Ron Paul For President in 2008

[N-Syte]

@damkira

Missed the point? I simply challenged your belief that the world would be better off if the US military umbrella were pulled away. I countered with why it would have a destabilizing effect. I illustrated my point with a few examples from around the globe. Yet you want to make this about US support for Israel? And I am the one who is missing the point?

Alright, alright we can talk about Israel already! Had the US not supported Israel, it would likely no longer exist. While that certainly would not be a good thing for Jews, it probably would not be so great for the Arab population either. The condition of most Arabs in Israel is manifestly better than most Arabs in Arab countries. The US should do what it can to support democratic countries with common values surrounded by hostile despotic regimes. Would you turn your back on a friend about to be jumped by a gang of thugs? Would that friendship suddenly become expendable if it required some sacrifice on your part? The West did not act in time to aid the Jews during WWII. That is not a mistake it should make twice. Of course all of this is moot when you consider the Middle East collectively receives more than Israel (Egypt along has historically been at about 2/3 the level of Israel – not too far behind).

Why are you spouting Syrian demographic information? Do you really believe Syria is a democracy? Apparently so, because why else would it matter? Assad is Shia. Syria is a huge supporter of Hezbollah, a Shia sect. Syria and Iran have a declared alliance. So what are you talking about? The alliance between these countries is not exactly a secret, nor is it a secret that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt see them more as threats than pals. Is any of this sinking in? Must we rehash this over and over again? Oh, what the heck. See what you can blindly pull off Wikipedia and we’ll see where it goes.

You don’t see how the ‘91 Persian Gulf conflict could be connected to the current US invasion? Is it because I already stated explicitly how they are connected? Must everything be repeated? Saddam lost. Conditions were placed on Iraq. They did not comply and there were consequences, including the resumption of military action.

Great! If you are not critical of US policy in Pakistan we are on the same page!

You may not appreciate my “ridiculous exaggeration”, but that is exactly how you come across. Do you really think you will change anyone’s mind when you run roughshod making sweeping accusations of how Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes? What about Blair? And Howard, too? What about the contributions of other nations to the invasion? Should all of those leaders be tried?

You want to be taken seriously? Then back up your statements. Using your standard, have there been any wars fought through the ages that have been entered into justly? How were those wars fought in such a way to avoid all the alleged crimes you believe have been committed by Bush?

If Bush’s criminal intent is so obvious, why are there not more voices calling for his trial (short of the Chomsky crowd)? He’s certainly not a popular president; it would appear any time would be good especially if it would mean ending the killing, no? Surely, others would have noticed!

I think what I find so sickening about your thinking is the moral equivalency you toss around so breezily. You speak of the horrors of Bush’s war in no different terms then one would speak of the rape of Nanking, or the genocide of Rwanda, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the Bataan Death March, or the death camps of Eastern Europe. You use such apocalyptic platitudes in order to demonstrate just how evil Bush is, but all you really succeed in doing is diminishing those true horrors perpetrated on man throughout history that bear absolutely no likeness whatsoever to what is trying to be achieved in Iraq. It’s revolting.