Ron Paul, Floor Speech on Syria June 19 2012 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul, Floor Speech on Syria June 19 2012


Ringo S.
06-24-2012, 19:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rCvfwoRGMg&feature=player_embedded#!

The Machinist
06-24-2012, 19:32
Very well-said. Of course, we'll get the guys who think some yet to be named country will kick our teeth in, the moment we stop intervening in the affairs of the entire globe.

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 19:33
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

No applause, no boos, no heckling, no coughs, not even a hiccup or a burp from the empty chamber.

Good job on muffling the echoes from all of the empty chairs, because the real congressmen were busy working elsewhere. Even the crickets were asleep.


http://www.house.gov/legislative/date/2012-06-19

House of Representatives Schedule

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Hearing: Hearing entitled “Examining Bank Supervision and Risk Management in Light of JPMorgan Chase’s Trading Loss”

9:30 AM | 2128 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Financial Services | Full Committee

Hearing: The American Energy Initiative. The focus will be on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations

9:45 AM | 2123 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Energy and Commerce | Subcommittee on Energy and Power

Hearing: Sitting on Our Assets: The Georgetown Hearing Plant

10:00 AM | Georgetown Heating Plant 1051 29th St., NW, Washington, DC 20007
Host: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure | Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management

Hearing: Chairman Herger Announces Hearing on MedPAC’s June Report to Congress

10:00 AM
Host: Committee on Ways and Means | Health

Hearing: Best Practices in Transforming Research into Innovation: Creative Approaches to the Bayh-Dole Act

10:00 AM | 2318 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Science, Space, and Technology | Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

Hearing: Oversight Hearing on "Taxpayer-Funded Litigation: Benefitting Lawyers and Harming Species, Jobs and Schools"

10:00 AM | 1324 Longworth House Office Building
Host: Committee on Natural Resources | Full Committee

Hearing: Border Security Threats to the Homeland: DHS' Response to Innovative Tactics and Techniques

10:00 AM | 311 Cannon HOB
Host: Committee on Homeland Security | Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security

Hearing: New Technologies and Innovations in the Mobile and Online space, and the Implications for Public Policy

10:00 AM | 2141 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on the Judiciary | Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet

Hearing: The Obama Administration's Green Energy Gamble Part II: Were All the Taxpayer Subsidies Necessary?

10:00 AM | 2154 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform | Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending

Hearing: The Federal Green Jobs Agenda.

10:15 AM | 2322 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Energy and Commerce | Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Markup: Full Committee Mark Up - FY 2013 Agriculture and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Bills

10:15 AM | 2359 Rayburn
Host: Committee on Appropriations | Multiple Subcommittees

Business Meeting: Business meeting to approve the Activities Report for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

10:30 AM | 334 Cannon HOB
Host: Committee on Veterans' Affairs | Full Committee

Hearing: Reclaiming the Process: Examining the VBA Claims Transformation Plan as a Means to Effectively Serve our Veterans

10:30 AM | 334 Cannon HOB
Host: Committee on Veterans' Affairs | Full Committee

Markup: Activities and Summary Report of the Committee on the Budget

11:30 AM | 210 Cannon HOB
Host: Committee On The Budget | Full Committee

Markup: H.R. 4959, the FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012

1:00 PM | 2141 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on the Judiciary | Full Committee

Hearing: Is TSA's Planned Purchase of CAT-BPSS a Wise Use of Taxpayer Dollars?

1:30 PM | 311 Cannon HOB
Host: Committee on Homeland Security | Subcommittee on Transportation Security

Hearing: The Science of How Hunting Assists Species Conservation and Management

2:00 PM | 2318 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Science, Space, and Technology | Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

Hearing: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2706, H.R. 3472 and H.R. 4100

2:00 PM | 1324 Longworth House Office Building
Host: Committee on Natural Resources | Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

Hearing: The Economic Impact of Ending or Reducing Funding for the American Community Survey and other Government Statistics

2:30 PM | 210 Cannon HOB
Host: Joint Economic Committee | Full Committee

Hearing: H.R. 4480 - Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012

3:00 PM | H-313 Capitol
Host: Committee on Rules | Full Committee

Markup: H.R. 5859, H.R. 5865, H.R. 4273, H.R. 5892, H. Con. Res. 127, and Semi-Annual Committee Activity Report

4:00 PM | 2123 Rayburn HOB
Host: Committee on Energy and Commerce | Full Committee


:yawn:



http://i48.tinypic.com/105pdna.jpg

Nice shoes, Doc!.......:animlol:

hogfish
06-24-2012, 19:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rCvfwoRGMg&feature=player_embedded#!


Talking crazyness, as usual. He even criticizes the actions of BOTH republicans and democrats! He's got to pick a side: conservative or progressive. He's either with us, or against us...or with them, or against them...or, well...
I'll listen to it again to see if I can find anything else wrong...because it makes too much sense to be right.

:winkie:

Ringo S.
06-24-2012, 23:29
No applause, no boos, no heckling, no coughs, not even a hiccup or a burp from the empty chamber.

Nice shoes, Doc!.......:animlol:
1936 NEWS: EMPEROR HAILE SELASSIE OF ETHIOPIA ADDRESSES LEAGUE OF NATIONS - YouTube
Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia did got applause, heckling and maybe even hiccups, during his address in League of Nations, but probably, same as Ron Paul speech, nobody wanted to hear it. And we all know the rest of the story...

ChuteTheMall
06-24-2012, 23:58
No comparison between the success of a leader who ruled his country as Regent and then Emperor for 58 years, from 1916 to 1974, and a career congressman who never led anything more than a couple of failed national campaigns.

Well, except for the part about stoned Rastafarians worshipping Haile Selassie as their messiah, and Ronulans.....well, you know.

:rofl:

TBO
06-25-2012, 00:12
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there....... what happens to all the nuts?

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 05:13
And it all comes back to those wascally neocons. :rofl: He is a parody of himself. "Peace, trade and friendship." Yep, that's the answer to all our foreign policy problems. What a dope.

hogfish
06-25-2012, 05:54
And it all comes back to those wascally neocons. :rofl: He is a parody of himself. "Peace, trade and friendship." Yep, that's the answer to all our foreign policy problems. What a dope.

I know what you mean. Things are going beautifully the way we've been dealing with things the last few decades.
:upeyes:

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 06:19
And it all comes back to those wascally neocons. :rofl: He is a parody of himself. "Peace, trade and friendship." Yep, that's the answer to all our foreign policy problems. What a dope.
Our policy of losing fights and getting Americans killed for no reason is much better than what Ron Paul suggests.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 06:38
I know what you mean. Things are going beautifully the way we've been dealing with things the last few decades.
:upeyes:

Our policy of losing fights and getting Americans killed for no reason is much better than what Ron Paul suggests.

Yep, thatís right. Weíve never, ever tried diplomacy and sanctions to effect change in the international community. We always, immediately resort to military action without even trying another approach. Ever. :upeyes:

And we sure did try to control Iraqís oil, just like we controlled Kuwaitís oil after the first Gulf War. Thatís what itís all been about, control of the oil by the greedy neojews, I mean neocons. And now we own Iraq and control all of its vast oil reserves. Sure.

Ron Paulís ideas only sound logical if you ignore history and accept all his premises about what has been tried in the past. It works on the ignorant and naÔve, but not on people with a historical perspective. Sorry to disappoint you Paulistas but you need to read more.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 06:43
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there....... what happens to all the nuts?

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

They scatter?

Snowman92D
06-25-2012, 06:56
What a dope.

Be careful about saying the "D-word" in front of his supporters. They're touchy about that. :smoking:

hogfish
06-25-2012, 08:20
Yep, thatís right. Weíve never, ever tried diplomacy and sanctions to effect change in the international community. We always, immediately resort to military action without even trying another approach. Ever. :upeyes:

And we sure did try to control Iraqís oil, just like we controlled Kuwaitís oil after the first Gulf War. Thatís what itís all been about, control of the oil by the greedy neojews, I mean neocons. And now we own Iraq and control all of its vast oil reserves. Sure.

Ron Paulís ideas only sound logical if you ignore history and accept all his premises about what has been tried in the past. It works on the ignorant and naÔve, but not on people with a historical perspective. Sorry to disappoint you Paulistas but you need to read more.

History:
9/11;
We go to Afghanistan with a coalition to take care of those who attacked us;
We start the War On Terror with hopes of preventing islamic terrorism;
We go into Iraq with a 'coalition of the willing', and take our eye off the ball;
The damage is done, and hard line conservative islamists are getting stronger.

:sigh:

JBnTX
06-25-2012, 08:54
Who's Ron Paul?

Is he that liberaltarian guy who ran for president twice and was soundly rejected both times by the American voter?

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 09:58
Yep, thatís right. Weíve never, ever tried diplomacy and sanctions to effect change in the international community. We always, immediately resort to military action without even trying another approach. Ever. :upeyes:

And we sure did try to control Iraqís oil, just like we controlled Kuwaitís oil after the first Gulf War. Thatís what itís all been about, control of the oil by the greedy neojews, I mean neocons. And now we own Iraq and control all of its vast oil reserves. Sure.

Ron Paulís ideas only sound logical if you ignore history and accept all his premises about what has been tried in the past. It works on the ignorant and naÔve, but not on people with a historical perspective. Sorry to disappoint you Paulistas but you need to read more.
So why were we in Iraq in 2003? Why are we still in Afghanistan protecting their opium fields? How are America's interests served by bribing third-world savages and getting Americans killed in the process?

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 10:33
So why were we in Iraq in 2003? Why are we still in Afghanistan protecting their opium fields? How are America's interests served by bribing third-world savages and getting Americans killed in the process?

To enforce the 1991 cease fire agreement, to deny Saddam Hussein WMD (we found some, but never enough to convince the LIBs, some were allegedly removed before we got there) and to kill a BUNCH of jihad minded military aged males. To dispel the impression that unvited the 9/11 attacks, that we were a paper tiger. Those parts worked.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 10:52
Paul's neo-isolationist foreign policy is built on a fallacy, that if we leave other countries alone, they will return the favor. If you want to run a war like an accountant, we have all these nukes we've already paid for, that have a shelf life, and we have more than we need. Just use those to break an opponent, then leave it for their neighbors to pick the carcass clean.

It would be cheaper.

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 11:15
Who's Ron Paul?

Is he that liberaltarian guy who ran for president twice and was soundly rejected both times by the American voter?

More than twice; his make-believe presidential hoaxes go back at least to 1988 even if most of his childish followers don't.
:headscratch:

Gundude
06-25-2012, 12:27
To enforce the 1991 cease fire agreement, to deny Saddam Hussein WMD (we found some, but never enough to convince the LIBs, some were allegedly removed before we got there) and to kill a BUNCH of jihad minded military aged males. To dispel the impression that unvited the 9/11 attacks, that we were a paper tiger. Those parts worked.Good, as long as there are less than 19 jihad minded miltary aged males left in the world, we should be quite safe. And the minor side effect that the war shifted the balance of power in the region to Iran so that it could wildly accelerate its real WMD production isn't worth mentioning.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 12:48
History:
9/11;
We go to Afghanistan with a coalition to take care of those who attacked us;
We start the War On Terror with hopes of preventing islamic terrorism;
We go into Iraq with a 'coalition of the willing', and take our eye off the ball;
The damage is done, and hard line conservative islamists are getting stronger.

:sigh:

Whenever you go to war itís with a coalition of the willing.

Year after of ineffectual sanctions had failed to force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations weapons inspectors full and unfettered access into all of Iraqís suspected weapons sites. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them against Iran and he used them on his own people. So, it was perfectly reasonable, based on all the intelligence available, to believe Hussein had WMDs and was concealing them. President Bush stated quite clearly that, given Husseinís open hostility to the west, it was imprudent to wait and see what happens; such an approach would have risked thousands of lives.

If you donít remember, we offered to allow Hussein and his sons to leave in peace and live in exile, without us invading. Hussein refused. We attempted to induce the Iraqi military leadership to stage a coup to remove Hussein without us invading. They were unwilling or unable to do so.

Today, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do not live in constant fear of invasion by Iraqi forces and a brutal dictator as cruel as Adolf Hitler is dead, along with his sadistic sons. Regular Iraqis do not live in fear of a brutal regime that can and did routinely arrest and torture people for no reason. Good riddance.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 13:00
Today, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do not live in constant fear of invasion by Iraqi forces and a brutal dictator as cruel as Adolf Hitler is dead, along with his sadistic sons.Yeah, it would be terrible if the nation that sent us 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers had to worry about their neighbors.

It would be terrible if the epicenter of radical Islam had to worry about secular neighbors trying to invade.

TBO
06-25-2012, 13:16
They scatter?
:number1:

Kablam
06-25-2012, 13:31
Yeah, it would be terrible if the nation that sent us 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers had to worry about their neighbors.

I'm curious. Did the nation (government) of Saudi Arabia send them or did they just happen to be Saudi?

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 13:46
I'm curious. Did the nation (government) of Saudi Arabia send them or did they just happen to be Saudi?

Now, you know using fact isn't playing fair, don't you? How can they continue to make points with factoids taken out of context if you keep putting them in context.

For shame sir! :shame:


[/sarcasm]:supergrin:

Kablam
06-25-2012, 15:08
Sorry....lost my head. :whistling:

hogfish
06-25-2012, 15:24
Whenever you go to war itís with a coalition of the willing.

Year after of ineffectual sanctions had failed to force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations weapons inspectors full and unfettered access into all of Iraqís suspected weapons sites. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them against Iran and he used them on his own people. So, it was perfectly reasonable, based on all the intelligence available, to believe Hussein had WMDs and was concealing them. President Bush stated quite clearly that, given Husseinís open hostility to the west, it was imprudent to wait and see what happens; such an approach would have risked thousands of lives.

If you donít remember, we offered to allow Hussein and his sons to leave in peace and live in exile, without us invading. Hussein refused. We attempted to induce the Iraqi military leadership to stage a coup to remove Hussein without us invading. They were unwilling or unable to do so.

Today, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do not live in constant fear of invasion by Iraqi forces and a brutal dictator as cruel as Adolf Hitler is dead, along with his sadistic sons. Regular Iraqis do not live in fear of a brutal regime that can and did routinely arrest and torture people for no reason. Good riddance.

We took care of the threat to Kuwait and Saudi during the Gulf War. As far as the rest goes, you are right, IMO, but the timing was off. I believe that dedicating all our attention to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda, and the War On Terror, were the priorities.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 15:42
We took care of the threat to Kuwait and Saudi during the Gulf War. As far as the rest goes, you are right, IMO, but the timing was off. I believe that dedicating all our attention to Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda, and the War On Terror, were the priorities.

They were, and still are the top priority. However, Iraq was still a threat to its neighbors and nearby countries, and had used weapons of mass destruction before and stated it would use them again. As a threat to most of the Middle East, Iraq was also threat to the global economy. We saw the coalition of nations willing to maintain economic pressure on Iraq disintegrating, while thousands of Iraqis suffered and Saddam and his spawn lived like royalty. We dealt with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We removed the Taliban from power. The situations are not completely separate, and having a non-hostile Iraq not declaring war on the United States by trying to murder allied pilots every day is a plus.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 15:45
Yeah, it would be terrible if the nation that sent us 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers had to worry about their neighbors.

It would be terrible if the epicenter of radical Islam had to worry about secular neighbors trying to invade.

Sure, no hitler secular stalin country mao ever did anything bad castro to a neighboring kim il sung country. Nothing to see here. Move along. :faint:

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 15:51
Sure, no hitler secular stalin country mao ever did anything bad castro to a neighboring kim il sung country. Nothing to see here. Move along. :faint:
Great drunk posting there.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 15:57
Great drunk posting there.

I wouldn't expect you to understand it. Keep shilling for that dope Ron Paul.

countrygun
06-25-2012, 16:05
I know what you mean. Things are going beautifully the way we've been dealing with things the last few decades.
:upeyes:


It is quite a simple and intellectualy flaccid tactic to point at problems with current methods of international relations. There will ALWAYS be problems. to try and suggest that a "new way" will be trouble free is at best, idealistic pipe dreaming. Cogent and coherent people know problems will always exist and that our current policies, while not always providing perfect results, are working in the best interest of the Country. The potential problems of failure in Ron Paul's world are simply huge and unacceptable. He would bet the farm on a turn of the cards and it isn't even his deck.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 16:44
I'm curious. Did the nation (government) of Saudi Arabia send them or did they just happen to be Saudi?They didn't "just happen" to be Saudi. That's a ridiculous notion.

The nation (government) of Saudi Arabia insists on radical Islamism from all its subjects. They are taught (by the government) from birth to hate us infidels.

When you resort to defending Saudi Arabia, you're losing your mind.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 16:45
Sorry....lost my head. :whistling:See?...

Gundude
06-25-2012, 16:46
Now, you know using fact isn't playing fair, don't you? How can they continue to make points with factoids taken out of context if you keep putting them in context.

For shame sir! :shame:


[/sarcasm]:supergrin:The "factoid" that most 9-11 attackers were Saudi is "taken out of context"? :rofl:

Do you actually read what you type?

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 16:49
They didn't "just happen" to be Saudi. That's a ridiculous notion.

The nation (government) of Saudi Arabia insists on radical Islamism from all its subjects. They are taught (by the government) from birth to hate us infidels.

When you resort to defending Saudi Arabia, you're losing your mind.

Well then, isn't it amazing that only fifteen Saudis attacked us? I mean, the whole country is crawling with American infidels and yet attacks are very rare.

Now, if you've got evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia "sent" (your term) the hijackers, I'd like to see it.

I'll wait. :popcorn:

When you resort to defending Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you're losing your mind. :rofl:

Gundude
06-25-2012, 17:00
Well then, isn't it amazing that only fifteen Saudis attacked us? I mean, the whole country is crawling with American infidels and yet attacks are very rare.This gets funnier every minute. Since only 19 muslims attacked us, they really aren't as much of a threat as is put forth, correct? :rofl: Terrorism is not an issue at all, by your reasoning, given the very tiny chances of actually getting attacked.

Now, if you've got evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia "sent" (your term) the hijackers, I'd like to see it.There is no evidence they did (or didn't) send them. But they're the #1 purveyors of the ideology they attacked us under. They don't just espouse it, they force it on their people through threat of imprisonment and violence.

When you resort to defending Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you're losing your mind. :rofl:Where did I defend Ahmadinejad. The US supported Saddam Hussein because of the threat Iran posed. How is it that we are now able to get rid of him and Iran will magically not be a problem?

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 17:00
The "factoid" that most 9-11 attackers were Saudi is "taken out of context"? :rofl:

Do you actually read what you type?

Yes, actually it is. Were they funded and sanctioned by the Saudi Government? Nope. Kinda kills any act of war against them as retaliation. Now, Saddam on the other hand, gave us a perfect opportunity. In a post 9/11 world, he bluffed the world intel agencies into thinking he had large stockpiles of WMD, fired on American aircraft, and violated the 1991 cease fire agreement. So we went there and toppled his regime, found the WMD that had not been secreted out of the country, and stuck around to kill tens of thousands of jihad minded military age males from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan, Yemen, UAE etc. Location location location. Afghanistan was where the attack was planned, so we went there too. But if you know anything about the region, you'd know that Sunni AQ guys weren't very likely to drive across Iran to get to the disorganized and poorly prepared American forces in the area. Turns out, we weren't so poorly prepared or disorganized as they thought. I was there 2004/5, and had no clue we were doing so bad until after I got home. The actual intel and incident reports were contrary to what was being presented by the Libtard congresscritters and the MSM. What we had there was a well oiled meat grinder, and the ratios were not what you'd think they were if you were watching American news channels.

Every American death there is an absolute tragedy for an American family, and that is significant. But if you look at the operation as a whole, with the amount of exposure we had, force protection of the American forces was a resounding success. Try looking up some of the casualty rates for the Civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Compare them.

Talk to a few more field grade officers or Senior NCO's that were there.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 17:10
This gets funnier every minute. Since only 19 muslims attacked us, they really aren't as much of a threat as is put forth, correct? :rofl: Terrorism is not an issue at all, by your reasoning, given the very tiny chances of actually getting attacked.

Your mental gymnastics are amuzing to say the least. You claimed that Saudi Arabia "sent" the hijackers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is an act of war justifying immediate response by our military on all Saudi sites. So, that's quite a claim you made. Let's back it up. :popcorn:

There is no evidence they did (or didn't) send them. But they're the #1 purveyors of the ideology they attacked us under. They don't just espouse it, they force it on their people through threat of imprisonment and violence.

That is a cop-out. You can't prove a negative, but you made a claim. Back it up. Our intelligence services did not point to the Saudi government being behind the attacks. You have evidence otherwise, and I'd like to see it. Teaching radical Islam does not guarantee that people will respond by attacking the United States. If it did, wouldn't we be justified in attacking countries preemptively that teach radical Islam? By your own logic, you are justifying an attack on Iran.

Where did I defend Ahmadinejad. The US supported Saddam Hussein because of the threat Iran posed. How is it that we are now able to get rid of him and Iran will magically not be a problem?

By pretending that peace, love and understanding will change how Iran views the United States, you are enabling Ahmadinejad. Iran has been a problem since 1979. Iran attacked the United States and kidnapped dozens of American citizens without repercussions.

Halfhearted support for dictators based on an assessment of the lesser of two evils and larger geopolitical considerations is sometimes necessary. See our support for Stalin if you need some historical perspective. It far exceeded our support for Saddam Hussein, and Stalin murdered far more people.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 17:16
Yes, actually it is. Were they funded and sanctioned by the Saudi Government? Nope. Kinda kills any act of war against them as retaliation.They didn't attack in the name of the Saudi Government, they attacked in the name of the ideology the Saudi Government forced upon them from birth.

The reason we didn't retaliate against them is we can't retaliate against them. Too much of the world depends on them.

When you resort to defending Saudi to justify a fraudulent war, the fraud becomes all too clear.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 17:21
They didn't attack in the name of the Saudi Government, they attacked in the name of the ideology the Saudi Government forced upon them from birth.

Do you seriously believe that only a particular Islamic ideology taught in some radical Saudi schools justifies attacks on and endless war with infidels? I am trying to understand where you're coming from. Really.

hogfish
06-25-2012, 17:22
It is quite a simple and intellectualy flaccid tactic to point at problems with current methods of international relations. There will ALWAYS be problems. to try and suggest that a "new way" will be trouble free is at best, idealistic pipe dreaming. Cogent and coherent people know problems will always exist and that our current policies, while not always providing perfect results, are working in the best interest of the Country. The potential problems of failure in Ron Paul's world are simply huge and unacceptable. He would bet the farm on a turn of the cards and it isn't even his deck.

"There will ALWAYS be problems." That's a good one.
"To try and suggest that a "new way"...Dude!?
"...our current policies, ...are working..." Talk about idealistic pipe dreaming.
You are some prognosticator!
:upeyes:

Kablam
06-25-2012, 17:26
Speaking for myself, I was not defending Saudi Arabia. I was legitimately asking if you were asserting that the 9/11 Saudi Arabian terrorists were actually acting as agents the Saudi goverrnment.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 17:34
They didn't attack in the name of the Saudi Government, they attacked in the name of the ideology the Saudi Government forced upon them from birth.

The reason we didn't retaliate against them is we can't retaliate against them. Too much of the world depends on them.

When you resort to defending Saudi to justify a fraudulent war, the fraud becomes all too clear.

Ever lost a friend or friends to the islamic jihad, I have.

I'm OK if we nuke Mecca and the next ten prominent Islamic Holy cities...... Are you?

If they want a holy war, why not give it to them?

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/middle-finger-of-the-apocalypse.jpg

The only thing that truly holds me back, is the amount of collateral damage. I really don't like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

So, how would you fight islamic jihad?

Gundude
06-25-2012, 17:37
Your mental gymnastics are amuzing to say the least. You claimed that Saudi Arabia "sent" the hijackers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That is an act of war justifying immediate response by our military on all Saudi sites. So, that's quite a claim you made. Let's back it up. :popcorn:

That is a cop-out. You can't prove a negative, but you made a claim. Back it up. Our intelligence services did not point to the Saudi government being behind the attacks.I never said the Saudi government sent them. If you need to focus on a word like "sent" to make your point, it's already weak. You might as well focus on what the meaning of the word "is" is. The attackers came from Saudi Arabia, and they came from there because the ideology that particular government forces them to hold motivated them to attack. Better?

Teaching radical Islam does not guarantee that people will respond by attacking the United States. If it did, wouldn't we be justified in attacking countries preemptively that teach radical Islam? By your own logic, you are justifying an attack on Iran.Attacking either Saudi or Iran would logically make 100 times more sense than attacking Iraq, based on their threat of Islamic extremism. Realistically, of course, it would be suicidal. Nobody cares about Iraq or Afghanistan, but touch Saudi Arabia or Iran and it's World War III. That only goes to show the folly of a War On Terrorism where the main players can't be touched.

By pretending that peace, love and understanding will change how Iran views the United States, you are enabling Ahmadinejad. Iran has been a problem since 1979. Iran attacked the United States and kidnapped dozens of American citizens without repercussions.

Halfhearted support for dictators based on an assessment of the lesser of two evils and larger geopolitical considerations is sometimes necessary. See our support for Stalin if you need some historical perspective. It far exceeded our support for Saddam Hussein, and Stalin murdered far more people.You're attributing to me the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Why is that? Ahmadinejad is a threat and Saddam Hussein was actually helpful in mitigating that threat. The fact that he sometimes tortured and killed "innocent" Iraqis along with the tons of Islamic extremists he killed and regularly threatened put him in the category of a necessary evil, and throwing him out because he claimed to still have the WMDs we gave him was counterproductive to our goals with respect to Iran.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 17:39
Ever lost a friend or friends to the islamic jihad, I have.

I'm OK if we nuke Mecca and the next ten prominent Islamic Holy cities...... Are you?In theory, yes. In practice, of course, I know it's not an option.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 18:04
In theory, yes. In practice, of course, I know it's not an option.


It actually is an option. Really. I honestly hope we never get to the point where that sounds reasonable.

It could happen though.

We live in interesting times.

countrygun
06-25-2012, 18:08
"There will ALWAYS be problems." That's a good one.
"To try and suggest that a "new way"...Dude!?
"...our current policies, ...are working..." Talk about idealistic pipe dreaming.
You are some prognosticator!
:upeyes:


Well if you think that RP has a plan that will render problems a thing of the past, then I am afraid you are unreachable. Sorry

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 18:23
I wouldn't expect you to understand it. Keep shilling for that dope Ron Paul.
You shouldn't expect anyone to understand. Your grasp of English is pitiful.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 18:27
You shouldn't expect anyone to understand. Your grasp of English is pitiful.

http://badbreeders.net/wp-content/images/Grammar_Nazis____The_Motivator_by_ZlayaHozyayka.jpg

GTFOI

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 18:27
I wonder how much neocon weeping there will be, when the US is no longer able to police the world. The day is coming when the money stops flowing, the bases close down, and most of the CIA gets laid off.

All the opium in Afghanistan, that our Army is still protecting, won't be able to pay for this ceaseless nation-building mission we've embarked on.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 18:29
I wonder how much neocon weeping there will be, when the US is no longer able to police the world. The day is coming when the money stops flowing, the bases close down, and most of the CIA gets laid off.

All the opium in Afghanistan, that our Army is still protecting, won't be able to pay for this ceaseless nation-building mission we've embarked on.

Hopeful schadenfreude duly noted.

I agree that we need to change some in our strategy. Break them and leave them for their neighbors to pick the carcass clean. After a few times, that will work rather well.

PawDog
06-25-2012, 18:33
I wonder how much neocon weeping there will be, when the US is no longer able to police the world. The day is coming when the money stops flowing, the bases close down, and most of the CIA gets laid off.

All the opium in Afghanistan, that our Army is still protecting, won't be able to pay for this ceaseless nation-building mission we've embarked on.

Thanks for yet another Paulatarian propaganda tidbit cut and pasted straight from the "DailyPaul.com" website for continuing the hand-wringing, opinionated diatribes of BS....:rofl:

http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/tinfoilhat.jpg

hogfish
06-25-2012, 18:39
Well if you think that RP has a plan that will render problems a thing of the past, then I am afraid you are unreachable. Sorry

Stop making stuff up. I never said RP was magic. I thought you were going to come up with some magisterial thoughts after reading the 1st line of your previous post and, instead, you came up with some pretty feeble stuff. I've never been one who can put his thoughts into words very well, but if you are going to call someone else's arguement weak, you better come up with some good, concrete rebuttal.
Where did you come up with: "There will ALWAYS be problems."?

:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 18:41
Stop making stuff up. I never said RP was magic. I thought you were going to come up with some magisterial thoughts after reading the 1st line of your previous post and, instead, you came up with some pretty feeble stuff. I've never been one who can put his thoughts into words very well, but if you are going to call someone else's arguement weak, you better come up with some good, concrete rebuttal.
Where did you come up with: "There will ALWAYS be problems."?

:rofl:



If there is one certainty in the existence of humanity, it will be that we live in interesting times.

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 18:42
Thanks for yet another Paulatarian propaganda tidbit cut and pasted straight from the "DailyPaul.com" website for continuing the hand-wringing, opinionated diatribes of BS....
You go run along and vote for one of the liberals running this November. Don't forget to beat your chest and remind us all what a conservative you are. :rofl:

countrygun
06-25-2012, 18:45
Stop making stuff up. I never said RP was magic. I thought you were going to come up with some magisterial thoughts after reading the 1st line of your previous post and, instead, you came up with some pretty feeble stuff. I've never been one who can put his thoughts into words very well, but if you are going to call someone else's arguement weak, you better come up with some good, concrete rebuttal.
Where did you come up with: "There will ALWAYS be problems."?

:rofl:


I found your quoting partial sentences and fragments of my post highly amusing.

I am sorry if I misjudged you level of comprehension, I really thought you needed that fact pointed out. I think it was an honest mistake given the simplistic nature of your post, which I was responding to.

If you wish to focus on that one sentence, which seems to hold your interest quite completely, well, feel free, and don't say I never gave you anything.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 18:45
You go run along and vote for one of the liberals running this November. Don't forget to beat your chest and remind us all what a conservative you are. :rofl:

One of the two that will win is the most conservative. Which one do you think it is?

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 18:57
One of the two that will win is the most conservative. Which one do you think it is?
No, one is not more conservative. One is less brazen about his liberal ideology. Regardless of which progressive wins, America still loses. More debt, more open borders, more blah, blah, blah. Nothing changes. It'll just be more of the same failed policies that have already doomed this country.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 19:09
No, one is not more conservative. One is less brazen about his liberal ideology. Regardless of which progressive wins, America still loses. More debt, more open borders, more blah, blah, blah. Nothing changes. It'll just be more of the same failed policies that have already doomed this country.

No two humans is exactly alike. That is a demonstrable fact.


One would be better, one would be worse. If it were only the two of them in the runningand Ron Paul had never existed, and I'm not asking you to vote for them, but if you had too, who would be the best for America?

Barry or Mittens, one is better than the other, which one is it?

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 19:46
No two humans is exactly alike. That is a demonstrable fact.


One would be better, one would be worse. If it were only the two of them in the runningand Ron Paul had never existed, and I'm not asking you to vote for them, but if you had too, who would be the best for America?

Barry or Mittens, one is better than the other, which one is it?

Forget him, Doc.
He hates America and especially 99% of the American voters who repeatedly reject his lunatic fringe fantasies.

He can't make an honest choice given two actual options.
If you force him to flip a coin, he will whine and keep trying until it lands on it's edge.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 19:52
Yeah, it would be terrible if the nation that sent us 15 of the 19 Sept 11 hijackers had to worry about their neighbors.

Sent. Your term. You can't hide from your own words. I suggest you do a bit more research into the radicalization of the hijackers, including their time in Germany.

I also suggest you do a bit of research into the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which you and Ron Paul apparently believe pose no threat to anyone in the West, as long as we leave them alone.

I won't bother dealing with the rest of your long-winded posts until you provide proof that the hijackers were sent by the nation of Saudi Arabia.

fortyofforty
06-25-2012, 19:56
Either Ron Paul is a lying demagogue, or he is an idiot. Based on his presentation of history (usually to his adoring and unquestioning fan base), that is the only conclusion a reasonable, rational, intelligent person can draw. Simple choice. He is clearly one or the other. It doesn't really matter which it is, only that he won't be leading the country. Ever.

hogfish
06-25-2012, 20:04
If there is one certainty in the existence of humanity, it will be that we live in interesting times.


I missed your post. Not sure where you're coming from, but here you go. :supergrin:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of it's noisiest authorities insisted on it's being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." Dickens

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 20:07
No two humans is exactly alike. That is a demonstrable fact.


One would be better, one would be worse. If it were only the two of them in the runningand Ron Paul had never existed, and I'm not asking you to vote for them, but if you had too, who would be the best for America?

Barry or Mittens, one is better than the other, which one is it?

If I had to pick one to have a beer with, I'd go with Mittens. If someone held a gun to my head, and forced me to pick one, I'd say, "pull the trigger", but that wasn't your question. My first instinct would be Mittens, but if I picked Obama, he'd be done in four years, versus a potential eight with Romney. I'll go with Romney, in the context of your question.

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 20:10
Forget him, Doc.
He hates America and especially 99% of the American voters who repeatedly reject his lunatic fringe fantasies.

He can't make an honest choice given two actual options.
If you force him to flip a coin, he will whine and keep trying until it lands on it's edge.
How do you figure your love for America is greater than mine? Because you're voting for the status quo? Because you're voting to keep our behemoth government propped up?

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 20:18
If I had to pick one to have a beer with, I'd go with Mittens. If someone held a gun to my head, and forced me to pick one, I'd say, "pull the trigger", but that wasn't your question. My first instinct would be Mittens, but if I picked Obama, he'd be done in four years, versus a potential eight with Romney. I'll go with Romney, in the context of your question.

Rand is still out there. So are some other promising ladies and gentlemen. Romney might be done in 4. I sure hope so right now.

Cavalry Doc
06-25-2012, 20:20
How do you figure your love for America is greater than mine? Because you're voting for the status quo? Because you're voting to keep our behemoth government propped up?

Only those voting for Barry are voting for the status quo.

ChuteTheMall
06-25-2012, 20:21
If I had to pick one to have a beer with, I'd go with Mittens.

Another false choice!

As if you are the only one on this planet who is ignorant of the fact that Mitt Romney doesn't even drink beer.

:nutcheck:

countrygun
06-25-2012, 20:25
Only those voting for Barry are voting for the status quo.


I don't think some folks grasp the meaning of "status quo" they just think it is something bad they can accuse someone of voting for:whistling:

The Machinist
06-25-2012, 20:46
I don't think some folks grasp the meaning of "status quo" they just think it is something bad they can accuse someone of voting for:whistling:

By status quo, I mean a government that grows ever more invasive and pervasive. One that spends a trillion dollars more every year than it takes in. One that's bought and paid for by private banks.

The status quo is this government which engages in military conflicts all over the planet, with no discrete mission parameters, all the while leaving our borders largely unguarded, and encouraging illegal immigration.

These aren't trivialities that have no bearing in our day to day lives. We're all affected negatively by them, and even a dummy like me knows that neither Romney or Obama will work to change these things. You know it, too.

Gundude
06-25-2012, 23:05
Sent. Your term. You can't hide from your own words. I suggest you do a bit more research into the radicalization of the hijackers, including their time in Germany.

I also suggest you do a bit of research into the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which you and Ron Paul apparently believe pose no threat to anyone in the West, as long as we leave them alone.

I won't bother dealing with the rest of your long-winded posts until you provide proof that the hijackers were sent by the nation of Saudi Arabia.Your attempt to make the entire discussion about a single word is completely transparent and ineffective. I already explained what I meant. I repeated twice that I didn't think the Saudi government sent them on their mission. You're fabricating every point you're arguing against. I didn't say the Saudi government sent the hijackers. I didn't say the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyaa, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad pose no threat to anyone in the West.

Why do you even need a real person to argue against? You will do just fine in a small room by yourself, as the points you'll argue against will also come from yourself.

The Maggy
06-26-2012, 01:13
Whenever you go to war itís with a coalition of the willing.

Year after of ineffectual sanctions had failed to force Saddam Hussein to allow United Nations weapons inspectors full and unfettered access into all of Iraqís suspected weapons sites. Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He used them against Iran and he used them on his own people. So, it was perfectly reasonable, based on all the intelligence available, to believe Hussein had WMDs and was concealing them. President Bush stated quite clearly that, given Husseinís open hostility to the west, it was imprudent to wait and see what happens; such an approach would have risked thousands of lives.

If you donít remember, we offered to allow Hussein and his sons to leave in peace and live in exile, without us invading. Hussein refused. We attempted to induce the Iraqi military leadership to stage a coup to remove Hussein without us invading. They were unwilling or unable to do so.

Today, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do not live in constant fear of invasion by Iraqi forces and a brutal dictator as cruel as Adolf Hitler is dead, along with his sadistic sons. Regular Iraqis do not live in fear of a brutal regime that can and did routinely arrest and torture people for no reason. Good riddance.

Thankfully, they only have to live in fear of the local militias that rose out of the power vacuum :phew:

The Maggy
06-26-2012, 01:24
No, one is not more conservative. One is less brazen about his liberal ideology. Regardless of which progressive wins, America still loses. More debt, more open borders, more blah, blah, blah. Nothing changes. It'll just be more of the same failed policies that have already doomed this country.

Things can always change. The Titanic had 730,000 sq.ft. of floor space; just imagine the possibilities for the deck chairs!

Romney will shift spending from program A to program B without cutting the spending level. "Conservatives" will applaud his move because he is sticking it to the other guys.

Who was it on here that kept saying that the only thing he wants after the 2012 elections is "Revenge?" Revenge is going to a kid and taking his toy away because he was playing with yours earlier. America needs a parent that will take all of the toys away and put the two fighting children in time out.

fortyofforty
06-26-2012, 04:37
Your attempt to make the entire discussion about a single word is completely transparent and ineffective. I already explained what I meant. I repeated twice that I didn't think the Saudi government sent them on their mission. You're fabricating every point you're arguing against. I didn't say the Saudi government sent the hijackers. I didn't say the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyaa, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad pose no threat to anyone in the West.

Why do you even need a real person to argue against? You will do just fine in a small room by yourself, as the points you'll argue against will also come from yourself.

If you are arguing that only Saudi Wahhabism poses a threat to the West, you are ridiculously short-sighted. There are at least dozens of Islamic sects that preach endless violence against infidels. Without an understanding of this history, there is no hope for you to learn anything. Without a desire to learn, you will not learn. Good luck to you. :wavey:

Sent is a conscious act. You said a nation sent hijackers. Who sent them? What do you mean by nation? And why do you feel it is reasonable to extrapolate a country's entire foreign policy from the actions of fifteen guys? You are tripped up by your own generalities. Sorry to have to point out your own mistakes to you, but you need to own them and admit them. It's the first step to personal growth.