Ron Paul on Iranian nuke site: I’m tired of all this military-industrial fearmongering
posted at 9:01 pm on September 26, 2009 by Allahpundit
As contemptible as this is, I’ve got two good reasons to spare you a harangue about it. One: I’ve already written that harangue, and after the summer coup in Tehran and another year of cheat-and-retreat on their nuclear program, it’s truer now than it was then. And two: Thankfully, this old crank’s isolationist denialism is so fringe on the right that not even mainstreamers who are sympathetic to his broader agenda, like Glenn Beck, will go near it. It’s almost not worth bothering about. But suffice it to say, in the unlikely event that the three-percent rEVOLution ever commands the foreign-policy agenda of the GOP, I’ll run — not walk — into the Blue Dogs’ arms.
As Paul spoke passionately about ending all military operations and keeping government out of people’s “lifestyles,” a lone heckler began to shout, “Tell her!” Bachmann remained serene, hands folded in her lap, facing Paul. Bringing up Obama’s announcement that Iran had secret underground nuclear facilities, Paul announced that he had had enough of “fear-mongering” for the sake of the “military-industrial complex.” Bachmann, who once advocated nuking Iran, kept her eyes trained on Paul as her heckler repeated, “Tell her! Tell Michele! Tell her!”
A few more choice quotes from Think Progress:
We should never go to war if they’re telling us a lie about what’s happening. … We took the position, over my strong objection, we took the position that we had to have regime change in Iraq.
What they’re getting ready to do is put very, very strong sanctions on Iran. … But sanctions, and blockades, and prevention like this is an act of war.
I’m not sure what “lie” it is we’re being told about Iran, but then this is a guy so eager to see American “lies” at work vis-a-vis enemy powers that he’s been known to accuse the feds preemptively of telling them. Anyway, the point to take away about his Iran shtick is that it’s not an argument about strategy, i.e. “They’re a threat but non-intervention is the best way to stop them.” It’s an argument about facts, i.e. “There is no threat,” which it has to be because once he admits that Iran is dangerous his isolationist “solution” becomes impossible to sell. In that sense he reminds me of opponents of waterboarding, forced to insist that coercive interrogation never ever works because once they admit that it does, their absolutist opposition is politically dead on arrival. Conservatives complain frequently about Paul’s penchant for blaming America — and here, too, in the blockquote above, he’s already laying the groundwork to say “we started it” if and when Iran tries something — but his foreign policy, such as it is, leaves him with no other choice. The only way isolationism works is if literally any form of intervention against an enemy is morally wrong and just cause for disproportionate reprisal. Which is another way of saying it doesn’t work. Happy viewing.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
And meanwhile, back at the farm (facebook), a Ron Paul cultist promotes Adam Kokesh as a great patriot who should be elected to Congress. Remember Adam Kokesh?
Connie on September 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Sad to say, but his refusal to send in more troops to Lebanon and take care of the Hezbollah problem once and for all back in the 1980′s was one of President Reagan’s greatest mistakes, IMO.
Also, you asked for an example of Reagan invading a country, not for an invasion that you and Ron Paul would deem “justified.”
Quit presenting a moving target!
We invaded Grenada to protect American students there threatened by violence from rogue Communist forces that had taken over the government.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I’ll grant you that, at least for the most part.
Now the question is, what do we do about it?
Short of total US military commitment, do you think there is any way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? (And ICBM’s, for that matter, but they are less important than the nukes.)
If the answer is “No”, then do you advocate war?
I think you underestimate Iran as a rational actor.
Imadinnerjacket notwithstanding, the regime has a history of being concerned with its national survival. For example, when things got really ugly with Iraq, when it looked like they were going to lose, were they above cutting a deal with the “Great satan” for arms that arguably prevented their annihilation?
Of course not. Because they were rational actors. They don’t want to see Iran fall to another country, and they certainly don’t want to see Iran blown off the face of the Earth. Which is why we hold that a nuclear IraN, WHILE NOT PARTICULARLY DESIRABLE, IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD, AND WE SHOULD REALLY THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT GOING TO WAR OVER THIS.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Sorry about the caps… goes to show what not hitting preview will do for you
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
There is no such thing as Israeli “occupation.”
Nor do the Israelis use terrorism as a tool.
Your Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is definitely showing.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM
No, I asked for an example of Reagan invading a country to protect its freedom, not as a political sideshow, which Grenada clearly was.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Really ? Why does the PLO, which represents most arabs living on Jewish lands, and Hamas, which represents the rest of ‘em Charter (aka Constitution) is (still) calling for the destruction of Israel ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM
”The Central bank is the life blood of the EMPIRE. If you want to stop the war machine, you have to go after the money machine” –Tom Woods
Not only should the president not get a standing army, but he should not get a central bank to fund it either.
If you stop the Federal Reserve, Bush and LBJ and all these yahoo presidents we get couldn’t pull these stunts like Iraq. Doing so would require making the costs clear to American people, which the politicians don’t want.
Spathi on September 27, 2009 at 1:53 PM
FIFY
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Swiss are the leaders of the free world ? Speaking of Scandinavians , the only thing they tried is to publish a couple of cartoons …
runner on September 27, 2009 at 1:56 PM
What are you babbling about?
They are NOT rational actors.
A-jad and the Mullahs believe that getting the Muslim Bomb will herald the reign of the 12th Imam (new Madhi, the Expected One) and begin the Islamic Apocalypse.
The committed lunatic Islamists would rather be blown off the face of the earth for jihad than live.
As long as infidels die, too, they’ll be happy.
These people are nuts, as is anyone who believes they’re harmless and will listen to reason.
A nuclear Iran is completely unacceptable.
It. Must. Never. Happen.
And any means, up to and including war, should be considered to that end.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Ron Paul statement in regards to Iran getting nukes is the reason I will never vote for him.
thmsmgnm on September 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Who should get a standing army ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM
This is how Galt dishonestly got the goalposts moved so long a distance. The original post:
Galt responded:
Notice how I said (in caps, no less) “keep THIS COUNTRY safe for democracy”. Galt turned that around to “make them safe for democracy”.
Just pathetic.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Ricardo or no Ricardo, you haven’t begun to make a cogent argument for Paul’s insane pacifism yet you’ve had over 12 hours and dozens of posts, most of them ad hominem attacks.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM
FIFY
hawkdriver on September 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Your view of history is rather time-horizon limited apparently.
Russia has been oppressing Chechens since at least Stalin’s time. I suspect it goes back a lot further than that.
Ad yet, for all their actions against Russia (and I don’t really blame them), there was no muslim outcry of “The Americans are complicit in Russian atrocities against our muslim brothers; we need a jihad against them”.
Which is at least roughly analagous to your claim of a jihad if we hadn’t helped in Kosovo. That is to say it would not have happened.
Funny that Wahhabi Islam has been around for… what?.. 200 years now, and it is only after US intervention in the ME that there is jihad. And that its target is the global hegemon and nations that follow that hegemon into the ME, while other rich and powerful and christian nations just don’t seem to merit a jihad.
Now why do you suppose that is?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Let him go Jen. I’m picking up some great ad hominem attack techniques.
hawkdriver on September 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Bush didn’t “pull” Iraq as a stunt.
It was an act of war, duly voted upon by Congress, after an 18-month “rush to war” and national discussion.
Likewise, LBJ got Congress to fund the war in Vietnam, as did JFK and Eisenhower before him.
The Federal Reserve, and our invention in WWI, are thanks to DEMOCRAT Woodrow Wilson.
While the “costs” and implications of implementing the Federal Reserve were hidden by Wilson and the Democrat-controlled Congress that passed it, the costs of both the Vietnam war and Operation Iraqi Freedom are available to the public.
(BTW, Ending the Federal Reserve is the lone issue that Ron Paul happens to be right about, but he’s not right about the getting back on the gold standard.
We might get rid of the Fed, but we’re never going back to gold.)
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Love this, hawk! ROFL!
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
No, dear, it has become a problem after it learned how to purchase lethal weapons on the open market and airline tickets online.
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Oh, Okay.
So it is your claim that the invasion of Grenada was necessary for OUR continued democracy.
Got it.
I forgot the massive strategic value of the island of Grenada, how its vital position would be used as a launching point for invasions into South Texas, how its vital natural resources, like medical students, could not fall into the hands of the Communists, how our very national existence depended on the sweet air of democracy blowing offshore from Grenada, the last bastion of freedom.
But for Grenada, this nation would surely fall.
Just who is putting forth pathetic arguments?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Lethal weapons… like box cutters.
I forgot they couldn’t get box cutters prior to the 21st century.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM
The Russians/Soviets/Russians have been fighting against jihadis for centuries.
History of Jihad against the Russians (1444-1918)
http://www.historyofjihad.org/russia.html
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM
In other Ron Paul news, he still doesn’t know what was in those newsletters of his for 20 years.
catmman on September 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM
You’re lack of debating skill and tendency to politically label people is disgusting. I didn’t say Israel used terrorism did I? Israel has occupied land that was not partitioned for them since 1967.
Please refer to the poll I posted earlier.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:14 PM
You are.
Grenada was being taken over by the Cubans, Reagan intervened to prevent that.
You going to acknowledge your dishonesty in your posts at least?
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Uh, sorry, but it’s more like 1400 years.
But thanks for playing!
Because you’re an ill-informed idiot who “dis-remembers” history.
This will come as quite a surprise to Britain, France, Australia and Spain who have all “merited a jihad” in the form of bombings that have killed hundreds of their innocent citizens.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I’m talking about Ronald Reagan making a deal to sell advanced weaponry to the Iranians that you claim are beyond the pale.
But I guess Reagan was just a Dhimmi stooge, wasn’t he jen?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Interestingly you dug up a two year old article for the first part of your post, but you never provided proof for this.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM
One would think that the folly of the America First Committee would have been a lesson for us all, but no…
Spiny Norman on September 27, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Heh, good catch!
More brilliance from Galt.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I forgot they had planes prior to the 20th century, and atomic weapons in the 18th
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:19 PM
please refer to the PLO charter posted in 1968
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:21 PM
More ad hominems from the Paultards.
Shocking!
And you can’t use “you’re” properly, either!
Is this endemic to Paultards?
Yeah, you pretty much did.
No. Incorrect.
Israel is now on land that it conquered in battle when it was attacked in 1967.
It’s called the spoils of war.
And it’s part of the original Israel given to them by God.
The Paleos want them to give it back in a “land for peace” deal yet the Paleos never give them any peace, no matter how much the Israelis give up.
So they quit trying.
Good for them!
Y’am Israel Chai!
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You are making my point for me.
What I’m getting at is that as the Russians sow, so they reap. They stick their hands in the hornet nest, and the hornets sting.
Outside of the Barbary pirates, we had nearly nothing to do with the Islamic world up until post WWII, and despite the two centuries of Wahhabi Islam, there were no jihadi incidents against us, despite the fact that we have always been one of the most open nations, with lots of soft targets.
Were we less free then? Were we less Christian? Of course not. It wasn’t until we started exercising power in their back yard that we became a target.
Funny how that happens.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:24 PM
You didn’t say which time the Iranians were threatening to lose in Iraq…
As for Reagan, he knew the Iranians were bad guys but had his hand a little forced to get hostages in Beirut back.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Founder of Islamist Forum Arrested, Terror Plot Against Swedish Christians Uncovered
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/175351.php
Islamist extremist sought foothold in Japan
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/islamist-extremist-sought-foothold-in-japan.html
In Neutral Switzerland, A Rising Radicalism
Islamic Extremists Newly Seen as Threat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html
_____________________________________________________
Uh, you were saying?
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Partitioned ? Please, Arabs are the ones who have been occupying Jewish lands, have been for centuries. Shocking how such travesty has been allowed for so long !
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Majority opinion > PLO charter. It’s the people who should run the place not the PLO.
You called me anti-semetic first in ad hominem fashion. You’re also apparently cool with Russia chillin in Georgia.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Ron Paul thinks that sports like football are a crypto-fascist metaphor for the military industrial complex.
catmman on September 27, 2009 at 2:27 PM
mmm, no ? But, but in WWI the Turks (Muslims) have been allied and fought with the Germans
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Your ignorance knows no bounds, does it, WTG?
Wahhabism
18th century, jen, not 7th century.
Once again, jen, better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder about your ignorance, then to open it and remove any doubt.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:29 PM
*snort* this thread demonstrates precisely why the collectivists continue to make inroads and shred the country from within. Some here forget about Iran-contra and call all opposed to democratizing the world “nazis” and the other side wants to retreat and hope for the best without any real plan for dealing with the political realities at hand. Its so easy to see why the collectivists are winning- they don’t value the individual and independent thinking. Ironically IGNORANCE is becoming STRENGTH and unless we get it together we can kiss our country goodbye. We need a detente folks.
Firefly_76 on September 27, 2009 at 2:29 PM
The “charter” is their Constitution, foolish boy/girl. It guides and directs all their policies and laws and international relations.
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Come on, you can’t just alter such classic movie quotes willie-nillie.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Popular sentiment always comes before legislation. Read the civil rights movement.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM
actually , Jen is right. A rose by any other name…there is not much difference between 7th century Islam and Wahhabism
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:33 PM
True, and the ottoman Empire paid for its mistake, in spades (which is one cause of so much of our current woes). But while the Turks are Islamic, they certainly are not Islamists. As such, our dealings with them has been very positive.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Good catch.
catmman on September 27, 2009 at 2:34 PM
don’t be an idiot. The popular arab sentiment is to destroy the Jewish nation, if not immediately , then by biting off a piece at a time. If you want civil rights in the arab world, start with rights of women, not with division of Jerusalem.
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
But there is an immense difference between Wahhabism and 15th century Islam, which would contradict her claim of 1400 years.
Besides, you give jen too much credit. she was simply speaking on matters she is ignorant of…
… as usual.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Wahhab Islam has only gotten a global footing since the Saudi Royal Family took power in the 1920′s.
They are Wahhabs and have funded jihad all over the globe.
I suppose you don’t want to include attacks on our military like the Khobar Towers or discos getting blown up in West Germany full of American servicemen or the near-sinking of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen?
BULLSH*T.
Tell that to the Polish who had to defeat them and turn back jihadi Muslim killers at the Gates of Vienna in 1529.
Tell that to Charles Martel, who had to defeat them in France in the 8th Century.
Tell that to European Christian sailors who fought radical Muslims in the Battle of Le Panto in 1571.
The opening salvo of the modern jihad on Infidels and the West began at the Munich Olympics in 1972 with the slaughter by jihadi Muslims of the Israel wrestling team.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM
one of my all time favorite movie quotes. Hard to believe, however, that robert Downey Jr. was ever that young.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Read the poll I posted and provide proof that popular sentiment is not as it was recorded. Oh and don’t be an idiot.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Violent jihad and/or conversion by the sword began with “the Prophet” Mohammed (p*ss and blastings be upon him!) and has continued unabated ever since, particularly in the Middle East and Africa.
But then, I’m sure you knew that, in that you keep telling us your intellect is far superior to mine…
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM
mmmm, NO, you blabbering fool. They ceased being Islamists after a massive defeat at the hands of the allies and rise of Ataturk – who , lo and behold, eliminated Islamism from politics and created a secular and somewhat democratic Turkey. See how it works ? Defeat Islamists then set up Democracy.
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Once again, I know you have trouble reading for comprehension, but did any of those attaks take place prior to WWII?
Once again, you conflate Israel with the United States.
You do realize they are their own sovereign nation, don’t you?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM
What poll ? What does it have to do with the PLO charter ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Not yet, but they are becoming Islamists now, undoing the secular reforms of Attaturk and replacing them with Islamist ones of Erdogan and others now in power.
(Only the secular brass in Turkey’s military keep the country from turning into another Islamist lunatic asylum.)
We have had more than some trouble with Turkey of late, particularly when they disallowed us access into Northern Iraq when we invaded Iraq.
But, of course, you knew that, because you’re so much smarter than I am…
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Modern technology creates rather interesting problems, and the reach of arab nationalists, islamists, and crazys is much greater than before. While it was rather difficult to get on a plane, load it with atomic weapons and ram it into a building prior to 1945, it may be a bit easier now.
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM
he never heard of Ataturk
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:47 PM
They didn’t dare attack the U.S. before WWII.
They didn’t have the money, the influence or the power that we helped give them by accessing Saudi oil.
Hitler, of course, installed the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in Berlin for obvious reasons.
And there was an all-Muslim Nazi Wehrmacht corps that was used to invade Hungary, I believe, and make it Jüdenrein.
Jew-hater!
Here’s you and Dr. Paul: “Let’s just throw the Jews to the crocodiles and they’ll eat us last!”
The Munich massacre was an attack on the West and the entire Civilized world, not just Israel.
It took place on German soil on an event that was supposed to be about friendly, non-violent competition between nations.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html
The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM
wait, wait, has JohnGalt23 been posting for 2 days straight now ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I’ll post it again just for you:
http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2009/p33e.html
Question 43 shows that the majority support the Saudi peace plan which includes the recognition of Israel. Doesn’t matter what the elite want, what matters is what the people of Palestine want.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM
your claim that the Turks were Islamists prior to Attaturk simply doesn’t hold water.
They had a fairly liberal constitution at least 30 years prior to the war, which recognized equality of all citizens, regardless of faith.
They had a parliament, and competing political parties.
The Young Turks movement was rife with secularlists, and in fact even some ethnic Jews.
Islamists should be made of sterner stuff.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Since Galt ignored this the first time:
Founder of Islamist Forum Arrested, Terror Plot Against Swedish Christians Uncovered
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/175351.php
Islamist extremist sought foothold in Japan
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/islamist-extremist-sought-foothold-in-japan.html
In Neutral Switzerland, A Rising Radicalism
Islamic Extremists Newly Seen as Threat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795.html
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM
oh, ok. not surprised. that pretty much settles that TheCalibur, doesn’t it ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 2:52 PM
No, you more or less outed yourself.
I never said anything of the kind!
Nothing would have made me happier in ’08 than to see us throw the Russians out of Georgia by force.
Give them an inch and they *will* take a mile.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:53 PM
And apparently you never heard of the Young Turks.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:54 PM
The poll you cite is almost a year and a half old. The poll I cite is from earlier this month. Times change my friend.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Attaturk had to drag his country into the 20th Century kicking and screaming from its ruins as the Ottoman Empire.
Do some reading in history books that isn’t revisionist, please.
Which war?
Turkey is becoming more radicalized and Islamist all the time, which is why you’ve had some spectacular jihadi bombings there in addition to very public fights about women wearing head scarves.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Criticism of Israel =/= Anti-semitism
Hence you’re attack is ad hominem.
Also, according to you, isn’t Russia just enjoying the spoils of war?
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM
really ? let’s ask the Greeks and the Armenians (since you re going back and forth between wiki and HOtAir to show off your massive intellect, you will have no trouble looking that up and a word dhimmi)
the USSR had the best Constitution in the world, and everyone had all kinds of rights and freedoms, also.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Time changes, but the Paleos never do.
They are Islamist killer thugs who deserve nothing.
If only Israel would take off the gloves and wipe them all out!
The Paleostinians, Hezbos and Hamas goons have never had to account for the thousands of innocents Jews (and Christians) they’ve murdered all over the world.
Now would be a good time to start.
I hope Bibi stands as firm as a rock.
And Happy Yom Kippur to all my Jewish friends!
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Do you want to kill all innocent Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank?
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Uh, no.
The attack of Paul and his ‘tards always center on Israel, even though the U.S. has no troops there.
In addition, Paul counts as his prominent supporters StormFront, which is Anti-Semite Nazis, and David Duke, who’s also an anti-Semite Nazi and he’s in the KKK.
Uh, yes, but it’s not justified as Israel was in 1967, because Russia started it and is, in fact, illegally occupying Georgia by military force.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:04 PM
A whole year and a half?
Sorry, but things don’t change that dramatically that quickly. Especially when you are citing one poll.
Palestinians’ backing for terror rises
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422645447&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Poll: Most Israelis, Palestinians see no point in peace talks
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992321.html
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Very few of them are innocent, I can assure you of that, my friend.
These are the folks who gave us the suicide bomber baby.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
and apparently you never heard of dhimmis
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:06 PM
The scene was set for Attaturk long before WWI. The Constitutional movement, and particularly the work of the Young Turks, was at least as important towards the liberalization of the Turks as Attaturk.
Anyways, the idea that the Turks were islamists before the war and needed to be defeated by force of arms before theywould liberalize is simply at odds with the facts.
of course, your very comfortable being at odds with the facts, aren’t you jen.
Sadly, you are right about Turkey’s drift towards Islamism. However, you can hardly say that this is a result of lack of exposure to American force. If anything, our adventurism in the ME has encouraged this drift.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM
So in other words, if an aggressive nation tries to invade and loses, then however far back the defending nation pushes they get to keep that land?
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM
What is your criticism of the arabs , guy/girl ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Islamist expansionism Westward encouraged this drift
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM
No.
It has nothing to do with “our adventurism” and everything to do with the billions (received from us buying their oil) the Saudis have poured into creating, fostering and supporting jihad all over world for the last 30+ years.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM
That’s a pretty liberal point of view! Grouping people together and deciding their fate, not allowing them to choose for themselves. You wiser than them deem them guilty and expendable for the expansion of Israel? You’re pretty much saying the majority of people living in Palestine deserve to die. There are very few view points I dismiss entirely and end debate. Blatant disregard for innocent life is one of them.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 3:11 PM
What? So you’re claiming that the USSR was islamist?
I’ll look up dhimmi when you look up non sequitur .
Oh, and your regard of the USSR’s constitutional superiority to that of the Us is duly noted.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Generally speaking, yes.
(Why do I get the feeling you’ll have some example of this happening in a bad way…?)
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Galt, you’re still ignoring me.
Why are the peaceful Swiss, Japanese, and Swedish being targeted by islamists???
Tomblvd on September 27, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Personally, I’d start with the lack of toilet paper.
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM
And yet you’ll cover for the Paleostinians’ Intifada which took hundreds of innocent Israeli lives for no reason other than that they were Jewish.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM
And yet, all the time Wahhabism has been trying to expand, Turkey had successfully resisted this drift for a century, until… what?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM
that was for The Calibur, actually
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Well I’m talking about criticism of Israel’s government and not their people as I criticize not the Arab people but their aggressive governments and terrorist organizations. Militant Islam is a horrible thing. Racism, sexism, destruction of civil liberties and self-determination are ample topics to jump off on. But I don’t indict the Arab people as a whole as I don’t indict the Israeli people as a whole. That’s simply not fair and it’s very important to identify radical and peaceful groups.
The Calibur on September 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
You’re not making any arguments for Paul’s position.
All I see is you skipping around the world, playing fast and loose with history and trying to play “Gotcha” with people who are far smarter and wiser than you.
Most tiresome.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
can you rephrase the above, for clarity ?
runner on September 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Until Erdogan and his Islamist party finally got a majority and he took power as PM.
The Turkish Army was able to hold back the Islamicization of Turkey up until that point.
Now, not so much.
And certainly they are less and less able to do so.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Wahhabi Islam has been trying to wage jihad for 200 years. Turkey has been able to resist Islamist drift, despite wars, despite decades of alleged Saudi-purchased influence.
And yet now, in opposition to a century of their history, this drit is starting to take hold?
Why now? Why didn’t we see this for the last century?
JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM
In that both Israel and the Palestinian areas now have elected governments, the governments are the people, so to speak.
And the Paleos chose to elect a leader that will not condemn the use of terrorist murder and won’t recognize the right of Israel to exist.
Jenfidel on September 27, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »