A Voice of Reason Rises Above the Hysteria

[Scipio Centaurus]

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) gave a speech in Congress on 11/29. Here's a transcripted version lifted from his website [ www.house.gov/paul ]

Oil, oil, oil...

- Scipio

[David Floyd]

[Ramo]

I agree with much of what Paul said, but I disagree with one thing - his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. AFAIK, the war is about getting as much as aid as possible to the Afghan people. Now that the attack has begun, the Red Cross and other charity organizations certainly aren't going to be let into Taliban territory. It needs to be under Allied control if we're going to prevent the starvation of millions of Afghans.

But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks. I can't say it surprises me, though. Is there a place with more comprehensive information about the Rumsfield's plan?

[David Floyd]

Erm, I'm not quite sure why it's our business whether or not millions of Afghans starve, or whatever.

[Ramo]

Among other reasons, our bombs are what have caused the Taliban to repress civil liberties so much these past months, exacerberating the problem by quite a bit.

[David Floyd]

Ah, I see what you were saying - I still might disagree, but I thought you were saying that it was our business all along, even before we started bombing.

[Victor Galis]

I disagree with his anti-gun control statements, but everything else Besides, gun control can wait until this threat to civil liberties has passed. I'm decidedly worried that the US will become a police state before too long.

[Ramo]

It still is our business. Just 'cuz it's another country doesn't mean it's not our business.

I didn't support the start of the war principally because there wasn't a viable alternative. After all, the NA is nothing more than a bunch of murdering thugs, marginally better than the Taliban.

[David Floyd]

Victor, I'm not criticizing, but how do you reconcile the fact that you support civil liberties, but don't support the private ownership of firearms? Russ Feingold, the only US Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, is even pro-gun...

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I disagree with his anti-gun control statements, but everything else Besides, gun control can wait until this threat to civil liberties has passed. I'm decidedly worried that the US will become a police state before too long.

ugh?


Guns are what protect the civil liberties. Guns are a Civil Liberty.

[Victor Galis]

"Victor, I'm not criticizing, but how do you reconcile the fact that you support civil liberties, but don't support the private ownership of firearms? Russ Feingold, the only US Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, is even pro-gun..."

-I support reasonable exchanges of liberty for security, not mass surrender of civil liberties that don't return **** in terms of security.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

-I support reasonable exchanges of liberty for security, not mass surrender of civil liberties that don't return **** in terms of security.

How can you be Anti-Gun and pro civil liberties? You cant..... Owning a gun is a civil liberty.

And then you cannot make the arguement of public safety? In that case, your opposition to AT legiasilation shouldnt be.

[Victor Galis]

"How can you be Anti-Gun and pro civil liberties?"

-I'm not pro-civil liberties. I'm anti-stupidity. Surrendering a mass of civil liberties is stupid. Hence my opposition.

"Owning a gun is a civil liberty."

-Not everything protected by the constitution is a civil liberty.

"In that case, your opposition to AT legiasilation shouldnt be."

-Wanting free and open police procedures isn't quite same as wanting guns everyone to have guns. Not all "rights" are equal.

[n.c.]

Only a libertarian can point out how the war (and foreign policy in general) is overly influenced by oil and not mention alternative energy or conservation. I suppose strictly narrow-minded dogma has always been a barrier to logical connections.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not quite sure why it's our business whether or not millions of Afghans starve

There is a reason why it is the business for those of us who are human. Think about it.

[Scipio Centaurus]

Originally posted by Ramo
...AFAIK, the war is about getting as much as aid as possible to the Afghan people...

Am I to understand that you think we bombed Afghanistan in order to insure that we could provide aid to the citizens who are starving as a result of the bombings?



Aside from the fact that assertion makes no sense to me, I thought, the 'offical' reason we attacked Afghanistan was because The Taliban government refused to hand over Osam Bin-Laden... However, after reading parts of Ron Paul's speech, that explanation has come into question...

Now that the attack has begun, the Red Cross and other charity organizations certainly aren't going to be let into Taliban territory. It needs to be under Allied control if we're going to prevent the starvation of millions of Afghans.

[Aside: there is a Muslim version of the Red Cross]. Many humanitarian groups were operating [at varying levels of inefficiency, admittedly] inside Afghanistan prior to our assault.

But I didn't even know of the plan to hand over Kurdish lands in Iraq to the Turks. I can't say it surprises me, though. Is there a place with more comprehensive information about the Rumsfield's plan?

Unknown about Rumsfeld's machinations... It would be naive for anyone to assume that governments in the western world do not actively make 'plans' for lands not currently under their control... and vice-versa.

- Scipio