Cactusboy Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement. Fair enough, however he still has a point. From the start w/ OBL there were other ways to deal w/ him that were all legit and legal...we choose the war one because we wanted blood/revenge after 9/11. Shoot first, ask questions later. I'm curious what you think these would be? We can get away w/ this because we are the #1 power. Most countries can't, so they have to go through the proper channels. For example...Cuba can't invade Florida and take out the terrorist that we are harboring...although if you think it was legit for us to take out OBL like we did...you should think Cuba has a right to do this. Bosch is the name of the terrorist we protect in FL. Google him if you're not familiar w/ him. Another straw man arguement because it makes the assumption that we would be willfully harborning a known terrorist. If we were playing both sides of the terrorism game, it would be a totally different story on a lot of things. Are you making that case? It's irrelevant if they liked us before. UA doesn't like ASU...one doesn't start killing the other just because of that. and yes most are innocent bystanders. There is a process to bringing people to justice through the international system. We are willfully harboring a known terrorist. I"m making that case. Google Orlando Bosch. I am not sure we are harboring a terrorist. If someone is dead are we still harboring them? But if you want to dig him up you can send him back? He has been gone almost a year now CB!! http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKbosch.htm Exerpt: Orlando Bosch died in Miami on 26th April, 2011. So that means we didn't harbor him up until april of last year? You just hung your hat on a hook made of salt. But if you want to be that way...google Luis Posada . Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You know why people hate America? It's because in our nation's opinion, it's democracy or "we'll blow your nation off the face of the Earth" mentality. Anything else that doesn't agree with the United State's policy is wrong and a "threat" to our nation's well-being. You don't tell people how to run their lives...you don't tell governments how to govern. We as a nation have the means of preventing attacks on our nation, but we don't have the rights to any more than just that solely because we can. 3 Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You know why people hate America? It's because in our nation's opinion, it's democracy or "we'll blow your nation off the face of the Earth" mentality. Anything else that doesn't agree with the United State's policy is wrong and a "threat" to our nation's well-being. You don't tell people how to run their lives...you don't tell governments how to govern. We as a nation have the means of preventing attacks on our nation, but we don't have the rights to any more than just that solely because we can. +1 Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You know why people hate America? It's because in our nation's opinion, it's democracy or "we'll blow your nation off the face of the Earth" mentality. Anything else that doesn't agree with the United State's policy is wrong and a "threat" to our nation's well-being. You don't tell people how to run their lives...you don't tell governments how to govern. We as a nation have the means of preventing attacks on our nation, but we don't have the rights to any more than just that solely because we can. +1 I forgot to include the :endrant: code or whatever it is that I can't find at the moment. Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement. How did he imply that? What he was saying was that they started hating us alot more after we started bombing them. That makes sense, I would hate anyone who started bombing me. He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement. How did he imply that? What he was saying was that they started hating us alot more after we started bombing them. That makes sense, I would hate anyone who started bombing me. He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. symantecs. google ron paul's foreign policy if you think he means they weren't upset at all before Clinton's bombings. I'd say they started hating us after we took our Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953 because he socialized their oil. If we want to know "who started it" someone has to beat that event. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement. How did he imply that? What he was saying was that they started hating us alot more after we started bombing them. That makes sense, I would hate anyone who started bombing me. He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. symantecs. google ron paul's foreign policy if you think he means they weren't upset at all before Clinton's bombings. I'd say they started hating us after we took our Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953 because he socialized their oil. If we want to know "who started it" someone has to beat that event. That's basically what I was going to say, it was a whole semantical issue. Were they upset before we started bombing the bejesus out of them? Of course! To imply that they weren't upset at all, then we come and bomb them...for no apparent reason would be a folly. Of course, "pretending" to know how politics work, the other candidates will hammer down on him as some "derp derp stupid old man with crackpot ideas who doesn't know anything about foreign policy" based on one single phrase. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. Since you are far and away the best prognosticator on this board, what do you really think Ron Paul meant? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 The fallacy of Paul's comments is he's implying that they actually liked us before we "endlessly bombed" them and that they were innocent bystanders in all of this. Not saying that is justification for war but he's making up a straw man arguement. How did he imply that? What he was saying was that they started hating us alot more after we started bombing them. That makes sense, I would hate anyone who started bombing me. He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. symantecs. google ron paul's foreign policy if you think he means they weren't upset at all before Clinton's bombings. I'd say they started hating us after we took our Iran's democratically elected leader in 1953 because he socialized their oil. If we want to know "who started it" someone has to beat that event. That's basically what I was going to say, it was a whole semantical issue. Were they upset before we started bombing the bejesus out of them? Of course! To imply that they weren't upset at all, then we come and bomb them...for no apparent reason would be a folly. Of course, "pretending" to know how politics work, the other candidates will hammer down on him as some "derp derp stupid old man with crackpot ideas who doesn't know anything about foreign policy" based on one single phrase. Maybe the only thing I don't agree w/ RP on FP is that we should get out of the UN. We need to embrace the UN and make it what it was meant to be when we were the major force behind making it. It's only as strong/weak/credible/significant as we make it. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The UN is a crap shoot. It really is, and I don't think any amount of effort is going to make it go again. Link to comment
Chaddyboxer Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You missed the the context within which he was making the "golden rule" statement. Immediately prior to that was discussion about infringing on Pakistan's sovereignty by unilaterally going into Islamaattobado (or whatever the F that town was called) to take out Bin Laden. It had been discussed that it was highly unlikely that Pakistan officials did not know Bin Laden was there and also the amount of aid (money) we ship over to Pakistan. Ron basically answered that we shouldn't have gone in to get Bin Laden like we did unless we would want other countries doing the same to us. i.e. the Golden Rule. I wouldn't have booed him but, his remarks, at the time and in the context they were made, did cause me to think WTH is wrong with this guy. The golden Rule is a very fine general rule but I think most reasonable people can agree that there are exceptions to most every rule. After 10 years of hunting bin Laden and questionable "assistance" from Pakistan in that endeavor, is no time to risk tipping him off and letting him escape yet again. That is what the people were booing, not the suggestion of living by the golden rule. You need a much longer clip to fairly assess what was going on there. I don't disagree with your statement. He actually voted for going after Osama. He should've stated his point a bit differently. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The UN is little more than a front for the US's coalition of the bribed. End it now. Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us." Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before. Since you are far and away the best prognosticator on this board, what do you really think Ron Paul meant? Everyone else is trying to tell me what he meant. I'm just going by what he said. I don't know what he meant. But what he said wouldn't sound good from a sitting president. Link to comment
Mavric Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 symantecs. google ron paul's foreign policy if you think he means they weren't upset at all before Clinton's bombings. Here is the first sentence from Ron Paul's website on Foreign Policy: If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future. How is that different from what he actually said at the debate? Link to comment
Recommended Posts