Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s.
A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.
If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.
The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.
If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.
Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.
This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.
References:
terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
When the facts don’t suit your agenda, distort them. Worked for the neoconservatives (pseudoconservatives) in their pursuit for a conflict with Iraq and now with Iran. In the same tradition, a “progressive” website made the following claims in an attempt to slander Ron Paul:
“Rep. Paul is not a liberal, protesting against the War in Iraq. He is an isolationist, who seeks to keep America’s business at home.”
Wrong. Non-interventionist. This means he advocates trading with other nations and staying out of their internal conflicts. It doesn’t mean we ignore the world.
“Rep. Paul is not socially liberal, but economically conservative, as some have claimed. He is an old-style Conservative, through and through. “
Wrong, he is mostly socially liberal AND economically conservative. Otherwise known as a classical liberal.
I suspect spreading disinformation about Ron Paul is in response to his growing numbers of liberals, conservatives, and independents who find his message of liberty appealing.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are betraying their own constituency by backing out of any promises to end the war. If anyone is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it is these fake liberals who are looking more like pro-war neoconservatives everyday.
To clear up misconceptions about Ron Paul:
He may not like gay marriage, but he believes the contracts between two people should be enforced by the government. That means if a church wants to marry two gay people, Ron Paul believes the government should honor that agreement, and that heterosexual marriages should hold no special privilege.
He may detest abortion, but he believes such matters should be decided by the individual states and not the federal government. (Which means some states will allow abortion and some won’t. And perhaps it is better this way until we understand human consciousness better).
He opposes affirmative action, because he wants to treat people like individuals, not as arbitrary groups of people with special privileges, regardless of their skin color. He believes treating people like individuals and allowing them to exercise their liberties is a better way to achieve equality.
He strongly opposes the war on drugs, because prohibition causes more problems than it solves. There are only two democratic candidates who oppose the war on drugs: Gravel and questionably Kucinich. After all, should the government put you in jail for consuming Burger King food and putting yourself at risk? Why should it be any different with the personal use of drugs? Furthermore, the FDA prevents many useful medications from being sold in the market, forcing people to seek other alternatives abroad, increasing the cost of medicines, and sometimes leaving patients with no options.
He strongly opposes the Iraq war, on the grounds that we have no right to start wars of aggression. On the other hand, we have seen that Hillary and Obama are very likely to pursue an unnecessary conflict with Iran and start a new conflict in Sudan, as if we hadn’t learned from Vietnam and Iraq, already, and despite the fact that the majority of voters want out of Iraq.
Ron Paul doesn’t arbitrarily choose issues when it is convenient, like the majority of Republicans and Democrats. He goes by the principle of individual liberty, which means his stances on most issues are consistent and predictable, instead of progressively changing based on the whim of lobby groups.
I know it’s threatening to see Ron Paul earn more in donations in seven days than John Edwards earned in ten days. I know it’s threatening to see that liberals and conservatives are finding good reasons to support Ron Paul. But instead of misinforming voters, try to engage in honest discussion.
Hillary is a pro-war Republican. And not far behind, Obama. According to Gravel at yesterday’s MSNBC Democratic debate, Hillary voted yes on a bill put forth by Joe Lieberman, which among other things, will designate the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a terrorist organization. The amendment, in effect, grants president Bush a justification for starting a war with Iran. Obama didn’t even show up to vote for said vote.
Also at the debate, none of the so-called top-tier candidates promised to end the war by the end of their first term. In essence, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are towing the neoconservative line.
The only senators running for president who voted against this bill were Biden and Dodd.
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
As usual, when confronted by a tough question, or in this case, a relevant accusation, Hillary resorted to pausing, laughing maniacally and then dancing around the question.
Then she refused to answer relevant hypothetical questions. If she doesn’t want to answer questions, they should revoke her time and give it to another candidate who will answer the questions asked.
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.
You may have read a great article by Arthur Silber pointing out that, You, Too, Can and Should Be an “Intelligence Analyst”. The basic premise is the intelligence community has little more access than you do to critical information, and that privileged information becomes irrelevant too quickly to be a major factor in foreign policy decisions.
Thus, the decision to go to war has less to do with military intelligence than it has to do with whims and irrational internal politics (read: whatever is convenient for the people in power). After all, you have an essentially unlimited number of choices from everything to what you will wear, to what you will have for breakfast, and just how you’ll get your work done today. Why is foreign policy any different? The choices aren’t only “war” and “cut and run” as this administration would have you believe. Did we have to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum (leave the country or prepare for war) even if he had WMDs?
Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. It helps to have been trained-as my contemporaries and I had the good fortune to be trained-by past masters of the discipline of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, anyone with a high school education can do it. It is not rocket science.
You’d have to believe your government is incompetent if our only choice was to invade Iraq. Or maybe you’d believe it anyway. But our intelligence agencies aren’t incompetent. The problem is, as Arthur Silber points out, intelligence is irrelevant.
Intelligence is completely irrelevant to major policy decisions. Such decisions are matters of judgment, and knowledgeable, ordinary citizens are just as capable of making these determinations as political leaders allegedly in possession of “secret information.” Such “secret information” is almost always wrong — and major decisions, including those pertaining to war and peace, are made entirely apart from such information in any case.
The second you start arguing about intelligence, you’ve given the game away once again. This is a game the government and the proponents of war will always win. By now, we all surely know that if they want the intelligence to show that Country X is a “grave” and “growing” threat, they will find it or manufacture it. So once you’re debating what the intelligence shows or fails to show, the debate is over. The war will inevitably begin.
Gabriel Kolko explains:
It is all too rare that states overcome illusions, and the United States is no more an exception than Germany, Italy, England, or France before it. The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century. By and large, US, Soviet, and British strategic intelligence since 1945 has been inaccurate and often misleading, and although it accumulated pieces of information that were useful, the leaders of these nations failed to grasp the inherent dangers of their overall policies. When accurate, such intelligence has been ignored most of the time if there were overriding preconceptions or bureaucratic reasons for doing so.
Because when intelligence doesn’t support your goals, you can just dismiss it and revise history:
What’s next? On to Iran
Since we are labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq” and since we are already over there, why not? It appears that the main reason for going to Iraq in the first place was to maintain a foothold in the Middle East and secure the region for our perpetually-muddled “ally” Israel. If the door starts to close because our military is spreading thin (as shown in the video above) the only way to keep it open (and transfer some of the responsibility for the war to the next lucky administration) is to engage Iran militarily (but it’s not really Iran, it’s the terroristic Revolutionary Guard! Oh, the wonders of the vague war on terrorism!) Of course, this is irrational, because we don’t belong in Iraq in the first place, and second, if Iran had invaded Canada or Mexico, you can be sure our government would be supplying Iran’s enemies with weapons, to maintain some control over our neighboring terroritory and protect ourselves passively by proxy.
They usually mean the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But it holds true to neoconservatives, because they too are terrorists.
They hate us for our freedoms
First, they want us to stop criticizing the war. They want to wiretap our phones. They want to control the flow of information on the internet. They want you to get a REAL ID, so they can track your movements “in case you are a terrorist”.
They hate our troops
They want to send our troops to die in a meaningless war.
Meaningless? That’s right - The war in Iraq is meaningless because there is no winning or losing. The point of the war is to taunt Iran and launch the United States into a global conflict that extends the global reach of a few power-hungry politicians. This brings me to the last point:
They hate the United States
By compromising our freedoms, the lives of our troops, and our national security, the neoconservatives are destroying the United States and what it stands for: liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Am I exaggerating? No. If you are a neoconservative who is serious about bringing democracy to the world, you could do it the right way: without force. The world will then stop hating us. If you want to stop terrorism, then look at why the world hates us: our foreign policy.
If you want to incite more hatred and make the world less safe, continue nation-building. If you want to take away our freedoms continue sending our soldiers to meaningless wars. Continue violating our privacy and our right to keep to ourselves. Continue instigating fear with meaningless terror alerts and empty rhetoric. Continue dividing the United States by pretending dissent is un-American.
Patriot Trash is defined as people who claim to be patriots, but whose actions and ideology are actually bad for this country. That includes most neocons and supporters of this [Iraq] war.
As a follow up on military service people being “heroes” and all…
These are some reasons to join the military:
for honor
for country
for money
free tuition
travel abroad
“blow shit up”
because you hate brown people
because you hate Muslims
because you think you are going to do something good for our country
because you are politically illiterate
because you want to kill people
for the adventure (good one)
for the hookers near military bases, esp. coastal cities
because you are not disciplined enough to do things on your own and you want somebody else to tell you what to do
because you can’t get a job in the real world
because your buddies “did it”
because you parents did it
because your brothers did it
because it was expected of you
“Taking a stand against terrorism” Yeah right…
for the experience (this is a good one)
to learn new things (good one too)
to protect your country (another good one, if you are not starting wars with random countries and your commander in chief is not an idiot)
for potential prestige (not bad)
work experience (decent, too)
to say you did it
so you won’t be called a chicken-hawk
because it makes you look brave
because people will blindly see you as a hero, even if you don’t deserve the title
because you want to know what a bullet feels like
because you want to play with guns or tanks
because it’s easier to follow orders than to think for yourself
health care benefits
dental benefits
military discounts
free flights between bases
pay back your expensive college loans
get to tell people what to do (at some point)
advanced and technical training (nice choice)
because you think God wants you to (lol)
pension
get to yell at foreign strangers
you enjoy pain
you enjoy inflicting pain
because your recruiter lied to you (ouch)
to get citizenship
to be freed (if you were previously a slave)
to get away from your parents
you lost a bet
to meet exotic women abroad
you don’t care for your right leg (you are hoping you’ll be shot and compensated for it)
you think you owe tribute to fallen soldiers
to take revenge
because you want to kill japs
because you want to kill towelheads
because you want to kill Nazis
to find Osama Bin Laden and kick his ass (probably the greatest reason of all)
to kill real terrorists (not Iraqi civilians)
to kill Iraqi civilians
because you think you can force people to be free, even when their idea of freedom is radically different from yours.
to destroy Al Qaeda (another great reason)
for a good career (maybe)
to take out Saddam Hussein (no longer applicable)
to prepare for a career with the CIA
no more job hunting or resumes
pride
false pride
because you liked the boy scouts or girl scouts
you enjoy fighting
you enjoy martial arts
your parents or the politician near you won’t let you carry guns
you want to learn new languages
you are preparing to work for blackwater
to protect Israel (even though they don’t need or deserve our protection anymore than their neighbors)
because you think it’s your duty (…why?)
you are preparing for a criminal career
because you adore Hitler
because you want to be a skilled, high-profile terrorist
because you think you won’t be in the front lines
because you were drafted
because you were shafted
because your parents made you
because your family is way poor
because you got your high school sweetheart pregnant (need money)
because your girlfriend/boyfriend thinks men/women in uniforms are hot
because you think men/women in uniforms are hot
because you are gay (in the homosexual sense)
to freak your parents out
because your parents asked you not to
because you hate yourself
for the adrenaline rush
you like to go camping/hiking/hunting
to put your parents through hell
because you are not worried about brain damage
because you think you are invincible / indestructible
because you are not worried about amputation / blindness (extremities are redundant anyway)
because you look forward to begging for money on the streets as a war veteran
because you were told you would never see combat
because “more people get killed in NY than in Iraq” every day
because you can “choose any job you want” (hahahaha)
because you are not worried about blatant discrimination
because you detest freedom (your own)
because you didn’t realize there are many other ways to get all of the above
to take part in history (not too bad)
to become an officer (power)
to learn 100 ways to kill someone
to learn to defend yourself
to learn to defend yourself if you ever lead a revolution
because you thought you could quit anytime
because you thought it would be easy
because you want to learn to use nuclear weapons
to fly a jet
to learn to command a helicopter
because it might be funner than Halo
because you want to join a special operations team (even though you probably won’t make it due to competition)
to learn to be a sniper (could be neat)
because you enjoy war movies
because you are not smart enough to do something else
because you’ve always wondered what food in the military tastes like
to march around in funny suits
to join a band and wear funny suits
to clean toilets with only toothbrushes and spit
because it’s cool to get promoted
to challenge yourself (another good one)
to get strong
to get lean
to get in shape
to be prepared in the event of a terrorist attack
because you were abused as a child and want revenge (the training)
to get a free nosejob
free liposuction
free breast enlargement
breast augmentation
facelift
cosmetic surgery (courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld)
your girlfriend/boyfriend wants you to get plastic surgery
because you think you are patriotic
because you don’t realize that the military is making things worse for the United States and the world.
because you think you’ll be defending your country
EDIT: because you worship Bush (one of the worst reasons, probably)
EDIT 2: No, because you worship Giuliani, lol
P.S. Joining the military doesn’t make you a hero; all it takes is a signature.
EDIT 3: I’m not insulting the troops. If you don’t understand satire, don’t bother posting a comment.
Myth Number 1:
“My friends and sons and daughters are dying for your satire and your freedoms.”
No. They are probably in Iraq fighting people who have nothing to do with 9/11.
Myth Number 2:
“By making personal attacks on the author of this article and telling the author how he/she couldn’t write this if it wasn’t for the soldiers he/she is criticizing, I’ll show him/her.”
Wrong. Since I never in this article insult the military, it goes to show just how retarded you are. You continue to validate the list by showing me that people are too stupid to understand politics and satire. When soldiers go to Iraq, they are in NO WAY defending my right to write any of this. Iraqis have NOT threatened my freedom, so there is no need to kill them.
All he talks about is 9/11. You know why? Because that’s his entire platform. He pretends he is tough on terror, but he is weak. He hasn’t read the 9/11 Commission Report, and he doesn’t know what blowback is.
He claims the nation will be stronger with a Republican in power, especially him. Yet, he’s got nothing to back that up with. What exactly does Giuliani know about terrorism?
His children hate him. NY Firefighters hate him. Ferrets hate him. Ferret poop hates him. Jaywalkers hate him. The American Psychological Association hates him. His wives hate him. His children hate him. NY Bus drivers hate him. TouchingYou guy hates him. The first amendment hates him.
Did you know terrorists can use RFID chips to blow up Americans? All they need is a RF receiver linked to an explosive device. Then they can target Americans carrying REAL IDs or the new American passports.
Now the terrorists can track you.
What a genius!
Did you know his children hate him? I’m not surprised because he contradicts himself every time he speaks.
“Dad, are you coming to my graduation?”
“No son, I have to battle terrorists today.”
“Good, I was going to ask you not to come.”
“Actually, I’ll be there with your third stepmother.”
“What about the terrorists?”
“That’s OK. When they attack us, my ratings go up.”
(Source: detailed random imagery that popped into my head).
So why write this article? It’s not an article. It’s a plea to all retards (probably not you, dear reader) begging them not to vote.
onger with a Republican in power, especially him. Yet, he’s got nothing to back that up with. What exactly does Giuliani know about terrorism?