Great post. Great analysis to a highly emotional issue. The sound bites we get from candidates can be pretty crazy. Fighting non nation state enemies using conventional armies is so crazy. When Ron Paul said a small team of mercenaries would have been a better response to find Osama in a cave he was ridiculed. I wonder why? What did all the bombing in Afghanistan achieve? The heroin market was almost extinguished before the war, now it is booming again. And now they all talk about "stabalizing" Iraq. When has a foreign invader ever achieved that throughout history? It reminds me so much of Ghandi who told the British who said it would be choas if they just left. He said " at least it will be an Indian chaos... in the end you will just leave." And in the end they did. Maybe if India had oil the British wouldn't have left! End the war now - vote Ron Paul on Jan 3rd - and change your registration back to "no party" if you wish on Jan 4th!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "aztjbailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "I'm all in favor of security, but we must stand up > and fight the terrorists where they live and breed". > > Terrorists can live and breed anywhere. They are not assciated with > any country. All they need is a friendly banker. They could move to > Brazil, transfer their money to a friendly Brazilian bank, and > procure materiel they need to attack the U.S., transporting it up > through the Mexican border. > > The act of terrorism doesn't protect land. They are not fighting to > maintain a plot of land as belonging to them and them alone. When you > want to protect land, you build a military with the appropriate > tools, tanks, troops, etc., and maintain command and control over a > plot of land. Terrorists don't involve themselves in maintaining > command and control over a section of earth. They infiltrate the > enemy and destroy something near and dear to the enemy, striking fear > into the populations heart, and then they run. > > A proper response to this then, cannot be the use of military alone. > How can you use an organization that is designed to conquer and > maintain command and control over land areas when your enemy has > nothing to do with that? A balanced mix of military agencies and the > global law enforcement agencies, increasing the size of their ranks > and access to technologies, including communications technologies, > and these groups working together, is, imho the best way to respond > to this threat, and Ron Paul, in his writings and what I have heard > him say, has been the only candidate I have read who seems to "get" > this viewpoint. > > I'm supporting Ron Paul. > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > <willytex@> wrote: > > > > off wrote: > > > Stop policing the world, spend the money at home > > > for better security at ports etc. > > > > > I'm all in favor of security, but we must stand up > > and fight the terrorists where they live and breed. > > It is impossible to make U.S. borders 100% secure. > > And I'm not in favor of the federal government spending > > a lot of taxpayer money on social projects like a > > nationalized social security medical program or giving > > U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund government schools. > > > > > Right now, the US is open to attack due to no money > > > to pay enough border guards, and high tech security > > > that could be possible, to do the ambitious things > > > > > You don't need high tech gadgets to make the border > > between the U.S. and Mexico secure - all you need is > > a border patrol and a long fence like Duncan Hunter > > installed in San Diego county. > > > > > the nutcase Bush thinks he can do for free. > > > > > Over 50% of U.S. voters voted for the Republican Party > > AFTER the Allied invasion of Iraq. > > > > > Ron Paul's plan is the only viable one. The 9/11 > > > commission and the CIA both concluded the main > > > facter US was attacked was because of US military > > > bases and involvement in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. > > > > > You need to face the facts: the U.S. is going to have > > forces in the Middle East for a long time. We've had > > U.S. forces in Europe and the Far East for over fifty > > years. We have treaties to uphold. > > > > > Ron Paul is the only one with a rational plan. > > > > > It is not rational to think that Ron Paul will be the > > Republican nominee. And it is not rational to think that > > U.S. voters would vote for someone like Ron Paul. The > > majority of voting Americans are not in favor of > > withdrawing U.S. troops from NATO and withdrawing from > > the U.N. The majority of U.S. voters are not in favor > > of pulling all U.S. troops out of Europe, the Middle > > East and the Far East. And the majority of U.S. voters > > are not in favor of retreating from the war in Afghanistan > > or Iraq. Ron Paul's plan to get elected is not rational, > > it is idealistic. > > >
