I agree. But doesn't it make you question why they support him in the first place? Seriously, peruse the Ron Paul threads on this forum and see who come out on his side - and see what else they say in other threads on other topics. It's totally disingenious and almost completely based on RP's soft trutherism; or at least his coddling of truthers. I dare say that no single person who is registered R in this forum supports him. It comes from foreigners (as previously stated), truthers, and those who openly support the goals of Hamas/et al. It's not good company. RP is fine domestically, great in fact. But his beaten wife foreign policy is pathetic and short sighted. He's half a candidate, at best, who has no real issue. He has no record in the House of being a leader of anything. He's not even a good libertarian. He's just Sanjaya. AGS even acts like the girl crying in the AI audience when he heard RP mentioned today. Ron Paul. The last hope. The best hope. For Humanity. Save the Republic. Take the Red Pill. Ron Paul.
lorien, you are aware that a majority of the American people disapprove of the war? http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/06/05/afx3789368.html
How is that relevant to anything I've written? The support for the war has always been conditional. It was 70% approval at the beginning and declined as it dragged on and keeps dropping while the poorly thought out post-invasion plan faltered.
Explain... He leads on many things, the problem is not many others follow. I think what he might be trying to say is that if a pro-war republican gets the nomination, a democrat will be elected.
Remember the debate. Ron Paul (not an exact quote) said that we should look at the reasons why we were attacked. Here is the short list of AQ demands: If you believe that we should cede to all of OBL's demands here, then you are in essence playing the role of a battered wife. Please don't hit me! I didn't mean it! I won't do it again. Please stop hitting me. This is Ron Paul's foreign policy; in a nut shell. This is what we call cognitive dissonance. A leader gets people to follow him. He has not sponsored a major single piece of legistlation in the house that has made it into law. 72% (or something) of the bills he sponsors die in committee and get no support. A guy who is ready to lead the country should have -some- record of getting people to agree with him on a bill, get it out of committee and get it passed. Don't you think? But I am glad that you realize how accurate my summation of his support on this forum. Peruse my blog for the "pro Ron Paul" comments and it gets even worse. Pro Iran, Anti Israel gets throw into the mix too. Is that a presidential candidate's groundswell?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/29/video-bloated-traitor-helps-clarify-things-for-ron-paul/ Hmm, a random muslim white guy with a beard says we should bring the troops home; let's keep them there just to spite him! Also, if Ron Paul is able to negotiate with congress to get the things he wants done, that is great. If he doesn't, nothing will get done and that is also a good thing, the stock market likes gridlock
What are you talking about? Those are OBL's demands after the initial attacks on 9/11. They are also the reasons behind his declaration of war on us back in the 90's. The tool you linked to is irrelevant. Are you being serious here?
lorien, I've seen many posts that repeat the same stuff, over and over. Your listing OBL's demands is one of them. It's irrelevant to Paul's position on the war. His position is not dictated by whether or not it conforms to OBL's demands. His position is dictated by the constitution. Paul has criticized American foreign policy. It is ok, nay, OBLIGATORY in a democracy to criticize governmental policy. You keep posting OBL's wishlist and asking if forum members agree with it or not. I've answered your question before, and now I have a yes or no question for you. Do you believe that our foreign policy does, or has the potential to create what the CIA likes to term, "Blowback"?
I looked back on Loriens posts, but without digging deep I didn't see any other time he listed OBL's terms. What are you refering to? (Not saying you are lying, I just didn't want to dig.)
I'm posting it in the context of Ron Paul's asking we should figure out why we were attacked. That's why we were attacked. If you wish to follow that line...if we do not want to be attacked more, we should cede to those demands, shouldn't we? That is my point. I didn't think I was being too difficult to comprehend here. Do you agree with OBL's demands? Should he have some sort of say over our foreign policy, lest they attack again? I keep hearing no from people here, but then I keep getting the same question asked again. What is it, should we cede to his demands or shouldn't we? It isn't a wishlist, it is his demands. All or nothing. This isn't a game where you say yes to some things, no to others. It's all or nothing. He (and the other freak islamists) say it all the time. All or nothing. Of course it can. But it is irrelevant in this context, isn't it? If you attempting to say that "our having troops in the middle east pisses OBL off" - that's nice. Do you suggest we remove them? Does OBL get a say over where we put our bases, over who our allies are? Or not? If not, then his views are irrelevant, aren't they. If you want to examine blowback, let's take it to the 9/11 example. Some of the hijaakers cited Kosovo as a reason to attack us. We helped out muslims in this instance, saving them from ethnic cleansing. Yet this was a reason used to attack us in 2001. Is that the blowback you refer to? Do you think it would have been wiser to let them be exterminated? Would that have been the better solution there?
He's posted it twice to me, and I've seen them at least one other time. Hell, I know them so well, I don't even read them anymore once I recognize what he is posting. Like the terms "truthers" and "sheeple" it dumbs down the discussion when several guys walk around with prefab posts or phrases to toss in every thread. Btw, feel free to yes/no my question as well.
If you had Jewish friends and you received death threats from Muslims because of it would you say it's your policy of being friends with Jews that's the problem? If a bunch of murdering assholes got mad at you for arresting them for murdering (or planning to murder) people would you say it's your policy of stopping assholes from murdering people that's the problem? Ron Paul would. And that's why he's an irrelavent twit.
Ok, first, we're having a productive discussion here, so I will try to keep it dignified and respectful. No we shouldn't cede to his demands for the umpteenth time. But by not ceding, isn't he helping us make that decision? That's how terror works. It forces you to make reactionary and precautionary decisions you wouldn't under any other circumstance. You don't conduct business as usual, because you are no longer in a comfort zone. That's a victory for the terrorists. Purposely pursuing an Iraqi war that has nothing to do with the war on terror only gets tougher to extricate ourselves from because we're committed to not being weak in front of the terrorists, even if we have to manufacture bogus strength or send a lot of our own people to die. This is what gets pushed aside by the media and government. We're playing a game of fear, and it's not a game we can win. The only way to "win" is by not playing with Bin Laden, Al Queda et al at all. We've been at this for how many years now? Do you really feel the world is safer today than it was the day after 9/11? Do you feel confident that there will be no more terror attacks on American soil? Because if you don't, then maybe it is time to look at what we are doing, and why it is not making people feel safer, or more optimistic, or more liberated. All or nothing. Kill everyone in Afghanistan? Who sorts out who is a terrorist and who is not? If you faced a lineup of 20 Afghani farmers and 4 were Al Queda, do you think you could pick them out? Where does all or nothing end? The Muslims are masters of the eye-for-an-eye system. How do we win this one out? Kill everyone in the middle east outside of GWB's buddies in Saudia and Israel? Will we have to travel around the world and exterminate Islamic citizens in other countries? Who cares about his demands. Make him an international criminal, bring our troops home and conducting a planet wide manhunt. You don't kill a mosquito with a bazooka. It's completely relevant to Paul's views. Which is what you were debating with me. Paul says our foreign policy, particularly in the middle east has had blowback. You are willing to admit that blowback is a possibility. So where is the problem here with his position on amending our foreign policy to minimize the potential for blowback? I don't see one... You're avoiding the much bigger picture than Osama Bin Boogey Man. Terrorism is as old as government. Did OBL start the Irish Republican Army? Did he order the deaths of millions of Muslims moving from India to Pakistan during the time of partition? Hell no. OBL isn't the problem. Limit his funding, his movement and his opportunities, reduce the atmosphere he recruits in, and he will die a crazy old bastard in some Kashmiri mountain range with a bunch of toothless goat farmers for an army. Having troops in the Middle East doesn't just piss OBL off. It pisses Iran off. It pisses Iraq off. It pisses Syria off. It pisses a lot of countries and millions of people off. Like it or not, true or not, Americans are viewed as occupiers, and where you have occupation, you have a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. I think non-intervention would have been the better policy there and usually elsewhere. I think that supporting the UN, as a UN tool would have been better than Bill Clinton electing himself Sherrif of the town of Earth. Btw, you're the only person I have ever heard mention Kosovo as something the hijackers used for motivation. When exactly did this come to light? Is there tape of it from before they died?
Well, it is valid to ask why America supports the sovereignty of Israel so absolutely. We didn't support the sovereignty of Iran. We didn't support the sovereignty of Iraq. We certainly don't support the sovereignty of Palestine. Do we have a consistent policy, particularly in non-oil bearing regions of stepping in to stop each and every asshole? Paul's policy isn't about FUD. It's not about responding to an attack by going to Iraq and killing 60,000+ confirmed civilians while losing an estimated 30,000 plus of our own troops and civilian contractors. It's not about rhetoric meant to inspire Americans to die for oil.
Because: 1) He has virtually no accomplishments 2) He actively and willingly panders to the "alex jones" crowd of nutjobs. 3) He's admitted to conspiratorial beliefs for the purpose of pandering to "troofer" nuts. 4) He's weak. He wouldn't swat a fly, let alone make tough choices to protect America. 5) He comes across as a whiner every time he's given media time. Look at some of the posters in this thread. Some willfully avoid reality (cough, ags...cough...briant) at all cost. These are the types of people that Ron Paul attracks. One has to ask...why? Here's a nice compilation of Ron Paul's moonbattery.
How so. He doesn't want bases in SA. So what? We still have them there. How is that helping us make a decision. You do things because they are in your best interest, not because some loon who doesn't even live there says its what he wants. I fail to see how is forcing our own decisions. By trying to rationalize his reasoning people, like RP, encourage it. Giving excuses to their actions by blaming ourselves (the beaten wife defense I bring up constantly - it is very appropriate, isn't it?) See here you go. Don't cede, but cede by not playing. The only way to do this -is- to cede to their demands, isn't it? The only thing that'd theoretically placate them right? So you'd suggest that we try and get local goverments to find him, right? Pakistan knows where he is, but doesn't go after them. That shoots a big ole hole in that plan, now, doesn't it? Your mind may turn to killing extermination as the only possible answers. Not mine. Are you projecting or something? If you are attempting to put thoughts in my head; please don't. The west (US, etal) has a record of attempting to create peace. Palestinians were offered just about everything they wanted in the 90's. They said no and chose death and destruction instead. If you think everything is about violence, that says more about you, than me. Here you go again. Don't cede, but cede. We have bases in SA, by request of the SA government. Their opinion is all that matters. If they want our bases gone, they will be gone. Iraq is a temporary situation (as has been noted hundreds of times). So you think Syria, Iran, etal should have a say over where we put our bases? That's a good RP supporter for ya. Here are the hijackers claiming to want to avenge Bosnia: http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35762 You're right. It's not well known. Because people (like Paul) want to pretend there is some non-existant blowback issue here.
And so the dumbing down of America continues, where we pattern any dissenter a truther and relegate them to the back of the room. Long live the Republic!
It may be difficult for people NOT to have a liar in politics... A honest politician is a chicken with teeth: that does not exist. We need more WMD somewhere, or a bro in the last state for the balots, or...I don't know....any kind of fraud...
Yeah, it's kind of hard to defend him when it's all just "right there," isn't it? It takes a clever "come back" to overcome those sort of facts