My vote goes to whoever defines the end of the "War on Terror"

After reading and listening to the various sides from Obamanauts to Paulaholics to Romneyites, and watching the Congress trying do outdo each other in creating subversive anti-terrorist legislation I've come to conclusion that my vote will go to whoever or whatever can and does explicitly define the conditions that will end the "War on Terrorism" and allow us to rescind the Patriot Act and its bastard children, the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

As things stand now, the WoT will likely last as long as there is United States, a convenient excuse to limit freedom and liberty everywhere, permit indefinite detentions, torture, and assassinations. The idea of war in perpetuity is just wrong, and a war without hope of end is a one-way road to dictatorship.

Recently someone asked for a question to ask Ron Pual at a town hall meeting.

Here's mine for all candidates:

Will you define the explicit conditions for successfully ending the war on terror and tell us how you plan to achieve them over what time frame?

Unless we can get a coherent answer to that question, everything else is moot. If they refuse to answer explicitly, then they either haven't a clue or are planning on using it as a useful illusion to concentrate power. Either way, no matter what their other qualifications, those kind of answers should disqualify them from consideration.

I urge all of us to bring that question to the forefront of the political debate this coming year.

reply to post by apacheman


Maybe I will get You vote... [grin]

I define such an end as being when We no longer need to account for Our meaningful energy expended - via trade, barter, gold or money. Money is merely an accounting of said meaningful energy expended, and if We eliminate the need (via abundant free energy), the war suppliers will have no motive to create wars so that They can make money, the surveilance companies and other such businesses will not need to create "terrorists" to boost Their sales, and, in fact, without profit motive, all the society manipulation will cease.

Electrogravitics, a science hidden in black ops, holds the answer.

For more on this, please read my thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Vote for me, then. My answer is that the "War on Terror" is over the second that I take office. The concept is as ludicrous as me saying that I'm going to wage a war on salmon. Actually, it's more idiotic. At least there'd be a specific target in my war on salmon. A war needs to have specific targets, not nebulous ideas.

Here is a direct answer. Paul wants to end this war!

"We are at war with a tactic called Terrorism... we need to end this war!"

There you go.

reply to post by pianopraze


Nice rhetoric.

Now if you can link me to the legislation he's introduced to actually end the "War on Terror", to define its specific goals and endpoint, I might believe he has substance.

Or to his votes against the funding of the war, the Patriot Act, the TSA, and Homeland Security?

Barring actual efforts to really do something, it's just empty rhetoric.

OP
I can NOT tell you when the world wide war on terror will end
but I CAN tell you what it will look like when it does:
MARS

reply to post by apacheman

re what has RP done towards ending the war on Terror?

RPs voting record

www.votesmart.org...

reply to post by apacheman


Here is proof he voted against the patriot act:

PATRIOT Act
Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment.[170] He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."[67] He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.[171]

en.wikipedia.org...

He wants to end the TSA and has spoken against it many times:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration

link

He introduced a bill that would end the TSA abuses.

Here is his voting record... just search for patriot act and you will see he consistently votes against it:
Ron Paul voting record

Santorum explained that he did not consider the “War on Terror” a war– “terrorism is a tactic, we are fighting a war against radical Islam”

Santorum stated during one of the presidential debates.

So, OP, do you want to end the war with radical islam, war in general, or just the terror-thing?

Personally, I'd like to see all war end.
Axe the Patriot Act.
And fire 99% of the congress.

But since I'm not emperor of the world, I honestly don't see that happening anytime soon.

Best we can hope for is to continue searching for an honest man.
Diogenes did. We can also.

reply to post by beezzer


We certainly agree upon that: all wars must end.

I've no beef with most people, and although I personally find many aspects of Islam abhorrent, as I do of Christianity (not surprising, they are more alike than different), so long as they keep out of my affairs and don't try to impose, what they do is their business.

As for firing Congress; more like 99.9%. I'm sure there's a random chance that one or two are actually decent human beings, but highly unlikely any found their way there recently (recently as in the last twenty or thirty years).

reply to post by apacheman


i became interested in ron paul for president because he is the only candidate who is not playing the role of being the biggest war monger.

the usa is already spending half of the world's military budget.
romney wants to double our ship building, it's already at an obscene level imo.

the military industrial complex is already in control of congress.
while spending a trillion in iraq and more elsewhere, the infrastructure of the usa is crumbling.
we are building military bases all over the world, building roads, bridges, etc, so the government is creating jobs, just not in the usa.

that anyone will solve this problem before the west goes bankrupt and destroys itself is unlikely.
whether the euro, the pound or the dollar is first to fall, the financial sectors are all very sketchy.

but with all the drama queens in washington selling fear, a media that will sell any lie, history shows that this level of delusion must eventually self destruct.

it's a stampede of stupidity heading for the cliff, reality is not relevant until catastrophe hits.

like you, my vote goes to the only one speaking against these endless wars.

Originally posted by apacheman

As for firing Congress; more like 99.9%. I'm sure there's a random chance that one or two are actually decent human beings, but highly unlikely any found their way there recently (recently as in the last twenty or thirty years).

I was thinking more along the lines of janitorial and congressional caffeteria staff. They can stay. Not so much of the rest.

We need to stop playing by their definitions. By their terms. By their goals.

They are public servants. They are supposed to work FOR us.

And it's about damned time we reminded them.

I think RP has really raised awareness about the problems which culminate in the situation that the OP would like solved...the military that does the heavey lifting in the WOT is really one of his biggest support bases,
I Think its because they want to come home.

PS Op Im not meaning to be oppositional BTW, i just think the man can't do it alone, he needs all the support he can get
A government of the people....

reply to post by pianopraze


Sorry: too many "did not vote" actions on important legislation, too many pro-corporate legislation yea votes and pro-middle class legislation nay votes.

And nothing about introducing actual legislation to stop or define the wars.

He consistently votes against funding Veteran's Affairs and pretty much anything to do with education.

All those "did not vote"s tells me he hasn't the guts to put his votes where his mouth is, or is shirking his legislative responsibilities.

So in the end, not enough actualities and too much empty rhetoric, and a voting record that is in contradiction to my priorities.

War on Terror? What? There are not nearly enough terrorist attacks (plotted or carried out) on US soil to state that we are fighting a just war against it, so to define an end to it would require airing these facts and showing it to be the illusion that it mostly is, something that no candidate in their sane mind can publicly do while attempting to run for office. If we're really to be taken seriously when told that Radical Islam is one source of terror that must be fought, lets do some fact checking.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database
All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 94% That Aren't

According to this, Jewish Extremists are more of a threat to the US than Islamic Extremists.

We are not the police of the world. There is terrorism around the globe, but as far as the United States is concerned, we're mostly in the clear. Other countries, however, can't say the same. Look at the can of worms we have opened in Iraq and Afghanistan regarding terrorist attacks that have happened there from our overly long occupations.


Before you can ask a candidate to define an end to the war on terror, you must first ask and define what the war on terror is, who the terrorists really are, and how far, globally speaking, we are willing to go to fight it. Domestically though, there is hardly a real threat of terrorism so why it's even on the forefront of politics and elections is highly questionable to me.

I'd say end this illusion of War on Terrorism today, but the American people would laugh and say "nine eleven".