Just throwing out that sentence.

Is Ron Paul, with his less than (what is the current mainstream) standard Republican views on important matters like Iraq amongst others, the hope of the Democrats?

Nope…

Winning is everything Democrats won’t get over the Republican title. I’ve seen that in democrat heavy websites. The message doesn’t matter, the fact he is republican is enough for them to want to see him crash and burn. There might be a small section that listens but they already view themselves as libertarians. A group that the democrats haven’t even given lip-service too and so are more likely to identify themselves as independence or ‘true conservative’ republicans.

So.. basically.. what I see then is that the Democrats are as short viewed as the Republicans. When something good happens on the other side they refuse to see it as that, but simply go by: "He's of the other party, so whatever he says is crap".

Unfortunately some are.

I’ve even bumped into people who are cheering on the war because it will mean political blowback for the Republicans. It isn’t as if they don’t care that hundreds of thousands are dead they just view it as a topic that the Democrats can win on. Any attempts to stop the war are therefore shot down by these people as ‘a bad idea.’ Stop the war and you stop the anti-Republican sentiment that has grown because of it and make it harder for Democrats to win.

Someone I saw not long before posting here didn’t want Ron to run because he makes too much sense. His history against the Bush administration, constant opposition of the war and other topics would win too many people. Many ‘swing voters’ could be swayed towards him because he is easily one of the few politicians who has a constant anti-war stance alone. Hence Ron is a bad thing; he could very well win it for the Republicans and so has to be stopped.

I have no party, not even American so I can’t have a party, but candidates should be brought forth on their own measures and Paul has shown himself worthy of being considered as president. To stifle him from even getting the chance is wrong, but for the democrats here you don’t have to worry… the republican party will do that well enough, he isn’t pro-corporate enough for the ‘campaign contribution’ crowd.

Geez, that is as dumb as I have ever seen one. I guess these are mostly the folks who don't have close relatives in the military that are affected by the fun thing called "stop loss". Not to mention the effect the war has on the people "over there" where they are fighting.

I see the logic there, but.. I would say: whoever comes in the office, republican or democrat, as long as the person has some brains and good sense, what is the difference who rules?

Of course you have to see that in the light of: it cannot get much worse than it is now.

Of course, in what world do you live :grin:

As for Ron Paul, I am a little bit skeptical, maybe for most Americans is big news that Arabs/Muslims hate them for what they do, since they were told that "they hate us for our freedoms" *rolls eyes*, but Ron's explanations are not much better even if he comes from different side. He will be crashed in any debate by the opponents because he cannot support his views in a way that doesn't anger the Americans (and especially Republicans who still have to come to term with Bush stupidity).

Oh, and by the way, isn't this one of the guys who raised the hand when asked if they don't believe in evolution? Do Americans deserve another religious fundamentalist in charge? Does the world?

Don't forget that many, if not all, Americans in the office are "devout believers" in God. Why? Because if they say they don't believe in God they won't get elected.

Dawkins, God Delusion, if I am correct, makes a reference to this.

Apparently not.

The three candidates who declared a disbelief in evolution where: Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. All three I have heard nothing about and that alone would turn me off even if I had heard of them.

Besides Ron Paul is a libertarian so even if he was heavily in religion he would duty bound by the first amendment not to bring religion into politics. As libertarians believe the constitution is the start and end of the government’s powers. This also means most libertarians don’t believe in government spending. 'Faith based' or otherwise. Only downside I can see is Libertarians also cut social spending as well. Fixing societies ills isn’t the job of the government it seems….

As for his explanation for blowback?

It wasn’t a bad move to jump onto what is heavily in the mind of the people, that being Iraq. After all he didn’t have the time to teach the whole CIA laced part of Middle East history. Worse to a whole room of people who believe the USA can never do anything wrong and so don’t want to listen. So he grasped at something that might get through the wall. You can fault him for it being too narrow of a scope but I think he did well given the time restraints and who he was trying to get through to. At the very least it showed a person who had grasped the basics: That the imperialistic foreign policy of the US is the most dangerous security risk facing the country at this moment.

Maybe I confused him with Huckabee.

Iraq issue: he will have a hard time to show to American that American imperialism is at fault there (first war), Americans were in Iraq in the first place because of UN mandate and as a response of Iraq occupying Kuwait (granted if Kuwait didn't have oil US would not have given a shit) but nevertheless many Arab/Muslim countries participated too, and in the laundry list of Al-Queda of things that "kuffars" did against poor Muslims, Iraq was one of the last.

Ok I will throw away the post I just written and focus more on the Iraq-Terror link then history of the CIA-Iraq.

One of the things high on the list of terrorists, and spoken out quite a bit by Bin Ladin, was the presence of US military bases on ‘holy lands.’ These bases have one common thing: The original Gulf War. Even if a few existed prior it was only during and after the war that many where created or expanded on which led to a increase of US personal in the Middle East.

That is the most obvious Iraq-Terror link, the first war led to an increase of US military personal which led to an increase of Anti-US sentiment within these groups who viewed those troops as invaders. You can argue if you want that the war was brought about by the UN and resolutions. We can get into the finer points of those resolutions which has left the sanctions and US presence as ‘iffy at best.’

The simple fact still remains, ‘Terrorists’ viewed those bases as US expansion into the middles east and vowed to fight it. If the US hadn’t taken on themselves the title of ‘world police’ and put themselves in charge of ‘enforcing resolutions’ maybe the gulf war and sanctions wouldn’t of been viewed a US backed event. Had the US left it up to the UN then maybe things would of been different. Seeing the US's actions prior and post Gulf war it is hard to say they where wrong. The charade of ‘world police’ was just that, a charade. A cover so they could expand on their power in the rest of the world for furthering their own goals. At best it is corruption, at worse it is imperialism.

For example: Ignoring nations that frequently violate UN resolutions but are considered of little to no strategic or trade valuable. Using this title to support and protect ‘allied’ states even when they violate the resolutions with complete disregard to treaties and international law. While at the same time punitively targeting nations they view as enemies under the guise of enforcing the UN rules.

That might be true but few Americans will accept the idea that terrorist groups should dictate the US international policy.

Of course they overlook the fact that *removed* all over other nations is what created these groups in the first place and call for even more of the same as if it would solve the problem these groups now face…

Americans are not guilty for any terrorist organization in the world. Shit happens without Americans too.

So the US didn’t finance or produce the likes of the Mujahideen, the Contras, the Savak and other groups?
So the US isn’t still teaching new group how to kill political enemies, blow up buildings and even run drugs for profit in the now renamed ‘school of Americas?’

Face it, the US has taught and still teaches groups how to become terrorists with the intention of these groups using that training in countries the US deems it’s enemies. Even now the US is supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East that have a history of carrying out attacks within Iran.

Groups that form with intense anti-US sentiment normally form because of something the US has done. No one wakes up one day with the thoughts “lets destroy someone half way around the world” and then finds dozens or even hundreds of other like minded people to plan mass murder of people they haven’t met. Not even politicians do it this way, they have reasons for wars they start.

The US isn’t the only group to have formed terrorists either through direct or indirect action; many nations throughout history had to deal with their own personal terrorist groups. Yes, many without the US being involved what so ever and itnerestingly those same groups didn't give a damn about the US, never close to enough to want to attack her. Yes many, without the US being involved what so ever, have faced terrorists but interestingly those terrorists didn't strike out against the US. They had no problems with the US and left her be. Those that attack the US do so because they have are reacting to something she has done.

Yes the US has created terrorists directly or has done actions which have angered enough people they have formed terrorist groups to fight the US. A few have even 'switched sides' after being created by the US then angered by her. One such group is the above mentioned Mujahideen, in particular the Maktab Al-Khadamat (office of services). This is the group that Bin Laden was a leader of, before the US branded them as Al-Qaida for PR based reason. Doesn’t look good to have supported, financed and aided a terrorist group that later would attack you. People might googled Mujahideen and wonder why the government was supporting a group that would later attack the US.

That can't just be ignored either.