It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Ron Paul actually contain Terrorism with Diplomacy.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Are you serious?

We were attacked by terrorist theoretically because we have military bases in Muslim countries.. and our multiple wars in their region only make it worse. We also have been supporting dictators and playing leaders off each other.

Ron Paul would end all of that.

The terrorist don't hate us because of our freedoms.. lol
edit on 12/16/2011 by Drezden because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 



Can Ron Paul actually contain Terrorism with Diplomacy.,


No.

But he can begin destroying the future generations of terrorism, and he can begin undermining the support and social acceptance of terrorism, and he can begin building bridges that will help our relationship with the countries that sponsor terrorism.

It is ridiculous to think entire swaths of people hate us because we are free. It just isn't true. They hate us because of our foreign policy. If you learned some remote island in the Pacific was the most free and happy place on Earth, would you instantly want to destroy it? NO. Neither would anyone else. They hate our politics, not our freedoms.

So, yes, the US will still need borders, still need military, still need intelligence agencies, but with Ron Paul's policies the need for those agencies will become less and less.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





It is ridiculous to think entire swaths of people hate us because we are free. It just isn't true. They hate us because of our foreign policy. If you learned some remote island in the Pacific was the most free and happy place on Earth, would you instantly want to destroy it? NO. Neither would anyone else. They hate our politics, not our freedoms.


Well said and very true to the point. The past administrations have helped create and foment terrorism globally while only addressing the symptoms, not the cause.

but there's a reason for that.

Would you be so willing to support attacks on nations of people if you knew the reason they hate US is because what has been done to them in our names? Of course not.

But if you convince people those people hate you just because you are you, well, those enemies are easier to dehumanize. It's the same with Israel in relation to Gaza. People blindly support Israel because those dirty arabs want to exterminate all the jews because they are jews. This does nothing to address the reasons those people turn to terrorism. It's a whitewash to make it acceptable to hate them all.

The crazy fanatical terrorists today are a lost cause, it's over for them. But if we can address the causes that drove them to it, and fix it, maybe the next generation might not be so harsh? Show them the freedom they can have, and they wouldn't be so willing to blow themselves up to harm us.

Wellfare helps the poor, but does nothing to solve poverty as it's merely a bandage on a shotgun wound, never addressing the festering infection below.

The war on terror isn't stopping terror, it's creating another generation of terrorists and nothing else.

Isolationism isn't the answer, but intervening constantly isn't either. what exactly has the US support for Israel and the military actions in the middle east accomplished?

Is the world safer? Is the us safer?

No, it got you the embassy bombings, the uss cole, the WTC attacks 1 and 2(911) and many other problems. It's put a drain on the economy and infrastructure is collapsing around you.

All the while, the US keeps replacing the dressing on the wound while doing nothing about the infection below.

Ron Paul could honestly help change that. But that change can't possibly come over night, it takes years to pressure and action, much like the cold war.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Daedal
 



Can Ron Paul actually contain Terrorism with Diplomacy.,


No.

But he can begin destroying the future generations of terrorism, and he can begin undermining the support and social acceptance of terrorism, and he can begin building bridges that will help our relationship with the countries that sponsor terrorism.

It is ridiculous to think entire swaths of people hate us because we are free. It just isn't true. They hate us because of our foreign policy. If you learned some remote island in the Pacific was the most free and happy place on Earth, would you instantly want to destroy it? NO. Neither would anyone else. They hate our politics, not our freedoms.

So, yes, the US will still need borders, still need military, still need intelligence agencies, but with Ron Paul's policies the need for those agencies will become less and less.


I agree... It would be a good thing to begin a more non- interventionist approach, and to use a little more diplomacy for future solutions involving hostile countries which have developed hatred for America due to it's dominating character, and it's military campaigns inside sovereign nations.

But what I am not sure of is if were to the point of no return in regards to an all out war...there's still over a year left for the current administration to continue it's idiocy, and wage war with Iran, which IMO the Arab Spring is designed to do, or at least create unrest in countries surrounding Iran and Israel and indirectly or covertly start war while they back away as the area implodes.

All I can say is we'll see...no one knows for sure.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Sure he can because terrorism was fabricated from the beginning did you ever in the last 12 years think you freedom was in jeopardy at any given time except for your right's and your freedom being taken away by our government and police I certainly never did. Besides al CIAda was made by our government and the bush family has been friends with bin laden family for many years do some research. The war on terror was fabricated so the elite can get there way plain and simple.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Real Terrorists as in the middle easterners who are fighting for the rights of the Palestinians.

YES, diplomacy would work. By negotiating with the Israeli's to stop taking the Palestinians land...

As for ....

The CIA Terrorists Al-CIAda, bought and paid for by the Bankers, that recently overtook Libya and that FBI agent John P. O'Neil had discovered and was killed before revealing it.

No, Ron Paul or any POTUS would not be able to contain this for they are the stalwart of the Secret Government that runs things here in the United States of America.. via the orders of the Council on Foreign Relations.

No, again because This is also exactly what IKE and JFK had attempted to warn us of resulting in IKE's 7 Heart Attacks before he died and later with JFK being assassinated after attempting to print real Money according to the US Constitution and outside of the Banking Cartel's Federal Reserve...

Which is why he was Killed....as was Abraham Lincoln.

Peace



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


Terrorism is a new fad that the US and TPTB have created to instill fear and tighten control. There's always been "terrorism" in the world. They're just labeling everything as such to keep us reigned in and frightened of our neighbors.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
In order to reply to that question, one must comprehend what 'terrorism' is truly about.

It is a means to obtain a political objective through the use of murdering innocents, to instill fear in order to achieve their aims.

Al Queda isnt the only terrorist organisation around, nor the hizbollahs or hamas. Plenty more around the world and they CARE NOT a whit if it is an american or an african Zulu is murdered.

The only reason why America is often targetted is only because it had the will and the power to combat those animals. Other nations had grovel on their feet in the face of terrorism, opening their wallets and lands to welcome them, but NOT America or Americans.

Terrorists are a scourge of not only USA, but humanity as a whole, for they hide amongst us, use our laws to protect themselves for their murderous aims against mankind, misusing peaceful religions or stabalised secular institutions.

BUT NO MORE.

Diplomacy had long ended when 911 happened, the day when the world realized the extent of how far terrorists will go - killing themselves - to end innocent humanity, and had continued till today.

Today, the only solution that all and even terrorists will respect, is to hunt down every beast and would-be beast as well as their supporters, whichever hole they are hiding, with no remorse, just as they had no remorse in killing innocents for a decade.

The tide had turn. It is a war being carried out around the world. It will only stop when those terrorist organisations, their funders and brainwashed combatants plead for unconditional surrender. Otherwise, this war will never end, for the triumph will be mankind. There are more of us than the beasts.

Sadly, Ron Paul is out of touch with reality over this issue.....



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 



Today, the only solution that all and even terrorists will respect, is to hunt down every beast and would-be beast as well as their supporters, whichever hole they are hiding, with no remorse, just as they had no remorse in killing innocents for a decade.


What does a would-be beast look like?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

What does a would-be beast look like?


An unarmed man who speaks up freely in public which is against a gov policy is not a terrorist.

An unarmed man who discusses and debates peacefully with others on national policy, pro or against is not a terrorist.

An unarmed man who calls for PEACEFUL protesting assembly is not a terrorist.

A man who carries a licensed gun, even in public, is not a terrorist.

A man who collect guns, is not a terrorist, even if he has a million licensed firearms.

BUT,

a man who carries no weapons, spouts radical ideologies either through religion or secular institutions, inciting hatred for a certain portion of mankind, with the aim of violent encounters - is a terrorist.

a man who collects weapons, of all kinds such as detonators, C4, missile launches, etc, along with ammonium nitrate or other chemicals for widespread dammage, is certainly no farmer and is more than certain with an intent to use them upon innocents.

Such men are your would-be beasts, and must be stopped before they carry out their intent, regardless if it is tomorrow or 10 years from now.

The founding fathers lived in an enlightened age, and had never encountered the likes of terrorists today. The judiciary is a check and balancing arm of the executive and legislatives. The judiciary neither proposes or enacts legislation. They only ensure compliance and correct legal interpretation of laws.

Currently, there are no laws with the Constitution that allows unlimited detention upon citizens and rightfully so. Thus, even if a foreigner, much less an american, were to amass WMD against innocents, there is no IMMEDIATE law to forestall his act, bring him in for questioning and determining his network. This is how terrrorists use our democratic laws to operate freely.

But no more today after laws had been passed to tighten up this loophole. The only fear is that this law may be used for political purposes by the executive to stifle peaceful dissent. The legislators could do more by setting up an oversight committee by appointment of specialist military and civilian legal experts to re-assure the public that the law is solely targetted at terrorists - foreigners and americans, not peaceful opposition groups.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

ZIONISM = TERRORISM



Read real history not Zionist propaganda.

Zionism and its sister ideology Communism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

The US was sucked into fighting and losing in Iraq by Zionists now they want the US to be bled dry by a battle with Iran.

Wake up friends. Israel is the problem - tell everyone.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
THE OP's question is loaded and un answerable.
Terrorism is an act.

If you mean can the concept of diplomacy stop acts of terrorism?
Of course, it can.
It HAS.
it does every single day.


Now to backload the question with an imaginary fear that Hezbollah is gonna I guess buy out, or overthrow the drug cartels, pay off the corrupt officials and lauch a MEANINGFUL ( keyword here) SIZED attack on the US from say.. South America, is truely funny.

Do you know the trillions of dollars such an attack would cost the Drug Cartels due to militarization and incresed scrutiny directed at their front door?
Do you think they are foolish enough to allow that to just happen?
To come in, and shut their entire operations down in one swoop?
Really?

Hezbollah will ge jacked...those Cartels are nastier than Hezbollah, and have no sense of loyalty for anyone's crusade.

The US wouldn't have to fire a shot.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


and you think by having our troops OVER THERE, it will protect us from what you just linked????



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by Daedal
 


and you think by having our troops OVER THERE, it will protect us from what you just linked????


I do think that having some sort of manned border security is paramount, but also it is necessary to have a front in foreign areas as well.

Should we bring home some of the troops say for instance on the DMZ, sure...Should we bring home troops where there is a threat to National Security, No...Could we cut down troop size by using drones, Yes..Is that a good thing, I doubt it, just have a look at Iran and the beast of kandahar.

I'm not advocating keeping our troops over seas deployed, there are some countries that we have had troops sitting there for decades, bring them home, but keep a presence in the regions where hostilities pose a direct threat to America...Just because we bring the troops home doesn't mean that the radicals will not try to impose their ' will ' upon us...They despise us and Hate the United States...It's instilled in them.

The will of Sharia Law is domination and suppression of anyone or anything that is contrary to what they believe theologically...Your not fighting a group of people, we're fighting ideology. Yeah some can call what they will, but the dissemination of hostile and violent literature is still taught today in Saudi Arabia...and that's an ally...just look how they treat their woman.
edit on 17-12-2011 by Daedal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
This is a question I ask and one the Nominees spoke of as well...Hezbollah is working to perpetrate an attack from Venezuela through Mexico, and yes their largest embassy sits on it's soil. Al - Shabaab an affiliate of AQAP is also aimed at destroying America, and works inside our country, not outside.

If anyone needs reference material for substantiation of either of the above statements just ask.

The question is can he or any other potential Candidate thwart an attack aimed at America with diplomatic solutions, whether it be foreign or domestic, or are we past time to use a peaceful approach?


I can see an easy, full court press that follows the Rule of Law. Enforce U.S.Border Laws that are on the Books, and place Military presence and check points on our Southern Border. The States have a National Militia in the National Guard. These units are charged to "Support and Defend the Constitution against all Enemies, both Foreign and Domestic."

We already have a partial fence. Jobs are created when building projects are funded. We the People have not only a Right under Law, we have a basic Responsibility to guard our borders from foreign invaders, from any source, friend or foe. (foreign and domestic)

This is pretty easy, people, if you are just aware of your personal rights under the Constitution. The Individual Person is the base of government power. That inherent power is loaned, not given, to the government base of the State, as in Florida, or Ohio. As a Freeman resident of the "Republic" of Ohio,
(The time is coming when the former "State of Ohio" will be replaced with the "Ohio Republic", pending the achieving of independence from the so called "United States," actually a Corporation, owned and operated by a Private Banking Concern, the Federal Reserve Bank, et al.) my government is in Ohio, in Columbus, actually, and I charge the government in Columbus, along with all other residents by agreement, to lead the State in Security, Business Ventures, Commercial Trade and Law, Health Care, Infrastructure, Power and Consumption. This power is then charged to the small government in Washington, to lead the Nation, or the Collection of States, for the same ends. The States, through the power of the people, make Decisions, concerning the needs of the Residents, not the Federal Government in Washington, which by Law is small, with no funding not voted by the States, and no power not given by the States, and the People, to whom the Rights belong to, by Rule of Law.

(Bold Text Mine)

Q. What state papers should be considered in connecting the Constitution of the United States with Magna Carta?

A. The Great Charter was confirmed several times by later medieval monarchs, and there were various statutes, such as those of Westminster, which also helped to develop the germs of popular government. The Petition of Right, 1628, against the abuse of the royal prerogative, the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, and the Bill of Rights, 1689, to establish the claims of the Petition, are the great English documents of more modern times on popular freedom. Meanwhile, the colonial charters became the foundation of the Americans' claim to the "rights of Englishmen," and were the predecessors of the State Constitutions, which owed their origin to the American Revolution.

The Declaration of Independence established the principles which the Constitution made practical. Plans for colonial union were proposed from time to time, the most important of them being the Albany Plan of 1754, of which Benjamin Franklin was the author. The united efforts to establish independence gave birth to the Articles of Confederation, which though inadequate, were a real step toward the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution.

source


Q. Then how does it happen that the government constantly exercises powers not mentioned by the Constitution?

A. Those powers simply flow from general provisions. To take a simple example, the Constitution gives to the United States the right to coin money. It would certainly follow, therefore, that the government had the right to make the design for the coinage. This is what the Supreme Court calls "reasonable construction" of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18).
source

Article 1, Section. 9, U.S. Constitution

TENTH AMENDMENT - RESERVED POWERS

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I rest my case.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
reply to post by Daedal
 


Terrorism is a new fad that the US and TPTB have created to instill fear and tighten control. There's always been "terrorism" in the world. They're just labeling everything as such to keep us reigned in and frightened of our neighbors.


yes.

What's sad, all this was predicted in an old video game called deus ex that I used to play. In that game, the antagonists were a government that resembles modern day America, and they went around calling people that didn't agree with them "terrorists" to give them reason to detain and kill them.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden


The terrorist don't hate us because of our freedoms.. lol
edit on 12/16/2011 by Drezden because: (no reason given)


Exactly. Why don't they attack Switzerland then, like Ron Paul said during the last debate? They have a lot more freedom than we do. Heck, I just saw a thread on ATS a few minutes ago that said Switzerland just made it a law that downloading copyrighted material for personal use is now legal there.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
This video began my process of leaving the republican party and being a chicken-hawk to becoming a Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter. Watch the video and think about how we would feel if Chinese or Russian troops were in our country. Once you realize that you would fight back for your country. It is not to far to understanding how the countries we invade feel about us.To answer the question: Yes Ron Paul can contain Terrorism with Diplomacy. It will be easy once we leave all the countries we have terrorized.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join