Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on December 15, 2011, 10:49:42 AM
-
I think if many of you right wing guys who are in love with RP saw the plethora of people who supportr him and why, you'd drop him like a bad habit. Yeah, I fully get he wants to shrink the Gov but it won't happen like that. For the Lefties who love is wack job foreign policy..he can do some of it and maybe enough to severly endanger the country and the rest of the free world..but not enough for the likes of you. I'm sorry fella's but he's an idiot. He's another "blame America first" guy except on the Right, and the wack job lefties love him for it. Newt is nuts and unelectable....so I'm stuck with Mit.
How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?
Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.
So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.
And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.
And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.
So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.
I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …
-
Allow me to Socratically demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Question: What would the consequences be of the US bombing Iran? What would the consequences be of the US overthrowing the Iranian government? What would the consequences be of the US installing a pro-US government in Iran? What would the consequences of the US nation building in Iran?
If you answer those questions correctly, then maybe you'll finally come to realize why Ron Paul advocates the only foreign policy that does not put the US at danger.
-
This is the kind of thing that really hurts him.
-
Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...
Beach...his foreign policy is untenable...impossible. So what happens is more gridlock. What would a RP cabinet look like. I can't imagine.
-
Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...
Beach...his foreign policy is untenable...impossible. So what happens is more gridlock. What would a RP cabinet look like. I can't imagine.
Hey you get no argument from he on his foreign policy. It's pretty bad.
-
Lets see idiot......who said we're going to do any "nation building" or active overthrow of Iran. Iran has been killing our troops in Iraq, has killed our citizens around the world since 1980. RP wants to collapse into our own borders and stick our head in the sand. The guy thinks its 1938. He's as big a piece of shit as Obama. RP will sell out every last ally we have...
So hold on a second. You don't propose we overthrow Iran. But you say action must be taken. What kind of action against Iran do you want to take? And what will the unintended consequences of that action be?
-
I think if anything Ron Paul needs to start attacking Thug/Ghetto Bama over his refusal to go along w the Keystone pipeline.
-
Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst and head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit agrees with Ron Paul on issues of foreign policy. Is he stupid and ignorant too?
-
33 posted this in another thread, it's really good:
-
So hold on a second. You don't propose we overthrow Iran. But you say action must be taken. What kind of action against Iran do you want to take? And what will the unintended consequences of that action be?
We're doing it. This is the way we've always done it up until 2003...slow burn. Sanctions/covert ops/cyber/....proxy forces. Somebody is blowing up their shit. Israel is prepared and ready and without US troops in Iraq..the IDF can overfly Iraq, land in desert to refuel and do what needs to be done. We're out of the nation building business..COIN is to expensive. Once we pull out of Afghanistan, we're done.
I love how you guys cherry pick Schuer.
-
We're doing it. This is the way we've always done it up until 2003...slow burn. Sanctions/covert ops/cyber/....proxy forces. Somebody is blowing up their shit. Israel is prepared and ready and without US troops in Iraq..the IDF can overfly Iraq, land in desert to refuel and do what needs to be done. We're out of the nation building business..COIN is to expensive. Once we pull out of Afghanistan, we're done.
So how has that worked out for us? We sanction Iran, we perform covert ops against them, and now they're seeking a nuclear weapon faster than they ever have before.
What do you think will happen if Israel or the US bombs them? Will they just throw their hands up, give up, and walk away?
I love how you guys cherry pick Schuer.
"Cherry pick?" How have I cherry picked Scheuer? Do you even know anything he says or believes in?
-
Besides....you allowing a guy I disagree with most of the time to make your argument. I've worked with CIA and DOS types, position doesn't make them right. What in your vast foreign policy experience makes RP right?
Dude I know all about this guy. He's went from a Bin Laden expert nutcase. I've read his books. As far as Iran goes...it took Iraq almost 12 years to get back to where they were in 1981 when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor. I guess your just going to ask stupid questions you, yourself can't answer or support.
-
Lets be real here - Iran is doing this solely because of the bitch ass in the WH. We wont drill out own oil, we wont do keystone, we wont do ANWR, we wont go refineries, etc.
If you hated america and wanted to get your pound of flesh - isnt this the opportunity of a lifetime with obama in office?
-
Dude...they're all grabbing as much as they can. Our "allies" around the world watched us sell out Egypt and I guess Israel along with them. What a mess.
-
Ron Paul would fix US domestic problems, but probably wouldn't get his way with foreign policy anyway. So what's there to lose if Ron Paul is elected president?
-
Let's be honest. If Iran tries to shut down the straight, they lose. All we have to do is then ban all Iranian ships from using it and then it's over. Iran has to import their gasoline and no access to the straight will destroy whatever economy they have left.
Either way, that regime won't make it another 10 years. Next year's elections should be a shitshow.
I've never agreed with all of Paul's foreign policy but his economic knowledge works for me.
-
Hey you get no argument from he on his foreign policy. It's pretty bad.
Go team Neocon. ::)
Another great thread Alexander.
-
Go team Neocon. ::)
Another great thread Alexander.
The bloodlust of the neocons is insatiable. There will never be enough wars for them
-
Ron Paul would fix US domestic problems, but probably wouldn't get his way with foreign policy anyway. So what's there to lose if Ron Paul is elected president?
That's the million dollar question. Let's assume the House stays stable, there's 32 or so Senate seats up for grabs. Repubs will need 4 (I think - don't quote me) or so to gain the majority. So, it's very possible that RP as POTUS could make big changes. Or...
It also remains to be seen how the Repubs will treat him as a POTUS.
-
I think if many of you right wing guys who are in love with RP saw the plethora of people who supportr him and why, you'd drop him like a bad habit. Yeah, I fully get he wants to shrink the Gov but it won't happen like that. For the Lefties who love is wack job foreign policy..he can do some of it and maybe enough to severly endanger the country and the rest of the free world..but not enough for the likes of you. I'm sorry fella's but he's an idiot. He's another "blame America first" guy except on the Right, and the wack job lefties love him for it. Newt is nuts and unelectable....so I'm stuck with Mit.
How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?
Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.
So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.
And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.
And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.” But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.
So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.
I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …
Nothing wrong here.
-
That's the million dollar question. Let's assume the House stays stable, there's 32 or so Senate seats up for grabs. Repubs will need 4 (I think - don't quote me) or so to gain the majority. So, it's very possible that RP as POTUS could make big changes. Or...
It also remains to be seen how the Repubs will treat him as a POTUS.
no it's not possible for Paul to make big changes. Paul as president is when it would start to look real obvious that republicans and dems are exactly the same on a lot of shit. As for the foreign policy he would make a difference in that the threat to America better be the real thing and not a bunch of made up crap before we go to war. There wouldn't be any going to war because the president personally wanted to or wag the dog style shit. America as the neocon's world police would have to take a break.
-
Besides....you allowing a guy I disagree with most of the time to make your argument. I've worked with CIA and DOS types, position doesn't make them right. What in your vast foreign policy experience makes RP right?
Dude I know all about this guy. He's went from a Bin Laden expert nutcase. I've read his books. As far as Iran goes...it took Iraq almost 12 years to get back to where they were in 1981 when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor. I guess your just going to ask stupid questions you, yourself can't answer or support.
You ask what foreign policy experience Ron Paul has - I point out Michael Scheuer who agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy and is an expert on Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism. You then call him a nutcase and again ask what foreign policy experience has. You see, you are faithfully wedded to the notion that the US needs to be involved in the Middle East.
You seem to miss the point that no matter what the US does in the Middle East it cannot benefit us. If Israel is threatened by Iran, then Israel should conduct the bombing. If the US conducts the bombing, then we'll draw more flak from Muslim terrorists and we'll encourage Iran to seek WMDs even more and do other things to disrupt our national interests. If we slap sanctions on Iran, then we'll encourage them just as much if not more. There really isn't a single thing that the US can do in the region besides leave that would serve our own interests and protect our own citizens.
If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate what the US would do that would leave Americans better off.
-
Your parroting RP talking points. Who'd you vote for in the last election? Whats happening in Iran or against Iran is exactly what should be happening. I'm not talking about US led airstrikes....after all we only go after Libya. The Israeli's are capable of lauching any attack and now they won't have to go around Iran. As for leaving...yeah well unless our cars are suddenly going to drive on water...thats where all the gas comes from. So even if RP or some other President goes nuts building oil platforms, we're still going to be invloved there for the next decade or two. It really shouldn't matter to you either way because you'll still be sitting here complaining about it while I'm stuck in Iran. I have zero desire to fight in Iran and not advocating it. Israel can do the job for us.
-
So we should sink untold trillions of dollars and God knows how many American lives to keep gasoline prices down? ::) THAT is the "vital" US national interest in the Middle East? ??? Give me a break.
-
Um.....AGAIN idiot did I say deploy troops to Iran...nope....some drones, some KC135 refuelers/Jstars/AWACS/SOF and let the IDF do what needs to be done. There only reason we haven't done more is that the insurgent groups inside Iran are in many ways worse then the current government. Bush backed off playing with them and Obama hasn't even considered it. Our best chance was in 2009 and we sat on our hands.
-
So we continue this gay low-level proxy war on Iran and how do we benefit exactly? We continue to inflame Arab opinion and we continue to meet the Quranic predicate for Jihad. That is a high price to pay for cheaper gasoline.
-
They don't like us anyway...u and many on this board who've never been over there and talked to these people, really talked to them...don't understand. They aren't us and when people say that...it gets blown off. They don't like us regardless. They don't like each other...they hate each other more then us or Israel..we're in the way but the go juice is there and we have to control it.
-
No, I completely understand that. In fact, that is my point. THEY ARE NOT US. Theirs is a primitive culture. They are religious fanatics. They are still stuck in the Dark Ages or perhaps in the religious wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, if you wanted to make a comparison between them and Western civilization.
To them, our support for Israel, our support of their domestic tyrannies (e.g. Saudi monarchy), and our presence on the Arabian peninsula is a predicate for religious war. In fact, it is the QURANIC predicate for Jihad. That is what they believe God has told them. As long as we stay on their holy lands, they shall fight us tooth and nail.
The best course of action for the United States is to pull out of that region and let them have at it. It is not any of our business what they do once we leave. And once we leave, you are right, their attention will turn away from the United States and toward each other and Israel. That is why it's in Americans' best interests for the US to follow Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
-
And again, is a lot of oil there? Of course. But is it worth trillions of taxpayers dollars and thousands of American lives? Hell no. I'll take $5+ gasoline for lower taxes and less dead Americans.
-
Ok...great and I hope next week we find an alternative fuel but until we're off oil we can't leave. Once we do...we can turn our attention elsewhere and you and I can agree. We're never gonna abandon Israel but our footprint will be smaller. They hated us before we had troops stationed there...we've done alot for the muslims...they forget about Bosnia..where we never should have been. They forget about Desert Storm....which pissed off Bin Laden, they forget about Somalia..again Bin Laden. These people suck but they happen to be sitting on all that friggen oil.
-
I agree that we've done a lot for them, but they don't realize it. For them, our support of Israel and dictatorships in the Muslim world, as well as our presence on the Arabian peninsula is the casus belli for religious war. As long as we continue our current foreign policy, we're destined to see more American lives and more taxpayer money wasted.
And no, we do not need to be over there in order to secure oil. Right now, we're spending trillions of dollars on keeping the oil flowing. People will pay more in taxes because of that. However, if we leave, then we'll spend less and we'll be able to cut taxes but oil prices will be higher. It's a trade-off. Personally, I'll take the lower taxes, less Americans getting killed, and higher gasoline prices over higher taxes, more Americans getting killed, and lower gasoline prices.
Besides, we have plenty of oil, coal, and natural gas resources that could be developed domestically if we followed Ron Paul's domestic policy.
Also, I highly doubt that a country like Iran or other Muslim countries sitting on billions of barrels of petroleum will stop selling oil to the world market. If they do, they ruin their economies. Pumping out oil is as beneficial to them as it is to us.
-
So we continue this gay low-level proxy war on Iran and how do we benefit exactly? We continue to inflame Arab opinion and we continue to meet the Quranic predicate for Jihad. That is a high price to pay for cheaper gasoline.
Arab opinion? Most Arabs hate Iran as they're PERSIAN and Shia, to boot.
-
Arab opinion? Most Arabs hate Iran as they're PERSIAN and Shia, to boot.
I know. I misspoke, I should have said "Muslim," since the problem is not only with Arabs, but with Persians, Turks, Berbers, and many other ethnic/cultural groups that are predominantly Muslim.
-
Right but you need to secure trade routes..US Navy/ U have to be in position to respond to anything - basing rights. When we exploite our own resourses we'll be able to do that but its not happening now or fast enough. Obama and his bad of douchbags have stopped or delayed everything they can. We should have nuke plants everywhere...nope. We should be taking advanatge of natural gas. How many jobs would be created by converting trucks and large transport vehicles to gas. How many jobs on piplines and support for those projects..nope the EPA and the wackjobs get to dictate how to destroy America. I can't wait to pull out of the Middle East. I want the rags to starve on all that sand but its not going to happen fast enough. Alot of what RP says is good but we have to live in 2011. His ideas should be implemented as part of the long game. If we get off foreign oil..countries like Venezuela collapse. Iran no longer can play her games, so it all benefits us and we can concentrate on rebuilding the country and dealing with China and Russia..but its not going to happen in the next 4 years so we have to have one foot in and one foot out.
-
Right but you need to secure trade routes..US Navy/ U have to be in position to respond to anything - basing rights. When we exploite our own resourses we'll be able to do that but its not happening now or fast enough. Obama and his bad of douchbags have stopped or delayed everything they can. We should have nuke plants everywhere...nope. We should be taking advanatge of natural gas. How many jobs would be created by converting trucks and large transport vehicles to gas. How many jobs on piplines and support for those projects..nope the EPA and the wackjobs get to dictate how to destroy America. I can't wait to pull out of the Middle East. I want the rags to starve on all that sand but its not going to happen fast enough. Alot of what RP says is good but we have to live in 2011. His ideas should be implemented as part of the long game. If we get off foreign oil..countries like Venezuela collapse. Iran no longer can play her games, so it all benefits us and we can concentrate on rebuilding the country and dealing with China and Russia..but its not going to happen in the next 4 years so we have to have one foot in and one foot out.
I don't think you understand...
1) It's not as if oil from the Middle East would suddenly disappear if we pulled out. They need to sell us oil in order to make money. It is as vital for them, if not moreso, as it is for us. So pulling out of the Middle East won't increase gasoline prices nearly as much as you claim.
2) Even if gasoline prices rose in response to the US pulling out, so what? That would encourage oil exploration outside of the Middle East while encouraging people to reduce how much gasoline they use. That is the function of prices. If you want to decrease oil prices even more, then vote for Ron Paul who will encourage free market policies and dismantle agencies such as the EPA.
3) The amount of money we've spent and we will spend on our wars, our proxy wars, and on diplomacy far exceeds the costs to our economy of higher gasoline prices. A >$1 trillion tax cut over the past ten years would have done much more good for our economy than spending $1 trillion on wars in Muslim countries.
-
i'll say it again. on day 1 of Ron Paul's presidency, someone would test us. And he would put a nuke in their capital city. No warning, nothing.
Then he would tweet "Who else wants some?"
Nobody would ever fck with the USA, ever again. We'd get our military out of their countries, we'd develop our own energy sources here. problem solved.
-
Exactly... Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't isolationism. It's simply this: we won't fuck with your lives if you don't fuck with ours. That's why he supported nabbing Osama Bin Laden, but not nation-building in Iraq or Afghanistan or low-level bombing of Pakistan, or bombing Libya, or supporting Muslim dictatorships in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, and other countries at one time or another.
Had oil prices been higher had we not gone into the Middle East? Possibly, but then again countries like Iran will still have to make money SOMEHOW, so they'll sell oil to us either way. And if oil prices would have been higher, so what? We would have saved thousands of American lives and over $1 trillion in taxpayer money.
-
Speaking of the costs of our wars in the Muslim world... Econometric studies have shown that a 10% reduction in the corporate tax in America would increase economic growth by 1% per year. The corporate tax rate here is roughly 30% and over the past ten years it has averaged $300bn in revenue per year... so let's use basic math: if instead of spending >$1 trillion on wars we would have cut corporate taxes by 10%, then we would have lost $100bn/year in tax revenues, so that's $1 trillion over ten years... however the increase in economic growth by 1% per year would have compounded to an economy that's almost 13% larger.
Of course, if we did more accurate math and tried to calculate the total cost of our involvement in the Middle East, it would be much greater than $1 trillion; while cutting taxes would have a much lesser cost due to dynamic scoring. We probably could have cut corporate taxes by one-third, eliminated capital gains taxes, and seen a boom in economic growth for the same amount it cost us to go to subsidize our oil and Israel interests in the Middle East.
If anything, such pro-growth policies are more important for our long-term national security interests than getting involved in a religious war.
-
Let me explain my view in a way most GB'ers can understand..
The candidates in any election are Justice League Superheros
The situation in America at any given time is the super villain.
Now you won't call Batman if Galactus is causing problems, he isn't the right fit.
So Ron Paul has some questionable positions.... so what? We aren't electing him indefinately and his powers are limited anyway. However, he may be the Super Hero we need at the moment to fix our current problem of BIG government and overspending, or at least he is the most likely to have the most impact of the choices. If after 2 or 3 yrs you find he isn't getting done what he was supposed to or.. he has addressed a problem that was in his bag of tricks but now facing something he isn't qualified to handle, or has just oulived his usefulness, call in Superman next time. You are never going to find one candidate that can do it all, pick the one best suited for what is needed now.
-
Ron Paul's Iran Comments Raise Questions About His Iowa Surge
First Posted: 12/16/11 04:00 PM ET Updated: 12/16/11 04:20 PM ET
SIOUX CITY, Iowa -- After Thursday night's GOP presidential primary debate, an influential Iowa Republican leaned over to a reporter for The Huffington Post and said, "Ron Paul lost the Iowa caucuses tonight."
Paul, the 76-year old Texas congressman and gadfly extraordinaire, went on at length during the two-hour debate about Iran, arguing that the U.S. should not use military force to stop them from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
"There is no evidence that they have [a nuclear weapon]. And it would make more sense -- if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked," Rep. Paul (R-Texas) said.
"You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming. There's war propaganda going on," he said.
Paul's philosophy that the U.S. is overextended militarily around the globe has caught on with many conservatives and Republicans, especially as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dragged on for a decade.
And many Americans are anxious about the prospect of military action against Iran. But though Paul did at one point say he does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, he strayed Thursday into rhetoric that made it sound as if the U.S. should resign itself to such a reality.
"Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said if he were in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they're surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that's an understanding," Paul said. "So the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire. And how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect."
"What did we do with Libya? We talked to them. We talked them out of their nuclear weapon. And then we killed them," Paul said, in a highly confusing reference to Libya's 2003 abandonment of its nuclear program -- which many attributed to its fear of U.S. military action after the invasion of Iraq, and to the death earlier this year of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
"So, it makes more sense to work with people. And the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has 300 of them. We have our ships there. We've got to get it in a proper context. We don't need another war," he added.
Paul's insistence that Iran does not yet have a weapon sounded at times as if he was arguing they will not have one, even if that was not what he intended.
Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, defended Paul's remarks.
"Dr. Paul once again distinguished himself as the only candidate with a pro-American foreign policy, and will gain votes because of it," Benton told The Huffington Post. "The media elites and main-stream talking heads may not understand it, but the American people stand with Ron and don't want to overreact and jump recklessly into another trillion-dollar foreign war."
Paul has made comments earlier this year that were tolerant of Iran's likely desire for a nuclear weapon, but has not touched on the subject for most of the fall. And after being ignored by most in the media for much of the last year, Paul has been the subject of increasing attention as the Jan. 3 caucuses approach.
Paul's campaign is widely acknowledged to have probably the best organization and the most passionate supporters in the state, and Paul has begun to head toward 20 percent in Iowa polling. There has even been talk of Paul possibly winning the caucuses.
But some said Paul's comments on Iran Thursday night may reduce the likelihood of such an outcome, because they will turn off some conservatives who would not have supported Paul in the past but may have been considering him in part because they are dissatisfied with the rest of the field.
"Last night's debate likely halted his rise," said Tim Albrecht, communications director for Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad. "It remains to be seen if he'll slip, however, as his supporters remain the most stable and steadfast in terms of their support of Ron Paul."
One Iowa Republican said that even if Paul limits his growth potential, he may already be able to attract 20 or 25 percent support from caucus goers, which still could be enough to win.
But Albrecht told HuffPost that Paul's focus on foreign policy "went precisely where he didn't want to less than three weeks before the caucuses."
"The biggest hurdle for Ron Paul with Iowa caucus-goers remains his foreign policy positions," Albrecht said. "His paid media and mailers have all been focused on the top issue for Iowans, the nation's debt. Ron Paul's biggest strength is fiscal policy. His fiscal focus has skyrocketed his campaign here."
During one exchange in particular, with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Paul was dismissive of a recent report by the United Nation's nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that was widely interpreted as evidence that Tehran is rapidly closing in on producing a bomb.
"We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon," Bachmann said.
Paul shot back: "There is no U.N. report that said that. It's totally wrong on what you just said."
Bachmann noted simply, "It's an IAEA report." It was as if she were saying that if the IAEA is finally saying Iran is after a bomb, then even the most dovish institutions agree with what American hawks have been saying for years. The IAEA has been slower than many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment to conclude that Tehran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons as its end game.
"That, that is not, that is not true," Paul said again. "They produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There's been no enrichment of these bombs."
Paul's suggestion that the IAEA report was intentionally misleading sounded like "black helicopters" talk to the Republican official who spoke to HuffPost after the debate. Even though Paul's point was that there is no evidence that Iran has enriched uranium and weaponized it, to many viewers, his rejections of the IAEA report likely sounded as if he were rejecting the report's broader conclusion, that Tehran is actively pursuing a bomb.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/ron-paul-iran-nuclear-bomb_n_1154244.html
-
Let me explain my view in a way most GB'ers can understand..
The candidates in any election are Justice League Superheros
The situation in America at any given time is the super villain.
Now you won't call Batman if Galactus is causing problems, he isn't the right fit.
So Ron Paul has some questionable positions.... so what? We aren't electing him indefinately and his powers are limited anyway. However, he may be the Super Hero we need at the moment to fix our current problem of BIG government and overspending, or at least he is the most likely to have the most impact of the choices. If after 2 or 3 yrs you find he isn't getting done what he was supposed to or.. he has addressed a problem that was in his bag of tricks but now facing something he isn't qualified to handle, or has just oulived his usefulness, call in Superman next time. You are never going to find one candidate that can do it all, pick the one best suited for what is needed now.
Man, what a geek you are. How embarrassing for you. :(
BTW, The Justice League and Superman are from the DC Universe, while Galactus is from the Marvel Universe. And you don't call Superman on Galactus. You call the Silver Surfer. ;D
Are you saying Ron Paul is the Silver Surfer? ???
-
Man, what a geek you are. How embarrassing for you. :(
BTW, The Justice League and Superman are from the DC Universe, while Galactus is from the Marvel Universe. And you don't call Superman on Galactus. You call the Silver Surfer. ;D
Are you saying Ron Paul is the Silver Surfer? ???
LOL! I knew someone would catch something wrong with the analogy! I Just read the comics growing up, I am not in the know on Marvel vs DC anymore :) But I've been waiting for months to get a comic book tie in somewhere and took a shot.
-
Econometric studies have shown that a 10% reduction in the corporate tax in America would increase economic growth by 1% per year.
Why didn't the reduction to the bush tax cut levels cause this economic growth? didn't we try reducing taxes from Clinton level down to bush level - and obama continued this reduced levels. and economy crashed anyway.
-
Why didn't the reduction to the bush tax cut levels cause this economic growth? didn't we try reducing taxes from Clinton level down to bush level - and obama continued this reduced levels. and economy crashed anyway.
240 - are you kidding? The crash was caused by a housing bubble fueld by cheap credit, spurned on by the fed, GSE's. fraud, etc. Taxes has nothing to do with it.
-
240 - are you kidding? The crash was caused by a housing bubble fueld by cheap credit, spurned on by the fed, GSE's. fraud, etc. Taxes has nothing to do with it.
stop blaming Newt for everything :(
-
stop blaming Newt for everything :(
I really hope he drops. he is at the bottom of my list by far. He is smart, yes - but he seems so amused by himself its sickening.
-
I really hope he drops. he is at the bottom of my list by far. He is smart, yes - but he seems so amused by himself its sickening.
it seems like the humble candidates are ignored by the GOP voters.
cain, trump, palin, and newt were 4 of the biggest egomaniacs on earth.
-
Why didn't the reduction to the bush tax cut levels cause this economic growth? didn't we try reducing taxes from Clinton level down to bush level - and obama continued this reduced levels. and economy crashed anyway.
First of all, you can't say that the Bush tax cuts didn't cause economic growth simply because the Bush years weren't the roaring 20's. There could have been other factors that slowed growth that cancelled out the effects of the tax cuts. For example, I think that the increased spending/deficits/debt during the Bush years significantly hampered the economy by putting a drain on national saving and thus investment funds. On the flip side, taxes were higher under Clinton but spending was lower and there were budget surpluses which increased national saving/investment. Also, Clinton benefited from a tech boom that petered out by the time Bush took office. Also, the housing bubble drained a lot of resources from better investment opportunities during the Bush years, which slowed growth. Also, I think that inflation tends to reduce growth by reducing the incentive to save/invest, and some measures of inflation show that it was higher during the Bush years; however some econometric studies allegedly show that inflation does not slow growth, so take that whatever way you will.
Secondly, the Bush tax cuts were inefficiently allocated, IMO. Cutting the same amount of revenue from other taxes would have had a much bigger impact on economic growth. For example, using the ~$1 trillion that was put into the Bush tax cuts for significantly cutting corporate income and capital gains taxes across the board would have had a stronger growth impact by increasing the incentive to save/invest. Instead, the Bush tax cuts focused on cutting tax rates and changing around the tax code where it doesn't really matter. I think the Bush tax cuts were driven more by political considerations than by economic ones. That isn't necessarily bad, since the tax cuts did reduce the burden of government on individuals, but in terms of economic growth, better targeted tax cuts could have accomplished much more.
-
The bloodlust of the neocons is insatiable. There will never be enough wars for them
I wish we could ship these great warriors over, so they could personally fight for Israel.
-
Ok...great and I hope next week we find an alternative fuel but until we're off oil we can't leave. Once we do...we can turn our attention elsewhere and you and I can agree. We're never gonna abandon Israel but our footprint will be smaller. They hated us before we had troops stationed there...we've done alot for the muslims...they forget about Bosnia..where we never should have been. They forget about Desert Storm....which pissed off Bin Laden, they forget about Somalia..again Bin Laden. These people suck but they happen to be sitting on all that friggen oil.
The whole Bosnia situation is a complete farce and one of the earliest examples of the "politically correct" pandering to fanatical Islam by the western world. That entire region is now being completely infected by the Wahhabist cancer and no one has anything to say about it.
-
"The biggest hurdle for Ron Paul with Iowa caucus-goers remains his foreign policy positions," Albrecht said. "His paid media and mailers have all been focused on the top issue for Iowans, the nation's debt. Ron Paul's biggest strength is fiscal policy. His fiscal focus has skyrocketed his campaign here."
During one exchange in particular, with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Paul was dismissive of a recent report by the United Nation's nuclear watch dog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, that was widely interpreted as evidence that Tehran is rapidly closing in on producing a bomb.
"We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon," Bachmann said.
Paul shot back: "There is no U.N. report that said that. It's totally wrong on what you just said."
Bachmann noted simply, "It's an IAEA report." It was as if she were saying that if the IAEA is finally saying Iran is after a bomb, then even the most dovish institutions agree with what American hawks have been saying for years. The IAEA has been slower than many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment to conclude that Tehran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons as its end game.
"That, that is not, that is not true," Paul said again. "They produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There's been no enrichment of these bombs."
Paul's suggestion that the IAEA report was intentionally misleading sounded like "black helicopters" talk to the Republican official who spoke to HuffPost after the debate. Even though Paul's point was that there is no evidence that Iran has enriched uranium and weaponized it, to many viewers, his rejections of the IAEA report likely sounded as if he were rejecting the report's broader conclusion, that Tehran is actively pursuing a bomb.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/ron-paul-iran-nuclear-bomb_n_1154244.html
Yep. That was not his finest hour.
-
2 things I really dont understand....
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed so maybe someone can enlighten me here.
1) Why the fck do I give a rat's ass about Israel? What do they do for me and I why should I give .01 of my tax dollars to them? Nobody says "hey we have to protect Canada? Sweden? Spain?" but for some fcken reason I have no choice but to support Israel?
2)um.... Iran hates (like all Muslim countries do) BECAUSE we support Israel and keep bombing and attacking other muslim countries not because we are "Free". Canada, fck all of Europe is free... they arent threatening to "bomb Canada"? Why? They arent saying "death to all Aussies"? Why? "Death to Barbados"? Why?... Why isnt Iran trying to destroy the Bahamas?
I swear I am moving out of the USA if things dont friggin change soon
(yes I DO support Ron Paul and agree 100% with what he says but he will NEVER get elected saying to downsize the military and not go after Iran unfortunately ---also just donated $100 to the money bomb)
-
Yep. That was not his finest hour.
.
Ron schooled that stupid bitch and now the facts are coming out that she is full of shit.
-
.
Ron schooled that stupid bitch and now the facts are coming out that she is full of shit.
Or not. That might have been his worst moment of the debate season. I think he lost a lot of Iowa votes when talking about Iran.
-
Or not. That might have been his worst moment of the debate season. I think he lost a lot of Iowa votes when talking about Iran.
His message on the subject hasnt changed in years so how it hurt him when his numbers have grown is hardly a worry. He recieved over $3 million after that debate. Better than previous money bombs, so go figure.
-
this one is easy:
Let Israel nuke the fuck out of Iran. Endure the brief energy crisis. Then everything gets back to normal.
All this should about the US being a global police force, not letting Isr open up on them. Hell, if Mexico was talking shit and developing nukes and funding terrorists to shoot missiles into the USA, we would have invaded them already - nobody would have stopped us.
If I'm not mistaken - isn't ron paul's position something like "We aren't going to give Israel a ton of money every year, but we will give them the green light to nuke Iran if they feel threatened"?
-
If I'm not mistaken - isn't ron paul's position something like "We aren't going to give Israel a ton of money every year, but we will give them the green light to nuke Iran if they feel threatened"?
Exactly. But you try to explain this to the likes of Fury, Whorewell, and headhuntersix and they take it as "Ron Paul is pro-Iran and wants to see Israel nuked!" ::)
-
Exactly. But you try to explain this to the likes of Fury, Whorewell, and headhuntersix and they take it as "Ron Paul is pro-Iran and wants to see Israel nuked!" ::)
Oh brother, this shitty new account likes to put words in my mouth. I've said before that I agree with Ron Paul on Iran. In-fact, you'll find that I'd rather go much further than most of the rest of you clowns. I want the US out of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and every other organization that seeks to usurp our sovereignty. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more anti-UN member on this politics board.
Did you know the US funds over 15% of the IMF and they've given well over $50 billion to Greece in the last year alone? Somehow I doubt it as you won't see that in the NY Times or whatever shitty rag it is that you get your talking points from. By the way, we're never going to see those billions again. ::)
I'm sorry that you got all butt-hurt when I pointed out that you don't have any fucking idea as to what you're talking about, though. Keep parroting talking points, my "Arabs are Persian and Persians are Arabs" friend. :)
-
Oh brother, this shitty new account likes to put words in my mouth.
Hey, that's like what you've been doing by stalking every single post made by me trying to claim that I confused Arabs and Persians, when in fact I did not do so.
I've said before that I agree with Ron Paul on Iran.
Then why do you consistently attack, slander, and defame everyone here who says that Israel-Iran relations are none of the US's business?
In-fact, you'll find that I'd rather go much further than most of the rest of you clowns. I want the US out of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and every other organization that seeks to usurp our sovereignty. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more anti-UN member on this politics board.
That's funny, because I agree 100% with those views. However, YOU know better about what I believe and know than I do, right?
Did you know the US funds over 15% of the IMF and they've given well over $50 billion to Greece in the last year alone? Somehow I doubt it as you won't see that in the NY Times or whatever shitty rag it is that you get your talking points from. By the way, we're never going to see those billions again. ::)
I did not know that precise number, but I did know that the IMF had a hand in the bailouts of Greece. Also, I do not read the New York Rag. But hey, you know better about what I know and read than I do, right?
I'm sorry that you got all butt-hurt when I pointed out that you don't have any fucking idea as to what you're talking about, though. Keep parroting talking points, my "Arabs are Persian and Persians are Arabs" friend. :)
I have never stated anywhere that Arabs are Persians. But keep stalking every single post I make in order to spread that lie.
-
This is what Fury is getting his panties in a wad over:
So we continue this gay low-level proxy war on Iran and how do we benefit exactly? We continue to inflame Arab opinion and we continue to meet the Quranic predicate for Jihad. That is a high price to pay for cheaper gasoline.
Arab opinion? Most Arabs hate Iran as they're PERSIAN and Shia, to boot.
I know. I misspoke, I should have said "Muslim," since the problem is not only with Arabs, but with Persians, Turks, Berbers, and many other ethnic/cultural groups that are predominantly Muslim.
He seems to have a really bad habit of reading into things and jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
-
His message on the subject hasnt changed in years so how it hurt him when his numbers have grown is hardly a worry. He recieved over $3 million after that debate. Better than previous money bombs, so go figure.
How much of that money came from Iowa?
If you listened the crowd reaction at the debate, it was pretty bad. I was cringing when he talked about Iran. Commentators, on the left and right, had the same view. Iran is an issue that makes him look very bad. Sort of like Perry with HPV, Newt with Freddie Mac, Romney with his flip-flopping etc. Every candidate has flaws. Foreign policy--and particularly Iran--is Ron Paul's major weakness.
-
Oh brother, this shitty new account likes to put words in my mouth. I've said before that I agree with Ron Paul on Iran. In-fact, you'll find that I'd rather go much further than most of the rest of you clowns. I want the US out of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and every other organization that seeks to usurp our sovereignty. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more anti-UN member on this politics board.
Did you know the US funds over 15% of the IMF and they've given well over $50 billion to Greece in the last year alone? Somehow I doubt it as you won't see that in the NY Times or whatever shitty rag it is that you get your talking points from. By the way, we're never going to see those billions again. ::)
I'm sorry that you got all butt-hurt when I pointed out that you don't have any fucking idea as to what you're talking about, though. Keep parroting talking points, my "Arabs are Persian and Persians are Arabs" friend. :)
THIS!
Fuck the IMF, fuck the central banks, and fuck all those POFS "allies" that use try and use us and force us to do their bidding around the world.
Amazed no one else notices this shit.
-
^ Except the other Ron Paul supporters Fury consistently slanders on this board, such as bindare and myself. ???
-
I don't get it. Ron Paul tells them "You are allowed to nuke Iran, turn them into glass, and I'm okay with it, becuase you did what you felt you had to do".
US under Obama/Bush, and the entire crop of 2012 hopefuls, just says "we will keep spying on Iran as they build nukes and you can't stop them, Israel..."
I'm confused on this one. I thought theyd prefer to just nuke that place, get it over with, and be safe?
-
^ Except the other Ron Paul supporters Fury consistently slanders on this board, such as bindare and myself. ???
I wasnt speaking of board members, plus Im not usually a reg on the poli board.
-
I don't get it. Ron Paul tells them "You are allowed to nuke Iran, turn them into glass, and I'm okay with it, becuase you did what you felt you had to do".
US under Obama/Bush, and the entire crop of 2012 hopefuls, just says "we will keep spying on Iran as they build nukes and you can't stop them, Israel..."
I'm confused on this one. I thought theyd prefer to just nuke that place, get it over with, and be safe?
I doubt Israel would actually nuke Iran - they'd probably go for a more surgical strike, similar to what they did to Iraq in the 80s.
I do think that the foreign policy toward Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general that the other Republicans are advocating has to do with a lot more than just Israel.
-
nobody has answered my questions yet.. geez..
why should I give a rat's ass about Israel or .01 penny of my tax dollars? I dont get it
-
nobody has answered my questions yet.. geez..
why should I give a rat's ass about Israel or .01 penny of my tax dollars? I dont get it
Becasue thats where Jesus will come back and we need to be there to roll out he red carpet.
-
How much of that money came from Iowa?
If you listened the crowd reaction at the debate, it was pretty bad. I was cringing when he talked about Iran. Commentators, on the left and right, had the same view. Iran is an issue that makes him look very bad. Sort of like Perry with HPV, Newt with Freddie Mac, Romney with his flip-flopping etc. Every candidate has flaws. Foreign policy--and particularly Iran--is Ron Paul's major weakness.
Earlier tonight Tom Jensen of PPP said:
"We have the trifecta going in the field tonight- national, IA, NH GOP polls. Should be very interesting after last night"
Source: https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/stat...86042550923265
Now he just said:
"Iowa looking like something close to a 3 way tie between Paul, Mitt, Newt. Perry and Bachmann still clearly in a lower tier"
Source: https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/stat...50495053144064
For those that don't know, PPP is nationally leading polling organization.
-
nobody has answered my questions yet.. geez..
why should I give a rat's ass about Israel or .01 penny of my tax dollars? I dont get it
Because they're our ally and we need friends in the region full of people who want to kill Americans.
-
Earlier tonight Tom Jensen of PPP said:
"We have the trifecta going in the field tonight- national, IA, NH GOP polls. Should be very interesting after last night"
Source: https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/stat...86042550923265
Now he just said:
"Iowa looking like something close to a 3 way tie between Paul, Mitt, Newt. Perry and Bachmann still clearly in a lower tier"
Source: https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/stat...50495053144064
For those that don't know, PPP is nationally leading polling organization.
Doesn't answer the question of how much of his $3 million in fundraising came from Iowa. Also doesn't really address the damage that may have been caused by his debate performance.
-
Because they're our ally and we need friends in the region full of people who want to kill Americans.
Then why the fuck does our government arm these people with nuclear technology and stops Isreal from defending itself?
-
Then why the fuck does our government arm these people with nuclear technology and stops Isreal from defending itself?
What enemies have we armed with nuclear technology?
We've stopped Israel from defending itself in some instances (by doing it for them), because it prevented possible full-scale war in the Middle East. That's what happened during Desert Storm, when Saddam shot scuds into Israel, and we convinced them not to respond. That was the right thing to do.
-
Hey repubs -
Full scale war in the middle east would lead to the US drilling at home. Ain't that a GOOD thing?
-
What enemies have we armed with nuclear technology?
Should have worded it to 'potentially armed'.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904102094400097.html
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to sign its first nuclear cooperation agreement with a Middle Eastern nation within the next few weeks, according to a senior U.S. official, raising concerns among congressional critics who say the deal could fuel nuclear proliferation in the region.
The proposed deal with the United Arab Emirates has attracted attention because the U.A.E.'s largest trading partner is Iran. The U.A.E. has served in the past as a transshipment point for technology with military applications headed to Iran and other countries and is among Tehran's largest financial partners, according to U.S. officials
-
Should have worded it to 'potentially armed'.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904102094400097.html
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to sign its first nuclear cooperation agreement with a Middle Eastern nation within the next few weeks, according to a senior U.S. official, raising concerns among congressional critics who say the deal could fuel nuclear proliferation in the region.
The proposed deal with the United Arab Emirates has attracted attention because the U.A.E.'s largest trading partner is Iran. The U.A.E. has served in the past as a transshipment point for technology with military applications headed to Iran and other countries and is among Tehran's largest financial partners, according to U.S. officials
Thanks. UAE is not an enemy, but I understand the argument about how they could share information with Iran.
-
Thanks. UAE is not an enemy, but I understand the argument about how they could share information with Iran.
No probelm. I wasn't even aware of this one. This is why I like the non interventionist attitude. Why in the world would the States put itself in this type of situation time and again? It is not helping us and the sooner we come to this realization the better off we will be.
-
No probelm. I wasn't even aware of this one. This is why I like the non interventionist attitude. Why in the world would the States put itself in this type of situation time and again? It is not helping us and the sooner we come to this realization the better off we will be.
I don't think the extremist "non-intervention" that Ron Paul embraces is very realistic. It's just not the world we live in. We can remove every boot off the ground in every part of the globe and we would still have the same problems. Maybe not to the same degree, but to think our involvement with other countries is the only reason we get attacked is to ignore the realities of radical Islam.
-
I don't think the extremist "non-intervention" that Ron Paul embraces is very realistic. It's just not the world we live in. We can remove every boot off the ground in every part of the globe and we would still have the same problems. Maybe not to the same degree, but to think our involvement with other countries is the only reason we get attacked is to ignore the realities of radical Islam.
Lets be realistic about this issue. What Ron Paul would "like" to do and what he would actually be "able" to do as POTUS are two very different things. He's stated he'd like to shut down all of our bases and bring all troops home, but that will never happen even if he's elected. People are harping on this issue as if the president has that kind of power, he doesn't. Those bases and relationships have taken decades to build and establish, they aren't going to come down in 4 or even 8 years by a single president.
So really this entire issue is moot and irrelevant. Just look at the issue of nationalized health care and what a mess that single issue has been for Obama, does anyone really believe that closing down hundreds of bases around the world and bringing all those troops home is a realistic achievement for a president? You'd have to be the whacko to believe that.
I don't agree with everything Paul has to say, but out of the rest of the group, he's the one guy that still stands above everyone else. Even if he were elected as POTUS I don't think he'll be able to achieve a fraction of what he would like to. You guys are putting too much power in the presidents hands, they still have congress to get through and that's no easy task.
-
Speaking of the costs of our wars in the Muslim world... Econometric studies have shown that a 10% reduction in the corporate tax in America would increase economic growth by 1% per year. The corporate tax rate here is roughly 30% and over the past ten years it has averaged $300bn in revenue per year... so let's use basic math: if instead of spending >$1 trillion on wars we would have cut corporate taxes by 10%, then we would have lost $100bn/year in tax revenues, so that's $1 trillion over ten years... however the increase in economic growth by 1% per year would have compounded to an economy that's almost 13% larger.
Of course, if we did more accurate math and tried to calculate the total cost of our involvement in the Middle East, it would be much greater than $1 trillion; while cutting taxes would have a much lesser cost due to dynamic scoring. We probably could have cut corporate taxes by one-third, eliminated capital gains taxes, and seen a boom in economic growth for the same amount it cost us to go to subsidize our oil and Israel interests in the Middle East.
If anything, such pro-growth policies are more important for our long-term national security interests than getting involved in a religious war.
Wow this board has become something better all of a sudden. Great post
-
Why didn't the reduction to the bush tax cut levels cause this economic growth? didn't we try reducing taxes from Clinton level down to bush level - and obama continued this reduced levels. and economy crashed anyway.
Actually they did but 2 wars and a huge government has a price as well
-
"Islamist-supporters infiltrate Obama Admin to subvert US security," reveals ex-CIA'er, Clare Lopez
youtube ^
A video not to be missed..
Islamist-allied operatives appointed by Obama are undermining U.S. security policy - explains counter-Intelligence expert, Prof. Clare Lopez. Aimed at co-opting Americas foreign policy in the Middle East, a network including well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world - with ties to the clerical regime in Tehran - is directing the Obama Administration's policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Middle East
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Las Vegas Dave
Claire Lopez’s bio:
http://www.patriotsymposiums.com/Claire_Lopez.html
Clare Lopez
Senior CIA Clandestine Operations Officer with tours in Africa, Central/South America and the Balkans, with a focus on the USSR/Russia
Senior level intelligence consultant and strategic policy analyst
Strong expertise in HUMINT project management including counterintelligence, counternarcotics, counter proliferation, WMD, and Advanced Conventional Weapons threat arenas
University lecturer, public events speaker, and published author on Middle East, Iran, Arab and Islamic culture, WMD, and transnational terrorism issues
Vice President of The Intelligence Summit, a non-profit educational forum
Member of the Board of Directors, Institute of World Affairs
Total Years of Experience for you to benefit and learn from: 29
Clare M. Lopez, M.A.
Profile: Senior level consultant for Middle East issues, strategic policy analyst, and program manager with 29 years experience in government, the Intelligence Community, and the private sector. University lecturer, public events speaker, and published author on Middle East, Iran, Arab and Islamic culture, WMD, and transnational terrorism issues. M.A. in International Relations from the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. Non-profit and think tank executive experience.
Professional Summary
Counterintelligence Role Player/Trainer 2008-present
EKS Group LLC
Tampa, FL
Provide intelligence and counterintelligence training to Department of Defense for military intelligence personnel.
Vice President 2007-present
Intelligence Summit Educational Forum
www.intelligencesummit.o rg
Serve the Executive Leadership of this non-profit educational forum with intelligence and Middle East expertise, fundraising, and administrative support. Speaker and panel moderator at the Intelligence Summit’s annual conference event. Liaison to intelligence, law enforcement, and media.
Professor/Lecturer 2007-present
CI Centre (www.cicentre.com )
Staff Professor for this private firm that provides tailored multi-day courses to U.S. and foreign government, intelligence, and law enforcement clients. Core class offerings are provided in counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and security. Have developed and presented original curriculum on the influence of Jihad and Sharia in Europe and the U.S., and also a full-day course on the Iranian intelligence and security service.
Executive Director & Consultant, Iran Policy Committee 2005-2006
Washington, D.C.
Member of the Iran Policy Committee (www.iranpolicy.org), a leading WDC think tank dedicated to bringing policy issues related to Iran to public and federal government attention. Served as Executive Director and Director for Research to conduct and direct extensive research/ analysis on the Iranian Revolution, expansionist ideology, regime leadership, terrorist support, nuclear program, & opposition groups, which has been produced in four major white papers and two published books that were briefed to Congress, the Executive Branch, and WDC academic, think tank, diplomatic, and media communities.
Senior Scientific Researcher 2005-2006
Battelle Memorial Institute Arlington, VA
Supported a major DIA contract as a senior level analyst, researcher and subject matter expert for this global science and technology enterprise. Project work focused on WMD and Middle East issues. Wrote a white paper proposal to conduct research and analysis on the phenomenon of suicide bombing as a tactic of asymmetric warfare. Battelle is a non-profit organization, a research firm with some of the characteristics of a think tank, and a partner at the federal, state and local levels of government.
Senior Intelligence Analyst 2002-2005
HawkEye Systems, LLC Alexandria, VA
As a senior intelligence analyst for a medium-sized high-tech strategic management consulting firm in the WDC area, I served as project manager and provided intelligence analyst, counterterrorism and Middle East subject matter expertise to a small technology company for development of an ONI-funded decision-making intelligence fusion and uncertainty management system. I also contributed substantive subject matter expertise to a successful proposal for the same firm for the validation of a related DARPA-funded software system that features a forecasting and prediction model.
In support of another small technology firm’s software development program, I directed the creation of Red Cell terrorist attack scenarios related to homeland security. During a year-long DARPA contract, I was integrated at the DIAC with the JITF-CT at DIA Hqs., Bolling AFB and performed in-depth, all-source research and analysis of national and transnational terrorism groups and counterterrorism operations for the Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment (WAE) Program. A principal focus of the WAE Program was the creation and analytic exploitation of a massive database of significant events related to the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the Arab-Israeli conflict. I also conducted analytical tool validation related to predictive analysis, established processes and procedures for analytical methodology and produced Middle East group profiles and leadership behavior analysis.
Senior Intelligence Analyst 2000-2002
Chugach Systems Integration Arlington, VA
Working in the Countermeasures Program Division (DS/CMP) of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State, I reviewed the Technical Threat environment for U.S. Posts worldwide and produced Technical Threat Analysis and Threat Level Recommendations for the InterAgency Technical Threat Working Group. My all-source research and analysis included consideration of the CI threat from Foreign Intelligence Services, terrorist and organized crime groups worldwide and contributed significantly to an upward revision in the Threat Level for one key Latin American country.
Senior Operations Officer 1980-2000
Central Intelligence Agency Langley, VA
As a DO case officer, I served 4 PCS tours, multiple TDY assignments worldwide including Africa, Central/South America and the Balkans, with a focus on the USSR/Russia. Primary responsibilities included production, implementation of operational plans to fulfill national-level HUMINT requirements in CI, CN, Counterproliferation, WMD, and Advanced Conventional Weapons threat arenas.
Key success was development and management of a highly productive operations unit to target WMD programs of critical national security concern to the U.S. I supervised and performed research/analysis of target programs; directed, produced detailed targeting studies, managed complex intelligence operations to implement the targeting objectives.
Military Experience Oct-Dec 1979
Completed U.S. Marine Corps Officer Candidate School (OCS)
Quantico, VA
Education
M.A., International Relations
Maxwell School, Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York
B.A., Communications and French
Notre Dame College of Ohio
South Euclid, Ohio
Guest Lectures
National Defense Intelligence College Apr 2009
FBI Academy, Quantico, VA Jan 2009
Beachwood High School, Beachwood, OH 2008-09
Georgetown University, WDC 2004-2006
Visiting Researcher, Georgetown, University 2004-2005
Government Dept., School of Foreign Service
Board Memberships
Member of the Board of Advisors 2009-present
International Free Press Society
Information Committee Member 2008-present
Medal of Honor Society
Member of the Board of Directors 2007-present
Institute for World Affairs
Member of the Advisory Board & Guest Lecturer 2006-present
Intelligence Analysis and Research Program
Notre Dame College of Ohio
Languages: Spanish, Bulgarian, French, German, Russian; studying Farsi
-
Lets be realistic about this issue. What Ron Paul would "like" to do and what he would actually be "able" to do as POTUS are two very different things. He's stated he'd like to shut down all of our bases and bring all troops home, but that will never happen even if he's elected. People are harping on this issue as if the president has that kind of power, he doesn't. Those bases and relationships have taken decades to build and establish, they aren't going to come down in 4 or even 8 years by a single president.
So really this entire issue is moot and irrelevant. Just look at the issue of nationalized health care and what a mess that single issue has been for Obama, does anyone really believe that closing down hundreds of bases around the world and bringing all those troops home is a realistic achievement for a president? You'd have to be the whacko to believe that.
I don't agree with everything Paul has to say, but out of the rest of the group, he's the one guy that still stands above everyone else. Even if he were elected as POTUS I don't think he'll be able to achieve a fraction of what he would like to. You guys are putting too much power in the presidents hands, they still have congress to get through and that's no easy task.
Are you saying ignore his dangerous foreign policy views because he can't achieve them?
Even if he cannot achieve them, doesn't the fact his foreign policy views are so whacked speak to his judgment in that area?
-
Are you saying ignore his dangerous foreign policy views because he can't achieve them?
Even if he cannot achieve them, doesn't the fact his foreign policy views are so whacked speak to his judgment in that area?
What is dangerous about his foreign policy?
-
t