Why should i vete for him, what does he bring to the plate. He plans to remove troops from Iraq and leave behind a wounded weak government that will resent America even more. This is insane to me. Please convince me why this man should be president.
I think Andrew Sullivan said it well: Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination I'd recommend you go to http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and read about his positions and platform. If reading is a four letter word for you, you can also check out the plethora of videos on the web where Ron Paul discusses his positions. A couple of good ones are: Ron Paul on Candidates@Google Dr. Ron Paul For President 2008 Ron Paul interview on PBS' NOW (see the extended interview video) Ron Paul on CNN Headline News/Glenn Beck
simply put: He fights for the Constitution. not for an agenda that is merely an effect of decades straying away from it.
Single issue voter eh? I can respect that. I am not going to convince you to vote for Ronny boy but I would like to point out some of the inherent flaws in the whole Iraq mess. Cut and Run! Zomg it sounds so terrible! There are a lot of countries with not so weak and crippled governments that hate our guts already. Should we attack them all? Ka-boom the world into friendliness? What exactly is the plan for instilling a kinder gentler Iraq? Boots on the ground and tanks in the streets? It is a country in a state of civil war, that also has insurgents running into the place with IED's by the hundreds, and add to that not only our "Security Force", but also the hired mercs and the contractors they protect who are robbing the place blind. So how many years of occupation (and it is occupation) do you think it will take for them to "love our freedoms?"
The constitution is not perfect though. Hence the amendments. For example if the constitution says. do not walk on the grass, or you'll be hung, and someone comes by and pushes you on the grass, should you be hung?
lol.. there's no amendment that is irrational as that. so what are you stating that we should live by it or not? it's either 100% or 0% there is no in between. i'm not going to rub my feet on your d**k to get you to vote for my candidate i'm just telling you why I'm voting for him. you'll have to ask yourself, are you someone who believes the Constitution has made us the potentially greatest country that we are and we should live by it or it means nothing and we should keep straying away from it.
Well why not seek some kind of agreement than? Why not a treaty of sorts. I want us to leave as much as you, but is it the best thing for our country, or the world? If there was an agreement between the US, and this group, that according to most, is just attacking us because of the occupation, than id be willing to say lets get out of there.Since they are only attacking us because of the occupation than we should be fine right? we leave no more problems right? Sounds to good to be true. They were attacking us before we got there and they will attack us when we are gone. the only option is to contain them the best way we can.
Constitution doesn't say stupid things like that mate... Additionally, when a crime is committed, there's a trial, where you can present evidences in favor of your innocence.
error: the only option that will work is to stop occupying them. if they've been attacking you before* you got there.. that might be why.
I didnt say live by it or not, i said its conditional, and the amendments prove that. The amendments were added due to specific circumstance
i know this, it was a far fetched example that apparently most are to blind to figure out You make no since. We were attacked before we occupied them, how could our occupancy be the cause if we hadn't occupied them>
Are we containing them, or are we subjecting more people in a foreign country to violence instead of letting them work out their own problems. I do not honestly believe that our occupation of Iraq has deterred terrorism in the world. I might have been sold on Afghanistan since it is for all intents a state of terror, but Iraq is just a mess. I think our agreement needs to be that they take care of their own and we will support that effort. Right now our agreement is that we will occupy it until we like what we see or run out of money to support that occupation. That is way too open-ended for me.
I agree with you, but my point is the agreement wont happen, they will continue to terrorize, not just America, but whoever gets in their way. Iraq has become a breeding ground its true, i admit it. So lets just leave and let them breed. Makes a lot of since to me (first time Ive used the sarcastic smiley, i think i like it) How so? It was your statement. Are you saying they didn't bother us before?
Introduction Look, it would be near impossible for any government in Iraq to resent us more than Saddam and his Ba'ath regime. The previous years of Iraq were the effect of years of dictatorship and extreme paranoia by a man who knew he was wanted dead. Unintended Consequences I've read a few books on Saddam, his rise to power and his need to keep it were incredible, and let us not forget that we are part of the reason he became so powerful, in our hopes of hurting Iran by supporting Iraq when they went to war. He later went on to gas thousands of his own people, and play cat and mouse with us over weapons inspections until we finally toppled him beginning in 2003. History has shown us time and time again that our interventionism in the Middle East typically does more harm than good. We wanted to protect oil interests, so we toppled a democratically elected leader in Iran. It's lead to extreme resentment in Iran and surrounding countries, and lead to the hostage crisis of 1979. It also helped fuel radicalism and religious dictatorship within that country. We supported Afghanistan in the 1980s, trying to combat the Soviets. While the Afghan army played a role in weakening the USSR, it also came back to bite us when that same group, the Taliban, became supportive of people like OBL, and once again began to abuse power and harm its own people. Also, opium harvesting has risen exponentially since we went back to Afghanistan beginning in 2001, and I believe they are the biggest producer of opium in the world. Analysis Without even addressing one of the biggest issues of the region, Israel, it should become fairly obvious that unintended consequences have arisen every time we try and interfere within the Middle East. We prop up dictatorships and evil groups for our own interests via money and guns, and then those same guns are used against us years down the line when those same groups don't want to follow our command any longer. With each excursion and unintended consequences that follow, we also pay the price by the deaths of soldiers, and by the massive costs for waging large scale wars half way across the world. Ron Paul's call for non-interventionism isn't just about the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possible action in Iran. It's about years down the line. We need to stop making allies with questionable groups worldwide, and in this region in particular, because history shows that it comes back to hurt us every time. We need to focus on our own borders, on using our troops only for an imminent threat, and for being more responsible with our actions worldwide. Should we stay or should we go? Even if we packed our bags and came home from Iraq tomorrow, and even if the worst case did occur and Iraq fell back into an evil dictatorship, it's not nearly as bad as the harm done as we stay there. We need to concentrate on the original goal of foreign intervention, eliminating the terrorists, not on creating more terrorists with an occupation of Iraq when so many want us to leave. I guess a good way to look at it is like this: looking back, was Saddam a threat? The WMDs thing was overblown if not completely false, the army was toppled in days, and now the only people still fighting us over there are insurgents, not an actual organized military. The imagined threat of a dictatorship taking hold that causes more harm than what we cause with our current action is just that, imagined, unreal. Right now, we spend about $177M a day, lose about 2-3 soldiers a day, and create god knows how many insurgents with our intervention on their land. Explain to me how that kind of financial and physical damage is going to continue when we bring those troops home? This post just addresses the Iraq/Foreign Policy aspect of the Paul campaign, I'm sure me and other people can help explain any other areas. What are your top issues? What specific things matter to you more than anything else? A more direct approach to the areas that matter to you will let us show you how Paul is the best candidate out there.
Simplyg are you that ignorant about our foreign policy? I suggest you read my old posts on the former leader of iran mossadegh. When your finished reading up on him please come back to us here and post your findings. It will open up your eyes. Then read up on qasm of iraq. After your done with those 2 you can read up on how we helped fund osama bin laden in the 1980's. If you want to truely get a full understanding of our involvement there, get the book called " the secret team" by colonel fletcher prouty. He was head of weapons procurment for our governments black ops unit.
Terrorist cells are breeding all over the world. Iraq is just one of many countries that has a terrorist problem and that problem has increased there since our occupation. Extreme Islamic terrorist are not the only brand of terrorism alive and well in the world either. To truly eliminate terrorism from the world would mean eliminating a large number of countries and people, and if we start down that road there might not be any freedom left to protect.
Just quoting what i keep being told about our occupancy there, i honestly believe its not as bad, as it would be if we were to leave. When we leave terrorist will seek the families of killed Iraqi's or Saddam supporters, and the country will focus on payback. The damage has been done, they hate us, leaving will only give them a chance to retaliate Im not worried about the past, im talking about now and the future, who cares what happened years ago, we have made mistakes, just like every government. But Now is whats on the line, not then