Oh please...I was calling out rew on what he (rew) said, dumbass. But since you stuck your Ron Paul brown nose in it, tell me on what planet this is not blaming us for 9/11. "I note that Al Qaeda did not fly planes into buildings in Zurich or Geneva. That's because the Swiss mind their own business."
Our foreign policy creates terrorists. It's called blowback and it is a concept I have tried to explain to you for several pages. However, whenever I pose the question: If another country's military blew up your house, would you do anything about it? You just skip right past the question as though it was in a foreign language. Also, citing blow-back as a direct cause of 9/11 does not make one an anti-Semite, kooky, or unpatriotic. Our own CIA has said this very same thing, are they kooky and unpatriotic? Johnson believed that the enforcement of American hegemony over the world constitutes a new form of global empire. Whereas traditional empires maintained control over subject peoples via colonies, since World War II the US has developed a vast system of hundreds of military bases around the world where it has strategic interests. A long-time Cold Warrior, he applauded the dissolution of the Soviet Union: "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so."[8] But at the same time he experienced a political awakening after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, noting that instead of demobilizing its armed forces, the US accelerated its reliance on military solutions to problems both economic and political. The result of this militarism (as distinct from actual domestic defense) is more terrorism against the US and its allies, the loss of core democratic values at home, and an eventual disaster for the American economy. Of four books he wrote on this topic, the first three are referred to as The Blowback Trilogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson In fact, it is not even close to calling America or Israel the problem. The problem, is our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is not America...it is simply the misguided actions of our failed leadership.
Yes, I understand that your position on intervention, Iran, Nukes is the same as all the other Neocons, which in fact makes you a big government Lib. You are a Lib and you don't evem know it. Let me guess. You voted for Bush, Bush, McCain, and now you will vote for anyone who gets the Pub nomination. If that person is not Ron Paul, then it will be another Neo-con Leftist. You couldn't vote for Ron Paul because you are a big government, warfare/welfare state supporter. And a partisan hack to boot! Just admit that you can't think for yourself and you only know how to spew back what you hear on Fox News. And you think that qualifies you as a Conservative? Trust me, you aint. Another chicken hawk who loves to flap his wings.
You clearly don't understand the motivation of the terrorists or the islamofascists. You really need to stop getting all your news from Hannity and O'Reilly. Rew's point is that we aren't attacked because we are rich and free (this is exactly what you believe, which is dangerous and dead wrong) - we are attacked because we have meddled in the internal affairs of other nations too long, overthrowing governments and killing ciitizens. You are a retard.
ROFL!!!! You Paultards need to stop parroting your messiah and learn to think for yourselves. You even have it down to preemptively "dismissing" others who have challenged him DAS your question is idiotic because of course nobody likes it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do it. Do you think we shouldn't have fought WWII because bombings pissed off the enemy? Are Germany and Japan still our enemies? Are you implying we shouldn't go after Al-Qaeda or those who've supported or harbored them because it might anger Islamofascists? One of you idiots made the analogy of poking a hornet's nest with a stick. I say, the problem is the hornets and instead of a stick we should spray them with gasoline and set them on fire. Are you Pautards all descendants of Neville Chamberlain? Are you really so naive that you think it's OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons? <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KuX73Ixqtbg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
P.S. On top of being a kook, your messiah is a hypocrite. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GyPLFKUdhqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I didn't ask if you would like it, I asked what you would do about it. I ask this question because it is a question we force many people to answer when we 'accidentally' kill their relatives. Since you still haven't answered it, I will pose the question, yet again. If another nation's military was hunting terrorists, and they mistakenly blew up your house, what would you do about it? Now, a chicken hawk like you might not do anything, but people who care about their families may be driven to take up arms. It is in this way we created terrorists. That is not Americas fault, or the fault of the average American, that is the fault of our failed leadership. Should we go after our own creation? I think most experts are on record as saying Al Qaeda is all but ineffectual, their leaders have mostly been assassinated, and they are operationally sedentary. Bin Laden is dead. We were placed on this war footing for the sole purpose of getting those who visited 9/11 on us and we seem to have accomplished that. Now it is time to return to our constitutional roots and take care of our own country. You may not be aware, but America is over 15 trillion in debt. This is no longer a question of should America be the world's policeman...that question has been rendered moot by the reality of we can no longer afford to do so. Also, I do think it is ok for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Although I would prefer a world where no one had nukes, I realize this will never happen (at least until the human race evolves to the point where we are all able to perceive our connection to each other). If I were Iran, I would definitely want one because it would ensure that neither Israel nor America attacked me. It may not be desirable for Israel to have to compete with a nuclear power that doesn't like them but that's Israel's problem, not Americas. Israel has nuclear icbms and submarines and so is more than capable of taking care of itself. Seriously, does Israel need America to hold its hand? Also, if the theocratic government of Israel was not so keen on oppressing Muslims perhaps Iran would soften its stance towards them. Besides, last time I checked, Iran has invaded 0 countries.
This absurdity and your other ridiculous nonsense, to include your phony equivalences and insistence on "proof" that al-Awlaki (a prominent member of Al Qaeda) was an enemy combatant show you're a naive rock-headed moron. What are you thinking? That Al Qaeda's in on a conspiracy with the U.S. to "assassinate" patriotic Americans so they made all that up and framed him? But wait... who better to partner with Al Qaeda than Barack Hussein Obama! :eek: Better watch out, they might go after your messiah next because only he can take down a conspiracy so vast and sinister :eek: You conveniently sidestepped my questions about WWII and tried to misdirect your BS onto me along with your lie that I'm a chickenhawk, as did your fellow Paultard and liar Optional. You're both full of shit and know nothing about me in that regard, proving once again you both talk out of your asses. Bow down to your messiah 200 times and beg his forgiveness for representing him so poorly.
So it is clear to me and everyone else that you are a mindless shill who does not have the life experience to back up what he is talking about. Also, you are confused; I never sidestepped any of your questions...unlike you who still won't say what he would do if another nations military accidentally killed his family. so, let's pose the question again because now I'm curious how many more times you will attempt to sidestep it: If another nations military was hunting for terrorists and they accidentally blew up your house, with your family in it, what would you do about it? Also, the reason I call you a chicken hawk is because I understand the definition of the word. "Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics) I think this thread pretty much establishes that you support the concept of war, rather vehemently. You've attempted to make the case that we should wage constant war. Now, prove I am wrong about you. What branch of the military did you serve with? See, if you didn't actually serve, and you want others to go to war for you, you are, in fact, a chickenhawk. In other words, it means you are a coward for not having the courage of your convictions.
Most, if not all of these fools on this site are chicken hawks. WAR!!!! As long as they don't have to fight it.