LMAO!
Sorry, man.
I can delete it.
LOL!
Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul
by What-A-Coincidence 33 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jourles
LOL! No problem. Maybe he'll talk about democracy in action in Saudi Arabia instead...
Yay for Ron Paul! Over $6M in one day. And $6M over his goal of $12M for the quarter(and it's not over with yet!). I can't wait to see how the media outlets are going to react to this moneybomb. For those who still think RP is a joke and has no chance of winning, $18M in donations from regular joes says something you just can't ignore - RP is for real.
-
a Christian
NVR,
I fail to see your point. So what if the US recruited radical Muslims to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet control? This only proves my point. The US uses its power to help people win their freedom. Sadly, however, what some of the people of the newly freed Afghanistan did with their new found freedom was to use it to then establish a new dictatorship with themselves as their country's new dictators. That the Taliban would end up oppressing the people of Afghanistan more severely than the Soviets had done previously, following the US assisted ousting of the Soviets from Afghanistan, can hardly be blamed on the US. If I help free an innocent man from prison and then that man uses his freedom as an opportunity to abuse others am I to blame? Of course not.
My point was that if the US should abandon its presence in the Middle East, and let the radical Islamists have their way, it will not be long before Israel is annihilated and all secular Arab governments are either democratically or violently replaced with Taliban-like governments. After that happens, with Israel's and other newly conquered nations' nuclear arms in their possession, according to radical Islamists' own stated ambitions, it will not be long before the entire world is one large Taliban ruled Muslim theocracy.
-
a Christian
Jourles,
You wrote: So please humor me and tell me what makes Afghanistan much more worse than Saudi Arabia in terms of "Islamic domination." I'm wondering what you are referring to here. Is it the government's policies? What?
Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Taliban treated its people much worse than Saudi Arabia now treats its people. Though admittedly the difference is only one of degree. But again that misses the point. The US did not overthrow the Taliban led government of Afghanistan only because it abused its people. It overthrew the Taliban led government of Afghanistan because it supported the radical Islamists who attacked the US on 9/11.
The US military is not large enough to "spread freedom and democracy" to every country on earth, even if that was the desire of the US government, which it is not. When the US government helps overthrow a foreign government it always does so to protect what it rightly or wrongly perceives to be the safety and/or the vital interests of the American people. Almost always the governments which are threatening the safety and other vital interests of the American people are governments which are also abusing their own people. Almost always whenever the US has acted to "spread freedom and democracy" doing so has been more of a byproduct of protecting its own interests than its primary purpose.
Ron Paul has stated that he is not an isolationist. He says that he too as President would use the US military to protect the safety and interests of the American people, as he sees fit to do so. The only difference is that the "neo-cons" believe it is wiser to act sooner rather than later. Ron might be willing to wait until Islamic extremists had conquered Israel and the entire Arab world, and also acquired nuclear weapons which it was about to use against the US, before taking military action to stop them. The "neo-cons" and most other Americans think waiting that long might just be too long.