If Ron Paul did have a chance, it died during the last debate.

Sorry, Ron. You shot yourself in the foot with your foreign policy beliefs.

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/10329/exposed-ron-paul-foreign-policy-ignorance

 

sorry, you shot yourself in the head, and your brains oozed across the dirty floor with your belief that militarism benefits us.

 

Sorry you, like Paul, take Osama's propaganda at face value.

 

sorry that you think enriching bankers benefits you.

 

Liberals are still better than libertarians at class warfare talking points. Maybe someday.

 

If large corporations and individuals didn't profit off of war, we wouldn't have it. Likewise in a parallel universe where it rained gasoline, we wouldn't be using it to power our cars.

The idea that we spend nearly a trillion a year on defense that doesn't even work, while some of our population barely has the basics to survive is crazy to me.

 

I'm not sure how to take this, but whether I agree with it or not, it shows once again that Paul is willing to say what he thinks regardless of its popularity. I'd be happy to give him a vote if he managed to make it.

 

Sorry that I'm not one of the sheeple that buys into the notion that we are so vastly superior to the rest of the world that we are attacked due to our freedom and prosperity. I mean, it's crazy to think that someone would be upset with thousands of their people dying at the hands of another nation. It's crazy to think that I'd be mad if that same country invaded my country and set up military bases all over it.

It is irrelevant if the stated motive by Al-Qaeda is a lie or not as it is much more plausible for that to be true than the ridiculous notion that other nations are just jealous of us.

 

Bush was wrong when he said they hate us for our freedom. They hate us for being non-Muslims and infidels.

Those "thousands" (most people say "million" nowadays) were killed overwhelmingly by their fellow countrymen. I suppose they don't get any of the blame though, do they? "Kick America first" should be Ron Paul's campaign slogan.

I don't believe in that idea either. Although, Al Qaeda's motive is definitely not "irrelevant". Ron Paul uses it as his rationale behind his foreign policy decisions. If it's a lie, then I would be very worried about what Ron Paul does while operating under that lie.

 

Ron Paul doesn't use that as his rationale behind his foreign policy decisions. His rationale is the constitution and the intentions of our founders. We shouldn't be there for many reasons, one of them being that it is an undeclared war. That is simply unconstitutional. That and being over there has caused more damage to our country than 9/11 and caused absolutely no benefit to anyone in our country. I take that back, the ONE and ONLY benefit that being over there has given us is revenge with the death of Bin Laden. Whether our being over there has benefited anyone else, be it the Israelis or otherwise is also irrelevant. We sacrifice our money, liberty, and lives of our troops to do what? In reality, the motive behind 9/11 is irrelevant in determining Ron Paul's foreign policy.

 

I am not against ending the wars and bringing the troops home. What I am against is Ron Paul's faulty logic for bringing them home, and his naive beliefs about the nature of the enemy.

 

You liken our military presence in Germany and Japan to Our occupation of Afhanistan and Iraq? You are truely mentally inept or are essentially morally corrupt.

The culture in Japan and Germany are more compatible and already had a history of a centrally controlled western styled government long before the U.S. Not to mention the fact that they had totalitarian regimes that the United States had no hand in creating and did not have oil. I wont into detail on how they attacked us first in a declared war..... Unlike Iran ... or all the other middle eastern countries we have hegemony over.

I will simplify it as much as possible for you since you seem to be willfully obtuse and have a penchant to ignore facts and spin anything that doesnt suit your arguements.

Besides The Russians and the Brits trying to control iran through Imperialism and the Brits in redrawing all the borders in the middle east...

In the 1950's the United States and British intelligence services aided Iranian military officers in a coup to overthrow the Democratically ELECTED Prime Minister Mossadegh's because policies and announcements created concern over access to Iranian oil, oil prices, and possible Soviet influence in Iran.



In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadeghs took control (legally elected) and instituted policies that were were in step with a modernization of Iran into a participating global entity. Along with these modernization policies came a desire to control Irans economic future through nationalizing control of their greatest natural resource and asset OIL. The Brits (in their own eyes) thruogh the government owned and operated Anglo-Persian Oil Company had control of Irans oil and begged the U.S (OPERATION TPAJAX) to help them install a puppet government headed by Reza Pahlavi, a corrupt tyrant who agreed to support western control of Iranian oil in return for funding training and weapons which were supplied by the U.S. The U.S recieved as spoils part of the Iranian OIL production.

The Shah ("Reza Pahlavi") ruled Iran with an iron fist with the full support of the U.S through the CIA, Killing and imprisoning thousands, rolling back all progress by the legally elected Prime Minister Mossadegh. He killed all political opposition and as so often happens in an oppressive atmosphere, created a resistance comprised of radicalized religious fanatics who saw the support the U.S gave the Shah and concluded that the U.S was an enemy to be dealt with if the Saha was ever to be deposed. The Shah was opposed by both the Marxist Tudeh Party, and by fundamentalist Islamic leaders who believed his policies and his reliance on the Americans were corrupting Iranian society. (Guess who took over Iran genius).

In 1979 Iranian revolutionaries took control from the the U.S supported Shah. The Shah fled from Iran into the United States. The opposition in Iran wanted the Shah dead seeing as how the U.S helped him gain power, deduced that the U.S would put him back in power. The U.S refused to give up the Shah and they stormed the U.S embassy ...


Kicking off the first of the middle eastern attacks against the U.S labeled as "terrorist" attacks. That was the first in a string of attacks against the U.S that continue to this day... All for the control of oil that doesnt belong to us.

 

Your the one who is naive. I dont agree with Ron Paul on quite a few issues... but his interpetation of history isnt one of them.

If you want to be stupid enough to believe that sheepherders hate hamburgers enough to learn to fly planes and fly them into buidings.. thats your choice.. dont expect others to willfully ignore documented history on our involvement in the Middle east and say it has no bearing on what is taking place today... that is the height of insanity.

 

What he was trying to say before Santorum came in with the typical 'Merica' jingoism...was that interventionism IS isolationism if you are trying to call him an isolationist. While Bin Laden's acts were horrific and completely merciless, failed foreign policy has helped destabilize countries like Iraq and provide ammunition for anti-American sentiment...in addition, showing disregard for the customs of other societies by building bases on Islamic Holy Lands makes us lose support from key allies, both in the Western World and the ME. What's worse, a lean-efficient military or a bloated machine that's gonna bankrupt our country way more than Obamacare ever will.

 

Agree.. its too bad that the typical lazy american will side with Santorum because what he says keeps them from having to acknowledge that they support mass murder and terrorism as much as Bin Laden ever did.

 

Boy you're a nasty little leftist, aren't you?

We are in 130 countries around the world. Very few of them are Western countries, like the two you cherry-picked here. The only ones who are using our military bases as an excuse to carry on the jihad warfare that they have been waging for 14 centuries are Muslim countries.

Our problems with the Muslim world did not begin in the 50's. With your excuse making, you are unable to explain why Muslims have been waging religious wars of conquest since the 7th century. Why they have always possessed an "us vs them" mentality when it comes to dealing with non-Muslims. This didn't begin with the creation of Israel, nor did it begin in Iran 60 years ago. This is the continuation of 14 centuries of religiously fueled hatred and divisiveness.

Your selective focus on Iran does not explain why the entire Muslim world is fighting us. And I don't just mean the US, Muslims are waging war all over the world against non-Muslims, motivated by a supremacist ideology that one day the entire world will be Islamic. The ones actually doing the fighting make no secret about the fact that they are motivated by their religion. The smarter ones, like Osama, tell the West that its politically motivated, and then in secret, tell other Muslims that they are just following Muhammad's commands in the Qur'an. Read the article in the OP.

Muslims are a problematic group and they have been for a very long time. They represent a unique threat to the West. They are currently waging a demographic war against us by flooding into Western countries and having as many children as their loins can handle, so that in the future, they won't have to wage any military campaigns to obtain more land and influence. They'll just let the next generation rule on behalf of the entire ummah.

You're just another kick America first leftist whose idea of "history" goes back just far enough to portray the enemy's of the West as victims.

 

Nice strawman. In fact, in this very thread I said I don't buy the "they hate us for our freedom" answer. They fly planes into buildings because they are Muslims and we are not.

Your "history" is limited to the past 60 years because you don't want to see the "documented history" of Islamic aggression and conquest. It just doesn't fit into your narrative.

 

The wars aren't bankrupting us. Entitlement programs are. That doesn't even include what the costs of Obamacare are going to be. Nobody knows what it is going to cost, yet, which is one of the major reasons why no company wants to hire people in this environment.

Where are these "Islamic Holy Lands"? What makes them "Holy". They will call any piece of Islamic land "Holy" in order to justify their defensive jihad against us. Why should we agree that some stretch of ground that they call "Holy" is worthy of such respect? Would they give us the same amount of consideration?

 

What US did and is doing isnt aggression?

 

Oh, yes, "the typical lazy American", which implies that you not one of them, living in Texas. Oh how badly you leftists wish you were Canadians and Europeans. America is so terrible, yet you live here anyway.

Truly pathetic.

 

Brew guy.

If Israel was off the map and we didnt have troops anywhere in the world protecting anybody..what would the world look like?
Nobody ask the Paulites that question..
Its either continue the path that has protected us since 9-11 or surrendered and be like MEXICO..controlled by the mobs ..drug lords.. anarchy of no regulations..Puff Puff..

Does anyone think the terrorist LOVE MEXICO better than us because they are not on the ground over in the middle East ?
Really..all terrorist think the same and everything starts and ends with Israel ?
Only the idiots believe that..
Terror attacks in south America back me up..The countries of South America do not have military interest yet suffer the same terrorist attacks..
Asia suffers the same..
So this noble idea that supporting Israel and defending American interest abroad influences terrorist to hate us more is NOT correct.
They Hate us more BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND MEANS TO KICK THEIR BUTTS ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE.
We can kill their leaders..freeze their money and it pisses them off.

Thinking that ending all that will make THEM BETTER is a propaganda JOKE.

The fact that someone runs on that platform alone is dangerous and reckless say the least.
Listen to the terrorist..they speak the truth..
Maybe not the whole truth..

 

if you were awake you'd know the liberals were big fans of banks and war, just like you pretend conservatives. In fact, the two of you are nearly identical.
But alas, you are asleep and missed it.

Say, which one of the collectivist media tools taught you how to use the phrase "talking points" ?

 

they fly planes into our buildings because they are organized and funded by highly sophisticated intelligence agencies outside of their countries.

 

Have you ever stopped to consider that they can't beat us on the battlefield and they know it?

But they can get us to spend ourselves to death and die from within.
I always thought getting out of Iraq and Afganistan would be a positive move and would make our nation stronger. Instead of rebuilding other countries we should rebuild our own.

We have to be economically strong too.