http://www.conservativedrink.com Conservative Thinking by Rex Moncrief Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:36:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.conservativedrink.com/2011/03/19/war-on-the-poor-and-obama/#comment-1040 Jill Opus1 Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:36:00 +0000 http://www.conservativedrink.com/?p=1132#comment-1040 I'm a single low income mother-- a conservative republican.. a "contradictionary" of sorts.I am a working food stamp reciepient. Try to teach my children to be responsible, value our freedom and always remember the elderly and needy. We must stay informed, and it's so true re "the party in power" deciding when/why to war or whom is/isn't acting irresponsible.  Enjoying the posts.  I’m a single low income mother– a conservative republican.. a ”contradictionary” of sorts.I am a working food stamp reciepient. Try to teach my children to be responsible, value our freedom and always remember the elderly and needy.
We must stay informed, and it’s so true re “the party in power” deciding when/why to war or whom is/isn’t acting irresponsible.  Enjoying the posts. 

]]> http://www.conservativedrink.com/2012/01/29/golden-ruled-out/#comment-1039 Anonymous Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:21:00 +0000 http://www.conservativedrink.com/?p=1527#comment-1039 Ok - so now explain the attacks on other nations who are not perceived as "occupiers". Ok – so now explain the attacks on other nations who are not perceived as “occupiers”.

]]> http://www.conservativedrink.com/2012/01/29/golden-ruled-out/#comment-1038 ron paul 2012! Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:40:00 +0000 http://www.conservativedrink.com/?p=1527#comment-1038 To clarify, what I mean is the "perception" of occupation/invasion, regardless of intent, duration, or invitation of the intervening country. What you may term "presence" is viewed as an occupation, just as we would consider foreign troops walking our streets as an occupation - an act of war - regardless of their stated intent. Same goes for sanctions, bombings and siding with one nation over another in international conflicts. So, to answer your question: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, and Pakistan just to name a few. Please see http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html for a comprehensive list of U.S. occupations, bombings, sanctions and picking-sides in international affairs. Our argument is not that America should never get involved. If we declare war against a nation we will attack, bomb, invade, etc. regardless of how it is perceived and that is legitimate. But because we *aren't* declaring war, we have no direction, no stated objective and no clear path to victory, how can we blame the civilians of these countries for resenting us? That doesn't mean they are justified in killing innocent Americans in return, which is why Paul was the only congressman to submit the Sept. 11th Marque & Reprisal Act to specifically target and capture Osama. Terrorist attacks have increased since 9/11, they have not decreased. Why not? Because we only keep fueling their fire. And for what purpose? "To keep the world safe" - but it clearly is not. It's a vicious circle that will never end until we draw back our forces and instead lead by example and encourage the sending of missionaries to these lands, not armed forces. Please research Prof. Robert Pape's comprehensive data, with one exception. Pape tries to say that Islam has nothing to do with terrorist attacks, but he is clearly wrong in that interpretation. The Quran specifically teaches retaliation to invaders as the Bible & Ron Paul series proves. So, you can still critique Islam while not ignoring the facts. To clarify, what I mean is the “perception” of occupation/invasion, regardless of intent, duration, or invitation of the intervening country. What you may term “presence” is viewed as an occupation, just as we would consider foreign troops walking our streets as an occupation – an act of war – regardless of their stated intent. Same goes for sanctions, bombings and siding with one nation over another in international conflicts. So, to answer your question: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, and Pakistan just to name a few. Please see http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html for a comprehensive list of U.S. occupations, bombings, sanctions and picking-sides in international affairs. Our argument is not that America should never get involved. If we declare war against a nation we will attack, bomb, invade, etc. regardless of how it is perceived and that is legitimate. But because we *aren’t* declaring war, we have no direction, no stated objective and no clear path to victory, how can we blame the civilians of these countries for resenting us? That doesn’t mean they are justified in killing innocent Americans in return, which is why Paul was the only congressman to submit the Sept. 11th Marque & Reprisal Act to specifically target and capture Osama. Terrorist attacks have increased since 9/11, they have not decreased. Why not? Because we only keep fueling their fire. And for what purpose? “To keep the world safe” – but it clearly is not. It’s a vicious circle that will never end until we draw back our forces and instead lead by example and encourage the sending of missionaries to these lands, not armed forces. Please research Prof. Robert Pape’s comprehensive data, with one exception. Pape tries to say that Islam has nothing to do with terrorist attacks, but he is clearly wrong in that interpretation. The Quran specifically teaches retaliation to invaders as the Bible & Ron Paul series proves. So, you can still critique Islam while not ignoring the facts.

]]>