Ron Paul vs. the Neocon Cowards

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by I.Q., Sep 28, 2007.

  1. I.Q.


    Ron Paul vs. the Neocon Cowards

    Dr. James N. Herndon
    Friday September 28, 2007

    Let’s say it straight out: Virtually every architect and supporter of today’s neo-con-game of endless war is a coward.

    Why? Because anyone who advocates a policy of military invasion, yet studiously avoids joining the soldiers on the battlefield, is, by definition, a coward.

    What kind of a person believes that a cause is worth (someone else) dying for, yet not only refuses to face the "enemy," but remains, at all times, in the cool shadow of security? I’ll tell you what kind – a coward.

    What kind of a person can’t wait to send America’s youth to die in Iraq for a series of absurd, constantly evolving fabrications, yet finds it more prudent to receive lobbyists than to fire a rifle? I’ll tell you what kind – a raw coward.

    We’ve all heard the deranged platitudes: "Sorry I can’t join ya over there...but I’ll be stayin’ here, representin’ ya, makin’ sure the homeland is secure, and that the economy stays on track. Believe me, I’m gonna be doin’ everything I can to keep you and your buddies well-supplied – with everything you need for victory. So...God’s speed. We’ll all be thinkin’ about ya. And prayin’ for ya. You’re all just fabulous!"

    Another classic: "I’ve already served my country in the military. I’ve done my duty. Now, someone else can do his. I’m entitled to voice my support for this war. But, right now, I’m just too old to return to battle! And too busy with my job!"

    And my all-time favorite? "Well...I haven’t really had any military training. I think it’s best to leave the actual fighting to professionals."

    How much training does it take to blow a hole in an eight-year-old girl? mom, construction worker, US Senator, software engineer, grade school teacher, Vice-President of the United States, young, old...whatever you are. You think defeating worldwide "terrorism" is a life-or-death issue for America? Then put your courage where your mouth is.

    Join-up, or shut-up.

    Just look around. And listen. Listen to all of America’s neo-conned, warriors-in-theory. Their numbers are legion. They’re in Congress. They’re in the White House. They’re wearing the black robes of justice. They’re walking the streets of America, safely preaching genocide. What do they all have in common?

    There’s never a doubt, and never a scratch. Cowards, each and every one.

    I hereby issue a challenge: I challenge any supporter of our current Middle East blood fest to tell me exactly why he is still here – and not over there.

    Do you hear a sudden eerie silence? Of course you do. It’s the silence of cowards.

    Have you noticed how the rationale for war these days is becoming less and less important? At this very moment, we are committing mass-extermination in Iraq – for no discernable reason whatsoever.

    Except for one – profit.

    When our nation’s very existence rests in the balance (as the "War on Terror" drum-beaters repeatedly claim), precisely why is any kind of profit-taking permitted? Why isn’t the military-industrial complex offering its materials and services at cost?

    This is a question the cowards would rather not answer, because answering it would reveal the truth: If you take the profit out of war...there is no war. Today’s cowardly patriotism resides only within the perimeter of profit – and safety.

    And there’s also a corollary, just for cowards: If you require those calling loudest for war to fire the first shot, the guns remain silent.

    Our "War on Terror" has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorists." It has absolutely nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. (The proof? The neo-cowards’ refusal to secure our wide-open borders, due to their love affair with slave labor.) It has nothing to do with a "Clash of Civilizations."

    It has everything to do with making money. Lots and lots of money. (And let’s never forget: There’s oil in them-thar hills!)

    And it has to do with a new type of "failure." Just as cowardice is now the new bravery, today, failure has also been rebranded. It’s now called "success."

    The more American soldiers who die, the longer that innocent blood is spilled, the longer the cycle of destruction and rebuilding, in other words, the longer the horror – the bigger the profit. A normal person believes that he is witnessing chaos in Iraq. Not at all. Success is everywhere in sight.

    Of course, it’s a coward’s success. And a coward’s profit.

    With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent’s arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that’s ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a "surge" that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.

    A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.

    And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.

    There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.

    Positions of Dr. Paul’s that would help achieve this objective include:

    * Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which functions as the financial enabler of war, as well as its head-coach.
    * Forcing politicians in favor of war to make a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.

    To which I would add:

    * Patriotism requires that the profit-motive be put-aside in time of war. Therefore, financially profiting from a soldier’s courage, and, possibly, from the sacrifice of a soldier’s life, should be forbidden by law.
    * By law, every elected representative espousing war must either personally ship-off to battle, or, send a close family member in his stead.

    The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution to reclaim our original American spirit, a spirit mangled, at least since the time of Lincoln, by the passive acceptance, and tacit encouragement, of state-sponsored mass-murder for profit.

    With God’s help, it is a revolution that will come to pass.
  2. IQ = ZERO would be a better handle, mate.....


    Let’s shag a few easy fly balls to warm up, shall we?

    The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

    The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

    If you ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

    But wait! There’s more!

    If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

    Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.
  3. I.Q.


    First of all, jackass, I'm not your 'mate'. And second of all, you keep copying and posting the same stupid crap over and over. I've seen your chickenhawk post several times now. Come up with something original. LOL

  4. This the the standard left wing argument for everything.

    They say if you don't fight on the front lines you are exploiting the "poor people" who have to join the army.

    They make this same argument in business. They consider business owners, idle ,spoiled ,wealthy, exploiters of the work force.

    This is why they feel they busineses should should be taxed more and FORCED to provide health ins, paid family leave and lifelong benefits

    They feel it is the manual worker who does the only honorable work and the business owners freeload off them.

    If you ever had your own business you would find all the left's ideas ignorant and painful
  5. Ok, here's another one to shove up your fuckin ass then, pecker breath...

    No Blood for Oil!

    Sometimes, the best way to examine a radical assertion is to assume that it is correct and examine the likely consequences.

    Likewise with a “war for oil.” What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

    There would have been no overland campaign – what for? – and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

    That’s what a war for oil would look like. It’s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

    We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for “stealing Iraqi oil,” then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier–mache heads.
  6. I.Q.


    Yawn. You bore me, you pasty skinned, bloated, rotten-toothed British loser. Get a life, and get off of my thread. To tell you the truth, I don't give a flying F what your opinion is. So leave me alone and go post on someone else's thread. Loser. LOL

  7. Or how about this one?

    Any better, Mr Zero?

    End U.S. Imperialism Now!

    Can I just take another quick second of your precious time to put this one to bed once and for all?

    It is a staple of the left to accuse the US of “Imperialism.” That so many people can level such a charge with a straight face is a testament to the efficacy of forty years of standards-free education reform here and around the world.

    An “Empire” is defined as a nation state that has political control over other nation states, and uses that political control to extract the wealth and resources from the subjugated country.

    The United States of America does not have any political control over any other sovereign nation on the face of the Earth. We have influence, but influence is to control as a rich uncle is to a prison warden. That’s all you need to know. The entire idea of American Empire and U.S. Imperialism is dead on its face after that. No control means no empire. Period.

    But we do have a large footprint in the rest of the world, and have military bases all across the globe. Is that a form of empire?

    Look, the whole point of having an empire is to take the wealth out of the colonies and return them to enrich the home country. The US not only does not pull in the resources of other nations…it does exactly the reverse. We pump billions and billions of dollars annually into those nations that host our facilities, and the minute any one of those nations decides we are no longer welcome, we pack our bags, leave and turn those billion-dollar institutions over to the host country. (Look up Subic Bay and Clark Air Base in the Philippines for some recent examples)

    This is not “imperial behavior.” It is, in fact, the precise opposite of imperial behavior. I guess somehow STOP U.S. ANTI-IMPERIALISM just doesn’t have the same snap somehow for the North Korean-backed International A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd. Color me shocked.

    There are millions of people – actually, probably billions now – who genuinely believe that the wealth of the US was stolen from third world countries. This is one of the great perks of living a life free of the ability to think critically and do a little research. I have heard this slander repeated so many times I decided to look into some actual numbers to see if there is anything to this charge. This is a perfect example of how critical thinking allows you to see the unseen. That attitude, Google and ten minutes is all you need to shoot lies like this down in flames.

    Okay. The US Per capita income is $41,300. That of a poor, third world country –Djibouti, say -- is $2,070.

    Now it gets interesting. The US gross domestic product – the value of everything we produce in a year -- was last measured as $12 trillion, 277 billion dollars (hundreds of millions of dollars being too insignificant to count in this economy).

    The GDP of Djibouti is 1 billion, 641 million US dollars.

    A little basic arithmetic shows me that the US has a GDP 7,481 times greater than Djibouti. A 365 day year, composed of 24 hours in a day, yields 8,760 hours per year. Hang on to that for a sec.

    Now, let’s suppose the U.S. went into Djibouti with the Marines, and stole every single thing that’s produced there in a year…just grant the premise and say we stole every goddam thing they make. If we hauled away all of Djibouti’s annual wealth, how long would it run the U.S. Economy, which is 7,481 times greater?

    Well, 8,760 hours divided by 7,481 gives you an answer of 1.17 hours. In other words, it takes the U.S. 1.17 hours to produce what Djibouti produces in a year.

    If the US really did go in and steal everything that the bottom thirty countries in the world produce, it might power the US economy for two or three days.

    Conversely, the billions and billions of dollars the US spends annually in aid, rent, etc. – plus uncounted billions more from private American charities – would supply the entire GDP of Djibouti for hundreds of years.

    Where’s your Imperialism argument now?
  8. I.Q.


    Wow, can you do anything besides copy and paste lame articles that contain the worst arguments I've ever seen? What's the matter, can't you speak for yourself? Limey loser. LOL

  9. Too late, it's MY thread now..

    So just run along, and find a good psychiatrist to fix that case of paranoia....

    And here he has hit on the most prevalent mental illness of our time: The Unwillingness To Face Reality And Its Consequences.

    I deal regularly with people who have various levels of physiological abnormality in their brain. Through an unfortunate series of events--their genetics; random biological mutations; or the deliberate use of mind-altering substances that activate the latent psychosis; etc. etc., these unfortunate souls start out with or unknowingly stimulate a defective physiology which causes a dysfunction in their cognitive faculties. Their defective brain works hard to integrate events and make sense of the world, but it is at a serious and overwhelming disadvantage because its neural pathways don't work properly. Hence, auditory or visual hallucination; bizarre delusions; complicated conspiracy theories; disorganized thinking; and an impaired critical thinking capacity in general--all of which lead to pervasive misperceptions of the world and the people around them.

    We rightly call such people mentally ill. For the most part (except for the substance-induced psychotics) the only choice they have in the matter (and this, too is often dependent on whether or not the insight they have into their illness has been spared the physiological degneration that effects other parts of their brain) is whether to regularly take the medications that give them some hope of being able to accurately perceive reality.
  10. I.Q.


    Yawn. Cut and paste loser. Get a life. LOL

    #10     Sep 29, 2007