Super Tuesday

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...he seems to believe that terrorist attacks are justified by our Middle East policies, specifically the 10 years prior to 9/11...

Justified? No. Result of? In part, for damn sure.

[scaeagles]

All actions have have effects. We could speculate all day on what the reuslt would have been should President A have done action 1 or President B had done action 2, but I have no doubt horrible things would be the result, because there will always be madmen who wish to do harm and have it justified, excused, or explained as a reaction to a policy.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Justified? No. Result of? In part, for damn sure.

So then a Democrat's actions (or lack thereof) as President would be a significant contributor. 8 out of 10 years prior to 9/11/2001 (and probably the most significant chunk of time in regards to the 9/11 terrorist attacks), a Democrat was in the White House.

[BDBopper]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

What do you base that on?

I base that on his answers at the "Values voters" debate in late September of last year. I was shocked at the wide range of questions that were asked during that event compared to any other debate of the season. Anytime Ron Paul was asked about any foreign aid or intervention he always was on the side of non-intervention under any circumstances.

[innerSpaceman]

Frankly, I don't see how our refusal to help would engender hatred on anything like the scale of our consistent insistance on harm.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

So then a Democrat's actions (or lack thereof) as President would be a significant contributor. 8 out of 10 years prior to 9/11/2001 (and probably the most significant chunk of time in regards to the 9/11 terrorist attacks), a Democrat was in the White House.

I didn't suggest otherwise, though I'd say it's been way more than 10 years of questionable foreign policy.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

I didn't suggest otherwise, though I'd say it's been way more than 10 years of questionable foreign policy.

Fair enough - though I know you and I disagree on this area.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I'm liberal, this you know. But it doesn't mean I support things blindly or don't have problems with the system at large. Surely, all kinds of people with all kinds of philosophies are responsible for the many years of questionable foreign policy. And while I find the particular actions of this administration more suspect than, say, the Clinton administration, everyone in positions of leadership have been responsible for this massive-scale failure over the last many years.

[BDBopper]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

I'm liberal, this you know. But it doesn't mean I support things blindly or don't have problems with the system at large. Surely, all kinds of people with all kinds of philosophies are responsible for the many years of questionable foreign policy. And while I find the particular actions of this administration more suspect than, say, the Clinton administration, everyone in positions of leadership have been responsible for this massive-scale failure over the last many years.

Agreed. There are many leaders at fault for the current situation (and some of them are not American). What about the British and French leaders who turned their backs on the Arabs at the end of World War I and sliced up the Middle East for their own territories instead of granting them independence as they originally promised?

Woah....did I just take this topic into a different area. Sorry folks.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, and what about those Barbarians who invaded Mongol China?


Um, only a suggestion, but how's about we keep the morals and judgments of today limited to history of, say the last 50 years? Otherwise, we really have no clue how to look upon the actions of people who lived in vastly different times.


Not forgiving either the colonial imperialists or the Mongol Hoards ... but c'mon.