GOP debate happening right now

[Skippy00004]

LIve stream http://live.foxnews.com/

Or just turn on fox

[special-k]

Yeah, Newt's getting a well deserved ass-ripping.

[Skippy00004]

From the applaus, it sounds like the audience doesn't mind going to war.

[gapatriot]

Our society needs a group of people to blame all of our problems on. Hitler pulled the same thing for those of you that forgot, all a good dictator needs is an ethnic group to demonize.

[sledge]

Yeah, Newt's getting a well deserved ass-ripping.

LOL!  Yeah, but they'll be kissing his you know what if he wins the nomination.  I think Bachman has the hots for him.   

So now go into your tirade about how the amazing Ron Paul won the debate.  You know, like how he's won all of the rest of them, all the straw polls, been blessed by the Pope, Mother Teresa and the Dalia Lama simultaneously, and is the only hope for the U.S. and the planet, not to mention other planets containing life yet to be discovered.

I've got to say one thing about his supporters.  They are consistent.      

[Bobruffles]

Yeah, Newt's getting a well deserved ass-ripping.

LOL!  Yeah, but they'll be kissing his you know what if he wins the nomination.  I think Bachman has the hots for him.   

So now go into your tirade about how the amazing Ron Paul won the debate.  You know, like how he's won all of the rest of them, all the straw polls, been blessed by the Pope, Mother Teresa and the Dalia Lama simultaneously, and is the only hope for the U.S. and the planet, not to mention other planets containing life yet to be discovered.
I've got to say one thing about his supporters.  They are consistent.   

If Ron "The Answer" Paul Wins in Iowa, Shits gonna go down.

[JohnyMac]

All & all this is one of the first debates I have actually watched. Typically I listen to them on the Sirius radio at camp.

Man, I like everything what Paul say's domestically BUT his foreign policy has me in doubt.

If you have a BOL you send out patrols. If you don't several snipers are going to plant themselves out of your BOL and pick you off one by one. That is why I believe being being a isolationist nation is wrong. It didn't work before WW I or WW II.

Post WW II we took and active approach and consequently we have kept the hordes at bay.

[Outonowhere]

All & all this is one of the first debates I have actually watched. Typically I listen to them on the Sirius radio at camp.

Man, I like everything what Paul say's domestically BUT his foreign policy has me in doubt.

If you have a BOL you send out patrols. If you don't several snipers are going to plant themselves out of your BOL and pick you off one by one. That is why I believe being being a isolationist nation is wrong. It didn't work before WW I or WW II.

Post WW II we took and active approach and consequently we have kept the hordes at bay.

But there is a difference between being proactive against ones enemies and being Imperialistic...

[JohnyMac]

OONW,
I agree. Imperialism is so 20th century. 

With that said, I think that Barry should have blown up the drone that Iran has. I am sure it is sending out a signal. Would Pau do that?

One REALLY tin foil hatish- Maybe Barry wanted Iran to get the drone so they send it to China.

Chinese Ambassador Chan meets with Barry and says,
"Hey bro we want one of those cool drone's."

Barry says, "Yeah I hear ya' Chan but how do we do it and keep my hands clean?"

Well Chan Say's, "That is your problem bro. Maybe land one in Iran and say it was a malfunction."

Barry then says, "Yhoooo homey...Great idea. Consider it done. Now lets get some stir fried rice before big ass gets home."

[sledge]

But there is a difference between being proactive against ones enemies and being Imperialistic...

OONW please explain how the U.S. has been imperialistic.  What nations have we annexed.  What additional stars have been placed on the flag?  What nations do we force to pay tribute and homage to us?   

[Outonowhere]

But there is a difference between being proactive against ones enemies and being Imperialistic...

OONW please explain how the U.S. has been imperialistic.  What nations have we annexed.  What additional stars have been placed on the flag?  What nations do we force to pay tribute and homage to us?   

At the most basic level, in my opinion, the current policy stance of "this is our playground and you have to play by our rules or else" is Imperialistic.  We invade countries to install "American style democracy", spend trillions of dollars building the countries up and openly and covertly require material and immaterial things from the country and their leaders.  Just because Puerto Rico isnt on the flag, does that mean it isn't subject to what our leaders say?  What about Iraq/Afghanistan?  Just because we didn't annex them, do you not think that they could be bribed or coerced into doing what our "leaders" want by our military presence?  And the fact that our "leader" at least was, not sure if he still is, the head of the United NATIONS, does that not scream along with everything else of imperialistic undertones?  This country has long lost the status of being a republic, and as long as we continue to meddle as we have and occupy other countries, we are no better than the Roman's or the Nazi's!

Just as Ron Paul stated last night, (paraphrasing) if someone is threatening us you go in, kick the living shit out of them and leave.

[rah45]

But there is a difference between being proactive against ones enemies and being Imperialistic...

OONW please explain how the U.S. has been imperialistic.  What nations have we annexed.  What additional stars have been placed on the flag?  What nations do we force to pay tribute and homage to us?   

How far back in U.S. history would you like to travel? The forced annexation of the Western territories from people who already lived there? Forced annexation of the Philippines? Almost-forced annexation of the Panama Strip/Canal? Forced annexation of Hawaii? Take imperialism out of our history (and "Manifest Destiny" with it), and you return a country that's still about the size of the original 13 colonies.

I'm not saying that imperialism wasn't inevitable. History repeats itself. The U.S. is still one of (if not THE) greatest nations this world has ever seen. Just don't pretend we're not guilty of imperialism.

[sledge]

I knew when I went fishing that bait would catch something.   

Rah, thanks for the history lesson.  However, no one alive today, or in recent memory, has experienced American imperialism.  Perhaps that indicates that our manifest destiny has been reached.  The Panama canal, which we built, wasn't annexed.  It was turned over to our control for a set period of time by treaty willingly signed by a sovereign country.  No guns were pointed at them.  The Philippines have never been a territory of the U.S.  and  Hawaii voted to become a state. 

OONW, we haven't sent our military anywhere that we weren't invited unless we were provoked by an act of aggression.  We also have not installed any  "American style democracy" anywhere.  Not a single, solitary country.  We haven't left our military in any country to insure their compliance with our wishes.  We always remove our forces unless we are asked to provide security.  We do not have a base anywhere on the planet outside of our borders which hasn't been invited or asked for with the full consent of that foreign Government.

To say we are like the Romans or the Nazi's is a fallacy.  We have not take permanent rule of any other nation even though we could have.  I do agree with " if someone is threatening us you go in, kick the living shit out of them and leave".  Only you can't attribute that idea to Ron Paul.  That realization actually came to life at the end of the Vietnam Police Action.  Only we seem to have forgotten what we learned during that period.

Thank you both for your responses. 

 

[Outonowhere]

No offense sledge but by your logic, if a rapist holds a gun to a womans head and she never says no or even asks him/her to be gentle then no crime is committed.  Sure there are places where our presence is requested and invited but that is not always the case.  And as to our troops ALWAYS pulling out of a country, that is a fallacy itself.  Even now as the "end" of the Iraq war and the "complete" withdraw of our forces are being touted our troops remain inside Iraq.  This despite the fact that in parts of that country people are celebrating the "withdrawal".  How many nations have we entered and remained in for "diplomatic", "administrative" or "training" reasons? 

Should we be 100% isolationist, no.  But being the Mall Ninja Cop of the world isn't our place either.  As to the attributing the saying to Ron Paul, I did it since he just said it last night and thought it would be prevalent given the original subject of this thread.

[sledge]

OONW, Ok name one country where we have troops without that Government giving permission, including the trainers being left behind in Iraq.  Who have we held a gun against their head?  Who?  We cannot leave troops anywhere for   "diplomatic", "administrative" or "training" reasons without that country's permission.  We can't even have an embassy in any country without their permission.

Us being the world cop is for our own protection as well as for those who have asked for our help.  If not for us there would be regional criminal nations, leading eventually to criminal expansionist countries knocking on our door.  We put troops in places at other's requests to keep countries who would otherwise turn rogue in place.  We do this because ultimately it's in our interests in remaining safe and free. 

Those are just the facts in a world that in reality doesn't exist as Ron Paul see's it.  Isolation invites attack and invasion by expansionist countries.  It has since the beginning of civilization and always will.  Wishing for something different is fine, expecting something different is a colossal mistake.

Peace is attained through strength and power projection.  War is invited through weakness.  ( I good reason to worry about Obama.)

I'm sure you do not agree.  I respect your right to do so.     

[rah45]

I knew when I went fishing that bait would catch something.   

Rah, thanks for the history lesson.

Do I detect sarcasm?   

However, no one alive today, or in recent memory, has experienced American imperialism.

I was only describing older imperialism in our history. I, too, believe that, while there is a chance the war in the Middle East began righteously, it has since soured and become our modern imperialistic venture.

Perhaps that indicates that our manifest destiny has been reached.

I certainly hope so...we literally cannot control any more territory! 

 The Panama canal, which we built, wasn't annexed.  It was turned over to our control for a set period of time by treaty willingly signed by a sovereign country.  No guns were pointed at them. 

If you read your history, you will see that Panama rebels "gave" the Panama canal land to us. The land originally belonged to Colombia. The U.S. Navy intercepted and threatened to fire on the Colombian ships if they didn't turn around. They returned to Colombia. So, yes, through pointing guns at people who really did own that land, we enabled a rebel group to seize control. We only intervened because we knew we would get the land in exchange for our military intervention. So, yes, we forcibly annexed that land from Colombia in order to create a gateway between the Atlantic and Pacific, furthering our economic and military goals.

The Philippines have never been a territory of the U.S.

Land does not have to be recognized as a territory in order to be annexed. Merriam Webster Dictionary (online): Annex - (5) ": to obtain or take for oneself." The United States would not support Philippine independence after the Spanish-American War, and used the U.S. Army to seize control of the Philippines. The Philippine-American War waged for 3 years. You may look at this Wikipedia page to verify the story of the American annexation of the Philippines. It has a good number of footnotes. The history corresponds with what I have read, and the author seems to have done his homework.

  and  Hawaii voted to become a state.

Yeah, after they were annexed by the U.S. into a territory sixty years earlier. Please see the below quote from this Wikipedia page, which is, again, backed by many footnotes. The author has done his homework.

Overthrow of 1893?the Republic of Hawaii (1894?1898)

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused. Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen "not guilty" from any responsibility for the overthrow.[40] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.[39][41][42][43]

In 1993, a joint Apology Resolution regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.[43] It is the first time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.

The Provisional Government of Hawaii ended on July 4, 1894, replaced by the Republic of Hawaii.

..........

Annexation?the Territory of Hawaii (1898?1959)

After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii's annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii. He met with three annexationists from Hawaii: Lorrin Thurston, Francis March Hatch and William Ansel Kinney. After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.[44]

The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, the Newlands Resolution by both houses of Congress annexed the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. Despite some opposition in the islands, the Newlands Resolution was passed by the House June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.

In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained ʻIolani Palace as the territorial capitol building. Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for sixty years. Plantation owners and key capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions, or "factors," known as the "Big Five", found territorial status convenient, enabling them to continue importing cheap foreign labor; such immigration was prohibited in various states.

Not trying to start a fight, but I have to call a foul when I see it.

[sledge]

LOL!  Details, details, details.  I'm much too busy for details.  Please don't impede me with details.  LOL!   WTF, are you some kind of Hawaiian historian or something?     I don't trust Wikipedia and am now finding them somewhat irritating.

But thanks for the info Rah.  Now I have to reevaluate my feelings towards my country.  The bastards!    

 

[JohnyMac]

Hey, I am throwing this out to you isolationists.

Check out this time line. http://www.worldwar-2.net/prelude-to-war/prelude-to-war-index.htm

If the USA was not an isolationist country back on '33, '34, Etc. but like how we are today, "peace through strength" do you think there would have been a WW II? Do you think $6M Jews would have been exterminated? Just curious.

By the way, this time line is scary if we just take out the word Germany and insert America.

[rah45]

Ok name one country where we have troops without that Government giving permission, including the trainers being left behind in Iraq. Who have we held a gun against their head?  Who?  We cannot leave troops anywhere for   "diplomatic", "administrative" or "training" reasons without that country's permission.  We can't even have an embassy in any country without their permission.

Uh, uh. You cannot count that government as truly representative of the Iraqi people, considering that the U.S. organized and sponsored it. You might as well consider the Vichy government under Nazi occupation to have been truly representative of the feelings of the French. Failure of logic. The only true way to measure if we truly have the Iraqi peoples' permission would be to go back in time, let them elect who they wanted without U.S. interference, without our military standing outside their own doors of their own homes. We would never do that, because we already know what the answer would be. It would be a resounding "Hell No, Go Fuck Yourselves!"

Us being the world cop is for our own protection as well as for those who have asked for our help. 

We should never help someone else if we literally cannot afford to do so. There will always be more problems than we can fix.

If not for us there would be regional criminal nations, leading eventually to criminal expansionist countries knocking on our door. We put troops in places at other's requests to keep countries who would otherwise turn rogue in place.  We do this because ultimately it's in our interests in remaining safe and free. 

I completely agree...as long as that remains our only motivation, and if we're still fiscally responsible while we're doing it.

Those are just the facts in a world that in reality doesn't exist as Ron Paul see's it.  Isolation invites attack and invasion by expansionist countries.  It has since the beginning of civilization and always will.  Wishing for something different is fine, expecting something different is a colossal mistake.

Ron Paul doesn't advocate isolationism. He advocates non-interventionism. There is a difference. He advocates respecting other countries' decisions, and only going to war if we KNOW the other nation is our enemy, asking Congress for a declaration of war, and then coming back as soon as the enemy is vanquished, without pussyfooting around.

Peace is attained through strength and power projection.  War is invited through weakness.

I agree, but strength and power projection does not necessarily equate occupation of foreign territory. Occupation has NEVER resulted in a good outcome for our nation. History proves this.

[sledge]

We've gotten off topic, but you guys will eat this up.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said that the United States intends to dominate other countries, adding that the world is sick and tired of taking orders from Washington.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/215924.html

[rah45]

I don't trust Wikipedia and am now finding them somewhat irritating.

You shouldn't trust Wikipedia pages unless they have a very great number (and variety) of sources to support their information. 

But thanks for the info Rah.  Now I have to reevaluate my feelings towards my country.  The bastards!

You're going through the same thing I have experienced in college. I felt that, growing up using mostly private and home-school curriculum (A-Beka, very pro-American and pro-Christian, and therefore biased), I had not known a lot of things before I attended college. On the other hand, many college courses I have taken have only shown the bad things that Americans have done, and none of the good. We seem to have gone from one extreme (biased, patriotic fervor regardless of facts) to the other (biased, anti-patriotic information that excludes the entire story of the American people). Personally, the only history book that adequately seems to cover the broad scope of American history is, in my opinion, A Patriot's History of the United States. It describes America's bad decisions while maintaining positive aspects of our nation, and seems to be the best book I've read thus far that accomplishes that medium between both biases.

[rah45]

Hey, I am throwing this out to you isolationists.

You're using the wrong term, John. According to MacMillan dictionary (online), these are the definitions:

Isolationism: a country?s policy of not having political or economic relationships with other countries

Non-interventionism: a policy of not getting involved in a disagreement between other people or countries

Ron Paul advocates non-interventionism, not isolationism. So do I. Please use the correct term. Thank you. 

If the USA was not an isolationist country back on '33, '34, Etc. but like how we are today, "peace through strength" do you think there would have been a WW II? Do you think $6M Jews would have been exterminated? Just curious.

They had political and economic dealings with other nations. They weren't isolationist, they were non-interventionist. Even non-interventionists were cleared to go to war despite their beliefs, because Germany made it very clear she was gunning for America eventually and Japan showed hostile behavior (pre-Pearl Harbor). World War II still would have occurred, because the Brits and French were too afraid to stand up to Hitler when they could have easily destroyed him, and the German people stuck their heads up their asses and abdicated responsibility for their own country's destiny. Any intervention on our part, as a fledgling military half the world away, would have had minimal effect.

By the way, this time line is scary if we just take out the word Germany and insert America.

I just got done taking a Nazi Germany class. I came out of there quite often running through the parallels in my head. It's not scary. It's terrifying. Especially with the passage and signing of the National Defense Authorization Bill of 2012.

[JohnyMac]

Thanks Rah for the clairification of Isolationism and Non-interventionism.

[rah45]

Thanks Rah for the clairification of Isolationism and Non-interventionism.

Sarcastic or not (I cannot tell), you're welcome.  [URL=http://www.smileyvault.co

[JohnyMac]

No sarcasm Rah. You can't debate a point unless you are using the correct verbage.

At hunting camp this year my brother slipped back into the old habit of saying "clip" rather then mag. I finally couldn't take it any more.

I duct taped an empty stripper clip and a AK mag to the door of his room. On the duct tape I striper clip I wrote "clip" and on the AK mag I wrote "Mag". Nothing was ever said but he gets it now.