Ron Paul and Michele Bachman square off

I don't care what you think, and at this point I would vote for Mickey Mouse before I voted for Obama.

 

Which is apparently what you'll be doing if Ron Paul gets the nomination.

 

Yep, and he will be a better president than obama, NO DOUBT.

 

I know EXACTLY what you mean. But Ron Paul really is crazy. Fortunately he doesn't stand a chance.

 

At least Obama understands foreign policy and global commitments. Paul is absolutely clueless.

 

LOL I can't believe some people still believe this garbage. It would be hysterical if it wasn't so frightening.

By leaving our wars, we'd be at a much lower risk of being attacked, we'd save a (*)(*)(*)(*)-ton of money, we wouldn't send our soldiers to slaughter for no apparent reason, and save the lives of their civilians.

The alternative is this neocon militarism that is slaughtering a massive amount of people, and costing us a ton of money. Which is unacceptable.

 

Because it's true.

Chamberlain thought the same of Hitler and look where that ended up.

Unfortunate but acceptable when the alternative is to sit on your hands and hope that no one attacks you. That's just the sort of position that the terrorists would happily capitalize on.

 

Look Im going to address all your assertions directly Jason.....

1/ Its not true, the CIA doesnt think so and neither does anyone else outside the right of the USA.

Im British, I watched 9/11 and read all the investigative works on Al Queda, ive fought for my country and can tell you directly, they didnt attack us because they want to topple our freedoms. It was strictly related to our foreign policies. They couldnt care less what we do in our lands.

2/ As for the Chamberlain argument, this refers to a problem with perennially agressive nation in europe prone to invading places. Iran doesnt apply...and dont bother arguing that because it supports guerrillas elsewhere its actually invading anywhere...its not.

3/ Wrong again. Terrorists do the exact opposite. They in fact foist an overreaction in order to create a wider conflict involving more people which they can hope then to win for their point of view.

Thats the stated aim of Al Queda and its the tactics of modern terrorists for most of the 20th century.

4/ Basically your just making things up like your GWB era conservatives did years ago. We in the UK seen right through it then and we laugh at it now. However, I have a question. Given your so keen to fight Iran, can we expect you to be actually volunteering or sitting on your chair cheering for war on the internet? Or is it the likes of me that will have to do it for you when Britain again decides to take part in your ghastly invasion?

5/ And lastly, while I love and respect Jewish people and wish them peace in their state, you actually detest arabs and muslims - thats why your ignorant avatar is placed there - the flag does indeed exist.

So there you are. Refuted on all points, I await your pointed retort.

 

You've refuted nothing.

 

Ahmed Rashid's Taliban? Yosef Bodanski's bin Laden? Simon Reeve? Syed Saleem Shahzad? What background do you have? Peter Hopkirk? Thomas Barfield? Why were Islamic fundamentalists who inspired al-Qaeda preaching the necessity of over-throwing the United States and bringing about a worldwide caliphate in the early 1940's? Interested to know what books you've read about al-Qaeda also.

 

Indeed.

Not sure about your historical assertions regarding invading the USA in the 40s. Seems to lack context.

Try Albert Hourani's History of the Arab Peoples or more importantly try this instead, straight from the guy who mentored Bin Laden;

http://www.hoor-al-ayn.com/Books/Join the Caravan.pdf

 

Fair enough. Then are you going to provide a response?........

or just expect everyone to lap up whatever warnings and assertions you deem fit to make?

 

Not "invasion" - I was referring to Sayyid Qutb's Signposts and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood etc

Islamic fundamentalists and a considerable proportion of the Muslim world are resolved to wage war against Western civilization. It came to a head during the oil boom in Saudi Arabia with the Grand Mosque of Mecca seizure in 1979 - and in the Shia world with the Iranian revolution earlier the same year. So anyone who knows this stuff must know that U.S. foreign policy has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Try The Rape of Palestine by William B Ziff

I have no wish to read Azzam. It was Zawahiri who "mentored" bin Laden - Azzam was merely a typical "Palestinian" terrorist who tried to mix pan-Arab nationalism with the Jihad against the Soviets.

 

They live in infamy in the minds of idiots that think war-mongering is the way to create a better world.

Because it doesnt squander the precious and limited resources of your average american on totally useless things like bombing mudhuts?

 

What wars have we "mongered?" Iraq was precipitated in part because Saddam Hussein was bragging about having WMD's. Afghanistan because al Qaeda used it as a base of operations and the Taliban were committing atrocities against Afghan citizens.

Iraq is better off now then when Saddam ruled it.

Those mudhuts contained terrorists who'd just love to bomb our citizens.

 

I can't respond to what is obviously a mistaken opinion not based in fact.

You mean like you did in your post?

 

You really want to understand it? Or you going to ignore it?

Back in 1951 a man named Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected the PM of Iran. His major platform issue was to nationalize AIOC ( Anglo-Iranian Oil Company aka BP). This was a huge no no to the British. The British couldn't do the coup themselves so they talked to the US. The Brits told the US that Mosaddegh was moving more and more toward Communism and the Soviet Union. Bunch of little things happened like public denouncing. As a result Mosaddegh and Iran cut all ties to the UK and declared them an enemy. So Operation Ajax was launched. Basically it required the Shah to denounce Mosaddegh who was very popular in Iran at the time. So he was arrested then later killed. But that's not the end of the story. It took Iran from a British form of Government to an out right Monarchy. Problem was the US funded the Shah Government until it's fall. Which means the US funded a little group known as the SAVAK. SAVAK were the secret police who tortured and murdered people opposed to the Shah.

Then the US harassed Iran in the 1980s in different forms. US gave weapons (bio and chemical) and money to Iraq to fight Iran and they fought Iran. It was a bloody war. US ships to the Gulf to protect Oil vessels. But what really put the nail in the coffin in our relationship happened July 3rd 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 carrying 290 persons of which 65 of them were children.

 

Whoa whoa wait a minute! Why are you starting there? What are Anglo-Soviet forces doing in Iran? Wasn't there something called WWII? Didn't Reza Shah Pahlavi swing towards the Nazis after the pro-Nazi coup in neighboring Iraq? Wasn't Iran invaded by Anglo-Soviet forces to prevent the vital oil fields falling into the hands of the Nazis and to provide a land corridor for Lend Lease Aid to the perfidious Soviets? Wasn't there something called the Iranian crisis of 1946 when Stalin refused to withdraw Soviet forces according to the timetable he'd agreed upon? Didn't Stalin form the Stalinist Tudeh Party and instigate a Stalinist insurgency?

That's right. And didn't he do that to court some of the vote from the Stalinist Tudeh Party and gain support from Islamic fundamentalist nationalists? Wasn't it in violation of the agreements that Britain had made with the Pahlavi dynasty? Didn't Mossadeq come to power after Khomeini's mentors assassinated the previously democratically elected PM?

Churchill and Eisenhower. Yes, I don't need a history lesson. I've read the revisionist versions and the real versions.

He was.

That's right. You don't think maybe he did that to remain in power? As he had previously lost power and regained it? And the country being so unstable that it had had more than half a dozen coups in 2 years? And the Shah who had been the sovereign since he took over from his father in 1941 representing a better alternative to Stalin or Islamic fundamentalists? You think any of that?

Here we go...

Right. Moving up the legal marriage age slowly from 9 to 15 is oppressive stuff too eh? 70% of Iran was illiterate in the early 50's. The educated, urban elite gathered around the Shah as Mossadeq courted the illiterate Communist/Islamist classes in true demagoguic style with word for word repetition of Stalinist-style propaganda against the British.

Yes I know. Ever heard the expression 'lesser of evils?' Anyway US/UK had no control over or responsibility for the actions of SAVAK.

Really? Maybe something happened in 1979 that brought that about. Maybe something in Beirut in 1983 had something to do with that also?

Yeah things like that happen in war don't they? Why are you blaming the US who did not start the war and had nothing to do with Iran in 1979 when the revolution occurred and the war against US started?

 

Iran was officially neutral during WW2.

The problem in 1951 was that AIOC was paying 3 cents on the dollar to Iran in oil revenue while ARAMCO was paying 50 cents on the dollar to Saudi Arabia.

The SAVAK was funded and trained by the father of General Schwarzkopf and Kermit Roosevelt.

All the oilmen in the ME at the time knew it was a grave error to oust the Mossadegh and screw the Iranians.

 

Taken out of context. Listen to what Bachmann said previous to his comment.

That and she talks about invading Iran something we must do and then says we are a nation of peace.

1984

 

Many argue that RP is dangerous to our national defense, but I am certain that the opposite is true.
He is steadfast, stoic, unwavering, while Bachman etal seem eager to have their finger on the trigger.
RP, in his approach, will strengthen us from within, while everyone else, including our current POTUS, are nothing but seeking conflict, posturing, and making us weaker in the process.
Wouldn't it be great to have someone who is capable of carefully weighing ALL the options, instead of reacting on a whim?

 

Whatever interest I may have garnered for Ron Paul was dissipated in Thursday's debate. I recorded it. The first time I watched it, I had the sound on...something about his tirade on foreign policy, in particular Iran, disturbed me. I went back and replayed it with the sound off, paying close attention to his body language. The man looked deranged. Fanatical, He reminded me of one of those 'fire and brimstone' evangelist preachers that once haunted early Sunday morning TV. I'm sorry, but he appears to be a wacko to me.

 

So a smooth delivery is more important than the context?

 

i've done this with ron paul's you tube videos, it's a revealing technique

no, it's a method to get beneath his pandering rhetoric and lies

 

I think he's ****ing nuts. He projects a 'little Billy has the right to play with matches' philosophy of a stone libertarian. Why is he running for the republican nomination? In a perfect world (like Obama's) his thinking could have a place. This isn't a perfect world.