RudyTHEGANGSTER

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay." Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings. One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate. The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners. But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military. The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community. http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/...itary_Donations Looks like the guys who have their asses in the sand know which candidate really supports the troops.

Yes, but 20,000 meet-up members equals 20,000 real live people who meet up, make posters, and do other sorts of scheming. That is a spectacularly large grass-roots support--especially considering that's more than any other candidate in the country.

McCain blew the wod that fast and he was supposed to be a fiscal conservative. There's an old saying starting with Jesus, "You shall know them by their fruits." The other campaigns are blowing threw millions and losing ground while Ron Paul spent practically nothing and he's growing. I guess the guy who knows how to be fiscally conservative in his campaign would also be fiscally conservative in reality. I wonder what's going to happen to Giulliani, the gangster himself, after NYFD-gate:

It's still early yet, Ron Paul has won some straw polls, and he has the third most cash on hand. Serious politicos Joe Scarborough, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, and Pat Buchanan are starting to say the Paul is a very serious candidate. So he's not big in the polls yet, but look at the following: "At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters' views of the candidates."In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency). "In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination). "In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency). "In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary). "In early 2003, Joe Lieberman was leading the field for the Democratic presidential nomination (he failed to win any primary)."" Paul has more meetup members (activists that meet person to person) than any other campaign, and when word comes this September that the military build up in Iraq has failed, Republicans are going to be forced to turn tail and look like hypocrites or stick to a losing issue. When Republicans vote in the primary and see only one candidate opposes the war and is very conservative on other issues, we're looking at a Paul victory in New Hampshire (a very libertarian-leaning state that Buchanan won in 1996). It may cause a domino effect. I my opinion, the race is between Paul, the mobster himself, Fred Thompson, and Newt if he jumps in. Romney and McCain are already faltering. So, one should not discount Paul because "he won't win." You don't know the future. As a voter in the primary, just vote for the guy you like most. Vote for the lesser of two evils, if you must, later.

With our I Pods, and our You Tubes, and our cell phones, and our online forums, our parents not staying home with their children, our children filling the void with sex and drugs, our children growing up into adults and worsening the trend, we are becoming so distant from our fellow man and woman, events like this should not surprise us.

Ron Paul comes in second at Utah Straw Poll (not an online poll, an official poll with delegates) to Romney: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/224903/4/ Apparently, Ron Paul is not a fringe candidate, and taken in conjunction with reports his campaign has begun massing millions of dollars, he is starting to make a serious run. __________________ U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin) You would think that after what happenrf after we supported Sunni militants in Afghanistan in the 80s, we would learn our lesson by now. There's your foreign policy people! I'm not sure who exactly it is supposed to keep "safe" in the long run, but hey, vote Romney, Giulliani, or McCain, and we'll keep on arming those Sunni militants! I'm sure it is as brilliant as arming those militants to overthrow Iran (according to some reports, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../27/wiran27.xml). Overthrowing an Iranian government in the past did not turn out so well. Sadly, I think this will "blow back" up in our faces.

First things first: Tommy Tom Thompson is the library cop: Second, being that it is so early in the process, I'm not a big fan of writing off what the media tells us are "second tier" candidates in favor of those chosen to get much more air time. Debates used to guarentee equal time...that apparently has been thrown out the window: Gee, I didn't know Blitzer was running... For example, Howard Dean was initially the front runner in 2004...and we all know what happened to him. 3. Did anyone else notice Rudy stole Paul's "we're friends with Vietnam now" line? 4. Lastly, regarding foreign policy, I find it befuddling that so many think that we can turn Iraq into a pro-America democracy like Japan or Germany so easily. People seem to forget we killed millions of Japan's and Germany's civilians, demilitarized them, and totally took over there governments for quite a few years. For decades, we kept large troop presences that remain to this day. Japan or fascist Germany were not exactly filled of people ingrained with the ways of democracy like we are, but we were able to change them. However, it took killing so much of their people and destroying to much of their country, that they were so freaked out that their will to fight was erased. As of now, it is the Iraqi militias doing the real "freaking of people out" in that country. So, if America is serious about turning Iraq into a Japan so there will be a Hard Rock Cafe in Baghdad in 40 years, we are going to have to take on a much more aggressive total war policy. This is something that none of us will accept, because we think the cost in human life is too great (and let's admit, such a policy is genocidal.) Thus, this sort of half-measure policing Iraq policy, all too reminscient of how we fought in Vietnam but even less aggressive, is doomed to fail. So, for this reason, I think Paul's policy is the most realistic. We get out now, or we just wait until it becomes so painfully obvious (by the yeart 2012) or something that we leave like we did in Vietnam, with even more disgrace. Iraq isn't winnable, end of story.

RuPaul on the daily show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrwy3mR3Mo&eurl=

The question really is how much planning the FBI informant took part in. For example, if it was the informant who advertantly or inadvertantly got the ball rolling, we are looking at a somewhat contrived terrorist threat. It does not make terrorism itself less real, but it should make us question the tactics we use to capture them (get a plan going, get people psyched up about it and then arrest them.) I do not know enough about this case, but it is possible that no attack might have been planned without the informant. It is worth considering that even though real terrorists attacked the WTC the first time, they were given significant help by the FBI in a failed sting operation. Emad Salem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem) was a FBI informant/ex egyptian military officer who recorded his conversations with the FBI in fear he would be nailed as part of the plot instead of part of the failed sting. Apparently, Salem even tried supplying the terrorists with fake explosives given to him by the FBI, but the FBI called off such an attempt (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm). Thereby the terrorists got themselves real explosives. Salem said the following in a recorded conversation: Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It [the bomb] was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case! The FBI provocteur (Salem) apparently helped build the bomb with supervision from our government, and was not given permission to the switch the explosives with fake ones. The point of bringing this up is that men like Salem may help bring further along terrorist attacks that might have not got off the ground. I am not saying the government is complicit. Instead, I am saying that infilitrating terror cells is a dangerous game like penetrating the mafia or anything else. Ineptness, as was the case in 1993, can cost many lives. Thus, we cannot be confident in such domestic security to keep us safe while we continue to embark on a foreign policy that helps encourage muslim extremeists to attack us.

But thats just the problem. As ridiculous as you find what Dennis Miller says, other people including myself find statements by Gore Vidal or Al Franken equally disturbing and ignorant. And thats the beauty of democracy. Furthermore, as can be seen by arguments made on this board it is a matter of open debate whether or not containment failed, and why it failed if it in fact did. As such, all these issues remain open for debate. True, open debate is a good thing. But let me ask you an honest question. Do you want America to be in Iraq for the next 50 years? And, if so, do you think that will make our country more or less safe? I only ask this question, because this is the policy America is publicly pursuing: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...30?pageNumber=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2Q848P0h8 People wonder why I am speaking so seriously and somberly about the history of American foreign policy. The above link is Ron Paul's interview with Dennis Miller. Miller, besides insulting Hillary for no good reason, was a gentleman as far as talk radio goes. However, I cannot help but feel he's mildly retarded. Are Americans so deluded that we think it is feasible to fight in the middle east for the next 100 years, as Dennis Miller scolds Paul for not supporting? I mean, listen to him. The WMDs, Saddam is evil, Democracy in the Middle East, and stability in the Middle East arguments have been abandoned for this "well, Iraq is baby steps in our tricathalon agains Islamic terrorists for the next 100 years." What kind of dumb justification for policy is this? I think their are well-meaning pro-war people here on this board. But, knowing the facts, with knowledge that containment failed, with knowledge that you can't find a tactic or ideology because they are not geographically based, with knowledge that our foreign policy in the past (i.e. supporting al Qaeda, giving arms to Iran and Iraq, building permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, our present Iraq war) have certainly only made us more enemies, with knowledge that the justification for this war keeps changing, what justification do we have for all the wasted human lives and money? How do the benefits of this foreign policy justify it's costs? Does anyone here actually feel as safe as they did 10 years ago? I am ranting now, because that Dennis Miller interview scared me. It scares me that the majority of Americans do not disagree with his totally absurd ideas. I used to think that supporting Ron Paul was a mere result of my political taste. However, after hearing Miller's justification for this war (and future ones), I am absolutely horrified that Ron Paul is not THE frontrunner. If America is going to refuse to seriously reconsider their foreign policy, the costs will be so great, I don't think America will ever be the same again. I apoliogize for the emotions in this response.

The height of Soviet prestige was 1980, at that point it was the end of detente. From that point on we spent them into the ground, contained them, filled every neighboring nation with nukes, and told them to quit. Nixon's great blow against communism was to contain the Soviets by going to China. Leaving Cambodia to its fate was a tremendous error. So as not to create a whole debate on a subject, I will write one more response to this and then give you the last word if you would like it. In a way, I think you are misrepresenting the long term effects of the detente policy. Granted, it unraveled in the 80s, and America took on new aggressive military measures (arming Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua) to limit the Soviet Union's geo-political influence. So far all intents and purposes, detente as a practiced foreign policy was dead. However, was it the 1980s foreign policy that ended the geopolitical influence of socialism or was it the long term effects of detente and the opening of markets? Arming Iraq to fight our mortal enemy Iran in order to "stabilize" the region so as to prevent further Soviet influence did not cause the Soviet Union to fall. Granted, it might have stopped the USSR's influence from growing, but judging from their failures in Afghanistan, they were in no position economically or politically to press the matter. Furthermore, let's look at both the immediate and long term effects of the U.S.'s 1980s foreign policy. We supported Iraq to oppose Iran, but then to afford to meddle in Nicaragua required supporting Iran alongside Iraq. While we were successful in preventing Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, and eventually the leftist government in Nicaragua folded, this by no means was the reason why the entire Eastern Bloc was crumbling, China was increasing international trade, and even India started turning away from socialism to a market-oriented version. What occurred was that the liberalizing of trade and the growing futility of the command economy in the Soviet Union, which was already starting to crumble since the 1970s. America's victories in Nicaragua and Afghanistan were hardly the reason the Polish solidarity movement occurred, or that the command economy was failing, or anything else. Now, what were the long term effects of the 1980s foreign policy? Well, the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan is one, and being this is a thread about Ron Paul publicly pointing out how failed foreign policy contributed to the September 11th attacks, you can see where I am going here. It has led to two wars in Iraq as well, which again, puts us in a mess. By encouraging Iraqi aggression and warfare (which in turn bankrupted the nation,) their attack on Kuway was precipitated, followed by the First Persian Gulf War, then U.N. Sanctions, and a second war fought to uphold them. Our 1980s foreign policy was hardly successful, considering the mess it has put us in. With good reason you may object by saying that the 1980s foreign policy, as opposed to detente, was a death blow to the Soviet economy. Though we can argue back and forth whether it would collapse whether or not such foreign policy was implemented, the fact of the matter is that this matter is not even applicable. Our enemies now, terrorists, are not going to be defeated by brute economic force. If the only successful aspect of 1980s foreign policy was its economic effects, it is no use to us now. So, what we are left with is proof that the peaceful opening of markets indisputably decreases aggression and that past military withdrawls from Islamic nations (like Lebanon and Afghanistan in the 1980s) did reduce terrorism. Furthermore, we have proof that meddling in the Middle East in the past hardly reduced the problems of the present, let alone prevent future problems from arising. In fact, they guarenteed future "blowback." The biggest risk we are taking is not fighting the War in Iraq in fear that if we don't fight them there we'll find them here, but what unimaginable blowback we'll suffer while we are over there exponentially making new enemies while our borders are unprotected. So, as I argued initially, the "bring democracy to the Middle East" theory, alongside the domino theory, will lie in the trash-heap of history's policy blunders. The question is how many more will die and how much more it will cost until Americans will put their pride aside, admit the policy is not working, and work on instead avoiding matters of the Middle East which cannot be dealt with rationally. Reagan, the man whose foreign policy you support, realized this. It is time for the rest of us to do so.

Also, how can anyone say that the Domino Theory didn't hold up and that its resulting strategy of containment wasn't successful? It must have something to do with the fact that the Korean War was a draw, the Vietnam War was lost, Laos then fell to Communism, Cambodia fell to Communism, India was a flat-out socialist state. Between the Eastern Bloc, China, India, and Southeast Asia, over half the world was outside the capitalist system. Containment did not stop the spread of socialism (because let's admit, none of the Communist countries were actually Communist.) What did? Kissenger and Nixon began a foreign policy of detente (essentially disengagement) and began opening markets, such as China. By the late 80s, these countries radically "de-socialized" their economies without any wars, or containment. In fact, it was the policy of detente as opposed to fighting proxy wars to cull Communism did its geo-political might dissipate. The better question is who out there can, without being disingenuous, argue that containment was a successful policy as opposed to detente? That the Vietnam War, in any sense, strengthened America's position in the world?

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory." Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall True, true. The two are often used interchangably. Straight from the wiki: The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The Domino Theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world. Precursors to the theory include the Marshall Plan and the Korean War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory A theory is just that. A theory. The policy based on the theory was containment. Wikipedia is hardly a strong reference. Never said it was. I was trying not to be disagreeable. Feel free to edit the wiki.

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War "domino theory." Domino theory was not a foreign policy. Containment was. :peepwall True, true. The two are often used interchangably. Straight from the wiki: The domino theory was a 20th Century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated if one land in a region came under the influence of Communists, then more would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The Domino Theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world. Precursors to the theory include the Marshall Plan and the Korean War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory I do however feel that the US has taken a non-intervention and isolationist policy in the past more then a few times. Each of those times it has not ended up very well for us to a certain extent. Our policy prior to WW1 and against prior to WW2 were indirectly caused us in both cases not to be fully ready for war when it did come. Specially in WW2 it lead (not just us but britian and other countries) to the policy of appeasement which helped see to Germany's rising power in the time period. Very good point. However, I would think you agree that geopolitics works with countries...terrorism is not geographic (and arguably not really political due to its ideological zeal) and as disengagement in the past has helped culling terrorism, disengagement is indeed a sound option to deal with it. Same has occurred with the IRA. In Afghanistan. In Lebanon. What happens when the British try Ulsterisation? Or American build permanent military bases in Saudi Atabia? Sends ships to Yemen? Terrorism. It is pretty predictable. Of course not everything is, but disengagement is respectable and it is sort of pitiful that a free media cannot inform people of the simple facts.

For Fox, Shaq, and Phantom: Does this mean that I advocate "sitting on our laurels?" Not at all. What I advocate is being SMART about how we go about our business. Speaking of proactive and sensible foreign policy, Ron Paul has been the only candidate to say anything regarding Osama bin Laden that may redirect American foreign policy towards Pakistan. See (4:42 to end) on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB-u9Gtf14c Well, to be fair, McCain pledged to follow him to the gates of hell, but I'm not sure he took it seriously...

America's foreign policy of pre-emptive measures against Islamic states to cull terrorism will go down in history as a failed foreign policy alongside Cold War the "domino theory" behind containment. The fact of the matter is that if a country stops intervening in Middle Eastern affairs and stops instigating fights with people willing to take vengence at any cost, they will not suffer "blowback." Even if they are already knee deep in the sand. Anyone who has studied history, or at least pieced it together from watching Rambo III, would know that the Soviet Union partook in over a decade long attempt to capture Afghanistan. In response, the Soviets faced armed resistance and terrorist activity. As soon as the Soviets retreated, the Afghani resistance had no reason to continue fighting. In fact, even after all the emnity, the Soviets faced no "blowback" as soon as they stoped intervening in Muslims' affairs. Of course, now tha there is armed activity in Chechnya, Russia is experiencing terrorist activity from that region. Again, it is the result of their violent foreign policy towards the area. The same thing happened to America in the 1980s. Reagan stationed men in Lebanon, experienced "blowback," and withdrew admitting that to withdraw in disgrace was better than trying to get involved in irrational Middle Eastern politics. The result was that America experienced no attacks directed towards them outside of the unrelated and still controversial La Belle discotheque bombing. Yes, withdrawing is not very macho. And yes, terrorist scumbags have no right to dictate our foreign policy. However, we as Americans have to decide if our honor and the foreign policy itself is worth the costs. It's simple cost-benefit analysis. Do we benefit from the cost? The fact that the Rudy the Gangster himself scored on a low blow that exploited people's utter ignorance of foreign policy is an insult to every American who has had it with politics as usual. Ron Paul was uncouth, but we got to put our pride aside and admit he's absolutely right. What we are doing now is expensive and makes us less safe. We never used to fear mass-terrorist attacks...now that we are over there, we consider it a very real possibility. What changed? American foreign policy. History shows if we change it so as not to inflame Islamic Radicals, we will be safer. Edit: Incorrect terminology.