As libertarian leaning as this website tends to be, we try our best to be fair about Ron Paul’s presidential run. We realize that his name has the same qualities as Beetlejuice – say it a few times and you conjure up some of the most ghastly and annoying people – likely originating from some bizarre underverse. However, for the most part, the handful of articles we’ve done about Dr. Paul have brought in the some real great thinkers, especially as of late.
The reason for this entry, in case the reader is living under a rock, is that Dr. Paul has surprised once again – but not for anything the man himself has done. On their own, Paul’s supporters came up with a fascinating idea – a November 5th “money bomb” – a single day to reign down cash on their beloved presidential candidate. Though the official campaign had nothing to do with it at all, they were the ones to benefit from the over $4.2 million donated yesterday. That’s right – 4.2 mil in one day!
This from the guy who the Republicans initially wanted out of the debates – especially after his tiff with Rudy Giuliani. After the second debate on May 15th, Michael Steel was bold enough to say that Ron Paul was “done.” But in reality, that debate was the major kicking off point of Paul’s “revolution” – perhaps if Giuliani had the moment back, he would surrender the short term applause for Paul’s long term success since.
If there was any doubt of Ron Paul’s ability to sustain himself through the primaries, it should definitely be assuaged now. Even though it is still not likely that he’ll win the nomination – the ideals of liberty and Paul’s pro-constitutional message is going to be around for some time.
You may also be interested in:
- Links: Ron Paul is Right and Always Has Been Right About the Economy
- Ron Paul In 2012? New Poll Shows Paul Most Popular Candidate Among Independents
- Weekly Links: Bush Nostalgia, See Ya Dr. Paul, The A.D.A. is Retarded
- Sarah Palin has Endorsed Rand Paul
- Washington Times Defends Rand Paul Eloquently, Intelligently
In hindsight – it’s not Ron Paul bots that generate so many comments on our articles, it’s Darius. Imagine if we had a few more!
This is true. I’ll see about cloning myself. Actually, the most surprising article is the Boycott one, that is approaching record-setting amounts of comments. People feel pretty strongly, I guess.
“Actually, the most surprising article is the Boycott one, that is approaching record-setting amounts of comments. People feel pretty strongly, I guess.”
I guess I don’t really know how this works. I mean, how people find the ZFT blog. In any case, I suspect the topic was one that the “average” person felt qualified to speak to, even if they aren’t a scholar. But don’t most of the “random” comments come from people who are led to an article by somebody else’s link?
Ardith, are you paying attention? This is Ornot implying I’m stupid. I don’t mind, I get it a lot from you libertarians, but just so we’re clear, it was not I who called someone stupid.
Actually, Darius, I was not calling you stupid. In fact, I haven’t. If I were to call you stupid, I would just call you stupid. I don’t think you are stupid, so therefore I won’t call you stupid. I simply said that you show incredible intelligence and then miss entire points no matter how many times people point them out to you. I think it’s more selective reading than anything else. Then again, you’ll probably still continue to think I called you stupid, no matter what I say, so perhaps I’ll just give up on explaining this to you. But just to clarify, no, I did not call you stupid.
You DID imply that the RA were terrorists, only in your definition of the word.
Actually, no. I was using the DoD definition of terrorist, which I quoted above. Yes, that’s a direct quote from the DoD website. Besides, my point was never to say “SEE! WE WERE TERRORISTS TOO!!” Not at all. I was merely pointing out that much of the insurgency is merely acting as any nation would to repel an occupying force. Indeed, there are acts of terrorism thrown in, I’ve just been fascinated that soon these insurgents, many acting no different than we did during the Revolutionary war, and now labeled as “terrorist”. Not to mention the new definition put out by the DoD (Which I quoted) which included what we would call “freedom fighters” 25 years ago. You see, you didn’t understand. I indeed was never ever calling the RA terrorists, I simply was saying that by the new, broader definition, they would be called as such. I agree with you, that terrorism implies the bombings and civilians and so forth, only now the official definition has changed. A move towards demonizing. THAT was my point. I’m not denying terrorist actions by insurgents, I’m just pointing out the inconsistencies that now ALL insurgents are labeled as terrorists. They even changed the definition. How handy.
So when you say that the Revolutionary Army was the same as the terrorists today, know of what you speak.
Again, I never said that, NOR implied that. Please read and understand that I’m not anti-American, nor do I seek to demonize the RA and such. You REALLY must have spent some time at some odd websites, since over the past few days you jump to some insane conclusions about me, and us as a blogsite, due to your dealings with others. I should HOPE by now you would see that we typically don’t resort to such things around here. So again, I never said the RA were the same as the terrorists today, those are YOUR conclusions based on what I wrote. They are incorrect. Instead, I was speaking that what has been shifting in the word “terrorist” has now encompassed many actions that we ourselves did during the Revolutionary war. THAT was my point.
Ornot – “Beyond all that, before we start defending everything the US military does, perhaps we should consider that the very tactics in Iraq that we call “insurgent” and “terrorist” were what we used to fight the British. You know, hiding behind trees and in houses, snipers, etc. We’ve become the bloody British, and I don’t think you could be more proud.”
Ornot – “Beyond all that, before we start defending everything the US military does, perhaps we should consider that the very tactics in Iraq that we call “insurgent” and “terrorist” were what we used to fight the British. You know, hiding behind trees and in houses, snipers, etc. We’ve become the bloody British, and I don’t think you could be more proud.”
I’m thinking this comment doesn’t actually have the effect you think it does.
I think I made this point before, but there are terrorist and then there are rebels/insurgents. Many on the right have just ignorantly thrown these two together, which is a major problem.
The insurgents in Iraq have every right to fight the US troops who are occupying their country. Any US soldier willfully submitting to carrying out orders to use force on regular people (Iraqi or whatever) should expect to be faced with defense. Some rightly glorify the insurgents in our past against the British, but then label those now defending themselves in the exact same manner from American Imperialism as terrorists.
In fact, we’re I on the ground there, being faced with an Iraqi minding his own business and having his house bulldozed or his life threatened, I would, without question, help defend him – even if the aggressor were an American soldier. An American acting like that is no longer worthy to label himself with the greatness that this country used to stand for.
Colin, actually, it is primarily the left who combines the terms (though some on the right do as well). By equating the two, the left removes the Iraq War from the WoT.
Most of you seem to have no idea what our soldiers are ACTUALLY doing in Iraq… things like building infrastructure, opening schools, protecting children. Rather, in your twisted minds, you seem to think that all our soldiers are doing is killing innocent Iraqis who are just sitting home, drinking tea, wishing for the return of Saddam’s regime.
Darius said: “…wishing for the return of Saddam’s regime.”
I don’t think anybody on either side of the political spectrum is implying that Iraqis want Saddam back.
Colin, actually, it is primarily the left who combines the terms (though some on the right do as well). By equating the two, the left removes the Iraq War from the WoT.
Most of you seem to have no idea what our soldiers are ACTUALLY doing in Iraq… things like building infrastructure, opening schools, protecting children. Rather, in your twisted minds, you seem to think that all our soldiers are doing is killing innocent Iraqis who are just sitting home, drinking tea, wishing for the return of Saddam’s regime.
Darius, THIS is what we are talking about. You don’t read, nor listen.
The left isn’t combining terms, nor the right…what I posted was the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’S actual definition of the term terrorist. It is now SO BROAD that is would indeed include the actions of the American Revolutionaries according to this definition. The point we are ALL making is that there is a difference between rebels/insurgents and terrorists. But now, the definition has been changed so that “terrorism” now includes “insurgents”, which could easily have been used as a term for our own RA. THAT is the absurdity we speak of.
NO ONE HERE actually thinks American soldiers are blindly bulldozing Iraqi people out of hatred while they sit at home and wish for Saddam. The fact that you say that about us is INSULTING, as you attempt to lump us into a group of talking-head liberals as the ilk you are apparently used to arguing with. Please. We aren’t twisted, we are pointing out a illogical branch of broadened terminology now being used, showing you how inconsistent it is.
Wait, what am I doing? Once again, you will completely ignore what we said, THINK we said something else, call us politically-minded games as if we play around in your little “conservative vs liberal” war, and refuse to listen to what we are saying. THIS is what aggravates me about this. No one here denies the presence of terrorists in Iraq. We simply don’t lump in insurgents in the definition, and merely point out that they are acting in the exact guerilla way that any occupied people would act, including the Revolutionary army. Only now, the DoD has changed the definition of “terrorism”, made is so broad, that it includes insurgents. Which would mean the DoD is technically calling the RA “terrorists”. Which I, of course, think is absurd. Seriously man, read. I’m getting tired of repeating myself only for you to insult my intelligence my lumping me into the pile of liberal yes-men that you apparently enjoying debating with on a regular basis. As Ardith said earlier, it makes you out to be more and more like a troll, and less and less a reasonable debater.
*NOTE* I did not actually CALL you a troll, I said you appear more and more LIKE one when you continue to accuse, label and NOT LISTEN. This note is so that you don’t take offense then completely ignore everything that was written above.*
Ornot, for the last time (since you don’t see to get that words have consequences)… you said that “we’ve become the bloody British.”
Let’s analyze that statement. “We’ve” implies the USA, more specifically the American military. I hope we can agree on that. “Become” implies that our military is now the equivalent of “the bloody British.” In other words, our army is an imperialistic invader/occupier who, like the British in the 1700′s, is primarily resisted by insurgent rebel militias.
As the facts stand, the majority of the violence in Iraq is caused by terrorists, NOT insurgents. *If the DoD combined the definition, that’s really too bad and incorrect. But for the purposes of this comment, that’s beside the point, since you never once mentioned anything about DoD definitions UNTIL I called you on the carpet for the above statement.* So by you saying that we’re the British, you are implying that either the terrorists in Iraq are merely insurgents, which they are not, or that the Revolutionary militias were terrorists. There is an equation here implicit in “We’ve become the bloody British.” I also infer from your statement that you must think it’s fine and dandy for the Iraqis to fight back against the USA, since we’re the same as the “bloody British.”
Can we quit arguing about who was right, and figure out exactly what our points of disagreement are? I don’t care whether Ornot mentioned the DOD definition of terrorism before or after Darius said something about it.
The essential disagreement seems to be this:
Darius believes the primary resistance in Iraq is terrorism.
Ornot believes the primary resistance in Iraq is a non-terrorist insurgency.
I think we can all agree that there is a legitimate way to conduct an insurgency–with ambushes, sneak attacks, and so forth–while respecting the civilian population and without resorting to terrorism. The question is whether or not the insurgency in Iraq is conducting itself in that manner.
I’d say it’s pretty hard to separate the non-terrorist insurgents from the terrorists, because the terrorist groups have used the insurgency as a vehicle for their own operations. The extent to which terrorist groups are behind the insurgency is a matter of public debate in America today.
Then there is all the sectarian violence–which has little or nothing to do with America–and that muddies the waters even further.
I would argue that the insurgents/terrorists (to just be neutral) are going after almost entirely military targets. Even more specific than that – they are going after the military targets that are now occupying their territory.
As Jew said, there are also civil war elements that are no concern of America’s (if they are then we are indeed in the business of nation-building).
The other smaller group is actual terrorists who target civilians. Before we went into Iraq, these were obvious – they were responsible for almost all the violence. However, we have now provoked (just as in Korea, Vietnam, etc…) ordinary citizens to from militias and organized gurrilla resistance against an occupying force. If we would stop nation/building and occupying foreign countries, then the terrorists lose their ability to recruit and the terrorists would exposed apart from the legitimate insurgency.
So we have three groups:
- people fighting against an occupying force (despite whether the occupation is legitimate or not)
- people fighting for power in the political vacuum in civil wars
- people fighting for radical ideologies, against both civilians and military targets
Let’s analyze that statement. “We’ve” implies the USA, more specifically the American military. I hope we can agree on that. “Become” implies that our military is now the equivalent of “the bloody British.” In other words, our army is an imperialistic invader/occupier who, like the British in the 1700’s, is primarily resisted by insurgent rebel militias.
Actually, I am inferring that this is somewhat close. Do we have the actual, extensive imperialism? No. Do we have colonies? No. Do we often act the same way? Yes. Such as when we first invaded, and we were just “appalled” by the resistance, and even went so far as to think that “shock and awe” would handle it. Hard to fight a resistance fueled by ideology. So yes, we have become the bloody British. I’m not saying we act the same way in 100% parallels, but we DO indeed militarily act quite similar. Any student of history can draw similar parallels.
So by you saying that we’re the British, you are implying that either the terrorists in Iraq are merely insurgents, which they are not, or that the Revolutionary militias were terrorists. There is an equation here implicit in “We’ve become the bloody British.” I also infer from your statement that you must think it’s fine and dandy for the Iraqis to fight back against the USA, since we’re the same as the “bloody British.”
No, I’m NOT implying that the terrorists in Iraq are merely insurgents. I’m saying there are many insurgents with terrorists. My whole POINT was that the insurgents now are often being filed into the definition of terrorist, which they are NOT. And no, I’m not saying the Revolutionary militias were terrorists. Once again, it was a logical conclusion drawn by current definitions, which I would hope would make current definitions seem that much more absurd. You seem to repeatedly miss that point.
Also, I’m not falling into your trap. No, I don’t think it’s “fine and dandy”..I don’t like seeing our men and women killed. Do I think it’s natural for the Iraqis to fight us? Yes. In their eyes, we are an invader and an occupier. The INSURGENTS (notice, I did not say “terrorists”) want us out, and fight us cause they don’t want us there. So I can hardly blame them for fighting us, as we are an invader. Do I like it? No. Do I want our men killed? No. No matter what our intentions were, good or bad, we still invaded. Therefore, the fact that factions of insurgents rise up and fight us should be no big surprise. So yes, this is a bit of a moral imperative, as I love my country and its citizens, yet I understand why they attack us in return. Hence, one of the reasons why I don’t think we should be there. What’s that saying? Oh yes, the “road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Pfft. Rational discussion is for wimps.
I’m convinced that very little (relatively speaking) of the violence in Iraq has much to do with terrorism as a sort of conspiracy directed towards the US and the Western world as a whole. Because most people are most concerned with the immediate, and collapsing the way of life of a people halfway around the world doesn’t fall under most people’s immediate concerns.
The violence is too widespread and takes too many different forms to be caused primarily by the small group of terrorists that would be left, which leaves us with most of the violence having nationalism/self-determination or sectarian divisions as a cause.
That’s a pretty simplistic analysis, of course, but it serves as a workable starting point. There are foreign terrorists which have made their way into Iraq, and they’ve wreaked some havoc, killed some people, made some videos, etc., but the Iraqis themselves are a lot more likely to follow a local leader like al-Sadr than somebody who drove over the border from Saudi Arabia because life was a little too hot in the Kingdom. The local leaders are concerned with consolidating power and/or getting rid of local occupying forces far more than laying the groundwork for some global caliphate.
On the other hand, if we define terrorists as those who use certain specific tactics, such as car bombs in crowded areas, and terrorism as the use of such tactics, we can find terrorists spread throughout all the sundry groups involved in Iraq. This is to be expected in a conflict with so many competing groups and ideologies and no overriding idea of what the end result needs to be. Conflicting religious sects only accentuate the tendency to see the enemy as evil, and increases the tendency to involve civilians. None of this changes the fact that the underlying motivations for most of these people are local.
Woah, those paragraphs were actually a lot denser than I intended, but I don’t have time to rewrite them now; y’all will have to make do.
Two things… one, it seems like much of the violence in Iraq of which many of you are speaking is in the past tense. For the last 6 months, violence has been significantly down. Al Qaeda in Iraq is almost completely wiped out, as are the insurgent strongholds (with one or two exceptions). Militarily, we’ve won. Politically, there is a lot of work left to be done, and we could yet lose due to this fact. All that to say, there seems to be (as there has been from the beginning) some loss of perspective on the violence in Iraq. After all, statistically, on an AVERAGE day even two years ago, Iraq was not much worse than a bad day in New Jersey (I exaggerate, but the point is that compared to past wars, this one has been very light in terms of casualties). CURRENTLY, there are plenty of areas in Baghdad that are safer than parts of New Orleans.
Two, I heard General Petraeus a few months ago in a radio interview. During that interview, the question was posed regarding how much of the violence was due to the terrorists and how much to the insurgents. He basically said that insurgents made up about 70% of the enemy, but terrorists made up 70% of the violence. In other words, take away the terrorists and you don’t have much to worry about, since the insurgents were not inflicting much damage or stirring up significant sectarian violence and reprisals.