I forgive the US if they elect Dr. Ron Paul

What history will show, unfortunately is what history shows about the Gulf of Tonkin as a prelude to Vietnam.

The message McCain brought home from the troops was that they are sending more money to Dr. Paul.

I'm happy the surge is working. It's not sustainable, but I am happy that there is less violence. That doesn't mean I think the solution in Iraq is 100,000 permanently stationed troops. On the contrary, the surge was supposed to allow for reconciliation. If it is successful in that regard, then we can bring everyone home.

 

That "we" (term used loosely here) were attacked by an enemy and attacked back?

"Let us win." Paul has no idea what honor is.

I don't want 100,000 stationed there. It is working and nothing I've seen indicates a change. Once secure, it's much easier to maintain that security.

I disagree with RP's abandonment and "lose at all cost" plan.

 

I've never posted that they attack us because they are poor and struggling. All of your "evidence" does nothing to discredit the theory of experts I cited. It's predominantly a territorial/nationalist issue.

Actually, the government issued letters of Marque and Reprisal against the Barbary Pirates, and Paul has twice or thrice introduced similar legislation in the House to fight Al Queda. Of course, I've posted this for you numerous times.

Yes he did.

Right, you could care less what Bin Laden says. So when he says, get out of our countries, or we will attack you, your idea of looking out for America, is to go invade those countries. Great strategy General!

Apparently 70% of the American people and 40% of the Republican party.

I've written about what a monster Saddam was. Of course, he was our monster.

Since most of the Al Queda in Iraq and 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, I would say our enemies care about what Bin Laden wants. So if you wanted to defeat them, you would either weaken Bin Laden, or captue him outright. Anyone notice that the war in Iraq allowed us to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia? Please double check the Wolfowitz quote I posted.

Did we submit to the will of Kruschev when we pulled missles out of Turkey? I call that a diplomatic win, you're the one who defines victory in blood.

Why not? Saudis make up most of Al Queda. Shouldn't our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia matter?

Benedict Arnold. Very clever. Fair enough, I've referred to you as Nixon enough times.

I'm not interested in negotiating silence with you. I've tried to give you some respect with regards to your candidate, much more than you have given mine, and had to be the first one to take such a measure.

I'm happy to debate you into submission. It could be a long time coming, but it does help me back up all of my points, so it's a worthwhile exercise.

Yep. So we went in under bad intel, lost 60,000 men, collapsed the Gold Standard, spent a decade and a half trying to get our economy righted, millions of Vietnamese died, and in the end, the country ended up communist, and is today one of our closest allies in Asia.

He knows how to honor veterans. When your relative(s) come home from Iraq, President or no President, Paul is going to be the one fighting for their benefits, care and medals.

You'd do well to think about that because the rest of these guys pay lip service to vets when they are trying to get elected. Paul actually makes a difference and has for years. Particularly in Texas.

 

Well I just got back from work, skimmed the thread, looks like I missed quite an interesting bit of discussion.

To add to what Guerilla was saying, we had this same ridiculous domino theory about communists back in the 1970's, and we were dead fucking wrong. Let us remember that at least that ideology was backed by the 2nd superpower of the world at the time, the USSR, and yet, capitalism came about and won on its own, and Vietnam was not a tipping point for a global communist movement.

There are crazy radical Muslims in Iraq, and in other Muslim countries, and they've been there for hundreds of years. Leaving Iraq is not going to be some revolutionary event that mobilizes them to get together and destroy America. Hell, they might take over Iraq, but in the long run it's irrelevant, and the threat is extremely overblown. At home, our quality of life and economy continues to drop, the housing market is a clusterfuck of great proportions, and our national debt runs up millions of dollars every day to China, and yet we are worried about some assholes in caves 10,000 miles away.

Just like there were no WMDs in Iraq, and no nuclear weapons in Iran, there is not a real, credible threat from these useless, insane motherfuckers across the world, but there is a threat at home as we topple upon ourselves economically and socially. Look at some of the opinions of historians on why the Roman empire fell. (source). Toynbee and Burke talk about extensive military ventures and a wasteless governmental budget. Rostovtzeff and Mises argued that currency debasement and a push away from hard money like gold and silver lead to inflation and an eventual collapse. These are not the only reasons people cite for the collapse of the Romans, but economic factors such as the ones seen then and today are apparent.

One thing is clear. Paul is not about giving up. He openly supports pursuing bin Laden and the terrorists responsible for 9/11, in small, targeted attacks. Did Hussein bomb the WTC? Didn't think so. We need to get the hell out of Iraq and save ourselves and stop worrying about saving them. He supports Marquee and Reprisal as mentioned before, which GTech quickly dismisses as surrendering. I'm not aware, but how is targeting an attack and making it more effective at attacking the issue at hand....surrender? Blindly bombing the shit out of a whole separate country is far from going after the 9/11 terrorists.

Regardless of your stance on Iraq, our interventionism world-wide is to our own peril. Neo-cons can cry themselves to sleep saying that we played no role in what occurred to us September six years ago, but its foolish and wrong. By no means does it excuse the terrorists' actions or make them acceptable, but we must learn from our mistakes at home to truly prevent an occurrence in the future. America is calling for it. The fact that Democrats did so fabulous in the last elections is that very proof, the USA thinks at least with them we have a better chance of getting our troops home. Paul is just doing the next step, which is bringing them home from everywhere abroad, so we stop being the world's police, can cut our debt, and can concentrate on fixing the world at home. I don't hate America, I hate what America is, and envy what it could become if we concentrated our immense power in the right place, within our borders.

--Fletch

 

Our enemy was not in Iraq when we attacked. Bush himself, as well as Cheney have admitted such.

Actually, McCain has little honor. You should do some research on his capture, and how the story has become distorted over time.

As far as "Let us win", I believe the troops were referring to the Ron Paul campaign. Then they sent him a bunch more money to continue fighting in the primaries.

You're being naive. We still have troops in Korea 50+ years later (over 35,000) . We still have troops in Germany and Europe (100,000+). And troops in Japan (50,000).

Those Iraq troops aren't coming home anytime soon. Stabilizing Iraq does very little to diminish threats from Jordan, Syria, Eqypt, Saudi Arabia etc. If anything, and my perspective is correct (based upon sources posted), it's going to keep building up the terrorist ranks.

If our borders are secure, and our people are as safe as we can make them, and our troops are ready for combat, and the ranks are replenished, with more domestic bases than foreign bases, I wouldn't call that losing. I would call that a big win.

If we can take 500 billion and apply it to securing Medicare, Social Security and put the balance on the debt, while capturing Bin Laden, that's another big win.

 

What gtech doesnt want to admit is that most of RP's donations are coming from our soldiers but i guess he could care less about the off camera position of our fighting forces who truely have the best of intentions, but us ron paul supporters care for our military and this is part of why i support ron paul(among other things).

500 billion bucks would really revitalize medicare, social security and much more when it comes to our debt. I have a feeling if our country takes a stance of non interventionism that osamas popularity would really start to die out anyways. My feeling is if osama had a chance to vote he definately wouldnt vote for ron paul as that would really crush his terror popularity as he would no longer have an excuse of us being there to fight against and recruit for. Osama needs another pro war president to keep his popularity high among his own disenchanted followers. all i gotta say is GO RON PAUL - bring back americas integrity and bring back the constitution!!!!!

 

Pfft, as if you care! They are simply pawns for people like you who would surrender on their behalf.

You are right, I won't admit something that isn't factual, that is made up...with good reason:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/the_fantasy_of_ron_pauls_milit.asp

I'd like to think most people who are able to think logically, and actually know something about the military (besides being the first to convict them in the court of public opinion when charges are alleged).

90 people out of 2.2 million support Ron Paul? Really? That's all? Heh!

As the time draws nearer, the real military will speak their peace. Until then, lets not pretend

 

You forgot to mention it was the people that you support gtech that were responsible for the current leader of iran(whatever the heck his name is) being in power in iran. Pfft yes i do care as i have had many relatives serve in those armed forces and i wouldnt want them in a war that isnt popular with the american people and the world.

Paul is the most honest politician out there and even his enemies agree on this. He even mentioned that we helped to destroy democracy in iran by taking out mossadegh. When it comes to real issues gtech all you can come up with are one line answers. The mark of a man is to admit when they were wrong and support the truth. History supports People like Ron Paul and no matter how many times you try to twist the issue around on mossadegh you cant because its even in the library of national congress what we did to him and to the iranian people.

Imagine what kind of country iran would be today if Doctor Ron paul would have been president in the 1950's and allowed the democratically elected president of iran Doctor Mossadegh to be in power. I would dare say that IRAN would have officially grown into a full fledged DEMOCRACY today. You first tried to pass mossadegh off as a communist, when i preswented the eveidence that he was anti soviet union you then branded him a socialist. What will he be next? Its ok though the educated among us in foreign policy and the iranian student movement who hate teh current lullahs in iran know the truth and i dare you to ask any of them who their hero was and i guarantee 99% of them would say mossadegh.

Got any one link rebuttals for us now?



Fletch as far as democrats being the answer for bringing the troops home didnt hillary vote for war resolution? She seems to me like a person that goes with the flo to gain power. I will register as republican only to vote for Ron Paul. I still need to study up on the liberterian movement but it seems very attractive to me because i always thought our founding fathers cared the most for the people of this great country and werent crazed lunitics that would go off to bomb a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. I still have alot of studying to do on this

 

CNN has already confirmed the donations. It has been posted before. If it wasn't 1 hour from the biggest fund raising day in election history, I would probably bother to look it up and post it. Someone remind me next week.

And even if he was 3rd in donations, wouldn't that put him in the top tier?

Whatever, someone hit me up when GTech tries to spread disinformation again.

 

Something tells me you'll be 'hit up' very soon!

 

will do

Michael Goldfarb of the weekly standard???? hehehehehehe. This guy is one of the biggest neocon lunitics out there and look at from what paper hes quoting from. Guys, hes really getting desperate now. Like i have been telling gtech before, its much easier to argue the truth then a lie. Goldfarb predicted that the 60% disapproval rate months back would soon dwindle down. I guess we can all smell Manure when its been handed to us

 

Excellent justification as ever.

 

No war was ever declared. Congress has to declare war, the President moves and organizes troops, and the House of Representatives looks at raising taxes to fund the war.

That is how it is supposed to work.

Of course, they never raised taxes, and Bush told everyone to go shopping.

So between printing money out of thin air, and borrowing from China and Japan, they spent over $500 billion.

There is a reason why the Founders never wanted us to have a standing army, or to go to war without a declaration. They understood monetary policy.

 

I guess no copy and past response from gtech lol

 

Jesus Christ don't encourage him mate.

 

Opps sorry, sorry AGS but cant help it i need something to entertain me. Im picturing someone right now trying to dig deep into a website to try to uncover more facts from a neo-con author. Why dont some people quite when they are wayyyy behind.

 

GTech's greatest strength is his passion and commitment.

 

So very true and admire those qualities, but passion and commitment must have conscience and the search for truth behind them. Passionate men throughout history have been lead astray. Look at germany during ww2 and right before. Im sure many countrymen blindly followed hitlers message and never for once thought that maybe that guy was absolutely out of his mind with all his racism and hatred.

 

I wouldn't compare GTech with Hitler though. I think he's more like FDR.

 

Do you have some sources to back this up? I have always given McCain high standards, mainly because of his service to this nation, plus what he went through.

Where I see him as not having honor from what I know, is how he bent down and took it up the axx from Bush in the first election process to simply be his little puppet boy during Iraq.

I also do not agree with his stance on immigration one bit, otherwise he is still my #2 on the list of those running. I wish there was someone better out there, sadly I honestly feel those running this time are more of the same.