• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Terrorist Nations

Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
132
People are hung up on Ron Paul wanting certain visa restrictions against certain nations. If that pisses you off about Ron Paul, let me remind you of something. No doubt it will piss you off even more.

Ron Paul might actually support going to war against "Terrorist Nations!" What?! Remember, he voted to go into Afghanistan militarily. He might not like that we've stayed past the mission, but he supported going in because terrorists, at war with us, were harbored there. What?!

Paul does believe the US has the right, (no, the duty to defend itself) and it's borders. What?!
 
People are hung up on Ron Paul wanting certain visa restrictions against certain nations. If that pisses you off about Ron Paul, let me remind you of something. No doubt it will piss you off even more.

Ron Paul might actually support going to war against "Terrorist Nations!" What?! Remember, he voted to go into Afghanistan militarily. He might not like that we've stayed past the mission, but he supported going in because terrorists, at war with us, were harbored there. What?!

Paul does believe the US has the right, (no, the duty to defend itself) and it's borders. What?!

He would issue letters of marque and reprisal. Rather than go to war. And I HIGHLY doubt that he'd ever go to war without us being attacked by said nation first.
 
He would issue letters of marque and reprisal. Rather than go to war.

He supported the Afghanistan war. He does not support the nation building we're doing now. If we are attacked again, while practicing non-interventionism, he may very well request congress to issue a declaration of war.
 
Ron Paul might actually support going to war against "Terrorist Nations!"


Would these be the nations where we have military bases and presence or nations with some inherently evil people?


That would be like going to war with "countries where we have military presence or bases" since that is what spurs terrorism according to Ron Paul's well advertised philosophy.
 
He supported the Afghanistan war. He does not support the nation building we're doing now. If we are attacked again, while practicing non-interventionism, he may very well request congress to issue a declaration of war.

There was no authorization of force or a bill for the Afghanistan War, only a bill to go after the terrorists. I'm pretty sure he would get a declaration of war from the congress or use a letter of marque if he wanted to go after terrorists now.
 
Would these be the nations where we have military bases and presence or nations with some inherently evil people?


That would be like going to war with "countries where we have military presence or bases" since that is what spurs terrorism according to Ron Paul's well advertised philosophy.

Nations that would harbor/support terrorists. Such as when the Taliban tried to harbor Osama in Afghanistan. Like when Ron Paul supported the war.
 
Q: Under what circumstances, if you were president, would you intervene outside the borders of the US in some sort of crisis around the world?

A: When Congress directed me to in the act of war. If our national security was threatened and we went through the proper procedures, Congress would say, "Our national security is involved, it is threatened and we have to act." And Congress has that responsibility. The president is the commander in chief, and then he acts.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_War_+_Peace.htm
 
Nations that would harbor/support terrorists. Such as when the Taliban tried to harbor Osama in Afghanistan. Like when Ron Paul supported the war.

But he also says Osama/Taliban are products of our support LOL


I would hate to see all Afghan children get automatic denial from getting education in any US school ever just because they are Afghan or because we have military presence there.
 
But he also says Osama/Taliban are products of our support LOL


I would hate to see all Afghan children get automatic denial from getting education in any US school ever just because they are Afghan or because we have military presence there.

LOL?

Learn history plskthx?
 
I love this new light being shined on Dr. Paul!! we need to get out of the terrorist nations and let them attend to their own affairs, while we work here securing our borders and deporting the undesirables i.e. illegals and whoever else Dr. Paul doesnt like. In Paul We Trust.
 
Anyone here award that Chester A. Arthur prohibited Cinese immigration? The act was in force for 10 years. It was done for a reason just as this would be.

Let's not forget WW2 restrictions on Germany and Japan. These are just restrictions. Even this ad, I don't think it implies blanket-denial. Probably make it harder to obtain a student visa (easiest to get), though I think it should be made for all countries. dono.
 
He supported the Afghanistan war..

No he didn't, he supported going after Bin Laden and his organization, who happened to be in Afghanistan. He never supported going to war with Afghanistan. If he had, he would have voted to declare war on Afghanistan, instead of simply voting for authorization to go after the terrorist organization.
 
This is controversial enough to be replayed again and again on the cable news shows - like Huckabee's christmas add - all the free play on tv saw him shoot up the polls. And it is something NeoConned Republicans ought to go for, especially in Iowa which is closed for dems and indys. This is awesome, Ron Paul goes from weak on terror to being critized on the news for being too tough on terror and immigration, right before Iowa votes.
 
United States Inc.

No he didn't, he supported going after Bin Laden and his organization, who happened to be in Afghanistan. He never supported going to war with Afghanistan. If he had, he would have voted to declare war on Afghanistan, instead of simply voting for authorization to go after the terrorist organization.

Exactly right. Paul has clarified over and over again on television interviews that he supported going after Al Queda; the specific group believed to be responsible for the 911 attacks. He did not support aggression against the Afghani government itself, the Afghani people, the overthrow of the Taliban, regime change or nation building.

As a result of the war in Afghanistan 3,500 innocent civilians died and over 6,000 were injured. Why should the Afghani civilians be killed for the actions of a small group of radicals within their borders, or for the actions of their government for that matter? This attack on their homeland by the United States provoked more hatred toward us and as a result more angry young Muslims joined terrorist organizations.

All of this could have been avoided by sending military special forces or private contractors to carry out a targeted strike against Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

As for immigration policy, in my opinion, we should have a moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal, from all nations. There is no shortage of people in the U.S. of all different backgrounds. Why do we need more at this time? Besides, if the United States was no longer a dangling carrot of salvation for disenfranchised people around the globe they might be forced to improve conditions in their own countries.

From a market perspective the United States is acting like a monopolistic corporation. We employ a two-pronged approach of buying out smaller companies (nation-building) and recruiting all of the talent into our own organization (immigration). This does nothing to promote healthy competition between countries which would result in better conditions for all.
 
Terrorist Countries currently on the list

Cuba - Added in 1982 though no official explanation was provided.[1] A 2003 report contended that Cuba supported terrorist groups during the period it was added to the report. Current justification cites support for members of Basque ETA and the Colombian FARC and ELN groups. Conversely, Cuba has accused the United States of supporting, sponsoring and initiating terrorism against Cuba since 1961. Those who oppose Cuba's retention on the list contend that Cuba has made repeated offers to the United States since 2001 for a bilateral agreement to fight international terrorism, but the United States has not responded.[1] Critics also argue that domestic political considerations are responsible and question many of the allegations made in the State department report.[1]

Iran - Added in 1984. According to the State Department, "continued to provide Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups—notably Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC—with varying amounts of funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. It also encouraged Hezbollah and the rejectionist Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities."

North Korea - Added in 1988. Sold weapons to terrorist groups and to have given asylum to Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction members. The country is also responsible for the Rangoon bombing and the bombing of KAL Flight 858.
Sudan - Added in 1993. "A number of international terrorist groups including al-Qaida, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egyptian al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Hamas continued to use Sudan as a safe haven, primarily for conducting logistics and other support activities." [2]

Syria - "provided Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP-GC, the PIJ, and other militia organizations refuge and basing privileges." [3]

Countries that have been removed from the list

Iraq - Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 to make it eligible for U.S. military technology while it was fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq War; it was put back on in 1990 following its invasion of Kuwait. It has since been removed following the 2003 invasion. The State Department's reason for including Iraq was that it provided bases to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). Following the invasion, U.S. sanctions applicable to state sponsors of terrorism against Iraq were suspended on 7 May 2003 and President Bush announced the removal of Iraq from the list on 25 September 2004.

Libya - On May 15, 2006, the United States announced that Libya will be removed from the list after a 45-day wait period. [4] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that this was due to "...Libya's continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism,".[5]
South Yemen - Dropped from the list in 1990 after it merged with the Yemen Arab Republic ("North Yemen"). It had been branded a terrorism sponsor due to its support for left-wing Arab terrorist groups.

Afghanistan has never been on the list, although a 2001 report from the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism declared that "Taliban-controlled Afghanistan remains a primary hub for terrorists."[6] This is because the United States did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.


Sanctions

The sanctions which the US imposes on countries on the list are:

*No arms-related exports
*Controls over dual-use exports
*Restrictions on economic assistance
*Financial restrictions
*US opposes loans by the World Bank and similar institutions
*Sovereign immunity waived to allow families of terrorist victims to file for civil damages in US courts
*Tax credits denied for income earned in listed countries
*Duty-free goods exemption suspended for imports from those countries
*Authority to prohibit a US citizen from engaging in financial transactions with the government on the list without a license from the US government.
*Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by countries on the li
 
Back
Top