty Hunter would probably even make a hit TV show out of it.
> 
> ETA - for the record, I am not a fan of Dog the Bounty Hunter.


Or, even just allowing the governments in the countries where they are take care of them as well. Instead, like in Syria, we prevented Assad from completely destroying them, and helped them instead. Same in Libya. They turned it to a "humanitarian crisis", and supported them with airstrikes in Libya, and weapons and funding.
So, I'm not against a letter of marque and reprisal (getting the weapons back, would be nice) being used as it has in the past, but I think also just allowing the governments to take care of them would work, instead of using them to try and take care of certain governments.

But what we have now, is complete idiocy with funding and arming them, because some wanted regime change in certain countries like Libya and Syria?

We created the problem. Now we just need to wait on the M.I.C. to give us another multi-trillion dollar solution.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Or, even just allowing the governments in the countries where they are take care of them as well. Instead, like in Syria, we prevented Assad from completely destroying them, and helped them instead. Same in Libya. They turned it to a "humanitarian crisis", and supported them with airstrikes in Libya, and weapons and funding.
> So, I'm not against a letter of marque and reprisal (getting the weapons back, would be nice) being used as it has in the past, but I think also just allowing the governments to take care of them would work, instead of using them to try and take care of certain governments.


Well sure.  Of course.  That horse is kind of already out of the barn door now though.




> But what we have now, is complete idiocy with funding and arming them, because some wanted regime change in certain countries like Libya and Syria?
> 
> We created the problem. Now we just need to wait on the M.I.C. to give us another multi-trillion dollar solution.


What we have now is a handful of moneymen becoming obscenely rich off of the blood and treasure of the United States.

----------


## TaftFan

Obama should have been in the Middle East instead of Martha's Vineyard, organizing the regional powers, Iraqi militias, and any other interested parties, developing a coalition to converge on ISIS on all sides. All the U.S. would need to do is bomb supply lines, if that.

----------


## kylejack

> Obama should have been in the Middle East instead of Martha's Vineyard, organizing the regional powers, Iraqi militias, and any other interested parties, developing a coalition to converge on ISIS on all sides. All the U.S. would need to do is bomb supply lines, if that.


Or we could just not intervene in the affairs of other nations.

----------


## TaftFan

> Or we could just not intervene in the affairs of other nations.


Like it or not, this is our affair. 

ISIS has threatened us, they have killed our citizens, they threaten trade routes, and they are committing genocide. I really don't care if people don't agree with me, I have no problem with annihilating ISIS.

----------


## Crashland

The whole situation is making me nervous for Rand politically. The propaganda machine is in full gear in conservative media and its going to be really hard to go against the grain. Beheading 2 Americans is hardly a threat to the mainland and is not worth spending a few hundred billion dollars on. Personally I don't care if ISIS takes control of Iraq and Syria. We shouldn't fight for countries that won't put up their own fight

----------


## idiom

> Like it or not, this is our affair.


That is for congress to decide.

Airstrikes? Pfft. 6 Months of carpet bombing followed by half a million troops on the ground. No rules of engagement. Millions of civilians dead.

That is how you prosecute war, you don't dick around. You kill all the opposition, you kill anyone standing next to the opposition.

Then you avoid war for as long as you are able.

The problem with these countries is that there is nothing left to blow up. The local population needs to pick a side rather than waiting for the US to come save em.

Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and Iran could take down ISIS in their sleep if the international community would let them.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Do you even read any of the responses members write to you? There's no way in hell air strikes will succeed in "destroying ISIS militarily.” Ground forces will be needed, and we will be dragged into another no win quagmire.


We can still destroy the weapons and artillery we left behind via airstikes. This weaponry should have never been there and should have never been left. The lobby enjoyed this leaving behind of equipment.

----------


## green73

> Like it or not, this is our affair.



[deleted] Thank God, the people who matter in our cause are immune to such bull$#@!.

----------


## devil21

Knowing what I do about the origins of ISIS and the bigger plan at play,  I don't like the general rhetoric, however it is the constitutional position to put it to Congress for a vote instead of Obama running around playing General.  Same thing happened with the Syria "no fly zone" proposal and voters shot it down.  I hope the same would occur on this retry.

ISIS is controlled by the CIA.  This whole issue is STUPID and shows how little people have really learned about how US foreign policy is run.  Can't wait to see articles about ISIS throwing babies out of incubators and yellow cake/WMDs and watch people argue some more about things that ARE NOT HAPPENING.  There's a bunch of Israel-firster shills on RPF that are outing themselves right now yet people are still arguing with them.  Wake the hell up people.  You're being played AGAIN.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you even read any of the responses members write to you? There's no way in hell air strikes will succeed in "destroying ISIS militarily. Ground forces will be needed, and we will be dragged into another no win quagmire.


That's your opinion.  But Rand Paul has said that he's opposed to sending in ground troops.  That's his position, and people shouldn't mischaracterize is position.

----------


## Brett85

> Beheading 2 Americans is hardly a threat to the mainland and is not worth spending a few hundred billion dollars on. Personally I don't care if ISIS takes control of Iraq and Syria. We shouldn't fight for countries that won't put up their own fight


No one is advocating spending a few hundred billion dollars.  That's what it would cost to send ground troops in to fight.  No one is suggesting that ground troops be sent in.

----------


## green73

> [deleted] Thank God, the people who matter in our cause are immune to such bull$#@!.


I'm glad the mods are now owning up to their censorship. Thumbsup, RPF, thumbsup.

----------


## devil21

Looks like Congress will be getting a bill shortly!  Start calling your reps and sens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ideo-surfaces/




> “Let there be no doubt, we must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group that’s intent on barbaric cruelty,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a statement.
> 
> Nelson added that he plans on filing legislation next week that would give President Obama authority to order airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

----------


## presence

> Isis has beheaded two American journalists on camera, and it is a threat against the United States.  That is never okay.  There is absolutely no way that can ever be justified.  I will listen to more facts before I have an opinion on what should be done though.


FACT:  Tube or it didn't happen.

----------


## presence

> No one is advocating spending a few hundred billion dollars.  That's what it would cost to send ground troops in to fight.  No one is suggesting that ground troops be sent in.


The cost of airstrikes August 2014 is averaging $7.5 million dollars DAILY.

----------


## devil21

> I'm glad the mods are now owning up to their censorship. Thumbsup, RPF, thumbsup.


The problem is the mods are letting the obvious Israel-firster shills flood this forum with ISIS warmongering propaganda while censoring comments such as yours.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Obama should have been in the Middle East instead of Martha's Vineyard, organizing the regional powers, Iraqi militias, and any other interested parties, developing a coalition to converge on ISIS on all sides. All the U.S. would need to do is bomb supply lines, if that.




This forum (or parts of it, anyway) is getting more and more pathetic by the day.

Bryan should stop policing the religion forum and ban all of the warmongers.  There is no good reason he should be giving them a platform to encourage neocons...




> Like it or not, this is our affair. 
> 
> ISIS has threatened us, they have killed our citizens, they threaten trade routes, and they are committing genocide. I really don't care if people don't agree with me, I have no problem with annihilating ISIS.


You're not a libertarian and you *never* were.  These kinds of posts are really making me skeptical of Rand, if we can't even maintain non-interventionism on THIS FORUM how in the world will we get anywhere with the rest of the country?




> The whole situation is making me nervous for Rand politically. The propaganda machine is in full gear in conservative media and its going to be really hard to go against the grain. Beheading 2 Americans is hardly a threat to the mainland and is not worth spending a few hundred billion dollars on. Personally I don't care if ISIS takes control of Iraq and Syria. We shouldn't fight for countries that won't put up their own fight


I strongly dislike ISIS, but my frustration with neocons looking to get this country involved yet again is making me less focused on how much I dislike ISIS.  USA created this situation.  We should give everyone who voted "Yes" to the war in Iraq to ISIS as a peace offering.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Didn't we attack ISIS when they surrounded the kurds on a mountain. I believe that happened before the beheadings. I'd guess they lost more than 2 in any real attack, so I guess by the logic displayed in this thread they are now justified in declaring war on us. 

I think ISIS,ISIL, IS or whatever the name of the day is, are just another form of thug, but really all this outrage over 2 people, when the us has killed 100's of thousands in the last decade is beyond absurd. 

Personally, I say let the middle east take care of it, either they are going to start taking on their own radicals or the whole place will turn radical, us being in that mess will just give them a target to rally behind. OH wait that is what we've been doing for over a decade, and now in this thread people want to continue the doctrine.

----------


## TaftFan

FF, I don't seek to please you or your legalistic purity tests. You are unwise and thus I take your opinion with a grain of salt.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, I don't seek to please you or your legalistic purity tests. You are unwise and thus I take your opinion with a grain of salt.


Its not about me or my "legalistic purity tests."  Its about basic morals.  Then again, these discussions are showing me more and more how utterly inconsistent minarchism is, and the kinds of unlibertarian positions it leads to beyond the blatant obvious.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Obama should have been in the Middle East instead of Martha's Vineyard, organizing the regional powers, Iraqi militias, and any other interested parties, developing a coalition to converge on ISIS on all sides. All the U.S. would need to do is bomb supply lines, if that.


So did you read post 20?  It is the cornerstone of anglo-saxon unconventional warfare.  It sounds like you don't get it.




> Like it or not, this is our affair. 
> 
> ISIS has threatened us, they have killed our citizens, they threaten trade routes, and they are committing genocide. I really don't care if people don't agree with me, I have no problem with annihilating ISIS.


agree.

ISIS is the borg, except those they absorb are not willing soldiers. "convert or die" and conversion means fighting with them.  They are 100,000 strong - how many are unwilling?  Drop fliers promising immediate humanitarian aid for any city that rises up and kicks IS out.  Offer a bounty for the head of any IS officer.  Provide simple sabotage instructions as we did in Nicaragua.  

http://www.intbel.com/Downloads/CIA%20Manual.pdf

supposedly 500 people have come from each the US and UK, that's 1,000 total, 1:100.  A drop in the bucket.  They self identify by getting on certain flights and could be intercepted or fitted with trackers upon landing.  Communications (recruitment) could be jammed and the MSM asked to maintain a blackout on things like beheadings. 

They use human shields.  For every person that dies due to collateral damage, three join their ranks.  In short, we are their best recruiter.  Stop doing that!  Seriously pay heed to Laurence's words about avoiding frontal attack.  Instead attack the roads, rail, communications, water and power, sanitation, repair facilities, ammo dumps and fuel dumps (think Rommel in Africa).  If you make the population miserable, they will rise up.  Also, remember that they are using american weapons and shouldn't have any resupply for the munitions.  When they run out of ammo, they stop.  When they run out of gas, they can't use heavy weapons except where they are.  When they can't feed their troops, people desert or revolt.  Then sit back and wait, attacking only repair crews, far from where they are strong.

-t

----------


## Brett85

> Its not about me or my "legalistic purity tests."  Its about basic morals.  Then again, these discussions are showing me more and more how utterly inconsistent minarchism is, and the kinds of unlibertarian positions it leads to beyond the blatant obvious.


And it's somehow moral for ISIS to brutally murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people?  Whether or not it's realistic to take out ISIS with air strikes is a valid debate, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And it's somehow moral for ISIS to brutally murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people?


That's a strawman.




> Whether or not it's realistic to take out ISIS with air strikes is a valid debate, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people.


There are ALWAYS civilian casualties, and it isn't the US government's job to get involved.  With their track record that should be obvious.

You want to go fight ISIS, I won't stop you.  But try to get the legalized mafia we live under to do so, and I will VEHEMENTLY oppose you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

See, an ancap wouldn't have even asked that last question.  Ever.  And I guess its logically consistent for a minarchist to ask it.  I don't support ANY state aggression, and thus my answer to this is obvious.

----------


## Crashland

I don't care what your views are on foreign policy as long as you support Rand. We don't all have to agree with Rand or with each other on everything.

----------


## kylejack

> Like it or not, this is our affair. 
> 
> ISIS has threatened us, they have killed our citizens, they threaten trade routes, and they are committing genocide. I really don't care if people don't agree with me, I have no problem with annihilating ISIS.


This isn't like the days of Marco Polo, trade routes are not going to be a huge deal. They've killed two of our citizens, yes, but I'm just not convinced that is sufficient cassus belli.

----------


## idiom

> See, an ancap wouldn't have even asked that last question.  Ever.  And I guess its logically consistent for a minarchist to ask it.  I don't support ANY state aggression, and thus my answer to this is obvious.


The established An-Cap societies around the world have never been attacked by state actors, and have never had to defend themselves. It is self-evident that an-caps never need to co-ordinate to defend themselves against aggression.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Fear mongering and warmongering are always the same. The media pumps the propaganda provided by the radical reckless interventionists, and the public eats it up.

A better case could be made today for declaring war on Mexico rather than ISIS. But that's not currently on the agenda of the military-media-industrial-war lobby complex.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't care what your views are on foreign policy as long as you support Rand. We don't all have to agree with Rand or with each other on everything.


I don't care what your views are either, but I *do* care what Rand's views are on foreign policy.  I don't expect to agree with him on everything, but foreign policy is a make or break deal for me.

----------


## idiom

> How do you destroy ISIS if it's global? And how the hell did no one know ISIS was becoming such a large threat (supposedly) so quickly?


ISIS is accelerating a process that the US has been on for 40 years, building and destabilizing Islamic societies until they are radicalized enough to support a global Jihad.

At some point in the future, Congress may have to weigh up going to war with a majority of the Islamic nations in the world. At this point however nobody is prepared for that. The best path is to stay out of it, let Syria, Iran, Turkey and Jordan clean it up.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The established An-Cap societies around the world have never been attacked by state actors, and have never had to defend themselves. It is self-evident that an-caps never need to co-ordinate to defend themselves against aggression.


When did ISIS ever attack America's land?  



> I don't care what your views are either, but I *do* care what Rand's views are on foreign policy.  I don't expect to agree with him on everything, but foreign policy is a make or break deal for me.


Well, we knew Rand wasn't a foreign policy purist, so this isn't really a shock to me.  I have a LITTLE more tolerance for Rand because I know he's playing politics to some degree, and even if he isn't, he is a politician.  The people here aren't politicians, and have no excuse for not knowing better.

----------


## Krugminator2

> And it's somehow moral for ISIS to brutally murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people?  Whether or not it's realistic to take out ISIS with air strikes is a valid debate, but there's absolutely nothing immoral about killing these people.



Absolutely this. I don't even see how this is debatable. I consider myself pretty far on the libertarian scale. Libertarian doesn't mean pacifist. Self-sacrifice is immoral. These people do not have a right to exist and form an Islamic government that will be used as a terrorist state. The only question is whether it strategically makes sense for the US to lead an attack.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Absolutely this. I don't even see how this is debatable. I consider myself pretty far on the libertarian scale. Libertarian doesn't mean pacifist. Self-sacrifice is immoral. These people do not have a right to exist and form an Islamic government that will be used as a terrorist state. The only question is whether it strategically makes sense.


And I don't see how your guy's side is debatable.  Of course, your side basically strawmanned mine.  What a shock.

Let the "liberty movement" split again.  Good.  Cut off the dead branches and start over.  You can have the "libertarian" term.  I'll just stick with "anarcho-capitalist."  I'm done caring about the inconsistent positions.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I guess the neocons did a pretty good job of fracturing the Ron Paul r3volution, huh?

----------


## Krugminator2

> And I don't see how your guy's side is debatable.  Of course, your side basically strawmanned mine.  What a shock.
> 
> Let the "liberty movement" split again.  Good.  Cut off the dead branches and start over.  You can have the "libertarian" term.  I'll just stick with "anarcho-capitalist."  I'm done caring about the inconsistent positions.


There is a reason drunk driving laws exist. And they are perfectly compatible with libertarianism.  You don't wait to punish a drunk until they kill somebody. You don't let a mentally unstable person get a gun. You don't have to wait the shoot up a school.

There is no reason to let a terrorist group form a terrorist state that has already attacked US two US reporters in brutal fashion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I guess the neocons did a pretty good job of fracturing the Ron Paul r3volution, huh?


Yep.  Its a shame.  I have no real connection to this "movement" anymore.  I'll support Rand, because I know he's playing politics to some degree, but I don't support most of his supporters.

I have a couple of friends on college campus that are looking to start a YAL chapter on our campus.  They're theonomists, not libertarians, but they are generally foreign policy noninterventionists.  I'll have to ask them how they feel about this whole thing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _There is a reason drunk driving laws exist. And they are perfectly compatible with libertarianism.  You don't wait to punish a drunk until they kill somebody. You don't let a mentally unstable person get a gun. You don't have to wait the shoot up a school._
> 
> There is no reason to let a terrorist group form a terrorist state that has already attacked US two US reporters in brutal fashion.


See, this is why most "libertarianism" today is so pathetic?  Yes, these things ARE anti-libertarian.  Or at least, anti-LIBERTY.  I'm getting sick of the "libertarian" term , since people like you can claim it.  Anybody can claim it these days.

----------


## devil21

> Fear mongering and warmongering are always the same. The media pumps the propaganda provided by the radical reckless interventionists, and the public eats it up.
> 
> A better case could be made today for declaring war on Mexico rather than ISIS. But that's not currently on the agenda of the military-media-industrial-war lobby complex.


Mexico already has a Rothschild controlled western central bank.  That's why Mexico is of no concern.




> I guess the neocons did a pretty good job of fracturing the Ron Paul r3volution, huh?


I don't know about the entire r3v but the lack of enforcement against shills and trolls sure is doing a number on the productivity of this forum.  But hey, not like they care.  Ad revenue is ad revenue, right?

----------


## TaftFan

The people who believe this is all a scheme of the Rothschilds and the CIA are the ones ruining the liberty movement, not those eager to confront reality.

----------


## devil21

> The people who believe this is all a scheme of the Rothschilds and the CIA are the ones ruining the liberty movement, not those eager to confront reality.


That train is never late.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The people who believe this is all a scheme of the Rothschilds and the CIA are the ones ruining the liberty movement, not those eager to confront reality.


Who cares?  Even if ISIS was going to become a threat in the future, that STILL isn't a reason to intervene.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The people who believe this is all a scheme of the Rothschilds and the CIA are the ones ruining the liberty movement, not those eager to confront reality.


Who cares?  Even if ISIS was going to become a threat in the future, that STILL isn't a reason to intervene.

And, what the heck is the "liberty movement"?  I have NO IDEA what that is anymore.

----------


## TaftFan

> Who cares?  Even if ISIS was going to become a threat in the future, that STILL isn't a reason to intervene.


They are a threat now. They will become a greater threat later. 

Kill them now.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

Wow, so many bush doctrine supporters, it's scary.

----------


## devil21

> They are a threat now. They will become a greater threat later. 
> 
> Kill them now.


Im so glad the resident zio-shills are so eager to finally expose themselves to the rest of the forum over this ISIS nonsense.




> Wow, so many bush doctrine supporters, it's scary.


Yeah there are.  See the link in my sig about the zio-shills here and all over the net.  They try to blend in at first then slowly but surely show their true colors eventually.

----------


## Brett85

> Wow, so many bush doctrine supporters, it's scary.


Bush supported invading foreign countries with massive amounts of troops, occupying them indefinitely, using our military for nation building, and "spreading democracy around the globe."  No one here is advocating anything remotely similar to that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They are a threat now. They will become a greater threat later. 
> 
> Kill them now.


Yeah, just kill more people.

I find it sick that people like you are representing the liberty movement these days.

----------


## TaftFan

> Im so glad the resident zio-shills are so eager to finally expose themselves to the rest of the forum over this ISIS nonsense.


I've made clear before I hold my own foreign policy views. Glad to see others are smelling the coffee.

Why am I even conversing with someone who believes in Rothschild conspiracies? 

There will obviously be a deep disconnect when someone who sees the world as it is vs. someone who sees the world as being conquered by bankers in order to create central banks.

----------


## TaftFan

> Yeah, just kill more people.
> 
> I find it sick that people like you are representing the liberty movement these days.


Yes, kill them. Or they will continue to kill. They are evil. They have no concept of morality. They will not go away. They aren't fighting because of blowback.

----------


## Brett85

> Im so glad the resident zio-shills are so eager to finally expose themselves to the rest of the forum over this ISIS nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah there are.  See the link in my sig about the zio-shills here and all over the net.  They try to blend in at first then slowly but surely show their true colors eventually.


Why do you even post in Rand's sub forum if you think that Rand is such a hardcore neocon warmonger for taking this position?

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Bush supported invading foreign countries with massive amounts of troops, occupying them indefinitely, using our military for nation building, and "spreading democracy around the globe."  No one here is advocating anything remotely similar to that.


You can't be serious if you don't at least acknowledge that things have a tendency to creep. So, what happens if some of those military advisors get killed, or whatever term is attached. He just sent 350 more. Or what happens when we are air striking, and another journalist gets whacked, so I guess we just bump the numbers up a bit. 

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. George W. Bush.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Congress has not declared war since 1812 and have no intention of doing so ever again.  What Rand says is basically the end of all war by the US government.

PS - other alleged declarations of war from 1846 to 1943 did not actually declare war, they stated that a state of war already existed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've made clear before I hold my own foreign policy views. Glad to see others are smelling the coffee.
> 
> Why am I even conversing with someone who believes in Rothschild conspiracies? 
> 
> There will obviously be a deep disconnect when someone who sees the world as it is vs. someone who sees the world as being conquered by bankers in order to create central banks.


I knew you were a paid shill from the very beginning.  I am convinced that TC was not.  Which means that he's actually regressed in liberty terms.  Which is sad.

Who cares about Rothschild?  You don't even need to invoke conspiracies in order to figure out that bombing civilians in foreign countries is morally equivalent to murder.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, kill them. Or they will continue to kill. They are evil. They have no concept of morality. They will not go away. They aren't fighting because of blowback.


I'm sorry, I wasn't sure if you were talking about ISIS or the US Military.  




> Why do you even post in Rand's sub forum if you think that Rand is such a hardcore neocon warmonger for taking this position?


Rand is a politician.  I expect him to say some stupid stuff to appease stupid people.

Would you still vote for Ron Paul?  If you really believed it was as grave a security threat as you claim, I doubt that you would.



> You can't be serious if you don't at least acknowledge that things have a tendency to creep. So, what happens if some of those military advisors get killed, or whatever term is attached. He just sent 350 more. Or what happens when we are air striking, and another journalist gets whacked, so I guess we just bump the numbers up a bit. 
> 
> There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. George W. Bush.


THIS!

----------


## Vanguard101

> Who cares?  Even if ISIS was going to become a threat in the future, that STILL isn't a reason to intervene.


You would be a terrible military strategist. No offense

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You would be a terrible military strategist. No offense


I'm an anarcho-capitalist who doesn't believe the military should exist.  NO DUH I'd be a terrible military strategist

----------


## TaftFan

> I knew you were a paid shill from the very beginning.  I am convinced that TC was not.  Which means that he's actually regressed in liberty terms.  Which is sad.
> 
> Who cares about Rothschild?  You don't even need to invoke conspiracies in order to figure out that bombing civilians in foreign countries is morally equivalent to murder.


I wish I could get paid for being right and posting about it on forums. If only.

Newsflash: I did not invoke the conspiracies.

Newsflash 2: Civilian casualties will happen in war. They do not preclude war. I never advocated bombing civilians. Not even Bush advocating for bombing civilians. 

I do not regard you as an expert on morality, Christian or otherwise. You love absolutism. You love legalism. I have no use for such nonsense.

----------


## devil21

Y'all don't like it when I bring up the real reason for the overthrow of foreign governments under false pretenses.  CENTRAL BANKS

It's the first thing that happens when a foreign government gets deposed after we've "spread democracy" to their country.

----------


## liberty jungle

> I've made clear before I hold my own foreign policy views. Glad to see others are smelling the coffee.
> 
> Why am I even conversing with someone who believes in Rothschild conspiracies? 
> 
> There will obviously be a deep disconnect when someone who sees the world as it is vs. someone who sees the world as being conquered by bankers in order to create central banks.


(Mod edit) you try to sound smart but you sound pathetic. Why don't you go and fight or if not send your children to fight your dirty invented neocon war (mod edit)

----------


## Brett85

> Rand is a politician.  I expect him to say some stupid stuff to appease stupid people.
> 
> Would you still vote for Ron Paul?  If you really believed it was as grave a security threat as you claim, I doubt that you would.


1)  I see no evidence that Rand is lying about his position here.  I think his foreign policy is just slightly different than Ron's.

2)  I would absolutely still support Ron Paul if he ran again.  I supported him in 2008 and 2012 and would support him again.  I probably agree with 95% of his foreign policy and would agree with maybe 5% of the foreign policy of the other candidates running against him.  I largely agree with Ron's foreign policy and would enthusiastically support him for President like I did in 2012.  I even gave a speech for him at my caucus in 2012 and would do so again if he chose to run.

----------


## TaftFan

> Wow, we have a proud neocon here. you try to sound smart but you sound pathetic. Why don't you go and fight or if not send your children to fight your dirty invented neocon war you warmonger.


Who the hell are you?

----------


## Vanguard101

> I'm an anarcho-capitalist who doesn't believe the military should exist.  NO DUH I'd be a terrible military strategist


Ok. If you were ever in a fight, you would lose as well. Being an-cap does not mean you can't think outside the box. Then again, most of you can't. Also, in an an-cap society, a military would be 100% assured.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wish I could get paid for being right and posting about it on forums. If only.
> 
> Newsflash: I did not invoke the conspiracies.
> 
> Newsflash 2: Civilian casualties will happen in war. They do not preclude war. I never advocated bombing civilians. Not even Bush advocating for bombing civilians. 
> 
> I do not regard you as an expert on morality, Christian or otherwise. You love absolutism. You love legalism. I have no use for such nonsense.


Civilian casualties are not morally justified.

Absolutism and legalism aren't the same thing.



> 1)  I see no evidence that Rand is lying about his position here.  I think his foreign policy is just slightly different than Ron's.
> 
> 2)  I would absolutely still support Ron Paul if he ran again.  I supported him in 2008 and 2012 and would support him again.  I probably agree with 95% of his foreign policy and would agree with maybe 5% of the foreign policy of the other candidates running against him.  I largely agree with Ron's foreign policy and would enthusiastically support him for President like I did in 2012.  I even gave a speech at my caucus in 2012 and would do so again if he chose to run.


Rand might be telling the truth, which would be a shame.

IF you really think ISIS is as much of a threat as you seem to think, and Ron doesn't view them as a threat, how could you trust him to defend the country?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok. If you were ever in a fight, you would lose as well. Being an-cap does not mean you can't think outside the box. Then again, most of you can't. Also, in an an-cap society, a military would be 100% assured.


There could be a military so long as it wasn't State-run.  Why would I lose in a fight?

----------


## TaftFan

> Y'all don't like it when I bring up the real reason for the overthrow of foreign governments under false pretenses.  CENTRAL BANKS
> 
> It's the first thing that happens when a foreign government gets deposed after we've "spread democracy" to their country.


That conspiracy theory is so mind-numbingly stupid, so void of evidence and reason, I don't even know how to address it.

I can understand why those who live in a world of fantasy can hold ideologically dangerous positions. Consequences do not exist in a fantasy world.

----------


## Brett85

> IF you really think ISIS is as much of a threat as you seem to think, and Ron doesn't view them as a threat, how could you trust him to defend the country?


I don't think they're a threat to actually take over the country.  I just think they're a threat to launch attacks.  With Ron Paul as President we wouldn't have to worry about having a dramatic expansion of the police state after the attack, which is the main thing that I'm worried about with regard to an attack by ISIS.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I love how people are just showing up here and calling the closet warmongers out for their hypocrisy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think they're a threat to actually take over the country.  I just think they're a threat to launch attacks.  With Ron Paul as President we wouldn't have to worry about having a dramatic expansion of the police state after the attack, which is the main thing that I'm worried about with regard to an attack by ISIS.


Good point, and I can see that your intentions are good here, but since when has preemptive war of ANY kind pushed the police state back?  War always enhances the police state.

----------


## Vanguard101

> There could be a military so long as it wasn't State-run.  Why would I lose in a fight?


Because you lack the capacity to think about how you will defend yourself in a rational manner. Just waiting for someone to stab you is not a bright strategy.

----------


## liberty jungle

> Who the hell are you?


One more person who knows your are you are paid shill

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because you lack the capacity to think about how you will defend yourself in a rational manner. Just waiting for someone to stab you is not a bright strategy.


You probably don't fully understand my position.  I'm not saying that if someone is walking toward me with a knife, ready to stab, that I actually have to wait for the lunge.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> That conspiracy theory is so mind-numbingly stupid, so void of evidence and reason, I don't even know how to address it.
> 
> I can understand why those who live in a world of fantasy can hold ideologically dangerous positions. Consequences do not exist in a fantasy world.


Like you know the consequence of increasing military involvement with ISIS.

----------


## TaftFan

Civilian casualties are not premeditated. (Well, in the case of ISIS they are.) They are not the equivalent of murder. They have never been viewed that way, by God or by civilization.

----------


## Brett85

> Good point, and I can see that your intentions are good here, but since when has preemptive war of ANY kind pushed the police state back?  War always enhances the police state.


Most of the time war enhances the police state, but if military strikes could help prevent an attack, they would actually stop the expansion of the police state.  The police state would grow like you could never imagine if ISIS attacked us.  Of course I know that you don't think that military strikes would make it less likely that we would be attacked, and of course that's very debatable.

----------


## TaftFan

> Like you know the consequence of increasing military involvement with ISIS.


Nobody knows the EXACT consequence. But, reasonable assumptions can be made about the consequences of acting vs. not acting.

There are actually some who truly do want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend such informed assumptions cannot be made. Ignorance is bliss.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Civilian casualties are not premeditated. (Well, in the case of ISIS they are.) They are not the equivalent of murder. They have never been viewed that way, by God or by civilization.


We aren't even on the same moral wavelength.  I'm not even convinced you're a Christian, so I certainly don't care what you think God thinks.  The Bible is painfully clear on this issue.

Good article on the issue (despite some other ridiculous points on the website as a whole):
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.pdf

----------


## Brett85

> One more person who knows your are you are paid shill


It would be nice if we could actually have an intelligent and civil debate here, even if you consider someone else's views to be repulsive.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Most of the time war enhances the police state, but if military strikes could help prevent an attack, they would actually stop the expansion of the police state.  The police state would grow like you could never imagine if ISIS attacked us.  Of course I know that you don't think that military strikes would make it less likely that we would be attacked, and of course that's very debatable.


I think it would make it FAR more likely.  The only thing that would actually make attacks less likely is to actually defend the borders.  I agree that the police state would grow absurdly if ISIS attacked us, probably to the point where we'd have to fight with our own police or give up any freedom we have.  But I still don't think we'd actually have to defend America against ISIS.  They aren't a real threat.




> Nobody knows the EXACT consequence. But, reasonable assumptions can be made about the consequences of acting vs. not acting.
> 
> There are actually some who truly do want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend such informed assumptions cannot be made. Ignorance is bliss.


You mean like Ron Paul?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It would be nice if we could actually have an intelligent and civil debate here, _even if you consider someone else's views to be repulsive._


That's just the thing.  I think war IS repulsive.  I should calm down with you because I believe you are well-intentioned.  But I really do think Taft is a paid shill.  I do not believe for a second he supports liberty.

----------


## TaftFan

> We aren't even on the same moral wavelength.  I'm not even convinced you're a Christian, so I certainly don't care what you think God thinks.  The Bible is painfully clear on this issue.
> 
> Good article on the issue (despite some other ridiculous points on the website as a whole):
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.pdf


Another reason why I can't take you seriously on Christian subjects. You source the most bizarre websites, act like a disciple of a certain bizarre poster, and are completely outside of mainstream Biblical and Christian thought.

Total war was common in the Bible. It will happen again during Armageddon. God isn't going to pull back the angels because FreedomFanatic thinks murder might be involved.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Nobody knows the EXACT consequence. But, reasonable assumptions can be made about the consequences of acting vs. not acting.
> 
> There are actually some who truly do want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend such informed assumptions cannot be made. Ignorance is bliss.


Hrmmm, yeah, so where are these assumptions listed that actually turned out to be true, or even when they were wrong turned out in our favor. 

Iraq sure didn't, that was supposed to be quick and we would be greeted as liberators, libya? Afghanistan? Vietnam?

----------


## Vanguard101

> You probably don't fully understand my position.  I'm not saying that if someone is walking toward me with a knife, ready to stab, that I actually have to wait for the lunge.


Can you elaborate on your position again then please?

----------


## TaftFan

> You mean like Ron Paul?


Obviously. 

As I mentioned before, if ISIS moved to Cuba to train RP would not bat an eye. I guarantee it. Just like he didn't bat an eye when asked whether he would have stopped the Holocaust if he could, hypothetically. "None of our business," he says.

----------


## liberty jungle

> I love how people are just showing up here and calling the closet warmongers out for their hypocrisy.


Lol , i swear people who comment on  washington post( specially on jennifer rubin op-ed) are better informed on  foreign policy and  can see neocon agenda from a mile away than most people here in this forum.This form is infiltrated by paid war monger shills.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Another reason why I can't take you seriously on Christian subjects. You source the most bizarre websites, act like a disciple of a certain bizarre poster, and are completely outside of mainstream Biblical and Christian thought.
> 
> Total war was common in the Bible. It will happen again during Armageddon. God isn't going to pull back the angels because FreedomFanatic thinks murder might be involved.


You really think a war God commands is comparable to one that he doesn't?  Really?




> Obviously. 
> 
> As I mentioned before, if ISIS moved to Cuba to train RP would not bat an eye. I guarantee it. Just like he didn't bat an eye when asked whether he would have stopped the Holocaust if he could, hypothetically. "None of our business," he says.


Ron is right.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lol , i swear people who comment on  washington post( specially on jennifer rubin op-ed) are better informed on  foreign policy and  can see neocon agenda from a mile away than most people here in this forum.This form is infiltrated by paid war monger shills.


Its surprisingly new.  And its only a couple people.  Most people here still support freedom.

----------


## TaftFan

> Hrmmm, yeah, so where are these assumptions listed that actually turned out to be true, or even when they were wrong turned out in our favor. 
> 
> Iraq sure didn't, that was supposed to be quick and we would be greeted as liberators, libya? Afghanistan? Vietnam?


This is the problem with some of you folks...you aren't willing to recognize that not all interventions are equal. None of them are the same. 

All of the interventions you mentioned I would not support.

----------


## Vanguard101

This thread is showing libertarians' true colors tbh

----------


## TaftFan

> You really think a war God commands is comparable to one that he doesn't?  Really?


Not the point. God doesn't murder. God doesn't waive sins from applying to himself. He just doesn't sin.



> Ron is right.


No, he is an absolutist. Common sense informs 99% of people he is dead wrong about that. 

The hypothetical scenario of ending the Holocaust, in which the war would not be part of the issue, but all that would be necessary is to march in, expel the guards and free the prisoners is such an easy yes, no reasonable person can say no. 

Burke was right:  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This thread is showing libertarians' true colors tbh


That we always love to judge others in the most absolutist sense possible?

----------


## liberty jungle

> Not the point. God doesn't murder. God doesn't waive sins from applying to himself. He just doesn't sin.
> 
> No, he is an absolutist. Common sense informs 99% of people he is dead wrong about that. 
> 
> The hypothetical scenario of ending the Holocaust, in which the war would not be part of the issue, but all that would be necessary is to march in, expel the guards and free the prisoners is such an easy yes, no reasonable person can say no. 
> 
> Burke was right:  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”


 you are a (mod edit). Do you expect Ron to send some one child to european war When 90 % of the american public where against intervention in ww2?  If you like war you can always send your self or children, you are not entitled to people's children life.

----------


## Bryan

Way too much is out of hand here. Please keep it civil and on the guidelines. See my sig for a link.

Attack ideas, not people.

Thank you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not the point. God doesn't murder. God doesn't waive sins from applying to himself. He just doesn't sin.
> 
> No, he is an absolutist. Common sense informs 99% of people he is dead wrong about that. 
> 
> The hypothetical scenario of ending the Holocaust, in which the war would not be part of the issue, but all that would be necessary is to march in, expel the guards and free the prisoners is such an easy yes, no reasonable person can say no. 
> 
> Burke was right:  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”


I'm totally with Ron here.  A threat of this kind, if it is a threat, gets Marque and Reprisal, and the President goes through Congress to get it.  Just because we possibly have the one event that is a legitimate threat, does not mean we get to willy-nilly abandon the Constitution.

And just because you are using Marque does not mean that your military is completely uninvolved.  Navy and Marines have historically supported Marque and Reprisal as a founding mission. I would argue that not only is the Constitutional method more, well, Constitutional, it is also 1000 times more effective.  Minus all that blowback stuff.  So we should probably give it a shot. eh?

The bonus being that we don't actually have to piss on the US Constitution to do it.   Is that too absolutist?

----------


## twomp

> There is a reason drunk driving laws exist. And they are perfectly compatible with libertarianism.  You don't wait to punish a drunk until they kill somebody. You don't let a mentally unstable person get a gun. You don't have to wait the shoot up a school.
> 
> There is no reason to let a terrorist group form a terrorist state that has already attacked US two US reporters in brutal fashion.


I guess history is something you aren't fond of are you? WE ATTACKED THEM FIRST! THEN those 2 reporters got killed. If you cared about those 2 reporters, you should have told the U.S. to STAY THE FK OUT! Is that you John McCain? We attack them, they kill 2 of our citizens and now its time for war? Are you packed and ready to go fight? Can't let these guys get away with this now right? Oh wait, I bet you aren't going yourself are you.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Don't attack ISIS, attack their infrastructure.  Never give them a target.  Never attack their command structure as that is inefficient and creates civilian casualties so leads to more joining their side.

Try reading at least the last third of post 20 and all of post 44.

-t

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> Not the point. God doesn't murder. God doesn't waive sins from applying to himself. He just doesn't sin.
> 
> No, he is an absolutist. Common sense informs 99% of people he is dead wrong about that. 
> 
> The hypothetical scenario of ending the Holocaust, in which the war would not be part of the issue, but all that would be necessary is to march in, expel the guards and free the prisoners is such an easy yes, no reasonable person can say no. 
> 
> Burke was right:  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”


All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that men be convinced that evil is good.

----------


## twomp

> Not the point. God doesn't murder. God doesn't waive sins from applying to himself. He just doesn't sin.
> 
> No, he is an absolutist. Common sense informs 99% of people he is dead wrong about that. 
> 
> The hypothetical scenario of ending the Holocaust, in which the war would not be part of the issue, but all that would be necessary is to march in, expel the guards and free the prisoners is such an easy yes, no reasonable person can say no. 
> 
> Burke was right:  “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”


You seem like a good man. I guess you will be taking your family to fight ISIS for us? Can't let evil triumph! Oh wait, I bet you aren't going either. (Mod edit)

----------


## liberty jungle

> You seem like a good man. I guess you will be taking your family to fight ISIS for us? Can't let evil triumph! Oh wait, I bet you aren't going either. (Mod edit)


 Lol

----------


## orenbus

> ISIS is controlled by the CIA.  This whole issue is STUPID and shows how little people have really learned about how US foreign policy is run.  Can't wait to see articles about ISIS throwing babies out of incubators and* yellow cake*/WMDs and watch people argue some more about things that ARE NOT HAPPENING.  There's a bunch of Israel-firster shills on RPF that are outing themselves right now yet people are still arguing with them.  Wake the hell up people.  You're being played AGAIN.

----------


## twomp

> I don't think they're a threat to actually take over the country.  I just think they're a threat to launch attacks.  With Ron Paul as President we wouldn't have to worry about having a dramatic expansion of the police state after the attack, which is the main thing that I'm worried about with regard to an attack by ISIS.


And there we have it, the newest warmonger excuse for going to war. We must bomb ISIS to preserve our civil liberties! Quick someone get this excuse out to John McCain,  he hasn't used this one yet.

----------


## idiom

> You seem like a good man. I guess you will be taking your family to fight ISIS for us? Can't let evil triumph! Oh wait, I bet you aren't going either. (Mod edit)


Would he sign up with the Syrian army, or the Iranian army? Either way, he doesn't get to come back to the US. Well at least he doesn't get to fly back.

ISIS may proclaim an expansionary plan, but they likely can't back it up. After they have taken out Assad and they Ayatollah, then maybe they could be a threat.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Civilian casualties are not morally justified.


Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Few, including Ron Paul, question the morality and justification of US involvement in WWII.  And victory, again just about all admit, required aerial bombardment of population centers.

Trust me, I understand the allure of black-and-white.  But when dealing with matters of war and peace, of national security and international relations and diplomacy, there is an awful lot of grey area.  And skeptical though I am of US involvement in the Middle East at this point, a group of the most nihilistic thugs that Arabia has to offer wielding the power of a state, openly declaring war on the US, committing atrocities of the worst sort, publishing videos documenting these atrocities as propaganda, brought about largely because of the instability brought to the region courtesy of US firepower and poorly thought through foreign policy, gives me pause to review where things stand.

Grey areas.  Lots of grey...

----------


## orenbus

Some background for those that haven't seen it.

----------


## devil21

> Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Few, including Ron Paul, question the morality and justification of US involvement in WWII.  And victory, again just about all admit, required aerial bombardment of population centers.


Ron said the only reason WW2 was declared was because the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America.  It was also a continuation of WW1.  I don't see how that relates to this topic.  There hasn't been a declared war since WW2.

----------


## RonPaulwillWin

> Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Few, including Ron Paul, question the morality and justification of US involvement in WWII.  And victory, again just about all admit, required aerial bombardment of population centers.
> 
> Trust me, I understand the allure of black-and-white.  But when dealing with matters of war and peace, of national security and international relations and diplomacy, there is an awful lot of grey area.  And skeptical though I am of US involvement in the Middle East at this point, a group of the most nihilistic thugs that Arabia has to offer wielding the power of a state, openly declaring war on the US, committing atrocities of the worst sort, publishing videos documenting these atrocities as propaganda, brought about largely because of the instability brought to the region courtesy of US firepower and poorly thought through foreign policy, gives me pause to review where things stand.
> 
> Grey areas.  Lots of grey...


Exactly, this post just about sums it up and why we are so torn right now....I don't come here much anymore but gdam this thread is depressing. People on the sherdog (mma site) , war room subforum are more insightful and civil than this $#@! right now. I'm torn also, I really don't know what to do....We brought the money bomb to the mainstream and years later we have money bombs coming from all over the Arab world for ISIS, is this their version of the RP revolution? It's amazing how little likes and comments gets on social media these days, but it's almost to be expected.....we've lost our steam and idiots that we pretty much created are reaping in the revolutionary euphoria that we had in 2007 and 2011. $#@!, we just need RP to throw up a video and say 'calm the $#@! down, I got this.'

----------


## devil21

> Exactly, this post just about sums it up and why we are so torn right now....I don't come here much anymore but gdam this thread is depressing. People on the sherdog (mma site) , war room subforum are more insightful and civil than this $#@! right now. I'm torn also, I really don't know what to do....We brought the money bomb to the mainstream and years later we have money bombs coming from all over the Arab world for ISIS, is this their version of the RP revolution? It's amazing how little likes and comments gets on social media these days, but it's almost to be expected.....we've lost our steam and idiots that we pretty much created are reaping in the revolutionary euphoria that we had in 2007 and 2011. $#@!, we just need RP to throw up a video and say 'calm the $#@! down, I got this.'


I'm becoming very tired of being civil about my tax money being spent to kill people that never, ever attacked me.  This entire foreign policy is absurd from top to bottom.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

...and wondered what on earth
was the good of Medina to us? Its harmfulness had been patent when we
were at Yenbo and the Turks in it were going to Mecca: but we had
changed all that by our march to Wejh. To-day we were blockading the
railway, and they only defending it. The garrison of Medina, reduced to
an inoffensive size, were sitting in trenches *destroying their own
power of movement* by eating the transport they could no longer feed. *We
had taken away their power to harm us*, and yet wanted to take away
their town. It was not a base for us like Wejh, nor a threat like Wadi
Ais. *What on earth did we want it for?*

----------


## amy31416

Couldn't watch the video, but here's my take:

Go all out on defense. Seal up the borders, apologize like there's no tomorrow for the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, etc and explain why is was the wrong thing to do....fund this defense by cutting all foreign aid and using that money to get systems put in place and arm every American who's not classified as a moron or otherwise mentally impaired. Very limited immigration for several years.

Then just leave them the hell alone. Maybe by the time my kid is old enough, she'll know a world where her government isn't a killing machine.

----------


## amy31416

> Civilian casualties are not premeditated. (Well, in the case of ISIS they are.) They are not the equivalent of murder. They have never been viewed that way, by God or by civilization.


I am quite civilized, and if your warmongering ways ever harm my child, I'm coming after people like you, because I'm not stupid and I know that our gov't (backed by people like you) have caused these terrorist cells to spring up. You may as well be shooting people yourself if you keep up this nonsense. I'll contribute to a chip-in to send you to Syria, if you really want or have the balls to back up your talk, otherwise, shut your yap.

Quit trying to kill other people's children and steal their money, it'll tend to piss them off.

----------


## TaftFan

> I'm totally with Ron here.  A threat of this kind, if it is a threat, gets Marque and Reprisal, and the President goes through Congress to get it.  Just because we possibly have the one event that is a legitimate threat, does not mean we get to willy-nilly abandon the Constitution.
> 
> And just because you are using Marque does not mean that your military is completely uninvolved.  Navy and Marines have historically supported Marque and Reprisal as a founding mission. I would argue that not only is the Constitutional method more, well, Constitutional, it is also 1000 times more effective.  Minus all that blowback stuff.  So we should probably give it a shot. eh?
> 
> The bonus being that we don't actually have to piss on the US Constitution to do it.   Is that too absolutist?


Unless I missed something, I am pretty sure Ron just considers ISIS as "propaganda."  I absolutely support using Constitutional procedure when it comes to war. In fact, I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to keep a low profile by using special forces and privateers. 

The key to fighting terrorists is maximizing their casualties while minimizing their recruitment.




> you are a (mod edit). Do you expect Ron to send some one child to european war When 90 % of the american public where against intervention in ww2?  If you like war you can always send your self or children, you are not entitled to people's children life.


Hey, LJ, we don't have a draft anymore. People sign up to join the military voluntary, so that argument can be dismissed out of hand. I thought libertarians respected adult decisions?

But I'm sure you would be against using taxpayer money to end a genocide like the Holocaust. Fine. I would have absolutely no problem letting people like you choose not to fund such an effort.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> I am quite civilized, and if your warmongering ways ever harm my child, I'm coming after people like you, because I'm not stupid and I know that our gov't (backed by people like you) have caused these terrorist cells to spring up. You may as well be shooting people yourself if you keep up this nonsense. I'll contribute to a chip-in to send you to Syria, if you really want or have the balls to back up your talk, otherwise, shut your yap.
> 
> Quit trying to kill other people's children and steal their money, it'll tend to piss them off.


I dare say that if the bombs were falling in such a way as to endanger your child (or, for that matter, if beheading nihilists were crawling over the hill en masse), your first instinct would be to find someone... anyone... to stop the bombs from falling.  It is, to hijack Jefferson, why governments are instituted.

And let's not be pollyanna about this: While ISIS was undoubtedly a result of US destabilization of the Middle East brought about by the Iraq War, these thugs existed there long before we invaded Iraq.  It's just that Saddam Hussein and Haffez/Bashaar al-Assad knew how suppress them.  And did so, with relish.

And then the neocons decided that they knew better.

And the thugs are now wielding the might of a state, openly stating they are at war with the US.  Tell me, is there some point at which we can say they are asking for it...?

----------


## amy31416

> I dare say that if the bombs were falling in such a way as to endanger your child (or, for that matter, if beheading nihilists were crawling over the hill en masse), your first instinct would be to find someone... anyone... to stop the bombs from falling.  It is, to hijack Jefferson, why governments are instituted.
> 
> And let's not be pollyanna about this: While ISIS was undoubtedly a result of US destabilization of the Middle East brought about by the Iraq War, these thugs existed there long before we invaded Iraq.  It's just that Saddam Hussein and Haffez/Bashaar al-Assad knew how suppress them.  And did so, with relish.
> 
> And then the neocons decided that they knew better.
> 
> And the thugs are now wielding the might of a state, openly stating they are at war with the US.  Tell me, is there some point at which we can say they are asking for it...?


And the people who support this bull$#@! keep it going. They are the ones who empower the neocons and warhawks, that's the root cause. The neocons and warhawks in power are simply the ones who give them the vehicle/excuse.

Unlike dumbass terrorists, I know who is to blame.

----------


## kylejack

Seems to me the proper response is to put out a State Department travel advisory warning Americans not to travel to these areas. War is way too far to take this. Remember, war has civilian casualties.

----------


## Brett85

All the liberal sites are claiming that Rand flip flopped on this when he really didn't.  He said from the beginning that he was open to air strikes but hadn't made up his mind.  Now events and conditions have changed, and he's concluded that the air strikes are necessary.  That's how our leaders are supposed to be.  They're supposed to be reluctant to use military force and only use military force as a last resort.  That's where Rand is at on foreign policy.  He's very reluctant to use military force but still not completely opposed to using it in every situation.  He's opposed to starting unnecessary wars but not opposed to defending the country.  That's going to play very well with voters in a general election if he makes it there, because most voters want a President who's strong and who will protect us but still won't get us involved in unnecessary wars such as the Iraq and Vietnam invasions.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> ISIS has threatened us


They can say whatever they want, but the fact is they pose no more threat to the US than any other two-bit Jihadist group. That is, they pose no military threat whatsoever (yes they have some military capabilities, unlike other groups, but they can't get here), but they may be able to launch piddly terrorist attacks at some point. And as for those possible terrorist attacks, the only way to reduce the risk of their occurrence is better intelligence, border security, and ordinary police work - military intervention overseas is a completely futile and counter-productive anti-terrorism strategy. 




> they have killed our citizens


It is not the US government's responsibility to protect American citizens outside US jurisdiction - you travel at your own risk




> they threaten trade routes


It is not the US government's responsibility to protect American property outside US jurisdiction - you do business overseas at your own risk




> and they are committing genocide


Which is atrocious but in no way threatens US national security

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Seems to me the proper response is to put out a State Department travel advisory warning Americans not to travel to these areas. War is way too far to take this. Remember, war has civilian casualties.




http://travel.state.gov/content/pass...l-warning.html

Iraq Travel Warning
LAST UPDATED: AUGUST 10, 2014
The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq.  Travel within Iraq remains dangerous given the security situation. The Embassy in Baghdad and the Consulate General in Erbil remain open and operating, but the Department of State has relocated a limited number of staff members from the Embassy in Baghdad and the Consulate General in Erbil to the Consulate General in Basrah and the Iraq Support Unit in Amman. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning dated August 8, 2014, to note the departure of some staff from the Consulate General in Erbil. The ability of the Embassy to respond to situations in which U.S. citizens face difficulty, including arrests, is extremely limited.

U.S. citizens in Iraq remain at high risk for kidnapping and terrorist violence.  Methods of attack have included roadside improvised explosive devices (IEDs), including explosively formed penetrators (EFPs); magnetic IEDs placed on vehicles; human and vehicle-borne IEDs; mines placed on or concealed near roads; mortars and rockets; and shootings using various direct fire weapons.  These and other attacks frequently occur in public gathering places, such as cafes, markets and other public venues.

Numerous insurgent groups, including ISIL, previously known as al-Qa’ida in Iraq, remain active and terrorist activity and violence persist in many areas of the country.  ISIL and its allies control Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, and have captured significant territory across central Iraq and continue to engage with Iraqi security forces in that region.  In early August, the threat to the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR) increased considerably with the advance of ISIL towards Kurdish areas. 

Due to the potential of political protests and demonstrations to become violent, U.S. citizens in Iraq are strongly urged to avoid protests and large gatherings. 

The U.S. government considers the potential threat to U.S. government personnel in Iraq to be serious enough to require them to live and work under strict security guidelines.  All U.S. government employees under the authority of the U.S. Chief of Mission must follow strict safety and security procedures when traveling outside the Embassy.  State Department guidance to U.S. businesses in Iraq advises the use of protective security details.  Detailed security information is available at the U.S. Embassy website.

The U.S. Embassy is located in the International Zone (IZ) in Baghdad.  The IZ is a restricted access area.  Iraqi authorities are responsible for control of the IZ.  Travelers to the IZ should be aware that Iraqi authorities may require special identification to enter the IZ or may issue IZ-specific access badges.  Individuals residing and traveling within the IZ should continue to exercise good personal safety precautions.

Increasingly, many U.S. and third-country business people travel throughout much of Iraq; however, they do so under restricted movement conditions and often with security advisors and protective security teams.

The Government of Iraq strictly enforces requirements regarding visas and stamps for entry and exit, vehicle registration, authorizations for weapons, and movements through checkpoints.  The Embassy highly recommends that all U.S. citizens in Iraq carefully review the status of their travel documents and any necessary licenses and government authorizations to ensure that they are current and valid.  U.S. citizens are urged to immediately correct any deficiencies in their travel documents.  U.S. citizens are strongly advised against traveling throughout the country with deficient or invalid documents.  For more information about entry/exit requirements for U.S. citizens, please see our Country Specific Information page for Iraq.

U.S. citizens should avoid areas near the Syrian, Turkish, or Iranian borders, which are especially dangerous and not always clearly defined.  The Governments of Turkey and Iran continue to carry out military operations against insurgent groups in the mountain regions bordering Iraq.  These operations have included troop movements and both aerial and artillery bombardments.  Extensive unmarked minefields also remain along these borders.  Border skirmishes with smugglers have become commonplace.  Unrest in Syria has resulted in large numbers of people seeking refuge in the area. Iranian authorities previously detained, for an extended period, U.S. citizens who were hiking in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR) in the vicinity of the Iranian border.  The resources available to the U.S. Embassy to assist U.S. citizens who venture close to or cross the border with Iran are extremely limited. The Department of State discourages travel in close proximity to the Iranian border.

The ability of the U.S. Embassy to provide consular services to U.S. citizens throughout Iraq, including Baghdad, is particularly limited given the security environment.  The U.S. Consulates in Basrah and Kirkuk cannot provide routine services such as passport applications, extra visa pages, and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad.  U.S. citizens in need of these services in Erbil must make an appointment with the Consulate on-line, either through the Embassy’s website or the website for the Consulate in Erbil.  The Embassy'swebsite includes consular information and the most recent messages to U.S. citizens in Iraq.  U.S. citizens in Iraq who need emergency assistance should call 0770-443-1286 or0770-030-4888.

For information on “What the Department of State Can and Can't Do in a Crisis,” please visit the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Emergencies and Crisis link.  Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada or, for callers outside the United States and Canada, on a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444.  These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).

U.S. citizens who choose to visit or reside in Iraq despite this Travel Warning are urged to take responsibility for their own personal security and belongings (including their U.S. passports) and to avoid crowds, especially rallies or demonstrations.  U.S. citizens who choose to travel in Iraq should be aware that Iraqi authorities have arrested or detained U.S. citizens whose purpose of travel is not readily apparent.  Persons also have been detained for taking photographs of buildings, monuments, or other sites, especially in the IZ in Baghdad.

All U.S. citizens in Iraq, including those working on contract for the U.S. government, are urged to inform the U.S. Embassy of their presence in Iraq by enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) in order to obtain updated travel information.  By enrolling, U.S. citizens make it easier for the Embassy to provide updated security information or to contact them in emergencies.  The Embassy also offers SMS text alerts delivered to your mobile phone when new security and emergency messages are released.

U.S. citizens may obtain the latest security information or other information about Iraq by contacting the U.S. Embassy, located in the International Zone, via email, or by accessing U.S. Embassy Baghdad's website.  The after-hours emergency numbers are 011-964-770-443-1286 or 011-964-770-030-4888 (from the United States) or 0770-443-1286 or 0770-030-4888 (within Iraq).  As cell phone service is unreliable in Iraq, emergency calls may also be placed through the Department of State at 1-888-407-4747. 

Stay up to date by bookmarking our Bureau of Consular Affairs website, which contains current Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as the Worldwide Caution.  Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs page on Facebook as well.

==============

http://travel.state.gov/content/pass...l-warning.html

Syria Travel Warning
LAST UPDATED: MAY 5, 2014
The Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens against travel to Syria and strongly recommends that U.S. citizens remaining in Syria depart immediately.  This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning dated October 7, 2013, to remind U.S. citizens that the security situation remains volatile and unpredictable as a civil war between government and armed anti-government groups continues throughout the country, along with an increased risk of kidnappings, bombings, murder, and terrorism.  

No part of Syria should be considered safe from violence, and the potential exists throughout the country for hostile acts, including kidnappings and the use of chemical warfare against civilian populations.  Indiscriminate shelling and aerial bombardment, including of densely populated urban areas across the country, have significantly raised the risk of death or serious injury.  The destruction of infrastructure, housing, medical facilities, schools, power and water utilities has also increased hardships inside the country.

There is a threat from terrorism, including groups like the al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front as well as other extremist groups.  Tactics for these groups include the use of suicide bombers, kidnapping, use of small and heavy arms, and improvised explosive devices in major city centers, including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr.  Public places, such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, have been targeted.

Communications in Syria are difficult as phone and internet connections have become increasingly unreliable. The Department of State has received reports that U.S. citizens are experiencing difficulty and facing dangers traveling within the country and when trying to leave Syria via land borders, given the diminishing availability of commercial air travel out of Syria as fierce clashes between pro-government and opposition forces continue in the vicinity of the Damascus and Aleppo airports.  Land border checkpoints held by opposition forces should not be considered safe, as they are targeted by regime attacks and some armed groups have sought to fund themselves through kidnappings for ransom.  Border areas are frequent targets of shelling and other armed conflict and are crowded because of internally-displaced refugees.  Errant attacks will occasionally hit border towns just outside the borders as well.

The U.S. Embassy in Damascus suspended its operations in February 2012 and therefore cannot provide protection or routine consular services to U.S. citizens in Syria. The Government of the Czech Republic, acting through its Embassy in Damascus, serves as Protecting Power for U.S. interests in Syria.  The range of consular services the Czech Republic provides to U.S. citizens is extremely limited, and those services, including for U.S. passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad, may require significantly more processing time than at U.S. embassies or consulates outside of Syria.  U.S. citizens in Syria who seek consular services should leave the country and contact a U.S. embassy or consulate in a neighboring country if at all possible.  U.S. citizens in Syria who seek consular  services in Syria may contact the U.S. Interests Section of the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Damascus at USIS_damascus@embassy.mzv.cz. 

U.S. citizens in Syria who are in need of emergency assistance in Syria, and are unable to reach the U.S. Interests Section of the Embassy of the Czech Republic or must make contact outside business hours, should contact the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan:

            Telephone: +962 (6) 590-6950 (Daily 2-3:30 local time)
            Emergencies: +962 (6) 590-6500
            E-mail: Amman-ACS@state.gov 

If you seek information about U.S. citizens' services in Syria from the Office of Overseas Citizens' Services in Washington, please e-mail:  SyriaEmergencyUSC@state.gov. 

The Department of State urges those U.S. citizens who decide to remain in Syria despite this Travel Warning to provide their current contact information and next-of-kin information through the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP).

For information on "What the Department of State Can and Can't Do in a Crisis," please visit the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Emergencies and Crisis link at www.travel.state.gov.   Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada or, for callers outside the United States and Canada, on a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444.  These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).

For additional information, U.S. citizens should consult the Department of State's Country Specific Information for Syria.  Stay up to date by bookmarking our Bureau of Consular Affairs website, which contains the current Travel Warnings and Travel Alerts as well as the Worldwide Caution.  Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs page on Facebook as well. 

-t

----------


## kylejack

Yea, I figured a few would be out already.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

ISIS is not as much of a threat as some suspect.  I don't think they'll be able to even defeat Iraq and Syria.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> *military intervention overseas is a completely futile and counter-productive anti-terrorism strategy.*



I'd go out on a limb and say that "conservative" media is giving some posters here some really bad ideas.  Persecuted groups are being used as a propaganda tool (see: everyone using the G-word, followed by Nazi references).  If we really cared so much about these groups, we could focus our mission on helping them escape/protecting them, which I feel may be our responsibility, especially if we want to lead by example.  But of course when it comes to saving these people, all I ever see mentioned are the MIC's roundabout, destructive methods which breed long-term danger.

ISIS wants us to fight them because they know they have a big pool from which they can recruit (over 1 billion Sunni Muslims worldwide).  How are we letting ourselves to get fooled over and over again with this completely counter-productive "counterterrorism" strategy which just creates more terrorists?

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Few, including Ron Paul, question the morality and justification of US involvement in WWII.  And victory, again just about all admit, required aerial bombardment of population centers.


Ever since WWII has been won, it has been used callously as a propaganda tool for the most horrific of actions.  Please don't do the same.  It is such an effective tool because the USA's nefarious actions in WWII are insulated from criticism by slimy insinuations that critics are "Nazis" or "supporting genocide", which clearly is dishonest but it doesn't matter.  A lot of Americans don't even realize that our involvement in WWII had absolutely nothing to do with "stopping the Holocaust".  And for you to use an _argumentum ad populum_ fallacy to present propaganda-induced groupthink as the truth is utterly disgusting.

----------


## PaleoPaul

The only issue I have here is that we created ISIS (or at least created the environment for them to form) like we created Al Qaeda.  We thought in both situations that arming "the militant rebels" in order for them to fight a present enemy would work.  Now, our chickens are coming home to roost...

----------


## jllundqu

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/03/ra...is-militarily/

From the DailyCaller:




> Rand Paul is often labeled by his critics an isolationist, but the Republican senator from Kentucky is now calling on President Obama to outline plans to use the military to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
> 
> If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress, Paul told the Associated Press. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.
> 
> Over the weekend, Paul, the AP reported, told a crowd of conservative activists in Texas at a summit organized by Americans for Prosperity that if the president has no strategy, maybe its time for a new president.
> 
> ISIS  or the Islamic State, as they now call themselves  is killing opponents as it takes lands in Syria and Iraq in an attempt to establish an Islamic caliphate. The Islamic State has also taken responsibility for the beheading of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.


It says he wants Obama to call a joint session to get "authorization" to attack ISIS....  WTF?  I know he's walking a tightrope here, but the Constitution is still the fu*king Constitution...  absent a fully constitutional and lawful process, anything that comes out of a joint session (like another friggin AUMF) is total BS.

Will be watching him very closely.

----------


## jllundqu

> The elephant in the room on all of these actual and proposed military solutions has been the lack of anyone talking about Congressional authorization or declarations of war. It's good that Rand made that part clear.
> 
> It would be good to see all of these short quotes in full context.


I would say that Rand has NOT made himself clear on this issue.  He just came out today and said it's "Time to destroy ISIS" and wants the President to call a joint session of Congress to get "Authorization" (notice he didn't say Declaration).  I don't care if all 535 members vote to give "authorization" it still has no legal basis in the Constitution (see Authorization to Use Military Force which has been abused and twisted to fit all possible definitions).

If they take this road, we should all be very worried since we saw how the last AUMF has been used for over a decade of perpetual war in many countries...

unintended consequences, Rand....  be careful.

----------


## jllundqu

> The only issue I have here is that we created ISIS (or at least created the environment for them to form) like we created Al Qaeda.  We thought in both situations that arming "the militant rebels" in order for them to fight a present enemy would work.  Now, our chickens are coming home to roost...


You Racist!!!  lol

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Thou shalt not question the Rand.

----------


## jllundqu

This is Drudged, btw

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> It says he wants Obama to call a joint session to get "authorization" to attack ISIS....  WTF?  I know he's walking a tightrope here, but the Constitution is still the fu*king Constitution...  absent a fully constitutional and lawful process, anything that comes out of a joint session (like another friggin AUMF) is total BS.
> 
> Will be watching him very closely.


Yeah, how often does that really matter to politicians nowadays? Politicians love to invade despite what the Constitution says, they like to regulate ways of life that aren't in the Constitution, and people love to fall back on "If it's not in the Constitution..." line when many politicians don't follow the document to a tee. It's nothing new. And I doubt the most hardcore neoconservative Republicans that are watching Paul are honestly going to care about Constitutional process versus the minority of liberty folks who will throw a fit. Not excusing it, but this isn't exactly new.

----------


## Vanguard101

A quick plan: Destroy ISIS within 6-8 months. If we cannot, we get the $#@! out.

----------


## dannno

Start by abolishing the CIA

----------


## Shane Harris

Keep flip-flopping Rand and you're going to end up with neither the hawks nor the doves supporting you.

----------


## georgiaboy

Even though on the surface it sounds super tough, Rand's given himself a lot of wiggle room with that comment.

There are several hurdles that would need to be jumped to actually "destroy ISIS militarily".

1. Define "destroy ISIS militarily".
2. Construct the reasoning for why ISIS is a threat to our national security.
3. Present this reasoning to joint Congress and the American people.
4. Get Congress to write the authorization bill, which would constitutionally require a declaration of war.
5. Get Congress to pass the bill.
6. As Commander-in-Chief, execute the bill as authorized.

Just like with the immigration situation where Rand required a secure border before voting to authorize any other reform, he's placing the roadblock securely in place that would keep him from ever having to actually "destroy ISIS militarily".

----------


## Shane Harris

I always thought Rand was too smart for this. Contradicts every good thing he's written on this issue in the past few weeks.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> You Racist!!!  lol


Oh come on here... in mythology ISIS is the "Goddess of health, marriage, and love".  Can't we warp this into being sexist too? 

-t

----------


## CaptUSA

It's the way to shake the "isolationist" tag they've been trying to lay on him.  I agree he should have said a declaration rather than authorization, but at least he's calling for it to be brought to Congress.  That's an idea that many consider passé.  This will win him some points with the GOP base.  From the comments I've been reading, he's got them all confused about where he stands.  They've been told by Fox that he's an isolationist and this doesn't fit.

We'll see how this plays out, but politically, it probably had to be done.  In the debates, he'll be able to say that his plan called for the end of ISIS in a Constitutional way.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

20/44 - READ!

-t

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

Has anyone seen this?




As is revealed in this video, ISIS is our fault. We unleashed these people on Iraq and Syria, I think it's our responsibility to put them in the ground.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Whatever Rand wants to do, we stand with him. Right?

----------


## Brett85

> If they take this road, we should all be very worried since we saw how the last AUMF has been used for over a decade of perpetual war in many countries...
> 
> unintended consequences, Rand....  be careful.


They should set an expiration date on the AUMF if they intend to pass one.  Make it expire on the last day of Obama's Presidency.  Then the new President would have to come back to Congress to get a new authorization if he or she felt that the air strikes were still necessary.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Whatever Rand wants to do, we stand with him. Right?


It sure seems like it, sadly.  This what happens when a political movement invests themselves too emotionally into a politician.  Look at all the Patriot Act opposing progressives who bought into the Obama hype and how they are in rabid defense mode of their guy regarding the NSA.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Mexico already has a Rothschild controlled western central bank.  That's why Mexico is of no concern.





> The people who believe this is all a scheme of the Rothschilds and the CIA are the ones ruining the liberty movement, not those eager to confront reality.


It's not a black and white, yes or no issue.

Depends upon what you mean by "Rothschilds". In addition to being a specific family name, it has also become a generic term for western global central bankers. That would include all of the banking and financial interests that are well known, and not hidden. They meet regularly, additionally, they have several large, official gatherings every year, and they will be reported on live on CNBC. It is not a secret conspiracy. It's all out in the open. And when nations without these western central banking interests are attacked, and central bankers are among the first to set up the new banking systems during nation building, it's more than coincidence. They are part of the plan. They are probably more prepared for the takeover than the military or the diplomats.

Are they the whole plan, and the only group with an agenda at play? Of course not. Convergent agendas generally result in enough momentum for war. And when swaying the public, the media is the key player.

As for the CIA, that is no secret either. They are always present to a certain extent in foreign conflicts. The only question is _how_ involved are they. That is where disagreements will occur. IMHO, they very likely were involved in training and supplying some of the people who are now part of ISIS, but they don't (can't) control them. Many of the current members of ISIS were part of the Iraqi army that the US trained, which is probably a much larger group than the people who had specialized insurgent and leadership training meant to be used against Assad.

----------


## Brett85

> It sure seems like it, sadly.  This what happens when a political movement invests themselves too emotionally into a politician.  Look at all the Patriot Act opposing progressives who bought into the Obama hype and how they are in rabid defense mode of their guy regarding the NSA.


I still disagree with some of Rand's foreign policy positions and will say so.  I disagree with him when it comes to sanctions against Iran, disagree with his support for keeping some foreign military bases open, disagree with a tough stance with Russia, I'm opposed to the U.S being in NATO and I doubt that Rand is, etc.  But in this particular situation it doesn't seem like military strikes go against libertarian or non interventionist principles.  I know you strongly disagree with that, but that's just my view.

----------


## CaptUSA

> It sure seems like it, sadly.


Yeah, I don't see it that way.  Even in this instance, Rand is putting up more roadblocks to intervention than any other politician in the game.  I am under no illusions that Rand is a pure candidate, but damn...  He's probably the closest thing in my lifetime that will ever have a chance at the Presidency.  That bully pulpit is important.  Not only that, he has the potential of breaking the current two-party system.

I tend to see things in the big picture instead of myopically.  Am I willing to give up the momentum we are gaining towards liberty because one candidate didn't futilely try to put the brakes on intervention fast enough?

----------


## kylejack

A President doesn't need to put up roadblocks to intervention, they can simply not intervene. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, after all.

----------


## tommyrp12

Why couldn't he just say, if ISIS attacks he will ask for a declaration from congress ,would that be to difficult, if he wanted to sound like a war hawk without actually being one? It isn't like congress would say no.

----------


## Crashland

> See, this is why most "libertarianism" today is so pathetic?  Yes, these things ARE anti-libertarian.  Or at least, anti-LIBERTY.  I'm getting sick of the "libertarian" term , since people like you can claim it.  Anybody can claim it these days.


It should be against the law to recklessly endanger other peoples lives, which is what drunk driving is. How is that not a legitimate use of government, especially at the state/local level?

----------


## jllundqu

An interesting piece:

http://www.infowars.com/gen-mcinerne...ed-build-isis/




> During an appearance on Fox News, *General Thomas McInerney acknowledged that the United States helped build ISIS as a result of the group obtaining weapons from the Benghazi consulate in Libya which was attacked by jihadists in September 2012.*
> 
> Asked what he thought of the idea of arming so-called moderate Syrian rebels after FSA militants kidnapped UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, McInerney said the policy had been a failure.
> 
> We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and thats a little confusing to people, so Ive always maintained.that we were backing the wrong types. 
> 
> McInerney then made reference to a Bret Baier Fox News special set to air on Friday which will, *show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS  so we helped build ISIS, said* 
> 
> In May last year, Senator Rand Paul was one of the first to speculate that the truth behind Benghazi was linked to an illicit arms smuggling program that saw weapons being trafficked to terrorists in Syria as part of the United States proxy war against the Assad regime. 
> ...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> They can say whatever they want, but the fact is they pose no more threat to the US than any other two-bit Jihadist group. That is, they pose no military threat whatsoever (yes they have some military capabilities, unlike other groups, but they can't get here), but they may be able to launch piddly terrorist attacks at some point. And as for those possible terrorist attacks, the only way to reduce the risk of their occurrence is better intelligence, border security, and ordinary police work - military intervention overseas is a completely futile and counter-productive anti-terrorism strategy. 
> 
> It is not the US government's responsibility to protect American citizens outside US jurisdiction - you travel at your own risk
> 
> It is not the US government's responsibility to protect American property outside US jurisdiction - you do business overseas at your own risk
> 
> Which is atrocious but in no way threatens US national security


Agree.

And this thread goes into some of the details of the extreme risk that Steven Sotloff took.




> It appears that Steven Sotloff did a very foolish thing, even in the eyes of the most experienced war corespondents and operatives.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-a-Marked-Man

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Yeah, I don't see it that way.  Even in this instance, Rand is putting up more roadblocks to intervention than any other politician in the game.  I am under no illusions that Rand is a pure candidate, but damn...  He's probably the closest thing in my lifetime that will ever have a chance at the Presidency.  That bully pulpit is important.  Not only that, he has the potential of breaking the current two-party system.
> 
> I tend to see things in the big picture instead of myopically.  Am I willing to give up the momentum we are gaining towards liberty because one candidate didn't futilely try to put the brakes on intervention fast enough?


Rand isn't just "one candidate".  He is *the* candidate to many here.

I also think you are misrepresenting my position.  I really have no idea what Rand truly supports, and I don't pretend to.  What I see is a general migration of posters here to Rand's stated position on anything simply because they are so emotionally invested in Rand.  And I would imagine a lot of these same people first came here because they support non-intervention.  Now when Rand says something, they are looking for what I'll call "non-interventionist waivers", stemming from cognitive dissonance of supporting Rand while being a non-interventionist.  I believe this cognitive dissonance really need not exist because Rand is still the least offensive option, even if he continues to offer up hawkish platitudes.

I defend my own position by saying that I am not a dogmatic non-interventionist (I try to perceive the mechanisms of reality and assess from there), nor a follow-Rand-off-the-cliff lemming.  Maybe this is cause I'm not as black and white as a lot of people here are.  If you're going to call that "myopic" then be my guest.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Start by abolishing the CIA


Detach your body from your brain.

There are very good parts and very bad parts to that organisation.  Dissection should be the rule of the day.

-t

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Open-source intelligence should be the way of the future but the MIC hates it because they can no longer overcharge, sell useless goods and services, and commit nefarious deeds under the veil of secrecy.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> A quick plan: Destroy ISIS within 6-8 months. If we cannot, we get the $#@! out.


On a somewhat related note I have an idea for curing cancer.  We should all collectively bang our heads on the wall for 6-8 months and if the cure for cancer is not found, then stop.

----------


## orenbus

> I still disagree with some of Rand's foreign policy positions and will say so.  I disagree with him when it comes to sanctions against Iran, disagree with his support for keeping some foreign military bases open, disagree with a tough stance with Russia, I'm opposed to the U.S being in NATO and I doubt that Rand is, etc.  But in this particular situation it doesn't seem like military strikes go against libertarian or non interventionist principles.  I know you strongly disagree with that, but that's just my view.


Out of curiosity, why in your view do you think this is the exception?

----------


## Carlybee

> A quick plan: Destroy ISIS within 6-8 months. If we cannot, we get the $#@! out.


Oh kinda like when we were going to destroy al queda in Iraq and gtfo.

----------


## asurfaholic

I strongly disapprove of any of this talk about more military intervention. We are never going to wack all the moles, its time to stop feeding them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I still disagree with some of Rand's foreign policy positions and will say so.  I disagree with him when it comes to sanctions against Iran, disagree with his support for keeping some foreign military bases open, disagree with a tough stance with Russia, I'm opposed to the U.S being in NATO and I doubt that Rand is, etc.  But in this particular situation it doesn't seem like military strikes go against libertarian or non interventionist principles.  I know you strongly disagree with that, but that's just my view.


I don't know about 'libertarian' or not, but you can't just launch attacks without a DOW.  An AUMF is a legal fiction that allows them to violate the Constitution.  M&R they can do, a DOW they can do (although M&R makes way more sense), but an AUMF backed by attacks?  That would be a violation of the US Constitution.

----------


## Carlybee

> Detach your body from your brain.
> 
> There are very good parts and very bad parts 
> 
> -t



Mostly bad

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't know about 'libertarian' or not, but you can't just launch attacks without a DOW.  An AUMF is a legal fiction that allows them to violate the Constitution.  M&R they can do, a DOW they can do (although M&R makes way more sense), but an AUMF backed by attacks?  That would be a violation of the US Constitution.


I don't think the current leaders care about violating the Constitition

----------


## orenbus

Lot of people in this thread sounding like Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol.  /smh

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't think the current leaders care about violating the Constitition


Aye, thus our overall problem.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Rand isn't just "one candidate".  He is *the* candidate to many here.
> ...
> I defend my own position by saying that I am not a dogmatic non-interventionist (I try to perceive the mechanisms of reality and assess from there), nor a follow-Rand-off-the-cliff lemming.  Maybe this is cause I'm not as black and white as a lot of people here are.  If you're going to call that "myopic" then be my guest.


+rep

-t

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

20/44

-t

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Ever since WWII has been won, it has been used callously as a propaganda tool for the most horrific of actions.  Please don't do the same.  It is such an effective tool because the USA's nefarious actions in WWII are insulated from criticism by slimy insinuations that critics are "Nazis" or "supporting genocide", which clearly is dishonest but it doesn't matter.  A lot of Americans don't even realize that our involvement in WWII had absolutely nothing to do with "stopping the Holocaust".  And for you to use an _argumentum ad populum_ fallacy to present propaganda-induced groupthink as the truth is utterly disgusting.


It is used as an example of a war that had to be fought, was fully and openly declared, and in which the good guys won.  I asked a question regarding civilian casualties in that war, because someone had posted about civilian casualties as if that phenomenon is a solid argument against war.  I didn't mention the Holocaust, because to me, it doesn't affect foreign policy making.  How other nations treat us, not their own populations, is the key foreign policy variable.  

And I'll note that you didn't even have the decency to answer the question: Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Unless your answer is "No", then from a balance-of-power viewpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on by citing civilian casualties in the Levant.  To achieve high political goals, sometimes nations must wage war.  When nations wage war, civilians die.  Now, saying civilian casualties in Germany is unacceptable doesn't make you a Nazi, or genocidal.  But it does make you okay with Germany likely winning that war, and taking over the whole of Europe.

I don't, as a general rule, make moral judgments in foreign policy.  I am concerned with US interests.  Nobody, not even Dr Paul _pere_, thinks that Germany winning the war would have furthered US interests.  At which point the choice becomes accepting a diminution of US interests on behalf of a morality that our opponent did not (and in the current case, does not) share, or accepting civilian casualties.

That such a notion disgusts you only marks you as something other than real about such matters...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Few, including Ron Paul, question the morality and justification of US involvement in WWII.  And victory, again just about all admit, required aerial bombardment of population centers.
> 
> Trust me, I understand the allure of black-and-white.  But when dealing with matters of war and peace, of national security and international relations and diplomacy, there is an awful lot of grey area.  And skeptical though I am of US involvement in the Middle East at this point, a group of the most nihilistic thugs that Arabia has to offer wielding the power of a state, openly declaring war on the US, committing atrocities of the worst sort, publishing videos documenting these atrocities as propaganda, brought about largely because of the instability brought to the region courtesy of US firepower and poorly thought through foreign policy, gives me pause to review where things stand.
> 
> Grey areas.  Lots of grey...


Ron Paul implied in "End the Fed" that he wasn't OK with WWII.  But whether he was or not, it doesn't matter.  WWII was morally wrong.  And the civilian casualties that occurred within were murderous.

----------


## orenbus

Here is my problem with escalating military action, even if all we are talking is more air strikes in Syria in some sort of quasi undeclared but authorized war. It won't work.

Think about it this way, if what they in the media are saying is correct that this Islamic State (IS) is a greater threat than Al Qaeda (AQ) would we not approach it at least at minimum with the same level of response as we did AQ in Afghanistan by sending our troops in? The threat comparison would almost require that we send in troops and use every means in the arsenal to appropriately neutralize the threat no? Especially if it's true that IS is of greater immediate threat to national security. 

Also if air strikes alone wasn't enough to take care of AQ why do you think it would work this time with IS? What the "experts" are discussing right now in the media is that we just use air strikes and then fund the "moderate" (as if their are any moderate) forces in and around Syria/Iraq/Libya, basically we would support them and attack from the air. Why do we think that those "moderate" forces will be successful against IS when an Iraq army that we had built up, armed, and trained for years couldn't stop them?

My long view on this is if we decide to escalate things we will find many months from now that the strategy isn't working, that we can maybe contain but not neutralize IS and that without troops on the ground IS will not be any closer to being destroyed. What does this mean? It means we'll be again invested in a war where the media and the "experts" will say we have no other choice, but to send our troops in to deal with the issue at hand devolving into another decade at the cost of more blood and treasure and with the added bonus of having killed hundreds of thousands more innocents in the process and generating more hatred for the U.S. and possibly as we are finding out now, not having resolved a thing.

Sounds like a great idea, what could go wrong?

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Ron Paul implied in "End the Fed" that he wasn't OK with WWII.  But whether he was or not, it doesn't matter.  WWII was morally wrong.  And the civilian casualties that occurred within were murderous.


We were attacked by one nation, and had one nation, the supreme industrial power in Europe, declare war on us.  Nations, that by the way, had an undeniable desire and ability to invade, occupy, and subjugate other sovereign nations.   If you think that our entry into that war was morally wrong, given those circumstances, then you really don't get the nature of politics and the nation-state.

Once again, when the bombs start falling on people, those people will find someone who will, above anything else, make the bombs stop falling.  In that case, war was brought to us.  Now, you may argue that circumstances are different in the Levant, and you would on some levels be right, not the least of which would be the fact that we brought instability to the region, something we never did in Europe or Japan.  But to argue immorality, given a premeditated attack and on open declaration of war is laughable and worthy of ridicule...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> We were attacked by one nation, and had one nation, the supreme industrial power in Europe, declare war on us.  Nations, that by the way, had an undeniable desire and ability to invade, occupy, and subjugate other sovereign nations.   If you think that our entry into that war was morally wrong, given those circumstances, then you really don't get the nature of politics and the nation-state.
> 
> Once again, when the bombs start falling on people, those people will find someone who will, above anything else, make the bombs stop falling.  In that case, war was brought to us.  Now, you may argue that circumstances are different in the Levant, and you would on some levels be right, not the least of which would be the fact that we brought instability to the region, something we never did in Europe or Japan.  But to argue immorality, given a premeditated attack and on open declaration of war is laughable and worthy of ridicule...




From the "American Atrocities" article I linked yesterday:




> The American government has repeatedly required its military to violate God’s commandment, “You
> shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Let us look at a few specific examples. 
> On December 7, 1941, men in the Japanese military committed murder against men in the American
> military at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Hatred against those of Japanese descent increased. The commander
> of the Pacific forces, Admiral William F. Halsey, said to a press conference in 1944, “The only good
> Jap is a Jap who’s been dead six months.” He added, “When we get to Tokyo ... we'll have a little
> celebration where Tokyo was.” Halsey's motto was, “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs!” 
> The American military began firebombing cities in Japan, including Tokyo, in February of 1945.
> Firebombing was a tactic in which clusters of incendiary bombs created a firestorm in which the air
> ...



http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.pdf

(Note that the above quoted segment is not the entire article.)

I think the above pretty much speaks for itself.  I don't see any real need to comment on it.  Did the US have the right to defend itself against the Japanese military after Pearl Harbor?  Yes.  Did the US have the right to engage in total war against civilians?  No.  And in doing so, they lost any moral superiority they might otherwise have had.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> It is used as an example of a war that had to be fought, was fully and openly declared, and in which the good guys won.  I asked a question regarding civilian casualties in that war, because someone had posted about civilian casualties as if that phenomenon is a solid argument against war.  I didn't mention the Holocaust, because to me, it doesn't affect foreign policy making.  How other nations treat us, not their own populations, is the key foreign policy variable.  
> 
> And I'll note that you didn't even have the decency to answer the question: Were civilian casualties justified in the bombing of German cities?  Unless your answer is "No", then from a balance-of-power viewpoint, you don't have a leg to stand on by citing civilian casualties in the Levant.  To achieve high political goals, sometimes nations must wage war.  When nations wage war, civilians die.  Now, saying civilian casualties in Germany is unacceptable doesn't make you a Nazi, or genocidal.  But it does make you okay with Germany likely winning that war, and taking over the whole of Europe.
> 
> I don't, as a general rule, make moral judgments in foreign policy.  I am concerned with US interests.  Nobody, not even Dr Paul _pere_, thinks that Germany winning the war would have furthered US interests.  At which point the choice becomes accepting a diminution of US interests on behalf of a morality that our opponent did not (and in the current case, does not) share, or accepting civilian casualties.
> 
> That such a notion disgusts you only marks you as something other than real about such matters...


The people you call the "good guys" (the Allied Powers) led to far more civilian deaths than the Nazis.  Hell, even Eisenhower's death camps were responsible for the deaths of a million German civilians *after* the Germans unconditionally surrendered.

You really need to get over the blatantly false notion that there were "good guys" in WWII.  The entire basis of your argument is rooted in post-war patriotardic propaganda.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The people you call the "good guys" (the Allied Powers) led to far more civilian deaths than the Nazis.  Hell, even Eisenhower's death camps were responsible for the deaths of a million German civilians *after* the Germans unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> You really need to get over the blatantly false notion that there were "good guys" in WWII.  The entire basis of your argument is flawed through your post-war propaganda viewpoint.


Could you post some numbers here?  I agree with the point, there were no "good guys" but I am curious what the numbers say about casualty counts.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> From the "American Atrocities" article I linked yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.pdf
> 
> 
> I think the above pretty much speaks for itself.  I don't see any real need to comment on it.  Did the US have the right to defend itself against the Japanese military after Pearl Harbor?  Yes.  Did the US have the right to engage in total war against civilians?  No.  And in doing so, they lost any moral superiority they might otherwise have had.


The above only speaks for itself if you consider the author some sort of untouchable authority on the morality of war and peace.  I'm not even sure I would grant Aquinas that authority, much less an author that thinks that US policy emanated from Bull Halsey.

You keep referring to "moral superiority" and "morality", as if "victory" and "vital national interest" are somehow secondary considerations.  For foreign policy makers, and especially for heads of state, they are not.  And when discussing the political process under which war and peace are waged, you might want to keep that in mind...

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> The people you call the "good guys" (the Allied Powers) led to far more civilian deaths than the Nazis.  Hell, even Eisenhower's death camps were responsible for the deaths of a million German civilians *after* the Germans unconditionally surrendered.
> 
> You really need to get over the blatantly false notion that there were "good guys" in WWII.  The entire basis of your argument is rooted in post-war patriotardic propaganda.


Planning on having that as the slogan of your candidate for POTUS? 

You will, of course, let us know how that works out for you...?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Rand's proposal for an open debate on war would involve:

1) cost of war in dollars
2) how many will die? Injured?
3) goals of war. When do we win?
4) length of war
5) causes of war
6) negotiation alternatives
7) issue of US foreign aid flowing to ISIS
8) Benghazi and weapons trafficking
9) why are journalists captured in Syria getting beheaded in Iraq?
10) Is 2 be-headings worth a war?
11) Should a journalist like Foley constantly put himself in harms way? What obligation does the nation have to risk-taking reporters?
12) people might find out we have not declared war since 1943.
13) people might read the Constitution.
14) can Iraq really have a democracy of democratic republic?
15) Is Winston Churchill as fault for drawing arbitrary nation-lines in 1918?
16) can religious liberty be established in Iraq?
17) does the Iraqi constitution provide a for all groups?
18) is oil a factor?
19) is Israel a factor?
20) other.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The above only speaks for itself if you consider the author some sort of untouchable authority on the morality of war and peace.  I'm not even sure I would grant Aquinas that authority, much less an author that thinks that US policy emanated from Bull Halsey.
> 
> You keep referring to "moral superiority" and "morality", as if "victory" and "vital national interest" are somehow secondary considerations.  For foreign policy makers, and especially for heads of state, they are not.  And when discussing the political process under which war and peace are waged, you might want to keep that in mind...


The ARGUMENTS speak for themselves.  It has nothing to do with the author.




> Planning on having that as the slogan of your candidate for POTUS? 
> 
> You will, of course, let us know how that works out for you...?


Who cares?

----------


## presence

> Originally Posted by *69360*  
> 
>  				A ship full of pirates is one thing, almost  100k IS fighters with heavy weapons and SAMs is another. _Who_ exactly is  the US going to give these letters to that is equipped to deal with IS?


_Why_ is it that no one is equipped to deal with it?   Big government solutions because all other solutions have been outlawed.

----------


## Brett85

> Out of curiosity, why in your view do you think this is the exception?


I've explained before that I think this should be an exception because I view military strikes in this situation as being an act of self defense.  ISIS has beheaded two Americans and broadcast it to the world, they've openly declared that their goal is to attack America and kill Americans, they have millions of dollars of funding and are expanding across the Middle East, they're beheading children and are the most evil people on the entire planet, and they have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and attack us.  This isn't a typical intervention.  A typical intervention is "take out a dictator that poses no threat to our national security, put in place our own preferred dictator or President, and watch while that country gets overrun by violent extremists and chaos ensues."

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> The ARGUMENTS speak for themselves.  It has nothing to do with the author.
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?


The American electorate and the Congress they elect, and the military that answers, in part, to that Congress, all care...

----------


## orenbus

> they're beheading children


Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.

----------


## MaxHen

> I've explained before that I think this should be an exception because I view military strikes in this situation as being an act of self defense.  ISIS has beheaded two Americans and broadcast it to the world, they've openly declared that their goal is to attack America and kill Americans, they have millions of dollars of funding and are expanding across the Middle East, they're beheading children and are the most evil people on the entire planet, and they have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and attack us.  This isn't a typical intervention.  A typical intervention is "take out a dictator that poses no threat to our national security, put in place our own preferred dictator or President, and watch while that country gets overrun by violent extremists and chaos ensues."


Do you have any evidence that ISIS has made any advance or otherwise expanded their territory recently?

How is bombing them going to prevent them from attacking us? If they do try and attack, it would be through a small number of people attempting a 9/11-style terrorist attack. Going over there and bombing them isn't going to prevent that.

You bring up the fact that they have a lot of funding. Think - where is it coming from? I'll tell you where: The wallets of extremely wealthy donors in Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc. They are not going to stop funding ISIS because we bomb them. You're assuming that ISIS has a finite pool of resources that can just be whittled down eventually via airstrikes. Rather, they have a continuous funding stream that will continue no matter how much we bomb them. Thinking we can bomb ISIS out of existence is like trying to drink a river. No matter how much we bomb, the money will keep flowing in from the Gulf and new fighters will keep flowing in from the ongoing conflict in Syria, in addition to other countries. Foolishly attempting to try and "destroy" or "annihilate" them is a great way to get us bogged down in Iraq (and possibly Syria if the interventionists have their way) for years to come.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Planning on having that as the slogan of your candidate for POTUS? 
> 
> You will, of course, let us know how that works out for you...?


I'm not running for POTUS and neither are you.  There is no reason why, on an open discussion board, posters should talk like they are.  I'll leave that for the politicians to do while I try to get to the truth.

----------


## mac_hine

"Letters of Marque won't solve the problem of ISIS, and neither will non-intervention. Eventually the threat of radical Islam will have to be faced, one way or another. Yes, the neocons gave us this crisis, but it will be up to the libertarian movement that is taking their place to solve it. Otherwise, a terrified nation will give new life to the neoconservative cause just as we are chiseling their epitaph. 

We will need to have a credible strategy that both respects human rights, while recognizing the true nature of weaponized religion that must be dealt with through the use of force far greater than a simple strike team. This won't be as simple as a bullet in the eye and a burial at sea."  

~Austin Peterson, Libertarian

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do you have any evidence that ISIS has made any advance or otherwise expanded their territory recently?
> 
> How is bombing them going to prevent them from attacking us? If they do try and attack, it would be through a small number of people attempting a 9/11-style terrorist attack. Going over there and bombing them isn't going to prevent that.
> 
> You bring up the fact that they have a lot of funding. Think - where is it coming from? I'll tell you where: The wallets of extremely wealthy donors in Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, etc. They are not going to stop funding ISIS because we bomb them. You're assuming that ISIS has a finite pool of resources that can just be whittled down eventually via airstrikes. Rather, they have a continuous funding stream that will continue no matter how much we bomb them. Thinking we can bomb ISIS out of existence is like trying to drink a river. No matter how much we bomb, the money will keep flowing in from the Gulf and new fighters will keep flowing in from the ongoing conflict in Syria, in addition to other countries. Foolishly attempting to try and "destroy" or annihilate" them is a great way to get us bogged down in Iraq (and possibly Syria if the interventionists have their way) for years to come.


Yes, Iraq War 3 will probably be just about as decisive as Iraq Wars 1 & 2 were.  So at the end of the day what's the point?  Even from a consequentialist perspective, all these wars are showing diminishing returns.  If we keep doing things the way we've done them the last 25 years, we will continue to beg the same outcomes.  Will we be here ten years later arguing about Iraq War 4, because #3 didn't quite turn the trick either?

How about we change the entire paradigm and explain how assuming that the IS is a threat, there is a better and a properly Constitutional way to stop it?  Stop the cycle of blowback by starting to operate right from this point forward.  Make people realize that the 'way forward' for the government is _always_ to 'obey the Constitution,' and our work in the future as a movement will get a lot easier.  The more the people see obeying the Constitution as a good thing, the more they will actually elect people that do it.  That will create a much more liberty friendly environment, and the flourishing of liberty is basically always accompanied by general prosperity.

So it primes the pump to create a cycle that feeds itself, pushing the voters towards preferring constitutionalist solutions.  

Point being, don't just say "you are wrong and they are not a threat," instead say, "if they do pose a legitimate threat, then this is the proper way to handle it."  Our platform provides people with _solutions_ to current problems, it is not helpful to be the source providing the electorate with a bunch of new problems.  Voters vote for people who bring them solutions, and not for people who keep bringing them new problems.

----------


## Brett85

> Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.


http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/grap...-graphic.html/

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> I'm not running for POTUS and neither are you.  There is no reason why, on an open discussion board, posters should talk like they are.  I'll leave that for the politicians to do while I try to get to the truth.


You're the one claiming that the Allies killed more people than the Nazis, as ridiculous a quote as I have come across.  Perhaps you'd care to offer some evidence for that?  Because I can offer lots of evidence of millions of victims of the Nazis.

But that is a bit beside the point.  We may not be running for POTUS, but do you really think that such sentiments as the US government and its allies were worse than the Nazis somehow helps the cause of Liberty?  Because if you really believe these things, put the crack pipe down...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've explained before that I think this should be an exception because I view military strikes in this situation as being an act of self defense.  ISIS has beheaded two Americans and broadcast it to the world, they've openly declared that their goal is to attack America and kill Americans, they have millions of dollars of funding and are expanding across the Middle East, they're beheading children and *are the most evil people on the entire planet,* and they have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and attack us.  This isn't a typical intervention.  A typical intervention is "take out a dictator that poses no threat to our national security, put in place our own preferred dictator or President, and watch while that country gets overrun by violent extremists and chaos ensues."


I'd STRONGLY contest the claim that ISIS are the most evil people on the planet.  The US President and abortion doctors immediately come to mind as people who are more evil than ISIS is.  

Mind you, I'm not saying ISIS is anything but evil, but they are not THE most evil.




> The American electorate and the Congress they elect, and the military that answers, in part, to that Congress, all care...





> I'm not running for POTUS and neither are you.  There is no reason why, on an open discussion board, posters should talk like they are.  I'll leave that for the politicians to do while I try to get to the truth.


This.  I don't care about the electoral implications.  I don't play those games.  I want to talk about morality, and about why some here apparently think murder of civilians is OK.




> You're the one claiming that the Allies killed more people than the Nazis, as ridiculous a quote as I have come across.  Perhaps you'd care to offer some evidence for that?  Because I can offer lots of evidence of millions of victims of the Nazis.
> 
> But that is a bit beside the point.  We may not be running for POTUS, but do you really think that such sentiments as the US government and its allies were worse than the Nazis somehow helps the cause of Liberty?  Because if you really believe these things, put the crack pipe down...


I think education is important.  He didn't say the Allies were "worse", he said that the Allies killed more people and that there were no "good guys."  which is clearly correct.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> You're the one claiming that the Allies killed more people than the Nazis, as ridiculous a quote as I have come across.  Perhaps you'd care to offer some evidence for that?  Because I can offer lots of evidence of millions of victims of the Nazis.


One word: Stalin.

Game, set, match.



> But that is a bit beside the point.  We may not be running for POTUS, but do you really think that such sentiments as the US government and its allies were worse than the Nazis somehow helps the cause of Liberty?  Because if you really believe these things, put the crack pipe down...


The media is the single most powerful instrument in a democracy or republic in today's day and age so until the grip of statist propaganda is released from the throat of America, it will be very difficult to achieve meaningful change.  I for one would never be here if I didn't come to the realization that so much so-called common knowledge is a lie.  If you think that supporting politicians alone can bring meaningful change then I've got a bridge to sell you.  People need to *wake up!*  Lecturing people about abstract concepts like Austrian economics or the slippery slope of our surveillance state is rarely going to turn them into supporters of liberty.

----------


## devil21

> Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.


TC mistyped.  He meant to type "throwing babies out of incubators".  

The link posted as evidence is laughable because if you click through the blog commentary bs to the actual source articles, the 'proof' is a couple pictures of headless children that could literally have come from anywhere.  Even Gaza after an IAF bombing.  Graphic photos yes but far from anything resembling proof of the claim made.

----------


## twomp

> TC mistyped.  He meant to type "throwing babies out of incubators".  
> 
> The link posted as evidence is laughable because if you click through the blog commentary bs to the actual source articles, the 'proof' is a couple pictures of headless children that could literally have come from anywhere.  Even Gaza after an IAF bombing.  Graphic photos yes but far from anything resembling proof of the claim made.


TC has morphed into the John McCain and Sean Hannity of these forums. Fear mongering and throwing out apocalyptic words without any factual evidence behind them. Even using the beheading of 2 American journalists is circumstantial since the video they were killed it seems staged by a large number of people. Even if that were the case, ISIS didn't start cutting of their heads till AFTER Obama started making it rain bombs. IF TC really cared about those journalists, he would have advocated an end to the bombings after the first beheading. They even said on the video, stop bombing and we won't cut this other guys head off. But NOOOOO the bombings kept coming and the second guy was killed.

Now all of a sudden, those 2 killings are used as justifications for EVEN more bombings. I bet once ISIS kills more Americans, TC will start saying, its time for ground troops. Want the blow back to stop? Listen to the video and stop the bombings.

----------


## twomp

> Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.


Isn't it funny how TC cares about the children dying IF ISIS does the killing but if our air strikes kill them, it was just collateral damage. They would have grown up to be terrorists anyways. Translation: ISIS killing children = bad. TC's airstrikes killing children = good.

----------


## devil21

CIA and the Media - Carl Bernstein 1977
http://danwismar.com/uploads/Bernste...nd%20Media.htm

----------


## extortion17

Thanks for this youtube . . . so it happened



> 




this is the MIC . . . Woodward Bernstein type of stuff

so the local stations/channels so choose to air it, they should tell their viewers with a disclaimer hahahaha LOL ROTFLMAO

create any dis-information campaign you need to accomplish anything

it's the internet era baby  - WWIII is gonna be funnnnnnn.

----------


## orenbus

> Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.





> http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/grap...-graphic.html/


Been doing some research on whether there is enough factual evidence to support the claim that "IS has beheaded children" being made by Satya D or Mark Arabo "spokesperson for the Iraqi Chaldean community in San Diego County." I haven't been able to find anything conclusive from a reliable source or what would be considered independent confirmation from legitimate sources. Here are some quotes and links questioning the veracity of the claims, let me know if the questions posed against the claims are wrong and why.




> If Arabo was able to get news of such atrocities in San Diego, why has no one else heard stories of this ongoing tragedy?
> ...
> One of the pictures that Catholic Online includes — and that has become ubiquitous on social media — shows a baby with three rifles pointed at his head (see image above). While the image is outrageous, it was not a photo taken of ISIS in northern Iraq.
> 
> The photo originally appeared online April 11, 2014 on the Facebook page of a person from Yemen. Numerous people on that page attest that the clothes the child is wearing are obviously Yemeni. A few days later, though, the image started popping up on pro-Syrian Army websites claiming that it was an Armenian child who was taken by Syrian rebels. Whatever the original context for the photo, we know based on the date alone that it was not recently taken in Mosul or northern Iraq.
> 
> While it is possible that children are being beheaded by ISIS in Iraq, there is currently no credible evidence to support that claim. We should pray this report turn out to be just rumor and that whatever other crimes are being committed, that God is sparing the children of Iraq from “systematic beheading.”
> 
> *As Christians, we have a duty to champion the truth. We should avoid spreading unsubstantiated claims and inflaming dread and panic by playing on people’s natural disgust of harm to children. ISIS is an organization that has committed heinous acts of violence and violated the human rights of many of our fellow believers. But we must not partake in the spreading of lies, even if it is against our enemies.*


http://thegospelcoalition.org/articl...ildren-in-iraq




> Given the problematic nature of timely and accurate reporting from war-torn areas, the reluctance of inhabitants of those areas to put themselves in harm's way by openly speaking of what they've witnessed, the anecdotal nature of many such accounts, and the potential political motivations for various parties to demonize their opponents by promulgating false or less-than-accurate information, it's difficult at this point to accurately assess to what extent ISIS forces have been executing civilian children, whether they have specifically targeted Christian children (more so than any other non-Muslim or non-Sunni adherents), and how many (if any) of such executions have taken the form of beheadings.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/isis.asp




> EDITOR'S NOTE: Claims that ISIS has been beheading children has been largely reported in mainstream and social media. But upon further investigation, CBN News has been unable to confirm the veracity of this specific claim.


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...ing-Children-/

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> [WWII] is used as an example of a war that had to be fought, was fully and openly declared, and in which the good guys won.


You mean the Soviets?

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> You mean the Soviets?


Better them than the Nazis.  

And we got the last laugh.  Putin notwithstanding...

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't really see the nazis as "worse' than the commies.  Both were evil.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> One word: Stalin.
> 
> Game, set, match.
> 
> The media is the single most powerful instrument in a democracy or republic in today's day and age so until the grip of statist propaganda is released from the throat of America, it will be very difficult to achieve meaningful change.  I for one would never be here if I didn't come to the realization that so much so-called common knowledge is a lie.  If you think that supporting politicians alone can bring meaningful change then I've got a bridge to sell you.  People need to *wake up!*  Lecturing people about abstract concepts like Austrian economics or the slippery slope of our surveillance state is rarely going to turn them into supporters of liberty.


The Nazis started a war in which 20 million Russians died, some of them in gas chambers.  Not even Stalin killed that many.

Oh, and your disregard for the power of the American electorate is duly noted.  Try to keep that in mind the next time you find yourself whining about losing elections...

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> I don't really see the nazis as "worse' than the commies.  Both were evil.


Once again, feel free to put that forward as your candidate's slogan.  I'm willing to bet Rand Paul, and the old man, would think you were a fool for doing so...

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> The Nazis started a war in which *20 million* Russians died, some of them in gas chambers.  *Not even Stalin killed that many.*


Even mainstream UK rags say Stalin killed more people than Hitler.  I don't know what alternate reality you live in where Stalin is a "good guy", but I'm glad I'm not part of it.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I do agree with one aspect of WWII, when you go to war, you go to war. You don't play around, you look to annihilate the enemy in total until you have complete submission, that is the function of war. 

What we are doing and have done since WWII, is like smacking someone and telling them to be good. This doesn't work.

You can say they killed x number of journalists, or slaughtered children, or shot innocents in cars, what difference does it make if you are just going to bomb a few there and a few here, and their sons grow up to hate the "great satan" all over again. Nope I'm done with it, 100% done with it. We don't "Fix" or "Destroy" any threat, we just hobble it for a few years (if that, ISIS popped up almost immediately after IRAQ), that's it, and now we want to go smack the bee hive yet again. 

Screw that, if someone or a group is really such a dangerous threat to you or your family (country), you kill it and you don't stop until the threat is gone. That's war, that's its function, but we have this notion that beatings create compliance. It's perverse, and doesn't work on the micro scale, and doesn't work on the macro either. 

That's my opinion of it. Or you can just keep it going for another 20 years. 

And I'm not saying I want full out war today, not at all, I'm saying let the middle east take care of their family issues in house if possible, and if it does happen that ISIS creates a functional islamic state and attacks us in a real way, then you go in and wage some $#@!ing war, and that means just like WWII, carpet bombing indiscriminatly, flame throwers, executing ISIS soldiers so as not to capture. Full out war. Why do it like this, because after that is done, they may hate you, they may wish you dead, but they will not dare move, and if you get some nutters wanting a new jihad after that the memories will be fresh and real of what the consequence would be and they will be put down by their own. 

Sodom anyone.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> I do agree with one aspect of WWII, when you go to war, you go to war. You don't play around, you look to annihilate the enemy in total until you have complete submission, that is the function of war. 
> 
> What we are doing and have done since WWII, is like smacking someone and telling them to be good. This doesn't work.
> 
> You can say they killed x number of journalists, or slaughtered children, or shot innocents in cars, what difference does it make if you are just going to bomb a few there and a few here, and their sons grow up to hate the "great satan" all over again. Nope I'm done with it, 100% done with it. We don't "Fix" or "Destroy" any threat, we just hobble it for a few years (if that, ISIS popped up almost immediately after IRAQ), that's it, and now we want to go smack the bee hive yet again. 
> 
> Screw that, if someone or a group is really such a dangerous threat to you or your family (country), you kill it and you don't stop until the threat is gone. That's war, that's its function, but we have this notion that beatings create compliance. It's perverse, and doesn't work on the micro scale, and doesn't work on the macro either. 
> 
> That's my opinion of it. Or you can just keep it going for another 20 years. 
> ...


Yes, war should be an "on-off" switch, not a dial. When we go to war we need to go to war all out, even if that means throwing our nuclear arsenal around. If we did this, guess what, we'd get a lot fewer wars. Even the mention that we might be considering war would have any enemies of ours running for the hills. And I guarantee the civilian populations in the middle east would hand over any jihadi's in their country on a silver platter.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Even mainstream UK rags say Stalin killed more people than Hitler.  I don't know what alternate reality you live in where Stalin is a "good guy", but I'm glad I'm not part of it.


The Daily Fail?  Seriously?

Try showing your work.  Until then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...e_Soviet_Union

some light reading for ya...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I do agree with one aspect of WWII, when you go to war, you go to war. You don't play around, you look to annihilate the enemy in total until you have complete submission, that is the function of war. 
> 
> What we are doing and have done since WWII, is like smacking someone and telling them to be good. This doesn't work.
> 
> You can say they killed x number of journalists, or slaughtered children, or shot innocents in cars, what difference does it make if you are just going to bomb a few there and a few here, and their sons grow up to hate the "great satan" all over again. Nope I'm done with it, 100% done with it. We don't "Fix" or "Destroy" any threat, we just hobble it for a few years (if that, ISIS popped up almost immediately after IRAQ), that's it, and now we want to go smack the bee hive yet again. 
> 
> Screw that, if someone or a group is really such a dangerous threat to you or your family (country), you kill it and you don't stop until the threat is gone. That's war, that's its function, but we have this notion that beatings create compliance. It's perverse, and doesn't work on the micro scale, and doesn't work on the macro either. 
> 
> That's my opinion of it. Or you can just keep it going for another 20 years. 
> ...


You're talking about military targets, I hope.  Bombing the $#@! out of anything and everything just creates martyrs and stirs more $#@!.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> The Daily Fail?  Seriously?
> 
> Try showing your work.  Until then
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...e_Soviet_Union
> 
> some light reading for ya...


Uh, yeah the Soviets lost about 13 million civilians to WWII but that's a tangent.  I thought we were talking about Nazi killings of innocent civilians vs Stalin killings of innocent civilians, not total casualties suffered.  I contend that Stalin's regime killed enough innocent people relative to Hitler's regime that your categorization of the Allies as "good guys" is ridiculous.  There's many factors which can be debated and taken into consideration when deciding who is the most evil of two of the evillest regimes in the history of mankind, but again that is another tangent.  The Allies were reprehensible as were the Axis.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Uh, yeah the Soviets lost about 13 million civilians to WWII but that's a tangent.  I thought we were talking about Nazi killings of innocent civilians vs Stalin killings of innocent civilians, not total casualties suffered.  I contend that Stalin's regime killed enough innocent people relative to Hitler's regime that your categorization of the Allies as "good guys" is ridiculous.  There's many factors which can be debated and taken into consideration when deciding who is the most evil of two of the evillest regimes in the history of mankind, but again that is another tangent.  The Allies were reprehensible as were the Axis.


The soviet union murdered about 60 million of it's own people through executions, work camps, and intentional starvation. This doesn't count the vast numbers of people who were victims of their utterly failed economics. Nor does it mention the incredible loss of liberty of the people as a whole. Basically the citizens were slaves to the ruling class with no rights at all.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

> You're talking about military targets, I hope.  Bombing the $#@! out of anything and everything just creates martyrs and stirs more $#@!.


Villages and civilian areas are military targets when there are soldiers there.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Villages and civilian areas are military targets when there are soldiers there.


SMH, that's why you go with the Jeffersonian M&R model.  A super high-speed low drag SOCOM unit can reduce an entire city through the systematic destruction of infrastructure with almost no casualties at all.  This is not a tactic that is useful in the traditional conquer and occupy model.  

Under M&R a SOCOM Company can communicate with the Mayor and say "give up these 15 men and you will get $20 Million in local currency" or whatever currency they trust.  Give us free passage to acquire them ourselves and we will give you peace. Resist our acquisition of these men and your city will be rendered uninhabitable.  Although just as effective to motivating to the enemy, it renders thousands fewer dead in the end, and actually demonstrates a vaster command of power than 'walking in and levelling a city.'

The kind of force applied by "massed SOCOM formations" (a retro-joke) could indeed 'level the whole city' even worse than what you are talking about; but the whole point to using SOCOM in the first place is to hyper-focus on "military targets."  They are not the point of the spear, they are the point of the scalpel.

Dump 150 of the meanest hardest special forces we've got as a nation into the circumference of an enemy stronghold, and every one of them has crazy weapons themselves plus lasers for guiding munitions.  Give them the ROE "try and capture suspects 1-15 alive, if not positively identify their remains; and only address combatant targets. Fire free."  

Now you actually have some guy on the ground, metaphorically face-to-face with some ISIS Mayor, who can blink and anywhere from 1 to 100 buildings just vanish.  And all he wants are these 15 combatants.  Besides, we'll give you $20 Million. 

It won't take a whole lot of destroying before things start working out, and the kind of destroying is hyper-focused on actual military targets.  The way it should be.

----------


## ProIndividual

Stalin vs Hitler....another bull$#@! lesser of two evils argument. And we didn't go into WW2 for any other reason that an attack on Pearl Harbor (that we clearly provoked, possibly on purpose, via a long standing policy of economic warfare against Japan - starting with Commodore Perry and the Black Ships), and the FACT Germany declared war on us FIRST. We didn't fight the Nazis because the Jews needed saving or they were a worldwide threat...we declared war on Japan unofficially with economic warfare, then officially after they attacked us over that economic warfare, and then after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, and we responded in kind.

And "the good guys won"? Who the $#@! was that? Not us, Stalin, etc. NO GOOD GUYS WERE IN THAT WAR. States are evil institutions (whether they are "necessary evil" or not is debatable; their pure $#@!ing evil is NOT debatable). And to see any state, even the one that extorts (taxes) you and threatens you with violence if you dare compete with it (in the markets it either itself or its cronies monopolizes, holds monopsony over, or cartelizes), is "good" is just the nonsense spewed by cultists in the Cult of Nationalism. It has no logical or empirical validity. 

No good guys were in that war on either side. The Allies didn't have clean hands in the run up to WW2 either (see the Treaty of Versailles and how it took Hitler from a jail cell for an attempted coup all the way to the head of state).

----------


## ProIndividual

> Villages and civilian areas are military targets when there are soldiers there.


And I guess a pregnant woman with a gun to her head being held hostage in a bank robbery stand-off by a bank robber should just be shot through, to shoot the bank robber behind her who is holding her hostage, right? 

WTF logic and ethics do you have? REALLY, because now I'm thinking you have neither.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Stalin vs Hitler....another bull$#@! lesser of two evils argument. And we didn't go into WW2 for any other reason that an attack on Pearl Harbor (that we clearly provoked, possibly on purpose, via a long standing policy of economic warfare against Japan - starting with Commodore Perry and the Black Ships), and the FACT Germany declared war on us FIRST. We didn't fight the Nazis because the Jews needed saving or they were a worldwide threat...we declared war on Japan unofficially with economic warfare, then officially after they attacked us over that economic warfare, and then after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, and we responded in kind.
> 
> And "the good guys won"? Who the $#@! was that? Not us, Stalin, etc. NO GOOD GUYS WERE IN THAT WAR. States are evil institutions (whether they are "necessary evil" or not is debatable; their pure $#@!ing evil is NOT debatable). And to see any state, even the one that extorts (taxes) you and threatens you with violence if you dare compete with it (in the markets it either itself or its cronies monopolizes, holds monopsony over, or cartelizes), is "good" is just the nonsense spewed by cultists in the Cult of Nationalism. It has no logical or empirical validity. 
> 
> No good guys were in that war on either side. The Allies didn't have clean hands in the run up to WW2 either (see the Treaty of Versailles and how it took Hitler from a jail cell for an attempted coup all the way to the head of state).


This.





> And I guess a pregnant woman with a gun to her head being held hostage in a bank robbery stand-off by a bank robber should just be shot through, to shoot the bank robber behind her who is holding her hostage, right? 
> 
> WTF logic and ethics do you have? REALLY, because now I'm thinking you have neither.


That.

----------

