Badmovies.org Forum

A couple of interesting articles about the U.S.'s ever expanding fronts of war. Are they 100% on the money? That's debatable, but illuminating in any case, and a sober warning about what our great country is busy getting itself into.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts298.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts298.html)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts299.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts299.html)

Have a drink.   :thumbup: :drink:  :cheers:

Ill drink to that!
 :drink:

I don't drink, but I'll hand out the pizzas !

 :teddyr:  :thumbup:

"The AL Qaeda threat, apparently a hoax . . ."

Those six words robbed this article of ALL credibility it might have had.
What drivel.

Okay, I'll bite. Mostly because I think the people here are mature enough to be able to argue without it devolving into a flame war.

The editorials you posted, Flick James, I can't garner much respect for. I am in complete agreement with indianasmith that the idea that Al-Qaeda is a hoax is inflammatory drivel. I see cars driving around with the bumper sticker "9-11 was an Inside Job" and I just picture the driver's as self-deluded fools looking for an excuse to be angry. That idea I think is just nonsense.

That being said, I do believe that the events of 9-11 were very quickly adopted as an excuse by the people in power to put through some extremely horrifying legislation. While we have to be vigilant against terrorism, the proclaimed "War on Terror" has been an unmitigated disaster. Compare the response of the bombing of London in WWII to the response to the destruction of the WTC. The "stand firm in the face of destruction" stance put forth by Winston Churchill during that time is admirable. Compare that to the clusterf**k response to the 9-11 events in America. "Panic, citizens! Run out and buy duct tape and tarp in preparation of an imminent attack! Don't trust your neighbors, especially if they are foreign!"

Embarrassing tactics that showed a complete disrespect for the solidarity of Americans and their ability to cope with crisis. It makes me sad that opportunistic politicians are still trading on the idea that America should be afraid of the world.

I think the worst thing that came out of those attacks was the extremely ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. There you should ask yourself the very reasonable question of why we were there at all. The best I can come up is with we wanted to garner economic control of a region which had a highly valuable resource, oil. Unfortunately the people in charge seemed to have had no good idea on how to actually control the region.  The only thing I can see that was accomplished was destabilizing an already volatile region and inducing a vehement hatred towards America in a region that was already prone to religious extremism.

As for China, they are now communist in name only. A region rapidly entering into the benefits of capitalism that only we Americans had previously enjoyed. Picture a country with a billion people who now want to explore the unsustainable lifestyle Americans have enjoyed for most of the 20th Century and beyond. That is something to worry about. If China wants oil, they have the power and resources to go after it, and they aren't too concerned with human rights that would stand in their way.

America became a superpower because they had the will and technological ingenuity to make that a reality. Today, we've outsourced most of our manufacturing base to other countries because it is cheaper for industrial heads. What does America produce now? Wall Street hotshots who only make money by manipulating abstract approximations of wealth. We can't even claim the scientific edge, because our schools have been co-opted by fundamentalists who would rather teach religion than the bare basics of science because it offends their beliefs.

Anyway, folks, run wild with that. I'm hoping we find our way to the current economic meltdown, which I think goes beyond partisan politics and runs right up against abuse by the wealthy against everybody else.

well said ^.  :thumbup:

The only political thread around me is:

1. My undies were made in South Africa and
2. They are very fast running out of thread.  :buggedout: :tongueout: :twirl: :wink:

NEW THREAT IN SOUTH AFRICA

The worst bio-hazard since the nuclear melt down in Japan.
A pair of underwear so filthy the fumes are toxic. The toxins
are spreading everywhere. If you live anywhere near a man
names "Trevor" our best suggestion is to leave town and get
yourself examined at the nearest hospital.

You know, Indy, I like you, but it really bothers me when people misquote an article in an effort to invalidate the entire thing.

The line was "The al-Qaeda threat, a hoax as likely as not, has become Washington’s best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties." It was not "apparently a hoax." Why does it bother me? Because you have taken a statement that does not make a position of hoax either way, assumed there was one, and changed it to "apparently a hoax." Thanks for the spin, doctor. I don't know if it was intentional or not, and I'm not sure which is worse. Besides it doesn't invalidate that Washington routinely DOES use the Al-Queda threat as it's best excuse for interventionist policies, hoax or not. I mean, the threat of WMDs was used as an excuse to garner Congressional and public support for the war, was it not? Were we not lied to by somebody? So how is it not valid to suspect that the Al-Queda threat may be used in the same way?

I don't know the misquote was intentional or not, Indy, but in either case, it was very bad form.

besides why would someone thnking it was a hoax make other things it said less accurate? The guy isn't running for president or something.

My problem is simply in the idea that a single portion of a sentence, misquoted at that, is ammunition enough in some minds to invalidate an entire string of premises. It's a single tree in the forest. If he took the time to evaluate the articles, he would probably find a few premises that he actually agrees with. That's the problem with hardline partisan loyalty, it fits the mind with a rather long set of blinders. Once a single disagreeable piece of scenery is in view, it becomes the entire picture. In this case, however, he is trying to set the forest on fire by setting that one tree ablaze. The sad thing is that it usually succeeds in burning down the forest.

I realize I'm giving Indy a rather hard time, and my interactions with him are typically quite respectful, but I simply can't abide that last post. It was irresponsible. Disagreeing with the premise in question is one thing, misquoting a portion of it in an effort to invalidate the entire article is something else.

But he's a big boy and I'm confident he can take it.

I am surprised that you would let the entire articles get invalidated, because some of your post is supported by them. I'll admit I am confused.

Incidentally, isn't it more than a little sad that China has become better at capitalism than we? We're not capitalist anymore anyway, we are a fullblown corporatist economy now.

I didn't say everything in the articles was invalid, I said I didn't have much respect for them. Lines like the Al-Qaeda hoax bring down what could be good points. You can see from my above post which points I agree and disagree with, not all one way or the other.

Actually, the thing that brought down the articles for me was the comparison to colonialism, which is an unsuitable comparison. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about American foreign policy, but it's not the colonialism the articles claim.

I'd argue about the bugaboo of non-existent laissez-faire capitalism here, but it will have to wait until I have a bit more wind in my sails.

That's a fair rebuttal, very fair. When I read the article I looked at the comparison as more metaphorical, and as such it makes it more readily open to comparison. What was one of the things that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire? Expansion of the empire. Here the similarity is only different because of the terms used. Any way you cut it, we are intervening militarily in order to protect our interests. That's one way of doing it, sure, but there are other, cheaper ways. We're not doing it by encouraging free trade. Instead, we're applying our military muscle to punish countries for not dealing with the USA and it's allies exclusively, and employing our public relations media to demonize those same countries. However noble the intent, it remains intervention, and it attracts aggression. Call it colonialism, imperialism, spreading democracy, whatever, it's intervention. The question is, does it truly protect U.S. interests, or is the expense of our ever shrinking civil liberties and expanding government intervention into our own lives and freedom to move about too great. I'll lean to the latter every time.

The U.S. has been engaging in "divide and conquer" tactics in the middle east for decades. Now that the middle east is developing a bit more solidarity, they're not falling for it as readily as they once did. All of our meddling is simply coming home to roost, that's all. I was shocked at Bush's arrogance and contempt of the democratic process in his tactics to get us into war, but Obama is going even a step further.  

As for laissez-faire capitalism, it's virtually non-existent. I think if you do a conceptual comparison of the fundamental differences between laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, or crony capitalism, you will find our economic system leans far more to the latter, but I look forward to you providing some instances where I am mistaken.

Well, I don't think you'll get the good argument from me, as it seems we are probably in fair agreement on this point.

There's this point of faith running around that there exists a "free market" that would self-correct were it not for government interference. I do not believe that this mythological entity has ever existed in the real world, but there is much inflammatory rhetoric performed on it's behalf everyday. Adam Smith must be rolling around in his grave.

It really made me laugh (and also made me sad), that during the 2008 elections Sarah Palin was so freely tossing about the epithet "socialist" at Obama.

Here's a thing, my home state Alaska has something known as the Permanent Fund Dividend. What that involves is that part of the money made by the oil companies in Alaska is set into a separate interest earning fund. The profits from that fund are then distributed to the people living in Alaska as yearly check, usually about $1000.

Here's a direct quote from Sarah Palin:

"And Alaska — we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

You may remember Sarah Palin, she was the governor of Alaska before she quit.

I'm not even going to set that up as an example of ignorant hypocrisy, just more of an example of how little respect politicians have for the non-wealthy.

I'm glad and sad Palin torpedoed the Republican hope for re-election. (Sad because it forced McCain to become such a parody of himself. Do you remember when McCain was somebody you could actually care about?)

I liked Obama when he first became a political figure, because he seemed to insert actual intelligence into political debate. A few years into this administration, well hope is fading fast.

Erg.  OK, I flat out quoted the remark incorrectly, and I apologize.  It's the snide, sneering "blame America first" attitude of the article that set my teeth on edge.

Tell you what.  It's 6 AM here and my brain is still a bit fuzzy around the edges.  Tonight I will read both articles a bit more carefully and give you a more reasoned response.

But don't expect me to agree with much they say.

I don't. Ultimately, Indy, it comes down to this: you support interventionist foreign policy an I don't. It stands to reason you will endeavor to discredit anything that takes the latter position. I know I gave you a hard time about it. You seem to be taking it in stride.

Also just fyi PCR is a very hard core right winger just of a different style than you generally see.

I just thought it was interesting commentary. I don't know anything about him. I'm not plagued with partisan or liberal/conservative loyalties, so I don't apply that kind of bias when I read. It gets in the way.

OK, I am much more awake now, and I went back and read both articles.  I'll be honest - this man twists and distorts history in a way that is frightening.

In the second article, he begins by arguing that the West set the stage for World War II by cutting off steel and fuel exports to Japan.  He never even mentions that our doing so was in direct response to Japan's invasion of China, the rape of Nanking, and the brutal murder of some 300,000 Chinese civilians.
Oh no!  It was the wicked old West cutting off Japan's access to resources just to be mean!

Seriously, now.

Then his demonization of America's motives and accomplishments in the war on terror.  First of all, this whole "subvering American civil liberties" notion that gets thrown in the face of the Bush administration by lefties the world over . . . did a single critic of the Bush administration get thrown in jail?  or even hauled in for some intimidation?  This President was a punching bag for every comedian, filmmaker, and liberal blogger on the continent for 8 years.  They got rich and he got 30% approval ratings.  Sounds like civil liberties were alive and well.  The folks who DID get arrested and locked up were those who participated in, planned, or colluded with attempts to murder American civilians.

And, regardless of the precise wording he used, his complete belittling of the very real danger posed by Al Qaeda and similar Islamic fundamentalists is disturbing to say the least.  The ultimate goal of these folks is the military defeat and forcible conversion and/or murder of all Western nations and peoples, and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.  It's not a joke, it's not a hoax, and it's certainly not something to be dismissed.  Look at the demographics of it!  There are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.  Most political scientists estimate that as many as 10%  of them are "radical Islamists" - in other words, they actively support murder  in order to spread their faith.  10% of a billion is a HUNDRED MILLION.  That is a larger force than Hitler commanded in World War II!! While they do not have the entire resources of an industrialized nation-state behind them, the fact remains that all they have to do is get lucky ONE TIME, with an old suitcase nuke from the Soviet Union, or a bucket full of anthrax from one of Saddam's now-defunct labs - and an entire American city dies.  That is their goal - Usama bin Laden has publicly stated he seeks to create "an American Hiroshima."  And our withdrawing from the Middle East will not change that goal one whit.  We are, and will remain, to the Islamists, the "Great Satan."

Last of all, his painting the brutal dictators Qadaffi and Assad as helpless victims of American imperialism ignores these men's thuglike behavior and ONGOING sponsorship of terrorism all over the world.

Bottom line is simply this - we aren't the bad guys, and I am sick of us being portrayed as such. No nation is perfect, and I do recognize that sometimes even in great causes bad things are done.  But the bad guys are these evil b@stards that cut the heads off reporters, murder their teenage daughers in "honor killings," and fly planes into buildings full of innocent civilians.

THAT'S my point!!

And this from a man who has openly admitted his own historical bias. It would seem to me that's exactly what's going on. The writer of the article applies a certain bias to history that comes from being anti-interventionist, and yours comes from a ready acceptance and agreement with it. If the article supported U.S. intervention or justified it in any way would you question it's history? Forgive me if I doubt it.

So, you actually support Obama's arrogant authorization of military action in Libya? I'm beginning to think you would support any U.S. military action no matter who authorizes it or for what reason.

exactly. excellent point. THat's why we should get the hell out of their countries! 

or do you consider the above scenerio acceptable collateral damage in the war on terror? Well I live here on the east coast in the relative line of fire and I DON'T. I came very close to losing members of my family on 9/11 and all this rheotric is meaningless to me. It's not acceptable. We are not going to have buildings falling down again and we all know full well they are over here because we're over there.

Al queda formed to drive the soviets out of afghanistan. not to take over russia. They want to drive us out of the middle east in similar fashion. They, like virtually all muslims, want to drive the israelis out too. That stinks for israel but they aren't a part of the United States and sorry, I'm not going through another 9/11 for them or anyone. I wish them the best but my family comes first.


?? When muslims form an army like Hitler and storm across Europe you can get back to us on that one.  Otherwise that's a meaningless number.

Well, Godwin's Law had to surface sooner or later.

 :bouncegiggle:

Exactly. You've just illustrated with sparkling clarity exactly how pointless our meddling is.

Not exactly.  There is a reformist movement within Islam that denounces jihad.  Those are the people we have to encourage.

Flick - As far as your comments on intervention go, I generally support my country's policies based on two criteria:
1.  Is this the morally right thing to do?  Will it bring about greater good or harm if it succeeds?
2.  Is it in the interests of the United States to become involved?  Can we win? Can we make a difference that will accrue to the positive both for us and for those on whose behalf we intervene?

As far as bias, I am open and up front about mine.  I like to think I am intellectually honest enough to not present false data, or deliberately misrepresent things, to prove my point.  I found both articles disingenuous in the extreme in how they completely passed over the barbaric nature of the so-called "victims" in their haste to paint the U.S. as a villain.  As far as Libya goes - it embarasses me that the U.S. was shamed into action because FRANCE intervened in the cause of freedom!  And that intervention came far too late.  Gadaffi (or however you spell the guy's name) was teetering on the brink of flight, but then his forces got their legs under them, and intervention came when the rebellion was all but crushed.  Frankly, the world would be a better place if Reagan had succeeded in putting a Sidewinder missile up his a$$ 25 years ago!

Lester - as usual, you completely miss my point.  The goal of the Jihadist is the forcible conversion of the whole world to Islam.  If we pull out of the Middle East completely, they will first destroy Israel.  that may be a matter of indifference to you, but it is NOT to me. First of all, Israel is the most faithful ally America has ever had.  Secondly, they are far and away the most democratic, progressive, and liberal government (in the classical sense of the term) in that part of the world.  Their destruction would be a blow to the cause of freedom everywhere.  And, once they were gone, the jihadists would benefit from the worldwide glow of anti-Semitic Muslims everywhere - including those thousands that teach at American universities.  Volunteers would flock to their standard.
   And THEY WOULD COME FOR US.  They hate all we stand for.  They hate religious freedom.  They hate women's rights.  They hate free speech. They hate Christianity.  They hate scantily clad women.  They hate everything that doesn't involve bowing to Mecca, screaming "Allah Akbar," and beheading infidels!  you may be content to abandon all our defenses overseas and let them bring the fight to us, but I am NOT.  Better our soldiers battle to bring a little bit of civilization and enlightenment to the Middle East than to have a single American city go up in flames, or down in the choking death of a biological holocaust.  As far as the Muslims forming an army and marching roughshod over Europe, they don't have to.  They are taking over the place by demographics, and the change they have wrought is not a good one. Cartoonists threatened, filmmakers murdered, women in old European neighborhoods afraid to go out without a headscarf for fear of being jeered at, roughed up, and scorned as "infidel whores."  There is a battle for civilization going on, and you seem content for civlization to lose.

And, BTW, I am NOT out of the line of fire.  I am in the shadow of Dallas, where an Islamist was caught just last year in an attempt to blow up one of the tallest buildings in the city.  Fortunately his explosives salesman was an FBI plant, because he had a truck full of what he thought was ammonium nitrate parked by his target, and was arrested AFTER he pushed the button to make it blow . . .
Then another one was arrested just a few weeks ago, in the early stages of plotting attacks on a number of targets here in Texas.  They are not "oever here because we are over there."  They are over here, trying to destroy us, because they hate our way of life.

Wow, Indy, that read almost like propaganda.

In one breath you say that we should be encouraging the anti-jihadist muslims, and in the next you're going on about how the entire Muslim world is inexcapably against us. The second point we are largely in agreement on, which would seem to the make the first point absurd. There is no reasoning with the middle east. They are diametrically, culturally, and, most of all, religiiously opposed to us. And now we get down to it.

This is really just a holy war, isn't it? And not just from Islam. What is really behind the Western world's virtual unconditional support of the state of Israel since 1948? You can go on and on about how they are the most democratic and the strongest ally the U.S. has ever had (which is rather insulting to England to name but one) and all of that, but when will you admit that this is all about the Biblical significance Israel holds for the Christian West? Why on Earth would we continue to lavish such support? They have almost no trade significance to us. Why do we do it?

Continuous support of them is at the very heart of the Muslim hatred of the West. This is nothing new. When are we going to admit that this is just the modern extension of the Crusades? The U.S. was supposed to throw off the shackles of the Old World and embrace the new. That was the whole point. And here we are embroiled in millenia old religious rivalries. There is no rational reason for it. I would really like to hear you claim that this is not primarily an alliance based on religious significance. Can your intellectual honesty about your bias allow you to do that? Can you say with an honest heart that were it not for such religious significance we would have lavished such support for so long? No, take away the religious significance, and Israel’s importance to the U.S. drops to nearly nothing. I suspect we would have spent the last 60 years trying to set up healthy trade relationships instead of attracting aggression. The Middle East would probably be a healthier people for it as well. I’m speculating, but no more than you are when you talk about the results of discontinuing support of Israel. I’m neither glorifying nor condemning Israel, I’m simply talking about our government's real motivations here.

And if this is indeed an alliance of religious significance, and I believe it is, this evokes the burning question: does our government have the constitutional authority to do this? Clearly they do not. But they sidestep the matter and talk about anything but: they are so democratic, they are such a great ally, the alliance is crucial to maintaining stability (which is the silliest one I’ve heard), etc. Israel and Islam are at the very heart of instability in the middle-east, they always have been, and we are inextricably mired in it. The saddest part of that is that we are so deeply mired in it now that extricating ourselves from it is an extremely difficult task. The damage is done.

But then I guess I'm an unpatriotic American for these views, aren't I?

thats fine. You feel israels existence is more important than the existence of my family, basically. I think this demonstrates quite clearly why I cannot support the war on terror. It would possibly mean I died so that Israel, a country invented in 1948, didn't have to go back to their actual borders like every other country in the world and could continue to drive the poeple who had lived there for the previous 18 CENTURIES and were kicked out because of the HOLOCAUST and other forms of EUROPEAN antisemtism out.

Sorry that's not a cause I'm willing to die for and If your butt was actually on the line you might think about it a little more critically too. Maybe if you had a family member who was almost killed you might see where the rubber meets the road a little clearer. sorry for the cliche.





is that supposed to be a point in their favor?  (we won't even get into the USS Liberty.) (edit: or Jonathan Pollard)




lol



?? That certainly isn't reflected in the day to day lives in any of their countries besides taliban era Afghanistan.

Iran

(http://www.irantravelingcenter.com/irantravelingcenter/iran_girl.jpg)


Lebanon note Hezbollah t shirt. I think I've posted this one before

(http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/leb_girls_350.jpg)

Here's Amman Jordan. wow what a third world s**thole. look at those donkeys and camels

(http://sha3teely.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/amman3.jpg)






well europeans should have more kids then. or adjust their immigration policies.

war just creates more refugees who will go and do all this stuff. You are arguing against your whole point there.




blowback is probably the most basic conept there is. If you can't grasp that I don't know what to tell you.


bottom line: anti islam / pro israel stuff is the path of least resisence for a mainstream republican like yourself. You should really try and show a little more fortitude and go out on a limb and think some of this stuff through a bit. Everyone should, its the only thing that can save our country, we are heading over the same cliff Rome did.

question: Would you completely bankrupt this country and destroy it in order to save israel? If so, does that not make you an enemy of this country, for practical purposes.

Can'tyou religous fundamentalists just leave the rest of us alone??

Yeah really. I suppose we supplied the steel that made the katanas they beheaded countless hundreds of thousands of other inocent Asians with.  Oh yeah, we also put a drug into their water that made them subject innocent women to multiple rape, only to be vaginally impaled upon a stake afterwards.

Oh yeah, we supplied the shovels that the innocent men used to dig graves at gunpoint, graves they shared with their families after the Japanese soldiers shot them in the head.

What a bunch of bullsh*t, isn't it, Indy?  :lookingup:


As for "setting the stage for WW2."  What, no Treaty of Versailles?

No mention of France using the Treaty to legally abuse and attempt to destroy post WW1 Germans as reprisal for their age-old rivalry?

I could go on about the Treaty, but the state of desperation France imposed upon Germany was largely responsible for WW2 (among other things.) 

Sounds like some people should re-visit history before laying blame.

I'm sure the Author would agree. I think he was referring more to the Asian theatre. Being into revisionism it's hard for me to tell but don't most people accept the treaty of Versailles as being at least one major thing that led to ww2?

The correlations are more than noteworthy, they're downright staggering. Yet, sadly, few choose to acknowledge it. I hate to use the tired cliche quote of "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," but it's more than a little appropo. I would apply it to my previous post about this damn religious war we're embroiled in.

Politicians actually go so far on occasion as to openly admit that the support of Israel is religious at it's very root, although such a statement goes in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma made a statement on the Senate floor in 2002 that can be found here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/660883/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/660883/posts)

Item 2 is just laughable. It opens with:

2. The second proof of Israel’s right to the land is the historic right.

History supports it totally and completely. We know there had been an Israel up until the time of the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land, although Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions: One was in 70 A.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish presence in the land.

Wouldn't that rationale justify the immediate turnover of the government of the U.S. back to the native Americans?

Item 7 is the clincher, the one that everything really rests on:

7. The seventh, and most important, reason why we ought to support Israel is because G-d said so.

Look it up in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says: The L-rd said to Abram, “Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever....Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.”

That is G-d talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the L-rd. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where G-d appeared to Abram and said, “I am giving you this land” — the West Bank. This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the Word of G-d is true.


Wow. Not a political battle at all ay? Foreign policy based on quotes from the Bible. I defy anybody to explain in a rational way how this is NOT a brazen disregard for the Establishment Clause.

I'm sure there are some who do accept the Treaty's role in WW2, but when people omit facts just to play blame based on popular opinion, (which seems to be the big thing these days) facts have a tendency to get overlooked.

I agree that the author was trying to say that America was largely responsible for WW2 in one theatre (the Pacific theatre) to be sure.

However, we have to be real, and recognize that, in the Blame Game, a lot of additional blame upon America (or any scapegoat)  is created thru the coupling of media propaganda and the popular opinion it creates.

Add to that, the piggybacking and conflation of one or more issues or events where one side sees themselves as the victim, and there you have it..one person, country, or race seen as the root of all evil.  Nothing new, really.

Nope. There is a pretty solid consensus amongst most historians, not mere public opinion as you would claim, that the conditions caused by the Treaty of Versailles played a significant role in bringing about WWII. Not the only factor, certainly, but I'm not sure why one would deny that it was anything less than significant.

True, very true. 

I wasn't speaking in terms of a general denial of the Treaty. The Treaty is fact.

I basically meant that there are some people who will (and have)  conveniently denied historical fact for their own purposes, instead of examining both sides of the issue, and the possible role their side (or the side of those they support) may have played in whatever incident is in question.   

Hope that helps clear it up a bit.  :smile:

I was debating a lefty guy on twitter who was adament that the great depression caused the nazis. I was like well hyperinflation was before the great depression. I think his narrative was a little too convenient, not to mention ahistorical.

Hmm...interesting point.  It's said that the hyperinflation of the German dollar was a chain of dominoes that caused the Great Depression, being that it happened before the GD (if I'm right.)  I believe that this was because Germany was a great player on the commercial\industrial economic stage prior to WW1. It's destruction greatly affected the world stage.

Certainly, the re-militarization of Germany put many people back to work and created jobs, but who knew it would have led to where it got to?

WW1 happened for many racial and imperial reasons as well, chief among them, the old and continuing rivalries from the Franco-Prussian war of 1871,  and the will of the Eastern Europeans to wrest free of Austro-Hungarian control, thus the murder of Archduke Ferdinand and Princess Sophie of Hohnberg, which was the main catalyst.

WW2? I guess we're still finding out why even after almost 70 years after it's end.

one book I have thats fascinating though heavy on the business/ economics side and not all that accesible to others is "The Vampire Economy". It was written iduring the 3rd reich and goes in to detail about what fascist economic policies actually amounted to, which was a demented hodgepadge of socialism, racism, and just whatever random people at the top felt like doing.


an illustration

(http://mises.org/images4/vampireeconomy.gif)

The plain truth is that militarization during an economic depression is widely accepted by the public for that very reason.

True. War is good for the economy, but bad for people. I don't think that's gonna change any time soon..

It's not good for the economy, as it does not produce any wealth. It's only good for people who want jobs. Wars are costly and they create debt. I served six years in the military out of a sense of duty and not out of economic necessity as you are seeing more and more today. Peolpe are now being turned away who are turning to the military in increasing numbers out of economic desperation, because Congress can't come together to solve the budget and because the U.S. debt ceiling has reached it's limit. This is not due strictly to our wars of course, as our debt comes from many factors, entitlement-spending and inefficient government bureaucracy being the rest of the pie. The fact remains that war escalates debt, which can hardly be good for the economy when it's debt ceiling has reached it's limit. And now you have Congress fighting over which to cut: military or entitlement. Both need to be scaled back, of course, but Ron Paul seems to be the only member of Congress that understands that.

Man, this thread has really gone a ways since my last post . . . and I am pretty dead on my feet.  So tell you what: I'll try and frame a coherent reply tomorrow.

I have GOT to get to bed at some point.

But everyone did get some decent licks in, I will say that!

It doesn't establish a religion.  Seriously, I don't the guy's position either, but it's perfectly legitimate under our system of government to elect representatives who pursue religious aims in foreign (that's democracy in action), so long as they don't establish an official religion. 

We're not talking about opposing the Church of England in the 1700's here. It's generally interpreted as prohibiting the establishment of an official religion and the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. Last time I checked, Christianity was a religion.

I couldn't care less what religion members of Congress practice, but when they start making laws or policy decisions that observe a specific religious doctrine, and this would include the protection of Israel based on Biblical scripture, this is most undoubtedly favoring one religion over another.

 

The first amendment contains a prohibition against establishing a religion.  But the legislature is presumed to represent the will of the people and has a Constitutional mandate to express that will.  They can constitutionally pursue policies that some religious basis so long as they don't cross the line into establishing religion.  (No one argues laws against murder are unconstitutional because legislators were motivated by the teachings of the Ten Commandments).  Because there's nothing blatantly unconstitutional on its face about supporting Israel---the guy offers six other non-religious rationales for the policy---it doesn't matter that one Congressman's motivation for that position is a religious one.     

I'm not saying I'm comfortable with that guy's reasoning and I wouldn't vote for someone who holds those sorts of beliefs, but you defied someone to explain in a rational way how this was not a brazen disregard of the Establishment Clause.  Even if his position violated the clause, which I think is a huge stretch, it would require several steps of reasoning to explain how supporting Israel equals the establishment of a state religion---so it's at least not a "brazen disregard" of the clause.   

Fair enough. I stand corrected on a rational explanation. I guess one can be made. However, the 1st Amendment, like most amendments, goes beyond the literal text of the Bill of Rights. If you research the 1st Amendment, it is widely interpreted to include laws and policies that favor one religion over another, and so, to amend my original statement, I defy anybody to rationally explain how this is NOT advocating a policy favoring one religion over another.

Also, he made it clear that the "God's Will" reason was the most important. The rest are just questionable motives used to escape having to admit that our support is primarily based on Biblical scripture. Take away the Biblical significance and Israel just becomes another piece of ground.

I understand you're not arguing my position, you're simply keeping it to Constitutional technicalities, in which case you have a point.

Maybe I should research the First Amendment.  You do know that I'm a lawyer, right?  :wink: 

That the 1st Amendment is "widely interpreted to include laws and policies that favor one religion over another" is an oversimplification as well as an unworkable test.  Laws prohibiting human sacrifice favor other religions over Satanism; laws prohibiting use of peyote favor other religions over Native American religions.  Secular and religious purposes overlap so often that you could not reasonably invalidate all legislation that could be traced to having a religious motivation.  The actual historical legal test used in Establishment clause cases (last I heard) is the Lemon Test, which approves a statute as constitutional if

1. the statute has a secular legislative purpose,
2. its principle primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

A statute that had a religious purpose alongside a secular purpose, incidentally advanced or inhibited religion, and fostered a minimal government entanglement with religion would technically pass this test.

If you could hypothetically gain standing to challenge aid to Israel as violating your rights to be free from government establishment of religion (which you couldn't, because giving aid to Israel doesn't establish any state religion or effect your freedom to practice your chosen religion), then I think the foreign aid statute would clearly be ruled constitutional under this test.  Your only argument to the contrary so far is that a single legislator used a religious motivation as an argument to favor the bill, but clearly even he offered enough secular justifications to pass the test (even though you may think he's wrong or being disingenuous---the purpose doesn't have to be wise, only secular).

Sorry, but when people offer legal interpretations I feel like a doctor watching non-MDs dish out medical advice; I can't stay quiet. 

This thread has wound all over the place, and the reactions to my commentary are a couple of pages back now.  So let me see if I can respond to people's satisfaction.  I'll be up front - it's been a VERY long day and I am exhausted.  So if I lapse into incoherence, please be charitable!

FIRST - I'll address Flick's comments regarding U.S. support for Israel.

  For me personally, yes, my religious beliefs about Israel do tend to make me lend support to it. However,  I do feel that U.S. support for Israel is and should be based on non-religious motivations.
FIRST OF ALL - there is one and only one historic homeland of Judaism, and that is Israel.  They occupied that region 2000 years before Muhammad was even born.  The Jews have been one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the history of the world, and they had been promised as far back as 1912 in the Balfour Declaration the right to return to their homeland and establish a nation state there. After the Holocaust, it became apparent that Europe would  never be a permanent home to the Jewish people.  It was time for them to be allowed to return to the home they had been longing to return to since 70 AD.
  Historically speaking, there has NEVER been an Arabic Muslim state of Palestine.  It never existed before 1948.  It was just a strip of territory inhabited by nomadic Arab peoples, and controlled by the Ottoman Empire.  And the Dome of the Rock was NOT the "Second most important shrine" in Islam until it was declared such AFTER Israel's 1948 rebirth.  Until then it was just another minor shrine, but nowhere nearly as important  as other sites in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
  Now - someone said, if that's the case, why not give ALL the U.S. back to the Native Americans?  Well, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.  We did not give the entire Middle East to Israel.  Arabic Muslims still control over 95% of the lands in the Middle East.  We gave Israel a tiny wedge of land on the coastline, including their most important and holy city, Jerusalem.  Basically, in relation to the rest of the Middle East, we gave them a postage stamp in the midst of a football field.  As shamefully as we treated the Native Americans here in the U.S., we gave them way more land than that.  There are Indian Reservations that are bigger than the entire state of Israel!
  Beyond all that - which is it more in America's interest, as the world's oldest democratic republic, to support?  A group of brutally theocratic dictatorships that are against virtually every principle that Western Civilization is built on, or a progressive, Democratic state that has produced more Nobel Prize winners per capita than any nation on earth?  An island of progressivism in a sea of barbarity?  Should we throw a faithful ally and loyal friend under the bus for the sake of people who hate us, and will continue to hate us even if we abandon Israel to their not-so-tender mercies tomorrow?  If America is serious about our founding principles of democracy, equality, and freedom, we have a moral duty to stand up for the only nation in the Middle East that shares those principles.

  Now, as to my thoughts on Islam from the earlier post - again, I'll be absolutely honest.  I believe  Islam is a barbaric religion.  I don't care much for Bill Maher, but he nailed it the other night when he commented that "Islam is the only religion in the world today that REGULARLY kills those who oppose it."  If Muslims actually follow the teachings of the Quran and the example of their prophet Muhammad, then they are going to be on a never-ending jihad to convert or kill the infidels of the world.  Muhammad was a man of the sword who spent his life forcing others to bow to his religious vision or be killed.  He made peaceful overtures to both Jews and Christians at first, but when they refused to acknowledge that he was a prophet of God, he declared war on both and drove them out of Arabia. 
Now, that being said, while Islam is manifestly NOT the "religion of peace" it claims to be, the vast majority of the world's Muslims are peaceful people who simply want to be left alone.  I've said that many times.  But the Jihadists are a growing and deadly element among them, and every American retreat or defeat empowers them and lends them credibility.
  There are reformers among Islam who truly believe in and practice peace and tolerance.  But they are a minority.  If America is to save what is left of Western Civilization - and I truly believe it is WORTH saving - we HAVE to back up and encourage this element of Islam.  They are not a majority, but their influence can transform Islam into a religion that can coexist with the West and renounce jihad.  However, if the jihadists succeed in driving America out of the Middle East forever, and then destroy Israel, the voices for reform and coexistence will be drowned out forever in the rising tide of jihad and Islamism, and those seeking to establish a global caliphate will be permanently in the driver's seat.  And Western civilization will end, not with a bang, but an "Allah Akbar!"

  There was one other comment somewhere, maybe in another thread - there's about three different ones going right now - that stated every religion has as its basic tenet the conversion or destruction of all those who do not embrace its tenets.  That kind of moral equivalency game is inherently false.
There is NOTHING, ever, in the New Testament that advocates violence by the followers of Jesus. They are simply instructed to preach and persuade, to love those that hate them, and pray for those that persecute them.  That being said, the church has, at many points in its history, done a TOTALLY lousy job of following those teachings.  But they are the central tenets of Christianity nonetheless. And, to be fair, I don't think either Buddhism or Hinduism mandate war on those who refuse to embrace their teachings. I know Wiccans don't.   Jihad is a largely Islamic phenomena.  To paint all religions with the brush of its violent intolerance is to do them an injustice.

  Lester - again, you say I'm out of the line of fire.  I'm not.  There have been two foiled attacks within an hour of me, and Fort Hood isn't that far off.  And your dreary insistence on showing pictures of lovely, cutely dressed young Muslim women is frankly boring. I can show you plenty of photos of sweetly dressed young frauleins from Germany in the 1930's, but that does not prove that Nazi Germany was a peaceful, benevolent state.  And yes, the rich oil states can afford to build some very pretty infrastructure for their elites.  But see how the average  citizen away from the great cities lives, and you will see the squalor of the Muslim world at its worst.

I don't think that America's interest in the Middle East has anything to do with religion.

We have very clear interests in the region because we have very clear interest in petroleum. As sad as it seems, economic interests trump everything. Sure, for the most part we are a Judeo-Christian nation and we're interested in keeping that up, it's the basis of most of our laws. (Have more than one wife?) But the real reason we are involved in the Middle East is because they are sitting on a fat deposit of oil, which America joneses for more than anything else on the planet.

But that source is drying up. Once we find a viable source of alternate energy (and I think if there's one thing you should spend your life trying for, that is it), we will drop the whole Middle East controversy as soon as possible. Sheiks, holy ground, once the oil money well no longer matters our interest will wane. All the high-minded rhetoric will disappear.

Personal aside, please don't compare the land rewarding of Israel to the reservations of land "given" to American Indians. America is a big land, but would you like to live in the areas the government "gifted" to Native Americans?

"Jihad is a largely Islamic phenomena.  To paint all religions with the brush of its violent intolerance is to do them an injustice."

I disagree with that point. Christianity has always found itself very amenable to violence, despite what Jesus taught.

The church has been violent, which I freely acknowledged.
But the doctrines of Christianity, as outlined by Christ and his disciples in the New Testament, do NOT condone violence and never have.
Which is why the medieval church bent over backward to ignore them - so it could cater to the bloodthirsty nature of the times, and play power politics as well as any king.

It was shameful, and it was not Christian, even if it was the church doing it.

The same justification that the Jews have historical claim to Israel is the exact same justification that the native Americans have historical claim to the Americas. It's about as rudimentary and direct a comparison as you can get. No apples to oranges at all. What you're offering is a rationalization.


When did I ever advocate doing anything for the sake of the middle east? In fact, I'm saying just the opposite. In this ridiculous polarized debate, it's the same old rhetoric by both sides. People in support will do everything they can to paint Israel as a nation of saints and martyrs, as guiltless and democratic and fair as the day is long, as well as, of course, demonize Muslims. People opposed will paint the exact opposite. It makes me sick. I really don't care any more for Israel than I do for China or Africa or Australia or England, nor should we. And yes, you can bet I'm an "America firster." You can rationalize to your hearts content about how important it is to support Israel and speculate what will happen if we don't. I'm sure you will equally deny that this lavished support is and has always been grossly preferential (for religious reasons primarily in my opinion), and at the very least a significant factor in attracting aggression. That has nothing to do with doing anything for the sake of those barbaric Muslims. I would much rather the middle east go f**k themselves than to have us do the f**king. But by this point we're a little too deeply embroiled, aren't we? And now that the same blowback that happened during and after Vietnam is happening with Muslims, the great propaganda machine calls it "Islamization." I don't like it any more than you do, Indy, but let's not kid ourselves about the cause.


Just as WBC and their ilk are a Christian phenomenon, and a growing element sadly. Every time I am somewhat tempered in my disdain of religion, religion never ceases to snap me back to my senses.

 

Due to my sad lack in the area of interpersonal savvy, believe it or not I don't.

I appreciate the correction. I understand what you're saying from a lawyers standpoint, and I fully accept that you are more qualified than I. However, are non-lawyers not able to interpret the Consititution at least on a conceptual basis? I have a hard time believing that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or Thomas Paine would support such suppport. But I'll refrain from legal interpretation from henceforward.
 

I guess. I guess it doesn't really make sense to rate terrorist attacks but if we did 9/11 would probaly be a relatively prominent one.

At any rate that was hardly the whole point of my post. The Ft hood shooter was not trying to stop us from the right to a speedy trial or the presumtion of innocence or even the right of women to vote. He was opposed to our wars and freaked out on the information that he was being sent ot assist in one.



It was 1917 and does "Lord Balfour" sound like an arab name to you? Do you remember people in the Bible saying "cheerio!".  The PEOPLE of the region, it had again, been MAJORITY ARAB for the 18 CENTURIES prior to zionism, did not extend any declaration!!

If I told Rev Powell, hey you really lke Texas, you may have Indianasmiths house, is that justification for him coming to your house and driving you out (metaphors are not my favorite form of argumentation but you get the point)?

The various colonial declarations from the Ottomans or the Brits are not worth the paper they were written on.



have you ever heard of the Crusades? This is the holy land we are talking about here. it wasn't a nomadic pasture. here (http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108:the-founding-of-jerusalem&catid=134:the-question-of-jerusalem&Itemid=355) is a good is probably biased toward the arab side history of the region and a unbiased (http://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-1913-Origins-Arab-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0670038369) book I would reccomend to anyone.

The bottom line is this: Israel was created by driving out the people who lived there before. Now, They said we are going to live among the people and impart our western knowledge and blah blah,


read Theadore Herzl's letter 1899 letter to the turks (http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2005/05/19-march-1899-letter-from-dr-theodore.html)




So it didn't work out. thats fine, but lets not sugar coat things.

Israel was created the way the US was created. Unfortunately for them the demographics are against them where they favored the European settlers.

good luck to them, but If they don't lke their neighborhood they should leave, that's what our ancestors all did.
 




who are we to give anyone something????  Did the UN give us America??



The israelis aren't the Indians, they are the pilgrims. The palestinians are the Indians.



ever heard of Hosni Mubarak? The Saudi royal familiy? you know the ones who practice Wahabi islam, the religion of choice of terroist everywhere?

We DO support those regimes BECAUSE of peace deals with Israel. literally We had a deal with egypt at Camp David for the specific reason of peace with Israel.




faithfull ally eh?



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




"Their current prime minster has voiced particularly strong support"


 Israel gets alot from being allies with us and we get nothing in return but their enemies becoming ours.





You could have said the same thing about Apartheid era South Africa or any colonial outpost anywhere ever. They have western notions of things becaus they are western poeple some were born in Europe or the uS some arrived a generation or so back.




Well I'm sorry to intrude reality upon your cartoonish version of the middle east but it's  ridiculous. Is all of America like Winter's Bone?  If so I'd say we were do for an invasion and occupation from a more culturally elevated culture right away.( Not that I am comparing rural peoples to the taliban )



right. it was a modern normal state with an oppresive government.

Hey, no problem.  Laypeople could study up on the Constitution, but they don't.  It's very complex and time-consuming.  Laypeople are certainly entitled to their opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted; I think that's a good thing.  But too often they say "the Constitution means X" and they're wrong.  There is no "correct" way to interpret the Constitution; really, every single Justice who's ever sat on the Supreme Court has had their own method of interpretation.  The only thing about Constitutional interpretation you can say with some degree of certainty is what the last precedent says, and the Court could always decide to change or modify that tomorrow.

1st Amendment tidbit: the reason the first Amendment was originally adopted was so the federal government couldn't establish a religion, because founding a state religion was thought to be the sovereign right of the individual states.  Just because none of them actually adopted a state religion didn't mean they didn't want to reserve the right to do so, or to recognize the right of newly admitted states to have a state religion!  If Utah had been admitted before the 14th Amendment, it might have been the only state to adopt a state religion. 

Yes, of course.  Send my the address.  Indy, please leave keys under the mat.

Okay, I guess Israel does have a right to exist then.

Of course Israel has a right to exist. My problem is with the U.S. obssessive lavishing of such preferential support the like that no other nation has ever seen from us. The scriptural motivations always seem to smack me in the face, and adds to my disdain. Mainstream America has been conditioned to see Israel support as necessary and just and right. The justifications used don't mention Biblical motivations, because saying so would run the risk of losing some of that mainstream acceptance.

What I don't get, from a critical thinking aspect, is how supporters of foreign intervention seem to fail to recognize how intervention nearly always attracts aggression. This is mainly because they seem incapable of reversing the scenario, an important part of the critical thought process.

Let's go theoretical for a moment. Let's say that the U.S. was at war with Canada (stop your snickering, just roll with it for a moment). Let's say that China decided they are going to help out Canada, for whatever reason, not by being a direct ally, but by providing aid in the form of supplies and light arms. They're not attacking the U.S. They're just lending support because they like the cut of Canada's jib for whatever reason. Would the U.S. be justified in attacking the Chinese ships bringing in these supplies? In doing so, they will certainly pull China into the war.

This is a scenario, nothing more. However, the idea behind it is, if the U.S. seeks to provide support to another country who is at war with a third country, why is it so difficult to grasp that this would attract aggression from that country. It's a very basic premise and one that interventionists love to ignore, or rationalize away, usually through propaganda, by demonizing the country or people as the real aggressors, and to avoid U.S. accountability. This has nothing to do with any barbaric nature of middle east countries that they may or may not possess.

I have no doubt that Indy truly believes that Islam is the diametric enemy of Christianity. Historically, they are, and vice versa. But, understandably, since the idea is that Christianity is the true faith and Islam is not means that Christians are right and just and civilized and Muslims are barbaric, ruthless savages. Centuries ago, when the Muslims were more advanced and educated than Europeans, they thought Europeans were savages. What's going on today is no less than an extension of the Crusades.

The biggest part of it that bothers me is that the spirit of our early nation was to embrace the New World and throw off the shackles of the Old World, yet here we are, pulled into millenia-old rivalries in the 21st Century. I will NEVER embrace the importance of being involved in it. I feel we as a nation should be better than that. I've been called idealistic and unrealistic about this before. I don't care. It doesn't bother me.

The lending of support you theorize here reminds me of the Lend-Lease Act during WW2.  Without actual troops or direct action, the U.S. lent arms, ammo and various what-not to Britian to help them fight the Luftwaffe.

Another scenario that often gets buried in the sands of history is the Russian invasion of Finland (Suomussalmi) shortly before or after WW2 started, I forget at the moment.  German troops and equipment were there in the role of "volunteer" troops to assist in the repel of Russian forces. 

It's believed that the phrase "volunteer" was used to avert the accusation of Germany violating the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union.

And lastly, our good old Red friends and their supply of Soviet weapons and equipment
to most of the Third World.

It's easy to see how a nation that arms and supplies another w\o direct intervention can be percieved as an enemy of the country that those arms and supplies are being used to attack.  It makes for some interesting situations.

Islam is not just the enemy of Christianity.  If that were all, we Christians would manage to fend for ourselves, as we always have against other religions and philosophies.

Radical Islam, Islamofascism, Jihadism, call it what you will, is the enemy of CIVILIZATION.  Of everything good and positive that man has built out of our savage past across the last two thousand years.  I mean, I wouldn't describe Holland, Denmark, or even England as bastions of Christianity in the last 50 years or so.  But Muslim immigrants are doing their best to replace those governments with Sharia law and the caliphate too. 

Let me put it this way, Flick.  If you or I were captured by Jihadists tomorrow, they would kill both of us.  Regardless of our faith, our political convictions, or our good looks.  We would die because we were Americans and Westerners.

Lester, you are a good friend and sparring partner.  But you are so wrong philosophers weep at the sound of your voice.

indiana- as a teacher you above all should know: you have to SHOW your work. Tell me where and how I'm wrong or you haven't said anything.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. Look, I'm not ignorant. I've been to the middle east, I am familiar with the culture. That doesn't change my stance. Intervention attracts aggression. It's one of the simplest concepts there is. It doesn't matter if America coaxed Japan into an attack out of meanness or if they were responding to a Japanese invasion of China. The fact is, we got involved, and they responded. Whether intervention is justified or not can be argued ad nauseum, but that doesn't change my stance that we are far too interventionist a nation. Our government does not take accountability. The justifications they use are filled with holes and lies and propaganda. You can call me un-patriotic for that stance if you like, but I will say that you are gullible if you honestly believe that our government is honest and straight-shooting.

You are a Christian. That doesn't make you an expert on Islam. I'm not claiming that I am. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of Islam outside of the typical propaganda. You say let's encourage the anti-Jihadist movement, yet you clearly having a seething hatred of all of Islam. All you know how to say is that they are the enemy of all civilization and that they are barbaric savages. When I hear those things they smack of the kind of thing that a nation at war says about their enemy.

Indy, maybe you do know everything about Islam. Maybe you know lots of Muslims and are so steeped in the Quran and Muslim culture that you know what makes them tick. Forgive me if I doubt it because the vast majority of you comments reek of garden variety fearmongering.

I happen to believe that our great Western civilization is only great if it does not allow itself to stoop. We are stooping. We were once isolationist. Has the world change since then? Yes. I'm not naive. However, the U.S. has become a nation that cannot keep itself out of conflict and doesn't seek to be self-reliant. This attracts aggression and I have a problem with that. We have stooped and now bow to the rest of the world's problems. This attracts blowback from cultures that don't respect Western civilization. I have a problem with that. What's more, I don't compromise on those principles, for you or for anybody.

But I still like you.

I think this excerpt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged sums up my feelings quite a bit:

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down on his shoulders—what would you tell him to do?” " To Shrug."

It's time for the U.S. to shrug.

I agree.  So far I support Ron Paul for the most part. 

I'm not overly political by any means, but generally don't sway with the two major parties, or most of the government.  Lately I've been very much in tune with the Libertarian Party and support them wholeheartedly.  And apparenlty NOBODY has heard of that party, as when I mention it to people they're like, "What's that?"

You may be surprised how many on this forum are familiar with libertarianism. I myself am registered as one, but on the whole I think they are a party without much direction, and I wish they did. Also, they've become the party that Rep and Dems who are disenchanted with their rank and file jump to, which has been to the detriment of the Libertarian party. I mean, you've got Bill Maher who claims libertarianism, when he is obviously a liberal and, with a few minor variations, essentially pushes a lib/dem agenda. If that's what he wants to do, great, and I think he's very funny, I just don't like him representing himself as something he is not.

I do hope that Ron Paul runs, and if he does he will get my vote. There is no way he will ever win the Republican nomination, so his only choice is to run third-party. At the bare minimum want him to get in there, swinging as hard as he can, and really shake things up, and hold our Macchiavellian officials accountable.

I think Maher is very funny a comedian, yes.  Don't know how much water his beliefs hold.

Personally I'm rather new to the whole political scene.  When I did register to vote, it was Libertarian.  And not too long ago, actually.  Don't know if it's more to do with 'my generation' or anything.  Just never felt a sense to be too actively involved until recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS10Xap4C9w

For the moment, Ron Paul is running for the Republican nomination, but he will never get it. The Republican rank and file can't accept him because they are no longer believers in an America first republic as they once were. They've embraced globalism and perpetual interventionism. They like that America is the world's policeman and primary muscle of the U.N. Ron Paul is very much an "America First" advocate and a constitutionalist of the highest order, and so is very much on the fringe.

I would guess his strategy is to garner attention through the Republican primary process, then go third-party. I hope he goes third-party. But he will NEVER get the Republican nomination.

This will at least make the GOP debates watchable. Everyone else says the same things. He's really the only one who brings anything at all unique to the table.

Agreed. I am actually looking forward to the Republican debates for a change. This could be a double-edged sword, however. The GOP may recognize this as a positive for the rank and file, and it may be, since those tuning in who are doing so out of interest in Ron Paul may jump on the GOP bandwagon. On the other hand, for some it may further stir outrage from those already disenchanted by the two-party system. It will be interesting to see how things will unfold, as Ron Paul's involvement in the Presidential race is certain to carry far more of the already considerable weight it carried the last time.

I have to find the clip, but I saw somewhere where he said he'd likely run third-party.  Said the Republicans likely wouldn't accept him.  Honestly, I think there's a lot of voters who'd vote his way right now.  Guess we'll have to see how things go in the next year.