The Right Scoop
Thought so, just making sure. :) However unless he has done so again recently, wasn't that endorsement from the 2008 campaign?
The first bit about Muslims is correct and a "given".
As for the lawsuits, against the States. Yes, they are a gross misstep by the Federal Government, who totally missed the point that the States were making in passing these laws, which was essentially a dereliction of Constitutional duty on the part of the Federal Government. So yes, the lawsuits are a grave error on the part of this administration.
As to FEMA and the Katrina response, the would be "rescuers" were not, in fact State or Local Government responders, they were civilian volunteers coming in from all over the country. Their motives were pure and good, however it is arguable that just letting them "go in" would have, in all likelihood, done as much harm as good. I have participated in enough disaster relief to realize what a logistical nightmare it can be and more often than not the rescuers are in as much danger or possibly more than the victims they are rescuing. A lot of people are under a mistaken belief of just what FEMA is and does (much of it fueled by the likes of Jones and Noory). FEMA is a logistical management team, they do not have legions of personnel, their specialty is management, response teams rarely exceed 20-25 in the worst disasters. They are restrained by law from acting until requested by State officials (ie Governors) and then approved by the President. Once on the ground their job is to facilitate the deployment of available resources and direct requests to the appropriate agency. This is what ideally is supposed to happen, but as any veteran can tell you, "The best laid plans seldom survive first contact". Granted the Katrina response was a "clusterf#@k", that much is true, but a great deal of that blame lies as much with the State and Local authorities as it does with FEMA. New Orleans and Louisiana were indeed warned of what was coming and what the results would be. State and Local agencies were given resources years before Katrina and even informed of what the results of a level 4-5 storm hitting the area would be, they chose to ignore the warnings and squandered funds on items like a fountain in the courtyard of the offices of the local authority responsible for maintaining the levees.
What I saw in your initial comment of this "string" was what I read to be an assertion that States could conclude Treaties with foreign governments. (which is why I asked if you wished to clarify it first) I was going to point out that Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution severely restricts just what kind of agreements States can make with foreign governments.
Considering Goldwater died in 1998, that's a neat trick. Channeling the spirits of the dead now are we?
George Washington himself even said the U.S. would do well with free trade with all nations and alliances with none.
Actually, that is closer to what Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;".
What Washington actually said was, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as
little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
"Among the acknowledged rights of nations is that which each possesses of establishing that form of government which it may deem most conducive to the happiness and prosperity of its own citizens, of changing that form as circumstances may require, and of managing its internal affairs according to its own will. The people of the United States claim this right for themselves, and they readily concede it to others. Hence it becomes an imperative duty not to interfere in the government or internal policy of other nations; and although we may sympathize with the unfortunate or the oppressed everywhere in their struggles for freedom, our principles forbid us from taking part in such foreign contests."
President Millard Fillmore, 1850
A quote from one of the original "Gunboat Diplomacists". You don't find Fillmore as an embodiment of the foreign policy opposed by your candidate? Besides the fact that the quote blatantly contradicts Fillmore's actions as President.
Of course he didn't come to force his will. We have been so blessed by God with free-agency and the ability to choose good and evil. If God forced his will, by definition we would have no choice. But that agency cuts both ways. If a nation or a people use their agency to kill and murder and rape another people, then it is the right and responsibilty of the nation and good nations around it to stop the "evil doers." This is NOT a Hatfields and McCoys situation. Israel and America (the west in general) has been attacked and attacked and attacked by a devilish idiology. It is our responsibilty to recognize that and respond apropriately
I agree we are in the end times. I think we should love our neighbor and our enemy as the scriptures say. But loving your enemy doesn't mean we allow them to rape and pillage us or our neighbor. The greatest show of love is to strongly and emphatically point out evil and do all we can to destroy it. Sometimes, that means violence. WW2 is a good example. So is The Civil War for that matter.
We are the most merciful country and people in the world. But we will not survive as a nation if we arne't constantly vigilent against evil (both individually within ourselves and externally with other people.)
Once more from the first article;
“We call for all sides to exercise restraint. Provocative actions like this should be avoided. Israel, like any sovereign nation, has a right to defend itself,” the State Department said in a statement.
Apparently, you are reading things into this article that are just not there.
As to the Haaretz article, you obviously were not paying attention to the situation during the Gulf War, so I will lay it out for you;
1. The cohesiveness of the coalition against Iraq was fragile, the Western powers knew that there was a high probability that the Arab states of the coalition would drop out due to pressure from their citizenry if Israel attacked Iraq. Saddam knew this and it was precisely why he ordered scuds fired at Israel.
2. The US offered to place Patriot missile launchers in Israel to defend it from Iraqi scud missile attacks and asked Israel to restrain itself from attacking Iraq, Israel agreed to this on the condition that if the Patriot batteries failed to stop the scuds and its people called for action against Iraq, that it would exercise its right to defend itself , the Bush administration agreed to this and deployed the Patriot units. Israel restrained itself because they were asked to and they understood why, not because they were ordered to do so. Maintaining this agreement was precisely why the Coalition command made taking out launchers the highest priority.
3. The deployment of those Patriot batteries and crews is the only time the US has physically defended Israel. It is also the only time that US troops were ever deployed to Israel itself.
This statement puzzles me a bit, "Now you can properly fear that he will not defend another nation.", first of all I'm not sure why I should "properly fear" anyone or anything. It appears now that you are saying that Ron Paul does not share George Washington's view on foreign policy. You know the one, it's the line that many of your fellow Paul supporters are so fond of misquoting and taking out of context. Surely, you remember it don't you? Here, I'll post it for you;
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” ~ Washington's Farewell Address The emphasis on that line is to point out the part that always seems to conveniently slip your minds. We have treaties with Israel dating back to 1951, the first treaty of friendship was drawn up in 1948 and ratified in '51.
So, from what you have implied Ron Paul will not honor our solemn pledge, our word given to a friend and ally, and completely disregard the words of our first President and shame the memory of one of our founders that he is purported to hold in high esteem. (Just to demonstrate how extrapolation can be used against those who wield it so clumsily and carelessly)
Wow Paulbot69! So help me understand... Jesus wants us to stand by and let evil go about it's buisiness unfettered and Satan wants us to fight evil. Talk about calling evil good and good evil.
I don't believe in returning evil for evil. I believe in protecting the good against the evil. And that's my problem with Ron Paul. He simply does not understand or recognize evil.
Ron Paul, "the odd ball." I just don't understand how his son Rand Paul is so different, does he have the same mother or is he adopted?
Those that fail to study history and recognize its patterns are doomed to repeat them. This type mentality has happened before and the smart ones are the ones that recognize them and work to avoid those past mistakes.
Go ask Nevielle Chmaberland how his non-interventionist appeasment worked out in stopping world war two. There is very little difference between the two....you have Ron Paul saying if we leave them alone the will leave us alone. Tell me the difference between that and letting the Sudetenland go to the Nazis because that is what they wish and they will ask for no more???
It is ignorant to equate a radical Islamic state with a mentality of Martidom bend on establishment of a World wide religious domination to that of the 1960s Soviet Union and say if we have the means to kill them they will stop. The Iranian Leaders do not look at the world that way. They see the death of their own people as necessary and they celebrate the death of their own people as glory to the cause of Islam. There is no negociation with these people. They want nulclear energy for one purpose and one purpose only....WAR. Once they get these weapons they will use them on Israel and then the USA. To think otherwise is a fools path.
Ron Paul is a total nutjob when it comes to his ideas on world policy because being (1960s style) reactive is totally the wrong strategy to give to these people in the 21st Century. The Western Civilization must take a proactive to avoid the next world war and to think differently is just plain S T U P I D!
Is your bible Star Trek's Prime Directive? The new covenant of turning your cheek, yes. I didn't read anywhere in the Bible where we should turn our back to our friends in need, or ignore evil.
I have ever read where God is a non-interventionalist. Have you read your New Testament lately? Did you hear Jesus saying to the people, "Ye vipers!" He uses a whip (*shock*) to cleanse the temple. Jesus was constantly trying to stir up the people.
Let's talk about the good Samaritan. All the good, non-interventionalists, walked passed the hurt man. The Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Are you saying if he came across the man while he was being robbed he would have not intervened?
What makes you think Israel is in a position to protect herself, by herself? And... why should she. We should protect freedom loving countries in the world from oppressive Nazi-like societies.
How do you recommend churches and synagogues help protect Israel? Sending them Bibles? Really how do you envision "Living Word Bible Church" or some such protect the country of Israel?
Israel deserves and should get 100% support from our state dept and our DOD.
Take off your stupid lenses. He didn't say Paul is a Marxist, he said that Dems are getting Marxists to vote for him because dems know he is a completely unsuitable for President. Deep in your heart, you know that too.
I like him in Congress. Let him stay there. The President is PRIMARILY responsible for foreign affairs. He is not suitable for this position.
They don't have to buy food because America and Israel provides them with all the food they need. We are such idiots!
No problem, I understand about priorities I have my own as well. That said, in regards to Israel's responses to rocket attacks from Hamas, Israel has responded with everything from full blown ground assaults to putting a hellfire missile into a vehicle or through a target's apartment window all the way to targeted assassination. They have proven themselves more than capable of choosing how they retaliate against those that would attack them, and I think this country could learn a lot from Israel's examples,both good and bad. The fact the the US State Department sometimes "chides" the Israeli government for their chosen method of response is nothing more than diplomatic C.Y.A., done for the international press. Israel has always done things with a mind towards their own best interests first, and I don't have any issues with that.
As to trying to "convince" you who to vote for, well have you ever seen me tell anyone here on this board or on any other who they should or shouldn't vote for? Go ahead, click on my profile and check my comment activity. I don't care who you vote for, that's your decision, likewise who I end up voting for is mine. I do my own research and base my decision on that. I respond to comments from others based on what they post, I research things I don't know about and use as many different sources as I can find. I don't rely on the talking points handed out or mouthed by a campaign's supporters here or anywhere else. I enjoy engaging in adult discourse on a variety of subjects, no one learns a damn thing from screaming,frothing rhetoric, however in a reasoned adult exchange it is possible to learn things. In those exchanges we may learn something or we may confirm what we already knew. As to what we have been offered in the way of candidates this election, well let's just say I am completely underwhelmed by all of them. However, that will not stop me from reaching a decision on which one I will "settle" on.
For the life of me, I will not understand why people do not see Ron Paul for the danger that this man is.....He is an isolationist with a 1960s style mentality that is trying to rationalize his policies in a 21st centiry world. The world has already had that type of ''Guns of August'' thought pattern and it resulted in the first World War.
Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy where America just retreats and leaves the rest of the world to sort is out will just cause HUGE power vaccums all over the world that will be perfect terrorist breeding grounds. It will create a more dangerous world for everyone....that will result in attacks directly on the USA mainland.
What will you Ron Paul supporters say when the mushroom clouds begin appearing over US cities because we allowed Iran to have nukes and the smuggle on US soil and New York or Washington DC, or Miami, or Norfolk become a radioactive wasteland??? It is too late at that point. Also, what will you say when President Ron Paul refuses to intervene and help Israel and Israel launches Nukes out of desperation because the surrounding Arab nations launch a successful war on Israel pushing it to the brink of distruction?? What do you think Turkey and Russian responses will be when US made Nukes from Israel arrive on their cities??
They will point their attack on the US that is what!!!
Wake up people....Ron Paul is a credulous dangerous man that sees the world in the most insane of views. He thinks of Iran in terms of 1960s Russia, he believes if the United States leaves the terrorist alone they will leave the United States alone.
INSANE....absolutely.....INSANE!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly! He may have some good ideas about the US economic situation, but as Bill Clinton ran on the "it's the economy stupid" mantra, look how well that worked- he might as well have given Bin Ladin a golden key to NY City for all the good his non foreign policy gave us.
Actually, if we look at the definition of Fundamentalism, "a movement with strict adherence to doctrine" and advocates adherence based on a view that doctrine should be followed and implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted. Then yes, we are dealing with "Fundamental" Islam.
I take it then that you cannot mount an argument or present evidence to support your assertion. Nice try, but at this point, fail.
But certainly you must admit that Jefferson only wiped out the Muslims who attacked us, no?
Your line of thinking seems to suggest that Jefferson should have made an attempt to eradicate Islam entirely, not just the Barbary Pirates who had actually attacked us. This he clearly did not do. He didn't even try. Did he make a mistake? Or am I misunderstanding your position?
I would like to see documented evidence of the US Government actually preventing Israel from defending itself, other than expressing that we think that an action is ill-advised in a statement.
He's also praising Wikileaks & Bradely Manning as Heros
No shit.... see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=soF2uIe8GPk
The Iowa caucuses will be reduced to being a laughingstock if they nominate him
This is an example of clear aggression (murder, theft) against US merchants. We tried to trade, they killed us and stole our stuff. In the same situation, it's a pretty safe bet that Ron Paul would have done exactly the same thing. If you think not, I would genuinely like to hear why.
What we have now is not nearly so clear, at least when it comes to attacking us. Would Jefferson have done anything at all if the problem had been only between, say, Britain and the pirates? I doubt it.
The ineffectiveness of diplomacy may well still apply, but the circumstances of the attacks are not the same today.
"yet he feels the need to express his displeasure "
Absolutely. Expressing verbal displeasure with one nation using force on another is a good thing.
"I am simply responding to a great many Paul supporters..."
But why not respond to Jeff with something other than sarcasm?
Fundamentalism is a very powerful thing, I admit. (It can be incredibly frightening in Christians as well, even though there is no Christian commandment to "convert or kill" to be found in the Bible.)
However, even if I hate you with the strength of a thousand burning suns just because you live the life you do in the house across the street from me, does it not seem logical that if you come over to my house uninvited and start hitting me with a baseball bat, I might hate you even more? And therefore if you subsequently stopped, I might hate you a little less?
Fundamental Islam is dangerous. I agree on that point. But I think it's unwise to completely ignore the effects of our actions in the Middle East as though they don't matter at all. At the very least, there is a very large group of people who are Muslims, yet not inherently and automatically willing to jump at any opportunity for Jihad. These people take at least some convincing to leave their homes and families to go die in a fight they didn't want in the first place.
Many of the things we do in the Middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, serve as a tool of manipulation and motivation for the true Islamic fundamentalists to convert more on-the-fence types to their cause.
One other point. You really shouldn't be so careless comparing any form of Christianity to Islam. Name one serious Christian group who wants to kill and murder a freedom, loving people like Israel and then you can make the point.
America, she has legalized the killing of her most vulnerable, helpless citizens-Christian nation that she is!
What is your point, Cheryl? Did you even read what I wrote? Let me answer your question though:
HELLO!!!!!! It is the CHRISTIANS who want abortion abolished in America. Surely you don't think it was Christians who were in favor of legalizing it, do you??
I don't understand your point. If my neighbor threatened to KILL my wife and children and I believe he intends to do it. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN how much he hates me because he will be in the ground. His children may hate me more, but they can burn in hell too, for all I care.
If this neighbor wants to kill my friend, there is no difference.
The devil, known as islamo-nazism, will manipulate our actions no matter what they are. They are EVIL! Ron Paul has no moral standing in this. He is flat wrong, along with all the other leftists out there.
This idea of leaving our friends is so wrong! I do think Paul is anti-semetic. He thinks Israel should be destroyed. He'll never say that, but his actions will inevitably cause that.
Tell me something-where in your Christian faith does it teach you to think like this? Is this how you understand the gospel and all that Jesus Christ stood for? An eye for an eye?
My Christian faith teaches me how to recognize evil in this world. It also teaches me to protect the weak and vulnerable from the bullies of this world.
While it does teach me to turn the other cheek, it sure doesn't teach me to turn my back on murderous thugs who want me, my family, and my friends dead.
What does your faith teach you about evil Cheryl?
...and that was never its intent. Its intent is to keep the U.S. out of the Israel/Hamas conflict on a government level.
It might, however, reduce the amount of hatred that Hamas has towards the U.S., since we'd no longer be seen as an active accomplice (whether the "crimes" are real or not, their perception is the same).
We are not all the same any more than you are all the same. Please point out to me anywhere in my comments where I have been irrational or illogical, or where I have claimed anything negative about you personally, any supposed mental blindness, or even your bias.
I expect in return only as much as I contribute to an argument, but I think that's a lot more than you're giving me credit for.
I would point out that you have taken a wrong fork here as the issue here is Hamas not Iran (at least not directly) and Israel's blockade of war materials bound for Gaza. If we were to take an impartial and dispassionate look at this situation and the facts involved;
1. We have an internationally recognized terrorist organization, Hamas, that has taken control of a territory (it has yet to be recognized as a state). An organization in whose charter calls for the destruction of an internationally recognized and sovereign state along with its people.
2. Since coming to power this organization has committed repeated acts of war against that state and that state has responded legitimately within its recognized rights of self defense, albeit with varied levels of response.
3. The blockade itself ,the purpose of which is the interdiction of war materials not humanitarian aid, has been recognized as legal by all relevant international organizations. This blockade, as has been previously pointed out, only results in the ships in question being rerouted to an Israeli port where the cargo is inspected, if found to contain no war materials it is then trucked into Gaza.
The children of Gaza are not being starved by this Blockade (as many activists claim) nor are its people going without anything they need for day to day living.
If you haven't seen them, I would urge you to view the videos in these threads;
http://www.therightscoop.com/open-thread-visit-gaza-edition/
http://www.therightscoop.com/welcome-to-real-gaza/
An example of the type of thing that the blockade has prevented from reaching Hamas;
http://www.therightscoop.com/israel-intercepts-hidden-gaza-bound-chinese-missiles/
If you really want to bring Iran into the picture, well the government of Iran has made no real secret of its support for Hamas, among other organizations that share Hamas' end goal for the state of Israel. That support includes financial and material support aside form rhetoric. That support could indeed be found as an "act of war", under international law, against the state of Israel. To go further with this however, would best be left for another thread, so I will leave that as it stands.
I appreciate your presentation of your position, and the clarification with respect to Hamas vs. Iran. Assuming everything you wrote is correct, it's very clear and seems impartial and informative to me at least.
My partially informed knee-jerk response is that Israel is not always innocent of (sometimes very significant) wrongdoing, though I know Hamas certainly isn't either. The U.S. has a history of unconditionally backing Israel no matter what they do, which makes me very wary of any claims that they are merely taking the high road. It is also hard to pick apart motives, correctly identify blame, and figure out who did what to whom in the whole Israel/Palestine conflict, which has been going on for far longer than we've been involved.
That's not a cop-out though, and I won't pretend to be settled on that position. I will take a look at the linked resources and do my own research, but thanks for the reasoned viewpoint.
I wasn't intending it as a blanket defense of Israel's actions in all cases. As far as the United State's "unconditional" support of Israel in whatever they choose to do, I would point to our forces' participation in the 1982 MNF mission. Our forces put themselves between the "belligerents" and in fact directly, physically prevented Israeli forces from further advancing into Beirut, in one case a US Marine checkpoint turned back an Israeli armored column from advancing into the city, in spite of the Commander of the column insisting to the contrary. No I am not inferring that they used force in this action, but they placed themselves into harm's way so that the cease-fire could be implemented. In the end, many US administrations have consistently urged peaceful negotiations in order to resolve the many "issues" in the Middle East, and I believe that honest research will reveal that Israel has been a far more consistent good faith participant in these attempts than her adversaries have been. The US support of Israel's right to exist and right of self defense is, in my opinion, legitimate and correct. Many have claimed that we have been "blind" in our support of Israel, however, the evidence is out there that shows that claim to be at a minimum erroneous, and at worse to be an outright lie, provided one conducts some honest research into the subject.
"Of course, I can't really supply a satisfactory rebuttal to your arguments...."
So instead I'll offer a childish bit of sarcasm.
OH.... Dear.... Lord.... Hamas, probably not the best people in the world... good grief. The man is demented.
Ru Paul belongs to a mental institution but RNC is so gutless to exclude him from the debates.
...which means that in order to survive, we must by definition cease being good or noble?
You can definitely make that argument, but that thought process does not involve either liberty or prosperity. Historically, that line of thinking results in an over-extended empire that does survive foreign attacks, up until it collapses on itself due to corruption.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I think the point of disagreement is on the moment at which our strength should be used in a preemptive fashion.
Obviously if we are attacked, we have every right to respond with as much force as necessary to defend ourselves and prevent further attacks of the same kind. Nobody will contest that point.
But if we have not been attacked yet, how long do we wait before a preemptive strike based on risk assessment? How "sure" do we need to be that someone is going to attack us before we try to stop them?
If someone is standing on the other side of the room with a menacing look on their face, do you shoot them? No.
If they say they're going to kill you, but continue standing there? Probably not.
If they say they're going to kill you, and they have a gun on their belt, but yet continue standing there doing nothing? Still, probably not.
If they actually go for their gun? Then yeah.
The analogy is not perfect. Guns are admittedly different from nukes in terms of destructive power, and the risk is much greater with nukes. Also, there is an extremely heated debate over what position Iran is in right now--do they even have a gun? Are they actually threatening us, or Israel, or both, or neither explicitly?
Where you land in this debate seems to be based on what you think about the actual threat of Islam and exactly what's motivating the potential attackers.
It does seem a little unnerving to rely entirely on intelligence reports about Iran from the same group of people who blatantly lied to get us into the money pits that are the undeclared Afghanistan and Iraq wars though.
I can understand that- but we also have to remember that even if Iran hasn't gotten nukes yet, they are still working on them, and they have friends such as Russia and China working on supplying them with weapons and technologies.
I believe in restraint, and doing other things first before bringing out the guns- but it's a good idea also to have the big guns on display behind you so those who may try to pick a fight can see before things get ugly, just how much fire power you've got.
I've studied Islam for many years and know their ideology. They are a very patient people on the most part, but once you are in their jihad cross hairs, they will stop at nothing- no matter how long it takes. In the mean time, they may claim peace or they may claim friendship, but make no mistake, they will find a way to stab you with the other hand.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.