Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Deicide on August 12, 2011, 02:50:05 PM
-
-
When he wins the iowa straw poll saturday his campaign will go viral and the neocon era will be over
-
When he wins the iowa straw poll saturday his campaign will go viral and the neocon era will be over
As much as I love RP...do you really think that is possible?
-
As much as I love RP...do you really think that is possible?
no, if he wins the primary he will undoubtedly beat obama...but his odds of winning the primary are very low
-
I wish he were 20 years younger. The people still have a long way to go when it comes to understanding what he's saying.
-
Highly unlikely he wins the Iowa straw poll, but even if he does, it's not a predictor of whether he will win the nomination. Romney won the last one. McCain was third.
If you want to more accurately gauge his chances, you should look at how he performed in his home state of Texas in the 2008 primary, and whether he can beat someone like Perry in the 2012 Texas primary.
If I had to guess, I'd say he comes in third or fourth. But who knows? He has some rabid supporters. :)
-
I wish he were 20 years younger. The people still have a long way to go when it comes to understanding what he's saying.
yup, I agree on both parts...
he is the best choice out there but he does have some stances that simply arent realistic
-
he is the best choice out there but he does have some stances that simply arent realistic
What stances do you feel are unrealistic?
-
His answer about the orderly liquidation of bad debt had me yelling at the tv.
I was like "finally!".
It probably was too complex for the average idiot to grasp, but he nailed that answer out of the park.
-
I wish he were 20 years younger. The people still have a long way to go when it comes to understanding what he's saying.
There's a better version of him that's in that age range - his son.
-
As much as I love RP...do you really think that is possible?
no...people like their crackpots on the outside of politics......like Donald Trump for example
-
His answer about the orderly liquidation of bad debt had me yelling at the tv.
I was like "finally!".
It probably was too complex for the average idiot to grasp, but he nailed that answer out of the park.
you're an idiot as well...how would you know?
-
Yeah cause sacking the taxpayer with trillions of bad debt is really a viable situation.
-
What stances do you feel are unrealistic?
his foreign policy for the most part, its niave to think that we can just pack and leave some places and it not come back to bite us in the ass later on.
I agree on alot of places, but to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is just plain niave.
I would be ok with surgical strikes/special forces etc as opposed to having a butt load of troops on the ground but we cant just think that if we leave them alone they wont bother us.
-
-
his foreign policy for the most part, its niave to think that we can just pack and leave some places and it not come back to bite us in the ass later on.
I agree on alot of places, but to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is just plain niave.
I would be ok with surgical strikes/special forces etc as opposed to having a butt load of troops on the ground but we cant just think that if we leave them alone they wont bother us.
Domestically he's fine...but I agree with Tony..u just can't do what he wants. And I suspect he wouldn't be able. I think Obama would eat him alive in the debates because he just doesn't look good on TV.
-
Domestically he's fine...but I agree with Tony..u just can't do what he wants. And I suspect he wouldn't be able. I think Obama would eat him alive in the debates because he just doesn't look good on TV.
yup gives great answers just doesnt present it that well.
ppl have to listen to what he is saying, not just how he is saying it and the majority of the country doesnt do that.
-
his foreign policy for the most part, its niave to think that we can just pack and leave some places and it not come back to bite us in the ass later on.
I agree on alot of places, but to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is just plain niave.
I would be ok with surgical strikes/special forces etc as opposed to having a butt load of troops on the ground but we cant just think that if we leave them alone they wont bother us.
You realize Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100 years? As far as Afghanistan goes, it could be argue we've created more insurgents and more resentment to us through this war than there ever was to begin with. I recall reading that over 90% of the Afghan population hadn't even heard of 9/11 or what happened. How do you think they feel with us beeing there? I would be pretty pissed myself.
-
You realize Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 100 years? As far as Afghanistan goes, it could be argue we've created more insurgents and more resentment to us through this war than there ever was to begin with. I recall reading that over 90% of the Afghan population hadn't even heard of 9/11 or what happened. How do you think they feel with us beeing there? I would be pretty pissed myself.
hahahah and you know one of the main reasons iran hasnt attacked anyone? b/c they know that if they do we will deliver a swift and quick response....
It could be argued that weve gathered all the insurgents in one place which makes it easier to kill them...LOL doesnt make it true
again simply leaving and thinking that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone is just plain stupid.
-
hahahah and you know one of the main reasons iran hasnt attacked anyone? b/c they know that if they do we will deliver a swift and quick response....
It could be argued that weve gathered all the insurgents in one place which makes it easier to kill them...LOL doesnt make it true
again simply leaving and thinking that they will leave us alone if we leave them alone is just plain stupid.
The point is they are about as much of a threat to US as North Korea is, flacid at best. China is a much bigger threat to the US and how have we handled them?
-
his foreign policy for the most part, its niave to think that we can just pack and leave some places and it not come back to bite us in the ass later on.
I agree on alot of places, but to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is just plain niave.
I would be ok with surgical strikes/special forces etc as opposed to having a butt load of troops on the ground but we cant just think that if we leave them alone they wont bother us.
Oh, because they hate us just because we're free right?
-
It could be argued that weve gathered all the insurgents in one place which makes it easier to kill them...
We didn't gather them all in one place, we created them.
Had Iraq attacked us for no reason (like we did them), you and me would be the "insurgents".
-
The point is they are about as much of a threat to US as North Korea is, flacid at best. China is a much bigger threat to the US and how have we handled them?
totally agree, but my point is that we cant simply have the attitude that we can ignore situations outside of our country and not expect to have negative consequences...
paul seems to hold the idea that we can basically turn our back on the entire worlds problems and we will be fine...
that is not realistic.
-
Oh, because they hate us just because we're free right?
doesnt matter why they hate us at this point, the point is they hate us and US JUST LEAVING WONT STOP THAT!!!
do you guys disagree with that?
do you guys think if we leave them alone they will leave us alone?
-
doesnt matter why they hate us at this point, the point is they hate us and US JUST LEAVING WONT STOP THAT!!!
do you guys disagree with that?
do you guys think if we leave them alone they will leave us alone?
There will always be miltants but the level of threat they become is totally tied in with what level we interfere over there, meaning, chances of attack would be nil if we left the middle east alone.
-
his foreign policy for the most part, its niave to think that we can just pack and leave some places and it not come back to bite us in the ass later on.
I agree on alot of places, but to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone is just plain niave.
I would be ok with surgical strikes/special forces etc as opposed to having a butt load of troops on the ground but we cant just think that if we leave them alone they wont bother us.
finally you have said something based in reality and worth-while.....you must have taken your meds this morning ;)
-
finally you have said something based in reality and worth-while.....you must have taken your meds this morning ;)
Did bam a wash your balls w the stim bill tonight?
-
totally agree, but my point is that we cant simply have the attitude that we can ignore situations outside of our country and not expect to have negative consequences...
paul seems to hold the idea that we can basically turn our back on the entire worlds problems and we will be fine...
that is not realistic.
I'm not sure where you get that as I've never heard him say anything remotely close to it. The talking heads enjoy leaping to such extents, but if you actually listen to what he has said it's far from the truth. Pulling our troops out of unecessary wars =/= ignoring the rest of the world and hoping they don't do anything to us.
-
doesnt matter why they hate us at this point, the point is they hate us and US JUST LEAVING WONT STOP THAT!!!
do you guys disagree with that?
do you guys think if we leave them alone they will leave us alone?
So fucking what if they hate us? Lets leave them alone in their country, and use all the money to beef up our own security. We could start by securing our boarders. They're wide open and none of these Middle Easterners have pulled anything off. Maybe the threat has been blown out of proportion. They could easily attack us, but they haven't. Hmmm...
-
doesnt matter why they hate us at this point, the point is they hate us and US JUST LEAVING WONT STOP THAT!!!
do you guys disagree with that?
do you guys think if we leave them alone they will leave us alone?
You aren't going to stop anyone from hating us or kill every last one of them. What you are suggesting is perpetual never ending war which isn't the answer.
-
There will always be miltants but the level of threat they become is totally tied in with what level we interfere over there, meaning, chances of attack would be nil if we left the middle east alone.
LMFAO absoulutely niave my friend...
-
So fucking what if they hate us? Lets leave them alone in their country, and use all the money to beef up our own security. We could start by securing our boarders. They're wide open and none of these Middle Easterners have pulled anything off. Maybe the threat has been blown out of proportion. They could easily attack us, but they haven't. Hmmm...
I agree for the most part but again the idea that we can turn our back on the worlds problems is just plain idiotic.
we dont necissarily need to be involved to the extent we are now but we do need to be involved
-
I'm not sure where you get that as I've never heard him say anything remotely close to it. The talking heads enjoy leaping to such extents, but if you actually listen to what he has said it's far from the truth. Pulling our troops out of unecessary wars =/= ignoring the rest of the world and hoping they don't do anything to us.
nah just him, he isnt just about pulling out of the wars which I agree with as long as we are still able to prevent them from attacking us or our assets abroad.
he has some what of an isolationist view of what our role should be, i disagree with it and think he takes it a tad to far is all
-
nah just him, he isnt just about pulling out of the wars which I agree with as long as we are still able to prevent them from attacking us or our assets abroad.
he has some what of an isolationist view of what our role should be, i disagree with it and think he takes it a tad to far is all
Yea I can see that. I don't see it being an issue if he were president. He still has congress to deal with and we all know how far that would get.
-
You aren't going to stop anyone from hating us or kill every last one of them. What you are suggesting is perpetual never ending war which isn't the answer.
Not at all, why is it either we have to have an all out war or not even worry about them?
what I am for is as I said earlier, surgical strikes/special ops etc...
fact of the matter is they arent going away there are always going to be ppl that try to hurt us for whatever nutjob reason. Do we need to go to war not necissarily its much less messy to have small but directed operations imho.
-
Not at all, why is it either we have to have an all out war or not even worry about them?
what I am for is as I said earlier, surgical strikes/special ops etc...
fact of the matter is they arent going away there are always going to be ppl that try to hurt us for whatever nutjob reason. Do we need to go to war not necissarily its much less messy to have small but directed operations imho.
I can agree to that, I didn't see that part of your post. Again, like I said above, I doubt that his personal views as some see it of completely pulling our troops out of all the countries and bases around the world would ever make it to fruition if he were president.
-
I can agree to that, I didn't see that part of your post. Again, like I said above, I doubt that his personal views as some see it of completely pulling our troops out of all the countries and bases around the world would ever make it to fruition if he were president.
I agree same with obama and gitmo...
-
Highly unlikely he wins the Iowa straw poll, but even if he does, it's not a predictor of whether he will win the nomination. Romney won the last one. McCain was third.
If you want to more accurately gauge his chances, you should look at how he performed in his home state of Texas in the 2008 primary, and whether he can beat someone like Perry in the 2012 Texas primary.
If I had to guess, I'd say he comes in third or fourth. But who knows? He has some rabid supporters. :)
I'm giving him 50/50 this go around. He started in Iowa earlier than anyone else, fairly experienced managers - though nothing star worthy, and he's got the money to put up the infrastructure.
-
I'm giving him 50/50 this go around. He started in Iowa earlier than anyone else, fairly experienced managers - though nothing star worthy, and he's got the money to put up the infrastructure.
Do you mean 50/50 in Iowa or for the Republican nomination? If you mean Iowa, I agree with that. I think Bachmann should win Iowa if for no other reason than it's in her backyard, but Ron Paul has spent a lot of time and money there
If you mean the nomination, I don't see it.
-
doesnt matter why they hate us at this point, the point is they hate us and US JUST LEAVING WONT STOP THAT!!!
do you guys disagree with that?
do you guys think if we leave them alone they will leave us alone?
They hate us because we've bombed the shit out of them. And as Ron Paul says: "We just marched in and we can just march out".
What is interesting is that yes the rag heads hate Americans - almost as much as the American government and elites hate Americans. Almost. The rag heads definitely don't hate the British as much as the British government and elites hate the British.
-
They hate us because we've bombed the shit out of them. And as Ron Paul says: "We just marched in and we can just march out".
They hate our entire way of life and the fact we support Israel.
-
They hate our entire way of life and the fact we support Israel.
Because the only thing they see from us is occupation of foreign land. If we kept to ourselves I bet most people wouldn't even give the U.S. a thought. I don't hear to much uprising from the Middle East about Argentina for instance. The US has a puppet master complex.
-
Because the only thing they see from us is occupation of foreign land. If we kept to ourselves I bet most people wouldn't even give the U.S. a thought. I don't hear to much uprising from the Middle East about Argentina for instance. The US has a puppet master complex.
You should read what they actually say about us. Occupation is only one issue. Support for Israel is another. Our entire "corrupt" culture is another. We could pull every boot off the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and they would still hate us.
What's ironic is how some of them come to the U.S. for higher education, then return to their roots with the same views.
-
You should read what they actually say about us. Occupation is only one issue. Support for Israel is another. Our entire "corrupt" culture is another. We could pull every boot off the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and they would still hate us.
What's ironic is how some of them come to the U.S. for higher education, then return to their roots with the same views.
I can list countries that hate us for a million reasons all day long. Doesn't mean we need to attack them, destroy their countries, and go broke doing so.
-
I can list countries that hate us for a million reasons all day long. Doesn't mean we need to attack them, destroy their countries, and go broke doing so.
Amen.
-
You should read what they actually say about us. Occupation is only one issue. Support for Israel is another. Our entire "corrupt" culture is another. We could pull every boot off the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and they would still hate us.
What's ironic is how some of them come to the U.S. for higher education, then return to their roots with the same views.
Oh brother...they hate us because we are free. 10 years later and people are still...in a serious tone...saying this. ::)
-
Oh brother...they hate us because we are free. 10 years later and people are still...in a serious tone...saying this. ::)
In part. Part of our culture includes the freedom of women to divorce their husbands, adults to buy porn, Hollywood to make movies, other freedom of expression, etc.
I'd recommend "The Looming Tower" if you want to learn more about what makes Radical Islamists tick and why they hate us.
-
In part. Part of our culture includes the freedom of women to divorce their husbands, adults to buy porn, Hollywood to make movies, other freedom of expression, etc.
I'd recommend "The Looming Tower" if you want to learn more about what makes Radical Islamists tick and why they hate us.
And I would recommend Robert Pape's work, which is the definitive work on suicide terrorism to you but you won't like what you read because it does not confirm what you want to believe.
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism Robert Pape
-
And I would recommend Robert Pape's work, which is the definitive work on suicide terrorism to you but you won't like what you read because it does not confirm what you want to believe.
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism Robert Pape
Unlike you, I read things I disagree with all the time. Check out the book. It will give you a better understanding of what we're up against.
-
Unlike you, I read things I disagree with all the time. Check out the book. It will give you a better understanding of what we're up against.
"[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism" not religion (79). It is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists. He analyzes the notions of occupation (83-84), homeland (84-85), identity (85-87), religious difference as a contributor to a sense of "alien" occupation (87-88), foreign occupation reverses the relative importance of religion and language (88-92), and the widespread perception of the method as a "last resort" (92-94). A statistical demonstration leads to the conclusion that a "linear" rather than "self-reinforcing spiral" explanation of suicide terrorism is best (94-100). However, different future developments of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism are very possible, and more study of the role of religion is needed (101).
[edit]
Robert Pape examines other campaigns to see if the "dynamics that make religious difference important" are present in other terrorist campaigns, acknowledging the difficulty of the inquiry (126-29). He offers detailed analyses of Lebanon (129-39), Sri Lanka (139-54), the Sikhs in Punjab (154-62), and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey (162-66). His conclusion: "Religion plays a role in suicide terrorism, but mainly in the context of national resistance" and not Islam per se but "the dynamics of religious difference" are what matter (166-67).
-
Robert Pape examines other campaigns to see if the "dynamics that make religious difference important" are present in other terrorist campaigns, acknowledging the difficulty of the inquiry (126-29). He offers detailed analyses of Lebanon (129-39), Sri Lanka (139-54), the Sikhs in Punjab (154-62), and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey (162-66). His conclusion: "Religion plays a role in suicide terrorism, but mainly in the context of national resistance" and not Islam per se but "the dynamics of religious difference" are what matter (166-67).
That's absurd. Radical Islamists come from different countries to work together based on common religious views. They're not acting based on allegiance to a particular country.
-
That's absurd. Radical Islamists come from different countries to work together based on common religious views. They're not acting based on allegiance to a particular country.
You're missing the point; their allegiance is to 'get rid of the occupier'.
-
You're missing the point; their allegiance is to 'get rid of the occupier'.
I'm not missing his point at all. Here is his premise: "[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism" not religion (79). It is "an extreme strategy for national liberation" (80).
That's what I called absurd.
If he (or you) are suggesting they want to get rid of "occupiers," I agree. That is part of why they want to kill us.
-
In part. Part of our culture includes the freedom of women to divorce their husbands, adults to buy porn, Hollywood to make movies, other freedom of expression, etc.
I'd recommend "The Looming Tower" if you want to learn more about what makes Radical Islamists tick and why they hate us.
Because of this freedom women divorce their husbands for bullshit reasons. And buying porn is a great thing?! Hollywood is making movies to suit their agenda.
Beach Bum, if you really think they hate us because of these reasons you are naive. Their INITIAL hate has been a complete fabrication. Of course they really do hate us NOW because we've bombed their cities and killed their families. America has been used as the foot soldier by the elites for all their sick agendas.
-
It is our support of Israel, plain and simple. The rest of it is how they use religion to partially justify their hate and garner support.
-
Because of this freedom women divorce their husbands for bullshit reasons. And buying porn is a great thing?! Hollywood is making movies to suit their agenda.
Beach Bum, if you really think they hate us because of these reasons you are naive. Their INITIAL hate has been a complete fabrication. Of course they really do hate us NOW because we've bombed their cities and killed their families. America has been used as the foot soldier by the elites for all their sick agendas.
I only know what I have seen, heard, and read. That's what I base my opinion on.
I was giving you examples of portions of our culture that those folks find corrupt.
War/occupation is only part of the reason they hate us. If it was just about military action, then Radical Islamists would only come from Iraq and Afghanistan, and not places like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc.
-
Notice how NONE, NOT ONE person who is for pulling out all together has answered this question...
do you think that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?
at this point it doesnt matter why they hate us, the fact is there will always be ppl that want to hurt us here in the mainland and our assets abroad...
pauls isolationist views and turning a blind eye to potential long term threats isnt a good position to have.
-
I only know what I have seen, heard, and read. That's what I base my opinion on.
I was giving you examples of portions of our culture that those folks find corrupt.
War/occupation is only part of the reason they hate us. If it was just about military action, then Radical Islamists would only come from Iraq and Afghanistan, and not places like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The radicals recruit from all over because they offer money to them or their families and false hopes of becoming a martyr for their action. Typical brainwashing, which doesn't take much when they are already a little off to begin with. They use these people like the elites use our forces to push their agenda.
-
IF WE LEAVE THEM ALONE, DO YOU THINK THEY WILL LEAVE US ALONE???
anybody?
-
"Evrery one" is so "afraid" of not spending enough of defense and not persucuting wars.................... ........that it would make us sooooooooooooooo unsafe and such..REALLY?
Listen tot the idealouges, 750 billion dollars is just fine to spend on defense becassue WE NEED IT....well, a few years ago 500 billion was a number you couldn't cut and a year or 2 before that 400 billion was a number that you just could not cut bc we would all die and stuff.
please, save it. enough war. we need a milirary that can strike anywhere at any time with an unbelievable amt of force to DETER dumbasses. You spend a few hundered billion a year so you don't have to pay a TRILLION A YEAR.
that seems aeast to me.
and yes, im drunk. my bud is a brewer and he had some "experimental" stuff.....it was gfooood. obviouslyt.
-
IF WE LEAVE THEM ALONE, DO YOU THINK THEY WILL LEAVE US ALONE???
anybody?
Our boarders are wide open, they can easily obtain weapons, poisons, and even nuclear material yet they aren't attacking us?
We on the other hand have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I'm sorry to say this, but you're a fool.
(http://daviduri.net/images/Ranger_in_Iraq_holds_child.jpg)
Lets stay in the Middle East ten more years, and see if it doesn't destroy us.
-
Our boarders are wide open, they can easily obtain weapons, poisons, and even nuclear material yet they aren't attacking us?
We on the other hand have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I'm sorry to say this, but you're a fool to
LMFAO first of all there have been a number of attempted attacks on our homeland even some succesful.
so you think that if we pack up tomorrow, they will never attack an embassy, never try to harm the mainland or any americans abroad?
really???
and im the fool?
-
when is too war enough? this country has been at war for 50 years. war economy, war footing, war posturung.
we need a total dominace via our military so we dont hav eto go to war.
Lets get real.
-
We allow several rogue cave men to fly planes into our towers killing three thousand Americans.
Ten years later we're on the brink of collapse (by purely our own doing), and we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the people that attacked us.
Hmmm....
People like Bindare, 240, Hugo, MB_722 were rare odd balls back in 2004. As time goes by they're proven right over and over on issue after issue. They're increasing in numbers, and now most people share their opinions. Glad to see that.
-
when is too war enough? this country has been at war for 50 years. war economy, war footing, war posturung.
we need a total dominace via our military so we dont hav eto go to war.
Lets get real.
agreed, doesnt mean isolating ourselves from the worlds problems is the answer...
why is every ron paul fan believe it has to be one way or the other, there is no middle ground?
-
We allow several rogue cave men to fly planes into our towers killing three thousand Americans.
Ten years later we're on the brink of collapse (by purely our own doing), and we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the people that attacked us.
Hmmm....
People like Bindare, 240, Hugo, MB_722 were rare odd balls back in 2004. As time goes by they're proven right over and over on issue after issue. They're increasing in numbers, and now most people share their opinions. Glad to see that.
LOL are you a 9/11 truther too?
LOL you didnt answer any of my questions, nor address any of my points...
well done sir, well done.
-
agreed, doesnt mean isolating ourselves from the worlds problems is the answer...
why is every ron paul fan believe it has to be one way or the other, there is no middle ground?
I hear you.
The US is THE superpower so we have unique responsibilites to care he defesne load for the socialist idiots in Europe and all that. Fuck them, fuck all of them. Pay your own way and quietly thank us for providing you a security blanket so you could build your economies post war.
I want a total dominace militarty that is a DETERRENT. The best military is the one that never goers to war.
-
I hear you.
The US is THE superpower so we have unique responsibilites to care he defesne load for the socialist idiots in Europe and all that. Fuck them, fuck all of them. Pay your own way and quietly thank us for providing you a security blanket so you could build your economies post war.
I want a total dominace militarty that is a DETERRENT. The best military is the one that never goers to war.
agreed, which is one of the reasons iran behaves the way it does, if they knew we wouldnt react, do you guys really think they would restrain themselves the way they have?
as for europe etc, I could care less...if someone is a threat to us now or long term we need to be involved in the situation plane and simple, to what extent is the point. Paul believes we can turn a blind eye to potential problems like Iran
he also seems to believe that if we leave the middle east tomorrow then they will simply leave us alone, THATS ABOUT AS NIAVE AS YOU CAN GET!!!
-
Your question is bogus, so it won't be completely addressed.
Ron Paul doesn't advocate isolating us from the world. He advocates ending mindless, senseless wars like the one in Iraq, or the "engagement" in Libya that's brought our own country to the brink of financial collapse. He's also advocated beefing up our own domestic security.
This isn't extremely complex, his policies would clearly put us in a better position from a financial and security stand point.
-
I like your idea more though!
Lets keep fighting endless wars against an undefined enemy, killing our soldiers and innocent children in Iraq until we've completely self destructed.
-
How much endless, protracted war is enough?
How many thousands of US soldiers is enough?
How many trillions of dollars is enough?
Is 5000 US soldiers enough?
I dont know, I just did an equipment install at a VA in IL...just stepping foot in there is a wake up call. There is aframed picture in the entrance that reads "WELCOME TO VA HINES, THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS VISIBLE HERE"....now I've had friends "over there" my grandfather was "over there" my dad and his other 2 brothers were "over there"....
it hits you, when is enough enough?
-
Notice how NONE, NOT ONE person who is for pulling out all together has answered this question...
do you think that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone?
Let me turn that around by asking you this, do you think if we stay there we are going to eradicate all of them and they will leave us alone?
-
Let me turn that around by asking you this, do you think if we stay there we are going to eradicate all of them and they will leave us alone?
This... and on top of that, if we do pull out, won't we have more troops HERE to defense our borders and take care of anyone trying to actually do harm to the US?
Tony, do you think they will leave us alone either way?
I don't... So let's bring the guys here so they can "Defend" (You know, they provide for The Common Defense... Not OFFENSE) the nation.
-
Let me turn that around by asking you this, do you think if we stay there we are going to eradicate all of them and they will leave us alone?
This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.
This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.
Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?
We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?
There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill
-
This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.
This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.
Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?
We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?
There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill
I have zero false pretenses of the threat they pose to us nor do I have carry the assumption that they will just lay down and embrace freedom in any way whatsoever. I agreed with Tommy earlier in the thread that we shouldn't pull out of our bases and should keep them to give us a tactical striking ability. I just question the perpetual never ending war and wonder if from a tactical standpoint if surgical strikes and smaller operations would be better.
-
This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.
This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.
Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?
We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?
There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill
The country is broke and whether you agree with us or not, the country cannot afford these endless wars anymore.
This is just the typical neocon line: you don't support constant wars, death and wasted money abroad=you hate America (and this has been thoroughly refuted many times).
-
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/04/suicides-taking-more-lives-than-war-2/
More and more American soldiers are continuing to take their lives as a result of the war effort. By November of 2009, the total was up to 334, which are more than the totals killed in Afghanistan. Of every 100,000 army soldiers, the suicide rate is 20.2. The numbers for the suicides are as follows, Navy 47, Air Force 43 and Marines 42, the rest being in the Army. According to the Navy Times, 2 percent of Army, 3 percent Navy and 2.3% of Marine soldiers reported in a survey that they had attempted suicide at one point. There were a lot of different cases for the suicide attempts including relationships, substance abuse, financial problems or problems with other members of their unit to go along with some others.
Another bad statistic has to do with the veterans that have already been in war and suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD can affect their will to live when they come home. A study showed that 47 percent of veterans with PTSD had had thoughts of suicide before they found help. More than 40 per 100,000 men from the ages of 20 to 24 take their lives each year. Some deaths, which are not part of these previous statistics, are due to drinking and driving due to depression drinking by the soldiers. In 2008, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were 75 percent more likely to die in a car accident and 148 percent more likely to die in a motorcycle accident. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of veterans with PTSD has to do with the advances in body armor and medical treatment for the soldiers. As of 2009 some 360,000 men and women had suffered some sort of brain injury while in Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
How much endless, protracted war is enough?
How many thousands of US soldiers is enough?
How many trillions of dollars is enough?
Is 5000 US soldiers enough?
I dont know, I just did an equipment install at a VA in IL...just stepping foot in there is a wake up call. There is aframed picture in the entrance that reads "WELCOME TO VA HINES, THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS VISIBLE HERE"....now I've had friends "over there" my grandfather was "over there" my dad and his other 2 brothers were "over there"....
it hits you, when is enough enough?
"It's never enough until your heart stops beating..."
-
Your question is bogus, so it won't be completely addressed.
Ron Paul doesn't advocate isolating us from the world. He advocates ending mindless, senseless wars like the one in Iraq, or the "engagement" in Libya that's brought our own country to the brink of financial collapse. He's also advocated beefing up our own domestic security.
This isn't extremely complex, his policies would clearly put us in a better position from a financial and security stand point.
LOL so another person who feels its either all out war or we must step back all together?
paul does advocate for isolationism, he advocates for turning blind eyes to potential long term threats like iran...fact is fact bro
iran has behaved themselves b/c they know if they fuck off will fuck them up.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY, MIDDLE EAST YOUR ON YOUR OWN?
my questions arent bogus they are simply the reality of it.
if we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, do you think we and our assets abroad will be safe?
-
Let me turn that around by asking you this, do you think if we stay there we are going to eradicate all of them and they will leave us alone?
THIS IS MY POINT, which is the reason you guys wont answer my question...
THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so turning a blind eye and ignorning potential long term problems LIKE IRAN, is IDIOTIC!!!
-
LOL so another person who feels its either all out war or we must step back all together?
paul does advocate for isolationism, he advocates for turning blind eyes to potential long term threats like iran...fact is fact bro
iran has behaved themselves b/c they know if they fuck off will fuck them up.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY, MIDDLE EAST YOUR ON YOUR OWN?
my questions arent bogus they are simply the reality of it.
if we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, do you think we and our assets abroad will be safe?
It would not be perfect, don't know if anyone is saying that but it would be A LOT better. Most Middle Eastern countries hate Iran because Iran practises Shia Islam and everyone else practises Shia; Suni hate would keep them in check, in fact, apart from Israel, the Saudis are the ones who want us most to attack Iran. Why do we need 1,000+ military bases in 130+ countries? how does that benefit the average hard working middleclass American? I have yet to hear a convincing argument on that.
-
It would not be perfect, don't know if anyone is saying that but it would be A LOT better. Most Middle Eastern countries hate Iran because Iran practises Shia Islam and everyone else practises Shia; Suni hate would keep them in check, in fact, apart from Israel, the Saudis are the ones who want us most to attack Iran. Why do we need 1,000+ military bases in 130+ countries? how does that benefit the average hard working middleclass American? I have yet to hear a convincing argument on that.
I can see your point and its valid, ill come back to this
so what happens when they all go ape shit and iran is gone? you think they just leave us alone?
the problem that none of you guys advocating pauls isolationist view want to admit and continue to side step is that THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!
join reality and admit that much...
now as for the 1000 military bases, I wouldnt mind drawing back but I adamently disagree with cutting back on things like R&D, training, investing in ways to keep our military ahead of the rest of the worlds.
-
I can see your point and its valid, ill come back to this
so what happens when they all go ape shit and iran is gone? you think they just leave us alone?
the problem that none of you guys advocating pauls isolationist view want to admit and continue to side step is that THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!
join reality and admit that much...
now as for the 1000 military bases, I wouldnt mind drawing back but I adamently disagree with cutting back on things like R&D, training, investing in ways to keep our military ahead of the rest of the worlds.
Maybe not entirely leave us a lone but wouldn't 75% leave alone be better than the mess we have now? Plenty of these groups unite under a common banner of attacking Americans on their soil, that would ultimately turn on themselves with infighting if they did not have a common enemy. Remember Osama said he wanted to bleed us dry and he succeeded in that goal. Apart from the ethical issues of never ending wars I would like to keep that money for myself, rather than wasting it on this nonsense abroad. Taxes could go down significantly without this militarism, then reduce domestic programmes as well, who knows? Imagine an income tax of only 10% or 5%? imagine keeping most of what you earn? Apart from the ethical issues for me, that is why I favour RP's foreign policy.
-
Maybe not entirely leave us a lone but wouldn't 75% leave alone be better than the mess we have now? Plenty of these groups unite under a common banner of attacking Americans on their soil, that would ultimately turn on themselves with infighting if they did not have a common enemy. Remember Osama said he wanted to bleed us dry and he succeeded in that goal. Apart from the ethical issues of never ending wars I would like to keep that money for myself, rather than wasting it on this nonsense abroad. Taxes could go down significantly without this militarism, then reduce domestic programmes as well, who knows? Imagine an income tax of only 10% or 5%? imagine keeping most of what you earn? Apart from the ethical issues for me, that is why I favour RP's foreign policy.
they will still have a common enemy...us leaving isnt going to stop their hatred...
what about the ethical issues of turning a blind eye to attrocities committed by other countries? your ethics end with those being committed by the US? nice ethics there...
the problem you guys have is you dont seem to understand that they will still hate us, simply b/c we leave wont mean they will throw a big party and go back to their normal lives. Bin laden and his ilk have made it their life long goal...read that again LIFE LONG GOAL to hurt us here and abroad.
its extremely niave to think the way you do bro...
he is also for turning a blind eye to potential long term problems like Iran, again im not saying go to war but we cant simply let them develop into a powerful country that obviously hates us and then act suprised when they lash out and strike us.
-
they will still have a common enemy...us leaving isnt going to stop their hatred...
what about the ethical issues of turning a blind eye to attrocities committed by other countries? your ethics end with those being committed by the US? nice ethics there...
the problem you guys have is you dont seem to understand that they will still hate us, simply b/c we leave wont mean they will throw a big party and go back to their normal lives. Bin laden and his ilk have made it their life long goal...read that again LIFE LONG GOAL to hurt us here and abroad.
its extremely niave to think the way you do bro...
he is also for turning a blind eye to potential long term problems like Iran, again im not saying go to war but we cant simply let them develop into a powerful country that obviously hates us and then act suprised when they lash out and strike us.
It's not turning a blind eyes to other countries' actions but ultimately this is about whether or we should be the policemen of the world or not. I don't think we should, you do and we will just have to agree to disagree and if it any consolation, I doubt our foreign policy will change any time soon so you needn't worry. ;)
-
It's not turning a blind eyes to other countries' actions but ultimately this is about whether or we should be the policemen of the world or not. I don't think we should, you do and we will just have to agree to disagree and if it any consolation, I doubt our foreign policy will change any time soon so you needn't worry. ;)
what is the deal with you guys, if I disagree with pauls stance then i am automatically all the way to the other side? lol gezzz
LOL AND YES IT IS TURNING A BLIND EYE
youre the one that cited your ethics as reasoning, if that was really the case then you would cite them as reasoning to do other things as well ::) dont get pissy with me b/c i made you realize that it was simply a talking point.
I dont think we should police the world, only the countries that are potential threats to us...LIKE IRAN!!!!
-
what is the deal with you guys, if I disagree with pauls stance then i am automatically all the way to the other side? lol gezzz
LOL AND YES IT IS TURNING A BLIND EYE
youre the one that cited your ethics as reasoning, if that was really the case then you would cite them as reasoning to do other things as well ::) dont get pissy with me b/c i made you realize that it was simply a talking point.
I dont think we should police the world, only the countries that are potential threats to us...LIKE IRAN!!!!
So, you think we should put sanctions on Iran?
-
So, you think we should put sanctions on Iran?
as a start, I also dont think we should be ok with them becoming a nation that possess nuclear weapons...
I see what you tried to do here sir, dont think that b/c i am against some of pauls stances that I dont know what they are...
-
as a start, I also dont think we should be ok with them becoming a nation that possess nuclear weapons...
I see what you tried to do here sir, dont think that b/c i am against some of pauls stances that I dont know what they are...
Do you think it was good putting sanctions on Iraq in the 1990's? Do you agree with Madeleine Albright?
Maybe we can create a new tax system; you can pay for the bombs to drop on people and I can't to keep my tax money since I don't want to pay for that.
-
LOL so were back to your psuedo ethics again?
you see ethics for a single person are supposed to be universal for them...yours only seems to want to apply to the US, I can see now why pauls isolationist views appeal to you as you can apparently comparementalize your ethics to those that apply to us and those that apply to the rest of the world.
Ill agree with that tax system, Ill pay for the defense and you pay for the social welfare...
-
LOL so were back to your psuedo ethics again?
you see ethics for a single person are supposed to be universal for them...yours only seems to want to apply to the US, I can see now why pauls isolationist views appeal to you as you can apparently comparementalize your ethics to those that apply to us and those that apply to the rest of the world.
Ill agree with that tax system, Ill pay for the defense and you pay for the social welfare...
Uhm, I don't want social welfare; libertarian remember? I want neither war nor welfare. Like I said before, liberals want to spend endlessly on entitlements, conservatives (such as yourself) on warfare and we libertarians just don't want the spending period because both spending is bankrupting the country. It's not pseudo ethics; we don't have control over other countries' actions but we do have limited control over ours, that is why I am more concerned with what our government does more than say, Italy's or Australia's. You didn't answer my question by the way? were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions? were they terrorists as well or was it just necessary collateral damage? Fortunately for both liberals and conservatives I think the welfare/warfare state will continue for a while until we have hyperinflation or something of similar seriousness.
-
Uhm, I don't want social welfare; libertarian remember? I want neither war nor welfare. Like I said before, liberals want to spend endlessly on entitlements, conservatives (such as yourself) on warfare and we libertarians just don't want the spending period because both spending is bankrupting the country. It's not pseudo ethics; we don't have control over other countries' actions but we do have limited control over ours, that is why I am more concerned with what our government does more than say, Italy's or Australia's. You didn't answer my question by the way? were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions? were they terrorists as well or was it just necessary collateral damage? Fortunately for both liberals and conservatives I think the welfare/warfare state will continue for a while until we have hyperinflation or something of similar seriousness.
what you dont understand is that defense and social assistance are needed to a certaint extent...
it certainly is psuedo ethics b/c you pick and choose where to apply them ::)
LOL at your question, how many died before our sanctions? so we should or shouldnt sanction iran?
always going to be negative consequences to your actions, EVERY ACTION that doesnt mean you shouldnt do them...
so we should turn a blind eye to irans oppresive govt?
-
what you dont understand is that defense and social assistance are needed to a certaint extent...
it certainly is psuedo ethics b/c you pick and choose where to apply them ::)
LOL at your question, how many died before our sanctions? so we should or shouldnt sanction iran?
always going to be negative consequences to your actions, EVERY ACTION that doesnt mean you shouldnt do them...
so we should turn a blind eye to irans oppresive govt?
We created Iran's oppressive government. If we had not gotten involved in the 1950's none of this mess would be there, so the answer to to keep on doing what we have been, which hasn't worked? I think close to a million children's deaths is too high a price to pay in Iraq and it would be as well for Iran. Defence is not militarism, I think defence is one of the functions of the government but defence is not policing the world and as for social assistance? why do we need that? if we didn't have an income tax we would have a lot more money to save and spend and so far the government's welfare programmes have not worked out too well. As for turning a blind eye, Saudi Arabia's government is just as bad as Iran's and we do nothing because they are our 'friends'. Let's at least be honest, this is about geopolitical domineering not helping 'oppressed' people.
-
Allowing iran to have a nuke is like giving obama access to the nations' checkbook. Both end horribly.
-
We created Iran's oppressive government. If we had not gotten involved in the 1950's none of this mess would be there, so the answer to to keep on doing what we have been, which hasn't worked? I think close to a million children's deaths is too high a price to pay in Iraq and it would be as well for Iran. Defence is not militarism, I think defence is one of the functions of the government but defence is not policing the world and as for social assistance? why do we need that? if we didn't have an income tax we would have a lot more money to save and spend and so far the government's welfare programmes have not worked out too well. As for turning a blind eye, Saudi Arabia's government is just as bad as Iran's and we do nothing because they are our 'friends'. Let's at least be honest, this is about geopolitical domineering not helping 'oppressed' people.
this is another ron paul supporter tactic, well they are like this b/c of something we did...
IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER WHY THEY ARE LIKE THAT AT THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!
yest lets be honest, and help those who are friends and not those who are potential threats...
im not for policing the world, ive said it before. I am for policing potential threats...
-
Correction for my last post. I meant to say that giving iran a nuke is like giving obama the checkbook - both will defoinately blow up in your face.
-
This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.
This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.
Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?
We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?
There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill
GW bringing some much needed reality to this thread. Lot of people living in fantasy land with regards to Islamists. And speaking of Churchill, he wrote extensively on Islam 110 years ago and everything he said then is still applicable to Muslims today.
The overarching goal of Islam is to either convert, kill or enslave all non-Muslims. This won't change regardless of what we do in the region.
And for all the people who think that Iran has some claim to that region, here's a newsflash: They're PERSIAN. They've been fighting Arabs for centuries. They have as much business being in the Middle East as we do. ::)
Ron Paul is awesome on economics but if elected he's in for a rude awakening with regards to foreign policy. Not that he's wrong about our need to downsize our overseas commitments but neither end of the spectrum is realistic. Leaving the UN, NATO and cutting off the billions of dollars we funnel to legitimate terrorist states like Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc would be a great start along with the downsizing of a number of our bases (read: not all of them).
-
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2011/04/04/suicides-taking-more-lives-than-war-2/
More and more American soldiers are continuing to take their lives as a result of the war effort. By November of 2009, the total was up to 334, which are more than the totals killed in Afghanistan. Of every 100,000 army soldiers, the suicide rate is 20.2. The numbers for the suicides are as follows, Navy 47, Air Force 43 and Marines 42, the rest being in the Army. According to the Navy Times, 2 percent of Army, 3 percent Navy and 2.3% of Marine soldiers reported in a survey that they had attempted suicide at one point. There were a lot of different cases for the suicide attempts including relationships, substance abuse, financial problems or problems with other members of their unit to go along with some others.
Another bad statistic has to do with the veterans that have already been in war and suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD can affect their will to live when they come home. A study showed that 47 percent of veterans with PTSD had had thoughts of suicide before they found help. More than 40 per 100,000 men from the ages of 20 to 24 take their lives each year. Some deaths, which are not part of these previous statistics, are due to drinking and driving due to depression drinking by the soldiers. In 2008, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were 75 percent more likely to die in a car accident and 148 percent more likely to die in a motorcycle accident. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of veterans with PTSD has to do with the advances in body armor and medical treatment for the soldiers. As of 2009 some 360,000 men and women had suffered some sort of brain injury while in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Wow that's pretty sad.
-
Ron Paul will never be elected because there's too many idiots in this country.
His policies are what this country needs though.
-
were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions?
[/quote
Damn, so it could be argued that we're responsible for the death of millions of Iraqi Civilians.
Real Christians we are...
-
this is another ron paul supporter tactic, well they are like this b/c of something we did...
IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER WHY THEY ARE LIKE THAT AT THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!
It absolutely matters, because we're still meddling in their affairs like we did when we created the Iranian problem. Creating even bigger problems for ourselves down the road.
-
If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.
George Bush
Wow, we sure have gone the wrong way since then.
-
What happened? A total disaster once we strayed from this philosophy.
-
It absolutely matters, because we're still meddling in their affairs like we did when we created the Iranian problem. Creating even bigger problems for ourselves down the road.
agreed, however the answer is not simply removing ourselves from the situation all together b/c as ive stated and youve side stepped, JUST LEAVING THEM ALONE DOESNT MEAN THEY WILL LEAVE US ALONE!!!
-
If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.
George Bush
Wow, we sure have gone the wrong way since then.
I agree with this, ron paul however believes in this and takes that one extra isolationist step passed it...that is the step that most ppl disagree with.
-
I agree with this, ron paul however believes in this and takes that one extra isolationist step passed it...that is the step that most ppl disagree with.
So, what EXACTLY would you do as president with our foreign policy?
-
So, what EXACTLY would you do as president with our foreign policy?
exactly what i said small/surgical strikes to those who are threats and sanctions etc. for those who are longer term potential threats.
would not turn a blind eye to potential long term threats or be niave enough to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.
-
exactly what i said small/surgical strikes to those who are threats and sanctions etc. for those who are longer term potential threats.
would not turn a blind eye to potential long term threats or be niave enough to think that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.
But you would end large scale occupations and deployment of thousands of troops?
-
But you would end large scale occupations and deployment of thousands of troops?
not unless it was thought that we could control those were fighting against with small/surgical strikes...
would you be ok with using said tactics against threats and not being letting potential threats turn into threats?
-
But you would end large scale occupations and deployment of thousands of troops?
Looks like we're all basically on the same page, and he doesn't even know it! lol
-
I agree with this, ron paul however believes in this and takes that one extra isolationist step passed it...that is the step that most ppl disagree with.
If you watch the clip, Bush wasnt saying anything differently then what Paul is saying now.
And it's not not isolationism, its non intervention that Paul advocates. Big distinction.
-
not unless it was thought that we could control those were fighting against with small/surgical strikes...
would you be ok with using said tactics against threats and not being letting potential threats turn into threats?
I might be as long as civilians are not routinely killed.
-
Looks like we're all basically on the same page, and he doesn't even know it! lol
Ive said were basically on the same page since the beginning of this thread...hence why the first person to call me out ended up agreeing with the majority of my stances...
its ppl like you that feel that if i disagree with paul then im for all out war ::)
-
If you watch the clip, Bush wasnt saying anything differently then what Paul is saying now.
And it's not not isolationism, its non intervention that Paul advocates. Big distinction.
I agree he is talking non intervention but fact of the matter is as far as potential threats and current threats its a distinction without much of a difference. Yes we are dealing with them but we arent dealing with them in a way that will be condusive to our long term security.
fact of the matter is intervening with potential threats before they are allowed to become actual threats is what needs to be done...
either that or go to all out war when they become a threat...you guys choose.
-
Uhm, I don't want social welfare; libertarian remember? I want neither war nor welfare. Like I said before, liberals want to spend endlessly on entitlements, conservatives (such as yourself) on warfare and we libertarians just don't want the spending period because both spending is bankrupting the country. It's not pseudo ethics; we don't have control over other countries' actions but we do have limited control over ours, that is why I am more concerned with what our government does more than say, Italy's or Australia's. You didn't answer my question by the way? were the 500,000+ children who died in Iraq worth the price of sanctions? were they terrorists as well or was it just necessary collateral damage? Fortunately for both liberals and conservatives I think the welfare/warfare state will continue for a while until we have hyperinflation or something of similar seriousness.
For someone that has spent their entire life in school, save for a few years gallivanting around East Asia teaching English for a meager monthly stipend (aka vacationing), you sure come off as pretty stupid.
First off, those were UN sanctions. Secondly, props for believing statistics put forth by Saddam Hussein. He was truly a master of truth.
-
Ive said were basically on the same page since the beginning of this thread...hence why the first person to call me out ended up agreeing with the majority of my stances...
its ppl like you that feel that if i disagree with paul then im for all out war ::)
If you're now admitting that we're all basically on the same page, what the hell was the point of these last two pages of bullshit?
-
For someone that has spent their entire life in school, save for a few years gallivanting around East Asia teaching English for a meager monthly stipend (aka vacationing), you sure come off as pretty stupid.
First off, those were UN sanctions. Secondly, props for believing statistics put forth by Saddam Hussein. He was truly a master of truth.
It always amazes me Nikolas, how you know more about my life than I do. Have you thought about selling your services as a mind reader or clairvoyant?
So, you claim those numbers are vastly exaggerated? The lowest estimates were at 170,000 and those were the lowest estimates. And who pushed the UN to impose sanctions? surely not the United States?, the US had clearly nothing to do with those sanctions.
Estimates of deaths during sanctions
Estimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [30][37] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[38] A short listing of estimates follows:
Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[30][39]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[40]
Iraqi Baathist government: 1.5 million.[28]
Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [41]
"probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[42]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[43]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children." He claims that these estimates are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment".[44][44]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[45] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[46]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., The Lancet (1995, estimate withdrawn in 1997):567,000 children.[44]
Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[47] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[28][46]
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[48]
British Member of Parliament George Galloway: "a million Iraqis, most of them children."[49]
-
I generally like your posts Tony, but this is dumb. All you've done in this thread is made dumb accusations, been rebutted, than say how you agree "but..." with another bogus question or accusation.
-
It always amazes me Nikolas, how you know more about my life than I do. Have you thought about selling your services as a mind reader or clairvoyant?
So, you claim those numbers are vastly exaggerated? The lowest estimates were at 170,000 and those were the lowest estimates. And who pushed the UN to impose sanctions? surely not the United States?, the US had clearly nothing to do with those sanctions.
The innocent women and children being slaughtered are on the other side of the globe, out of sight out of mind...
-
This topic is why "Decide" makes my skin crawl and even though I like Emmortal, I feel like smashing his head through a concrete wall.
This idiotic and false assumption that Islamist fanatics will lay down their arms and embrace freedom if we merely stop "occupying" Muslim land is so stupid it defies explanation.
Do you morons know anything about Islam or world history?
We are at war against an ideology that has more than 1 billion adherents-- The supposed battleground between primitive cockroaches and the civilized world rests in Israel right? Can any of you that support Ron Paul piece together a coherent argument that rationally articulates how or why America abandoning its interests/ allies in the region will put an end to Al Queda/ the numerous warped off-springs that threaten our national security on a daily basis?
There is not a single shred of evidence that appeasement will work with these animals. Not one. You Ron Paul supporters that applaud his foreign policy are merely useful idiots. You are no different than Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn or any other mindless liberal stooge that hates America.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.- Winston Churchill
I agree with your comments about war against an ideology. That's exactly what it is.
-
It always amazes me Nikolas, how you know more about my life than I do. Have you thought about selling your services as a mind reader or clairvoyant?
So, you claim those numbers are vastly exaggerated? The lowest estimates were at 170,000 and those were the lowest estimates. And who pushed the UN to impose sanctions? surely not the United States?, the US had clearly nothing to do with those sanctions.
Saddam Hussein was a misunderstood angel who never killed his own people. He isn't at all responsible for said sanctions. Or something like that. ::)
It's not at all surprising that a 35-year-old man who has spent 30+ of those years in some form of school has no grasp on reality.
-
Saddam Hussein was a misunderstood angel who never killed his own people. He isn't at all responsible for said sanctions. Or something like that. ::)
It's not at all surprising that a 35-year-old man who has spent 30+ of those years in some form of school has no grasp on reality.
Did we sell him the weapons that he used to kill his own people? Of course not...
-
We didn't.....the gas used by him was sold by the Europeans and Egyptians. The aircraft used were French. I've been to Halabja and actually talked to people who fought against Saddam during the Anfal. U really fall for every anti-American thing you can find.
-
We didn't.....the gas used by him was sold by the Europeans and Egyptians. The aircraft used were French. I've been to Halabja and actually talked to people who fought against Saddam during the Anfal. U really fall for every anti-American thing you can find.
So you disagree with this statement?
"Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US."
-
Yep......did my post confuse you.
-
Yep......did my post confuse you.
Well, I think it's interesting that you disagree with the US Senate Committee and things of that nature. I don't think your personal opinion really holds more weight than theirs, but hey, if you feel like it does, go for it.
-
And ur cut and paste job holds zero weight either.....I've seen the canisters, been to the memorial etc. We had nothing to do with it.
-
And ur cut and paste job holds zero weight either.....I've seen the canisters, been to the memorial etc. We had nothing to do with it.
It is a cut and paste, that's why I quoted it.
Going to the memorial means we had nothing to do with it?
Come on dude... You're shitting me. I am sure you've seen some canisters, but you'll have to excuse me for not thinking you've seen ALL of them.
-
lol... :-\
-
It is a cut and paste, that's why I quoted it.
Going to the memorial means we had nothing to do with it?
Come on dude... You're shitting me. I am sure you've seen some canisters, but you'll have to excuse me for not thinking you've seen ALL of them.
-
If you're now admitting that we're all basically on the same page, what the hell was the point of these last two pages of bullshit?
thats exactly my point bro, go back and look at the first 2 pages with emmortal...
its not that i didnt realize it, its that you ron paul supporters jumped on someone who feels that he goes a tad to far is all...
you guys felt that b/c i didnt like certain aspects of his views that I was a war mongering neocon...
-
I had the first one and didnt really like it. I didnt even play through all the side missions cause driving that stupid little vehicle around was more frustrating then fun. What was the second one like?
-
I had the first one and didnt really like it. I didnt even play through all the side missions cause driving that stupid little vehicle around was more frustrating then fun. What was the second one like?
The 2nd one is much much better one of the best RPG/Sci-Fi/Shooter games ever...and next year ME3 is coming out...which should be the best of all, something to seriously look forward to!
-
The 2nd one is much much better one of the best RPG/Sci-Fi/Shooter games ever...and next year ME3 is coming out...which should be the best of all, something to seriously look forward to!
Yeah, I dont have much time for Xbox lately, I have been getting into FlightSimX though but even with this powerful computer the texturing still gets blurry and its ruining the experience. I went out and bought the yolk, pedals and throttle controls for it so it kinda sucks to have this issue. ugh.
Sorry, thread derail.
-
thats exactly my point bro, go back and look at the first 2 pages with emmortal...
its not that i didnt realize it, its that you ron paul supporters jumped on someone who feels that he goes a tad to far is all...
you guys felt that b/c i didnt like certain aspects of his views that I was a war mongering neocon...
If I did that I apologize! :-[
-
Yeah, I dont have much time for Xbox lately, I have been getting into FlightSimX though but even with this powerful computer the texturing still gets blurry and its ruining the experience. I went out and bought the yolk, pedals and throttle controls for it so it kinda sucks to have this issue. ugh.
Sorry, thread derail.
I was going to buy all that shit at MicroCenter for Flight Sim, but I think I'm just going to take real lessons in a few months.