A Paul Presidency

I never said we were always right. But, that said, how many major nation on nation wars have been going on? Did the Soviets overrun Western Europe? I'm certainly not going to claim that it is perfect. But I would really hate to see the alternative.
It's not about right, it's about being effective. I accept that the organisation of nations into militarised blocs during the Cold War probably helped limit the number of conventional conflicts- although it was hardly foolproof, given that incredibly destructive wars could and did occur, either with (Vietnam, Afghanistan) or without (Iran-Iraq, Bangladesh) the involvement of the major powers- but this isn't the same world it was then, and the same results can't expected. Furthermore, the Cold War proved largely ineffective at containing irregular insurgencies- socialist, nationalist, religious, anti-colonial- and the aforementioned impotence of the United States in addressing such insurgencies today hasn't exactly helped things. (The United States is hardly alone in this, of course- the continuing Naxalite insurgency in India or the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines are just two other contemporary examples.) The real obstacle to peace is that it's no longer considered acceptable to simply butcher a people into the submission, as was the case with, for example, your indigenous insurgencies in the 19th century, so stateless resistance can find a more secure base on which to operate.

I didn't say that.
I was simply pointing out that those Americans who would consider bombing "brown people" would certainly prefer Serbian Christians (that we bombed) over Bosnian Muslims (who we were assisting)...

The point being, traitorfish's idea that bombing Serbs equalled bombing brown people in those ignorant Americans...

There was a prejudice against southern in eastern europeans in America about 100 years ago (leading to immigration quotas, etc). We are WELL past that point today (though we still, logically, have immigration quotas... those quotas aren't based on not wanting east & southern europeans to immigrate, it is done on a nation by nation basis).
Not what I said at all. :crazyeye:
 
Thank you, now everyone else gets to see exactly how much you're misinterpreting me.
 
I said... when someone says the USA likes to bomb "brown people"... We bombed Serbia.

You then chimed in with that brilliant statement above, insinuating that America was still racist because we didn't consider Serbs to be "true white" people.

For those who were unclear.
 
I didn't say anything of the sort. That's a laughably one-dimensional interpretation of my comments, and of the question of "race" in general.
 
Wow, so, you now deny it! Good thing everyone can see it in plain English and knows that you will simply never admit to being wrong about anything you said.
 
I stand by everything I said. I just think that your interpretation is complete nonsense. People can make up their own mind who they believe.
 
Moving past whatever the current argument is about, do you think Paul would deploy a US presence to areas where genocide is actualy happening? Would Paul's decision be a good idea?
 
Remember Ziggy, lacking an unelected inbred German to rule over us, we Americans have been forced to improvise to find another object of slavish devotion.
 
Moving past whatever the current argument is about, do you think Paul would deploy a US presence to areas where genocide is actualy happening? Would Paul's decision be a good idea?


According to what Paul has said, it's none of our business what other people choose to do to each other. Paul voted against:
109th Congress: 2005-2006

To impose sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, to support measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations, and to support peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan, and for other purposes.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3127
http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/ron-paul/b13303
 
Back
Top Bottom