RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Only by those that would be bullies .....
The truly strong and decent tend to view weakness with pity.
And a bully earns contempt from all (save his own kind) .... both the strong and weak alike.
Ron Paul, the isolationist
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
The truly strong and decent tend to view weakness with pity.
And a bully earns contempt from all (save his own kind) .... both the strong and weak alike.
I learned a LONG time ago that there is only ONE sure way to defeat a bully and that is to totally kick his butt. In other words:
Only the strong survive.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Thing is, LOS, that every conceivable match up in the race--except for Ron Paul as the GOP nominee--is an Alien vs. Predator matchup : whoever wins, we lose.
Dr. Paul is far from weak. His position as Dr. No, running opposition to every unconstitutional power grab in the face of the sociopaths in the District of Criminals for all these years, usually alone, should show you his resolve.
He's just not what you want--an interventionist, or someone who would hose down an innocent man doing nothing illegal.
--
You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The problem with your question is that fails the address the preceding and underlying issue:
Why is Iran threatening to do this ?
The answer is plain and evident for anyone who cares to look: they are responding and reacting to provocation .....
Well, who is doing that ?
Gee, I wonder ....
Wise move: stop sticking the national schlong into the hornets nets ..
He would handle it by preventing it in the first place ...... by avoiding the chest-thumping rhetoric, and actually using diplomacy .... as opposed to the imbecilic stupidity that has been practiced by the traditional establishment (of both parties)
That's absolutely true ...... however ....
The solution to all problems is not always prancing around like a banty rooster, with your chest stuck out .... and shooting off one's mouth about what you're gonna do ... particularly when one has just gotten one's clock cleaned in one place ... and is currently in the process of getting it cleaned in another .....
IOW, the solution is not always the use of force
The use of force should always be the last resort.
That's true .... but it is also true that being utterly delusional and engaging in ill-advised foreign adventures can get one's butt kicked as well.
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Then you should have a fairly good idea of what is in store for us if we continue proceeding down the path that we have been on ....
Continuation of our little trip down the road to ruination will find us in an extremely weak position, with the two other major militarily powers actively seeking our demise, and they will be trailed by a whole host of folks that will be glad to help out ....
It doesn't take long for a gang of kids to understand who the bully on the block is ..... and to ally themselves together to take out the threat.
I think I have a pretty good insight in to these issues. I have seen, and had to deal with, both the stupidity and the correct during my time. I worked for several presidents, strong and weak. I have seen the results of each.
I still have NO idea where you get the idea that I want an "interventionist" in that office. Nothing is further from the truth. I was totally opposed to our action in Libya. Same in Kosovo, Somalia and several other "interventions" where we had zero national interest.
I also do NOT subscribe to the "US is to blame for every thing" theory either. While it is true we have been wrong, we have also been right. Only a fool believes that if we went away today that the world would suddenly be hunkeedory. It will not.
The trick is first to remain strong, strength deters aggression. Then you must KNOW what is going on. Many of the mistakes were made when the intell budgets were cut too deeply and in the wrong areas. Clinton was the king of stupid in that regard.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But I have to ask what national interests does Iran threaten that say NK threaten?
The stability of our country?
Or is it that we have to worry about the stability of the region that they are part of and call it a national interest?
I don't see an issue with oil as much as I see with an excuse that is wanted to attack Iran.
I don't either but I do believe that it is that we are not helping ourselves out by having an arrogance that we can command others to do what we tell them to do through a proxy or directly while at the same time consider our own problems as secondary in order to prove to the world they better listen.
BUT here is the thing, strength is a multifaceted thing. It isn't just strength of numbers or force but also strength in intelligence to and use those resources to defend the country from others. We are weak not because of our military people but our military leadership and our government. Our military leadership has the same arrogance as does the government, it stinks of the idea that we can militarily win in an engagement say with Iran or NK when we actually can't even win in Afghanistan after ten years. You really got to think about that for a moment, Afghanistan is not organized and doesn't have the loyalty of its people as does Iran. We haven't taken opportunities of reinforcing our presence in Iraq and have allowed ourselves to appear weak by leaving Iraq without anything to show for it.
Strength also means that we need to first look internally to find where we are most vulnerable and take proper and legal steps to ensure those vulnerabilities are closed off - our border is more of a threat to our national security than NK, Iran and China combined because we have no control over it.
SO I have asked this question to a few people and I will ask it of you - what is more of a threat to our country, Iran or Mexico?
"SO I have asked this question to a few people and I will ask it of you - what is more of a threat to our country, Iran or Mexico?"
In the short term, Mexico is. Iran could take that over under certain circumstances. Iran could do sever damage to the worlds economy. Their interference in world energy markets provide the Russians a much stronger position to control much of the European supplies. They will use energy as a weapon.
It is not as simple as one is more dangerous than the other.
As to NK, we have been SLOWLY drawing down there for 30 years. Just as we have been pulling out combat troops from Japan and Germany for decades. It has been done properly. Slowly, over time, keeping current events in mind. It will continue if allowed too. If rushed, it will not work.
In the short term, Mexico is. Iran could take that over under certain circumstances. Iran could do sever damage to the worlds economy. Their interference in world energy markets provide the Russians a much stronger position to control much of the European supplies. They will use energy as a weapon.
It is not as simple as one is more dangerous than the other.
As to NK, we have been SLOWLY drawing down there for 30 years. Just as we have been pulling out combat troops from Japan and Germany for decades. It has been done properly. Slowly, over time, keeping current events in mind. It will continue if allowed too. If rushed, it will not work.
I'll go with China.
China is becoming a serious problem.
Yes. Mexico is a problem only due to it's proximity to the US. They are not a military threat.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well I would think China is a secondary threat, they won't act against us militarily but by proxy because they would have an internal stability issue to contend with.
Mexico can be a military threat, we already have reports of their invasion of sorts into the US, and have yet to act on them. I think putting our military on the border with order to protect the border would trigger more than just a simple complaint by the Mexicans. That are fighting a civil war which has spilled over into ours. The cartels are fighting the Mexican and US government just the same and if we close the borders off, there may be a chance that the cartels will take the Mexican government over and fight to open the border militarily.
Between Iran and Mexico, Iran is no threat to us other than causing problems with oil. That is not as much as an issue as Mexico cutting us off from oil.
Mexico can be a military threat, we already have reports of their invasion of sorts into the US, and have yet to act on them. I think putting our military on the border with order to protect the border would trigger more than just a simple complaint by the Mexicans. That are fighting a civil war which has spilled over into ours. The cartels are fighting the Mexican and US government just the same and if we close the borders off, there may be a chance that the cartels will take the Mexican government over and fight to open the border militarily.
Between Iran and Mexico, Iran is no threat to us other than causing problems with oil. That is not as much as an issue as Mexico cutting us off from oil.
I am not concerned about Iran's oil. We get most of our oil from Canada and could get our own if we could get rid of the EPA and all the wackos who won't let us be energy independent.
All we need to do is seal the border. Keep their civil war inside their borders where it is none of our business. As to an all out war with the cartels, they would get smoked. They have no real army, no armor to speak of and no air power. They would be stacked up on that border like cord wood. Not to mention that they would have to fight house to house with armed citizens most of whom can out shoot them.
Thanks Chef, that was a really good point.
It's the exact same point I made yesterday ['Is this it for Ron Paul'] when I pointed out to LOS that the only man who HAS 'walked the walk' is Obama.
But what do I know, right?
But I wonder out of the field that are running to be that nominee, which one is can not be any worse than Obama?
Thanks Chef, that was a really good point.
It's the exact same point I made yesterday ['Is this it for Ron Paul'] when I pointed out to LOS that the only man who HAS 'walked the walk' is Obama.
But what do I know, right?
But I wonder out of the field that are running to be that nominee, which one is can not be any worse than Obama?
I guess I just understood it better the way Chef put it out. It still boils down to all I am going to do is hold my nose and try not to vomit when I go to vote, as always.
Just talked to my son. He says the word is that the cuts are going to do more damage than the cuts Carter made. If true, that should be fun. The Russians are rearming, China is. Iran is. North Korea is, Mexico is a mess and we are wiping out our military. YIPPEEE!!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Threats to national security can take many forms
- seeing national security threats as primarily military in nature really requires having both the rose-colored glasses and blinders on simultaneously.These threats can be both external and internal. Some are intentional, others are not.
But perhaps the largest threat of all might be our own collective stupidity.