Presidential republican debate...

[TrailDust]

So I guess you guys like Traildust are the kind of good men who understand what's going on and see what's wrong but will sit back and do nothing while evil destroys the country because, well... "he doesn't have a chance" or "big money will sweep him away".
That kind of attitude is exactly why we are in this mess. Where do those ideas come from? The news media and Obamacrats just love you to think that way.
Zembonez, Obama sure thinks he is the King. He's getting away with ruling by decree. By his own decision he can start wars and kill or imprison without trial any American citizen anywhere.
Ron Paul doesn't want to be King. He leads by example, and his allegiance is to the Constitution. Ron Paul can't make any changes for the better by himself. He needs our muscle to help him do that.

Figures. After everything I've posted in these forums and you got that completely wrong. What I agreed to in the above reply was that Ron Paul was not the correct candidate to run for President, but as I've said numerous times in these forums I strongly support voting for any candidate who runs on the Republican ticket against Obama or whoever the Democrats may choose to run in 2012. I'd even vote for that dingleberry Trump if it came down to him versus Obama. Also, I vote in all elections, and always exercise my Constitutional right to vote. Thank you.

 

[leonidas]

I thought I'd post this article by Ron Paul regarding OBL. I don't think his logic is kooky at all. I know it is a bit of reading, so I apologize in advance.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past ten years have proven.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is tragic that it took ten years, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of American casualties and many thousands of innocent lives to achieve our mission of killing one evil person. A narrow, targeted mission under these circumstances was far superior to initiating wars against countries not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that is all we should have done. This was the reason I emphasized at the time the principle of Marque and Reprisal, permitted to us by the US Constitution for difficult missions such as we faced. I am convinced that this approach would have achieved our goal much sooner and much cheaper.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The elimination of Osama bin Laden should now prompt us to declare victory and bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq and we were supposedly in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. With bin Laden gone, there is no reason for our presence in the region – unless indeed it was all about oil, nation-building, and remaking the Middle East and Central Asia.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Hopefully bin Laden does not get the last laugh. He claimed the 9/11 attacks were designed to get the US to spread its military dangerously and excessively throughout the Middle East, bankrupting us through excessive military spending as he did the Soviets, and to cause political dissention within the United States. Some 70 percent of Americans now believe we should leave Afghanistan yet both parties seem determined to stay. The best thing we could do right now is prove bin Laden a false prophet by coming home and ending this madness on a high note.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tragically, one result may be the acceptance of torture as a legitimate tool for pursuing our foreign policy. A free society, calling itself a republic, grounded in the rule of law, should never succumb to such evil.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]At the very least we should all be able to agree that foreign aid to Pakistan needs to end immediately. The idea that bin Laden was safely protected for ten years in Pakistan, either willfully or through incompetence, should make us question the wisdom of robbing American citizens to support any government around the world with foreign aid. All foreign aid and intervention needs to end.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our failed foreign policy is reflected in our bizarre relationship with Pakistan. We bomb them with drones, causing hundreds of civilian casualties, we give them billions of dollars in foreign aid for the privilege to do so, all while they protect America's enemy number one for a decade.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is time to consider a sensible non-interventionist foreign policy as advised by our Founders and authorized by our Constitution. We would all be better off for it.[/FONT]

 

[BG1960]

That makes two Ron Paul posts that make me want to check him out.

To tell the truth, it's Ron Paul's rabid supporters that put me off of the guy up to this point.

 

[SiscoKid]

Sorry, but what Ron Paul says there is the main reason why he does not stand a chance. It panders to a certain fringe who believe we should bring every soldier home, blockade our East and West coasts, and crawl under our beds. Like it or not, we do live in a global society. We either function in the real world, or we isolate ourselves from the real world.

I recently saw a slide show of a local guy who spent a year in Afghanistan. These were photos of the actual people there. Outside of the major cities, they don't have running water or electricity. The new schools we have built don't have enough seats for all the kids, some are taught outside on the ground. To say they are primitive is an understatement.

When we leave, the Taliban will return to UNDO all the good we have done. Once again the kids will be taught the evils of America, as they toss out the school books and bring in Korans.

Believe it or not, Iraq was a quagmire before we invaded. The people lived in fear as many relatives were plucked from their homes in the middle of the night, to never be seen again. Removing Saddam has long term effects that will bring benefits for years to come. If Saddam had finally acquired the ways and means to nuke Israel, we would have been in WWIII.

The world changes every day. After the initial taking of Iraq, we had to adapt to a different war. Wars are no longer fought with soldiers in red marching down a street beating drums. Now it's IED's and electronics, even with the most primitive fighters. We must learn to fight the new wars. This involves getting the support of the people, and protecting them in the process.

This is, after all, the 21st Century.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Sisco, none of this is new. This exact same debate has been around since we founded the US.

No one is hiding under their beds, and if you think it's isolationism you need to study the subject more. The position is just to engage in trade with countries instead of trying to control them. This requires a certain level of Naval and Military cooperation to keep shipping lanes open, yes; but it doesn't require having bases all over the world, financially supporting other countries or subsidizing their military, putting our people in harms way for some foreign country, etc.

If you're interested in understanding why non-intervention is not isolationism click here...
Exposing the True Isolationists by Ron Paul

or



Wait for the very end when he's taking pictures..."Are you from Austin? Yeah, but I went to A&M. Oh, well Ok then." LOL

 

[Rum Runner]

It panders to a certain fringe who believe we should bring every soldier home, blockade our East and West coasts, and crawl under our beds. Like it or not, we do live in a global society. We either function in the real world, or we isolate ourselves from the real world.

Bringing our soldiers home and strengthening our borders has nothing to do with the implied cowardice of "crawling under our beds". If we can't function in the "real world" without having to be the police of the world and sticking our nose into everyone's business, then that is even more of an argument to pull back.

Involvement in Libya is a joke, Iraq was a mistake, Afghanistan was well intentioned but suffered from mission creep and probably could have been executed better without invading. That mind frame isn't "fringe" or cowardice.

 

[Shooterman]

So I guess you guys like Traildust are the kind of good men who understand what's going on and see what's wrong but will sit back and do nothing while evil destroys the country because, well... "he doesn't have a chance" or "big money will sweep him away".
That kind of attitude is exactly why we are in this mess. Where do those ideas come from? The news media and Obamacrats just love you to think that way.
Zembonez, Obama sure thinks he is the King. He's getting away with ruling by decree. By his own decision he can start wars and kill or imprison without trial any American citizen anywhere.
Ron Paul doesn't want to be King. He leads by example, and his allegiance is to the Constitution. Ron Paul can't make any changes for the better by himself. He needs our muscle to help him do that.

But, but, but, he is a ____________.

Fill in the blank;

Hater of the military

Isolationist

Racist

Hypocrite

The Keebler Elf

All of the above

Roll your own.

Then it follows that the speaker would rather have_______________

Fill in the blank

A pretty face and shallow mind

Someone that loves the FED

A nice hair do

A bad hair do

A proponent of nation building that spreads democracy at the point of a gun

All of the above

Roll your own.

 

[biglucky]

But, but, but, he is a The Keebler Elf_.

Fill in the blank;

Hater of the military

Isolationist

Racist

Hypocrite

The Keebler Elf

All of the above

OMG I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one....

Can't we all just get along.... or not...

I also think that RP's biggest downfall is his foreign policy ideas. I say Isolationism you say Non-Interference.. I say Potato you say Potahtoe..... I say 6 you say a half dozen......... The fact of the matter is the stuff we often need is in control of people who would rather kill us and blow up our stuff than give us what we need.. so we in turn must kill them and blow up their stuff to get it.... Such is the way of the real world....

Libya is a joke. Iraq was a necessary and just war, we should have just started getting the Iraqi's to pay for us to be here about 3 or 4 years ago with their oil money... or with crude oil either one.... Afghanistan is a goat screw because of the fact that the place is so backwards... When we leave it will be a radical muslim goat screw again in under a year I bet....

The world is going to hell in a hand cart... we must do what we can... defund the UN and the IMF. Practice some what have you done for us lately policies for the doling out of funds.... Free trade is great if we can get the other side to agree to it also.....

Anyway.. let the thread roll on as I know it will with the RP fans trying to convince us he has a snowballs chance in hell and the rest of us hoping that a good candidate will emerge from the chaff....

 

[Shooterman]

Sorry, but what Ron Paul says there is the main reason why he does not stand a chance. It panders to a certain fringe who believe we should bring every soldier home, blockade our East and West coasts, and crawl under our beds. Like it or not, we do live in a global society. We either function in the real world, or we isolate ourselves from the real world.

I recently saw a slide show of a local guy who spent a year in Afghanistan. These were photos of the actual people there. Outside of the major cities, they don't have running water or electricity. The new schools we have built don't have enough seats for all the kids, some are taught outside on the ground. To say they are primitive is an understatement.

When we leave, the Taliban will return to UNDO all the good we have done. Once again the kids will be taught the evils of America, as they toss out the school books and bring in Korans.

Believe it or not, Iraq was a quagmire before we invaded. The people lived in fear as many relatives were plucked from their homes in the middle of the night, to never be seen again. Removing Saddam has long term effects that will bring benefits for years to come. If Saddam had finally acquired the ways and means to nuke Israel, we would have been in WWIII.

The world changes every day. After the initial taking of Iraq, we had to adapt to a different war. Wars are no longer fought with soldiers in red marching down a street beating drums. Now it's IED's and electronics, even with the most primitive fighters. We must learn to fight the new wars. This involves getting the support of the people, and protecting them in the process.

This is, after all, the 21st Century.

You know, Sisco, my friend, we've known each other a long time. We fought libs together on the old Projo board. We've killed paper targets together on more than one occasion. I am on this forum because of you. We exchange emails regularly.

Somehow, my friend I would never have figured you to be a one worlder nor an advocate of ignoring the Constitution.

Was McKinley right in getting us into the Spanish-American War?

Was Woody Wilson right in getting us into WWI?

Was Truman right in getting us into Korea?

Was LBJ right in getting us into 'Nam? ( I know Ike sent VMAGS but LBJ expanded on Kennedy's war.

Ultimately they were all to spread democracy, kill the bad boys, and make the world safe for us. Maybe other reasons were given, but basically those were the ultimate reasons. Oh, and we did a shit pot full of nation building in the process. Did and/or does anyone give a shit or care about the untold dead and maimed soldiers we sacrificed?

Where will this shit end if we continue down the same paths we have trod before?

When did the PUBS become the numero uno War Party supplanting the DIMS?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I also think that RP's biggest downfall is his foreign policy ideas. I say Isolationism you say Non-Interference.. I say Potato you say Potahtoe..... I say 6 you say a half dozen......... The fact of the matter is the stuff we often need is in control of people who would rather kill us and blow up our stuff than give us what we need.. so we in turn must kill them and blow up their stuff to get it.... Such is the way of the real world....

Cause we got tons of oil from Iraq and Afghanistan flowing in now, right?

If I was going to advocate empire I'd at least do it in an effective fashion. Invade Saudi and help Israel take over the Northern half of the peninsula as our security buffer, enslave or exile the people, take over the oil, and ship it back to the US. At least that's a plan that makes financial sense.

 

[Clockwork]

Sorry, but what Ron Paul says there is the main reason why he does not stand a chance. It panders to a certain fringe who believe we should bring every soldier home, blockade our East and West coasts, and crawl under our beds. Like it or not, we do live in a global society. We either function in the real world, or we isolate ourselves from the real world.

I recently saw a slide show of a local guy who spent a year in Afghanistan. These were photos of the actual people there. Outside of the major cities, they don't have running water or electricity. The new schools we have built don't have enough seats for all the kids, some are taught outside on the ground. To say they are primitive is an understatement.

When we leave, the Taliban will return to UNDO all the good we have done. Once again the kids will be taught the evils of America, as they toss out the school books and bring in Korans.

Believe it or not, Iraq was a quagmire before we invaded. The people lived in fear as many relatives were plucked from their homes in the middle of the night, to never be seen again. Removing Saddam has long term effects that will bring benefits for years to come. If Saddam had finally acquired the ways and means to nuke Israel, we would have been in WWIII.

The world changes every day. After the initial taking of Iraq, we had to adapt to a different war. Wars are no longer fought with soldiers in red marching down a street beating drums. Now it's IED's and electronics, even with the most primitive fighters. We must learn to fight the new wars. This involves getting the support of the people, and protecting them in the process.

This is, after all, the 21st Century.

Saddam would have more likely nuked Iran than Israel. A lot of Arabs actually hate Persians more than Jews but Iran and Iraq in particular have a long bloody history.

As to what Ron Paul says, why is it so inconvenient for you that someone out there is along the same line of thinking as the founding fathers of our country?

 

[SiscoKid]

Let's go back, not that far back, but to the 90's.

To a certain extent, General Slick Willie practiced selective isolationism. Actually, it was more cowardism. The other part of the world was trying to tell us something when they hit WTC One, Kobar Towers, Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. Backing up, it has been said that Bin Laden saw us crawl out of Mogadishu with our tails between our legs, and he surmised that we would faint at the sight of American blood. He was partly right, as long as there was a democrat in office.

Oh sure, Klinton sent missiles into Afghanistan, boombed Iraq, and bombed the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo. But these were only Powder Puffs to the terrorists. We were still drinking our beer, beating our chests, then cowering back to the safety of our brick homes. By 1997, KSM and Bin Laden had 9/11 in the planning stage.

It's always easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Sure, Tony Romo should NOT have thrown that last pass that was intercepted, he was stupid. I can say that after the final gun. But the minute those 19 Hijackers were aboard those planes on 9/11, it was too late to say, "Hey, Klinton SHOULD have gone into Afghanistan in the 90's".

Today we know what needs to be done, there is no going around it. We protect our interests here AND abroad. The minute we fly out of Afghanistan, there will be 50 teenagers come out of caves who will start measuring their shirt sizes for that electronic straight jacket.

 

[Rum Runner]

I can see that train of thought, but there is another. If you want to go a little further back...We created Bin Laden. We trained him, we supplied him, and everything was peachy while he was playing his part to help bankrupt the USSR. Same with Sadam when he was fighting Iran. Maybe if we hadn't stuck our nose into those and other hornets nests, then WTC One, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole would not have happened. In fact, if we practiced "Non-Intervention" more, some of these incidents couldn't have happend. Hard to bomb an embassy that does not exist. Where was the Cole when it was attacked? Were the Khobar Towers located in the US? And maybe by not spreading our military all over the planet, we might have prevented the first WTC bombing.

Just some counterpoint. Again, choosing not to stick your nose in the business of others does not equate to cowardice.

 

[Clockwork]

choosing not to stick your nose in the business of others does not equate to cowardice.

This.

 

[leonidas]

I can see that train of thought, but there is another. If you want to go a little further back...We created Bin Laden. We trained him, we supplied him, and everything was peachy while he was playing his part to help bankrupt the USSR. Same with Sadam when he was fighting Iran. Maybe if we hadn't stuck our nose into those and other hornets nests, then WTC One, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole would not have happened. In fact, if we practiced "Non-Intervention" more, some of these incidents couldn't have happend. Hard to bomb an embassy that does not exist. Where was the Cole when it was attacked? Were the Khobar Towers located in the US? And maybe by not spreading our military all over the planet, we might have prevented the first WTC bombing.

Just some counterpoint. Again, choosing not to stick your nose in the business of others does not equate to cowardice.

Damn it, Rummy! Quit using the big picture to enlighten the situation, it messes up our miopia!

 

[Shooterman]

OMG I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one....

The fact of the matter is the stuff we often need is in control of people who would rather kill us and blow up our stuff than give us what we need.. so we in turn must kill them and blow up their stuff to get it.... Such is the way of the real world....

Let's take this to a natural conclusion, Big L, with all due respect.

People won't give us what we need, so we must kill them to get what we need and want.

Criminals do the same thing. If we don't give them what they need or want, they will kill us and take it.

Are we no better than criminals?

Anyway.. let the thread roll on as I know it will with the RP fans trying to convince us he has a snowballs chance in hell and the rest of us hoping that a good candidate will emerge from the chaff....

Try this for size; he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, so we will elect another compassionate conservative ( God help us ) take another royal screwing, or elect Obambam again and really take a screwing.

Not one of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, has the potential to get us out of this crap we're in.

 

[biglucky]

Let's take this to a natural conclusion, Big L, with all due respect.

People won't give us what we need, so we must kill them to get what we need and want.

Criminals do the same thing. If we don't give them what they need or want, they will kill us and take it.

Are we no better than criminals?



Try this for size; he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell, so we will elect another compassionate conservative ( God help us ) take another royal screwing, or elect Obambam again and really take a screwing.

Not one of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, has the potential to get us out of this crap we're in.

Well Shooterman... even if I had said that they would rather kill us and blow up our stuff than SELL us what we need, and when we did buy it they would use the money to finance the killing us and blowing up our stuff part, it would still be an accurate statement.

As for RP, if he gets the nomination I will vote for him, with the same bad taste in my mouth that I voted for McLame and expect that Chairman Maobama will still be put in power by the sheeple because too much of the (R)epublican base will not show up to vote for RP.

It is pretty sad because I agree with about 85% of what RP says, just that 15% would ruin us as surely as Maobama is ruining us....

I am a constitutional conservative with libertarian leanings... I believe in a small federal government that deals with foreign affairs, defense of the national interest, and foreign commerce. I however believe that defense of the national interest includes doing what we need to do to protect our interests overseas as much as within our borders. I believe that maintaining our military as it is today is within the enumerated powers and duty of the federal government, including maintaining forces and bases overseas to be able to respond to attacks on our national interest overseas.

We need our allies. But by that I mean our real allies.. the brits, Israel, much of eastern europe to name a few, and we must understand that anything that threatens our allies inherently threatens our own national interest. We don't need the united nations and should withdraw our time and money from it...

 

[Wolfwood]

Today we know what needs to be done, there is no going around it. We protect our interests here AND abroad. The minute we fly out of Afghanistan, there will be 50 teenagers come out of caves who will start measuring their shirt sizes for that electronic straight jacket.

lol