Do You Support The Possible Coming Wars With Iran & Syria?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If Paul gets the anti dumb fuck Neocon war position that we can't literally afford, then according to this poll that might be vastly in his favor.

Go Paul!

This poll wasn't framed properly.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Paul gets the anti dumb fuck Neocon war position that we can't literally afford, then according to this poll that might be vastly in his favor.

Go Paul!

This poll wasn't framed properly.

Once Paul's foreign policy views become better known he is toast in the GOP. All we need is clips of him saying the US caused 9/11, we are provoking Iran, and Iran has every right to have a nuke.
That's some kind of crazy.

 

[dblack]

Once Paul's foreign policy views become better known he is toast in the GOP. All we need is clips of him saying the US caused 9/11, we are provoking Iran, and Iran has every right to have a nuke.
That's some kind of crazy.

Hell yes! That's what I'm hoping for honestly. Libertarians, and libertarian minded Tea Partiers need to understand who they're dealing with when it comes to the Republicans.

 

[Political Junky]

There wont be a war with either Iran or Syria

Unless we elect Republicans

I wish I could be certain of that. The republicans certainly talk about it more. But bravado is different than will. Obama's willingness to keep the war machine running seems as solid as Bush. I have to give him some credit for getting us out of Iraq though. Didn't really think that would happen.

You can see the Republican saber rattling on Iran already. They are already convinced that not only does Iran have nukes (within weeks!) but they are ready to attack us!

Where have we seen this before?

Uhhh, let me think.

 

[bodecea]

There wont be a war with either Iran or Syria

Unless we elect Republicans

Oooo! Now you've done it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

Only if a far right wack is elected, other than Paul.

 

[The Rabbi]

Once Paul's foreign policy views become better known he is toast in the GOP. All we need is clips of him saying the US caused 9/11, we are provoking Iran, and Iran has every right to have a nuke.
That's some kind of crazy.

Hell yes! That's what I'm hoping for honestly. Libertarians, and libertarian minded Tea Partiers need to understand who they're dealing with when it comes to the Republicans.

Yup, the wookie suiters will become about as relevant as Jonestown.

 

[dblack]

Once Paul's foreign policy views become better known he is toast in the GOP. All we need is clips of him saying the US caused 9/11, we are provoking Iran, and Iran has every right to have a nuke.
That's some kind of crazy.

Hell yes! That's what I'm hoping for honestly. Libertarians, and libertarian minded Tea Partiers need to understand who they're dealing with when it comes to the Republicans.

Yup, the wookie suiters will become about as relevant as Jonestown.

You keep saying shit like that like it's some kind of horse race or something. Don't you give rat's ass about right and wrong? Or is it all about 'winning' to you?

 

[Steelplate]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

seriously man... don't you ever get tired of the "sky is falling" thing? It seems like every day you come up with some apocalyptic thread and when we click on the thread, it's the same old stuff... "Obama is _______, and it's going to ruin us!"

You are the epitome of Chicken Little.

 

[dblack]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

seriously man... don't you ever get tired of the "sky is falling" thing? It seems like every day you come up with some apocalyptic thread and when we click on the thread, it's the same old stuff... "Obama is _______, and it's going to ruin us!"

You are the epitome of Chicken Little.

Actually, the whole point is that the sky isn't falling, that it won't be the end of the world if Iraq gets nukes, that our security doesn't require us to rule the world. It's the Chickel Little syndrome that currently dominates our foreign policy. We need to take a breather and have another look at reality.

 

[Full-Auto]

It looks like we're headed in that direction. What do you think?

seriously man... don't you ever get tired of the "sky is falling" thing? It seems like every day you come up with some apocalyptic thread and when we click on the thread, it's the same old stuff... "Obama is _______, and it's going to ruin us!"

You are the epitome of Chicken Little.

Democrats proved the chicken little routine works. Dont bitch now, it is from the DNC playbook.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hell yes! That's what I'm hoping for honestly. Libertarians, and libertarian minded Tea Partiers need to understand who they're dealing with when it comes to the Republicans.

Yup, the wookie suiters will become about as relevant as Jonestown.

You keep saying shit like that like it's some kind of horse race or something. Don't you give rat's ass about right and wrong? Or is it all about 'winning' to you?

No, it is about right and wrong.
ANd the wookie suiters are about as wrong as you can get. The country wasn't founded on drug use and cowardice. This is why Ron Paul has bombed in every national election.

 

[dblack]

Yup, the wookie suiters will become about as relevant as Jonestown.

You keep saying shit like that like it's some kind of horse race or something. Don't you give rat's ass about right and wrong? Or is it all about 'winning' to you?

No, it is about right and wrong.
ANd the wookie suiters are about as wrong as you can get. The country wasn't founded on drug use and cowardice. This is why Ron Paul has bombed in every national election.

what in the world are you even talking about? wookie suit? get a grip man!

 

[Cowman]

Absolutely not.

 

[Londoner]

The neocons moved against Reagan when - as a lame Duck - he formed a powerful friendship with Gorbachev, who become Russia's first free market reformer. People forget: Gorbachev came to Reagan's funeral. They became good friends toward the end of Reagan's presidency.

Reagan said "tear down this wall" partly to give Gorbachev domestic momentum to fight members of the old Soviet Guard who did not want to unwind the Iron Curtain. Gorby was very tight with Reagan and Thatcher because he wanted to enter the western market system. He was nominated "Man of the Year" by Time magazine because he was key to ending the Cold War. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Reagan Library. You will see tons of praise for Gorbachev.

But I digress.

Why did the neocons oppose Reagan when he started to form an alliance with Gorby?

Because the neocons did not want the Cold War to end: they hated Reagan for cozying up to Gorby. The Cold War was essential not only for increasing Pentagon budgets, but it gave the US a necessary context to intervene in the 3rd world (in order to protect global supply chains and expand resource/labor markets). If you look at America's postwar interventions, they were always framed as a defense against encroaching communism. The Soviet Union also benefited from the Cold War, because they used the "capitalist threat" to pull their satellite states more firmly under their "protective" wing. Both superpowers used the threat posed by the other to manage their respective parts of the globe. Both the Pentagon and KGB wanted the Cold War to continue. And both Reagan and Gorby faced domestic criticism for ignoring their hawkish militaries and becoming close friends

The neocons realized that the Soviet Threat gave them a context to spread bases across the globe, including most importantly in the middle east. Without those bases, America would not be able to control the global market system (which fuels the American economy and generously rewards the large corporate interests which own Washington).

The reason the mainstream GOP candidates are threatening war against Iran, Syria, etc. is because they have always used national security as a context for intervention in vital global regions. Secondly, "war presidents" have an easier time avoiding domestic economic woes. Bush used Iraq to defeat Kerry at a time when their was very sluggish job growth. Iraq allowed him to control the terms of the election - and it allowed him to create the department of Homeland Security, the largest, most expensive government bureaucracy in the last 1/2 century. The Republicans use War and National Security to grow government. Don't take my word for it. Check out the right-leaning CATO Institute. Reagan's chapter of the Cold War grew the Federal Government more than anything since FDR. People don't get it: the GOP loves Big Government. Reagan doubled the federal work force over Carter. He also spent twice as much as Carter. It's a game. Each party has their "pet" methods for growing government and bankrupting future generations. The Left uses social causes, the Right uses national security.

Problem is: the GOP voter never questions his party. So the Republican leadership knows they have a blank check when it comes to National Security. This is why the current GOP field is talking about Iran - because they know they can manipulate the budget and write massive checks to their donors by using issues of national security. Why does the GOP Voter trust their party so much when it comes to war? Why do they have so much faith in their big government leaders?

Gingrich and Romney are not only beholden to the Pentagon and the neocons, but they have a much better chance of winning a second term if the issue is terrorism as opposed to unemployment.

Republicans always do better when they are protecting the country from evil-doers. They always build National Security into their governing strategy. Reagan's evil empire and Bush's evil doers are part of the dog whistle demonology used to fire up the base: gays, baby killers, illegals, socialists, marxists, liberals, and terrorists. From McCarthy's Red Scare to the War on Terrorism: the Right always uses domestic and foreign threats to mobilize the American people. This allows them to control the headlines and dictate the issues of elections.

I have been saying this for the last 2 years. The War on Terrorism is coming back in 2012. The Republicans always use National Security to govern the country. Always.

God Help Us.

The War on Terrorism was absolutely necessary to fill the role once played by the Cold War. The War on Terrorism became the new context for intervening in vital resource regions.

The neocons will never forgive Reagan for cozying up to Gorby and ending the Cold War. Never.

 

[dblack]

Why did the neocons oppose Reagan when he started to form an alliance with Gorby?

Because the neocons did not want the Cold War to end. The Cold War was essential not only for increasing Pentagon budgets, but it gave the US a necessary context to intervene in the 3rd world (in order to protect global supply chains and expand resource/labor markets). If you look at America's postwar interventions, they were always framed as a defense against encroaching communism. The Soviet Union also benefited from the Cold War, because they used the "capitalist threat" to pull their satellite states more firmly under their "protective" wing. Both superpowers used the threat posed by the other to manage their respective parts of the globe.

The neocons realized that the Soviet Threat gave them a context to spread bases across the globe, including most importantly in the middle east. Without those bases, America would not be able to control the global market system (which fuels the American economy and generously rewards the large corporate interests which own Washington).

The reason the mainstream GOP candidates are threatening war against Iran, Syria, etc. is because they have always used national security as a context for intervention in vital global regions. Secondly, war presidents have an easier time avoiding domestic economic woes. Bush used Iraq to defeat Kerry.

Gingrich and Romney are not only beholden to the Pentagon and the neocons, but they have a much better chance of winning a second term if the issue is terrorism as opposed to unemployment.

Republicans always do better when they are protecting the country from evil-doers. They always build National Security into their governing strategy. Reagan's evil empire and Bush's evil doers are part of the dog whistle demonology used to fire up the base: gays, baby killers, illegals, socialists, marxists, liberals, and terrorists. From McCarthy's Red Scare to the War on Terrorism: the Right always uses domestic and foreign threats to mobilize the American people. This allows them to control the headlines and dictate the issues of elections.

I have been saying this for the last 2 years. The War on Terrorism is coming back in 2012. The Republicans always use National Security to govern the country. Always.

God Help Us.

This is a really astute point. The hallmark of the neo cons is their lust for the 'good old days' of the cold war... and in the 'War on Terror' they have found the same kind of perpetual enemy.

Have you, by any chance seen the brilliant BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why did the neocons oppose Reagan when he started to form an alliance with Gorby?

Because the neocons did not want the Cold War to end. The Cold War was essential not only for increasing Pentagon budgets, but it gave the US a necessary context to intervene in the 3rd world (in order to protect global supply chains and expand resource/labor markets). If you look at America's postwar interventions, they were always framed as a defense against encroaching communism. The Soviet Union also benefited from the Cold War, because they used the "capitalist threat" to pull their satellite states more firmly under their "protective" wing. Both superpowers used the threat posed by the other to manage their respective parts of the globe.

The neocons realized that the Soviet Threat gave them a context to spread bases across the globe, including most importantly in the middle east. Without those bases, America would not be able to control the global market system (which fuels the American economy and generously rewards the large corporate interests which own Washington).

The reason the mainstream GOP candidates are threatening war against Iran, Syria, etc. is because they have always used national security as a context for intervention in vital global regions. Secondly, war presidents have an easier time avoiding domestic economic woes. Bush used Iraq to defeat Kerry.

Gingrich and Romney are not only beholden to the Pentagon and the neocons, but they have a much better chance of winning a second term if the issue is terrorism as opposed to unemployment.

Republicans always do better when they are protecting the country from evil-doers. They always build National Security into their governing strategy. Reagan's evil empire and Bush's evil doers are part of the dog whistle demonology used to fire up the base: gays, baby killers, illegals, socialists, marxists, liberals, and terrorists. From McCarthy's Red Scare to the War on Terrorism: the Right always uses domestic and foreign threats to mobilize the American people. This allows them to control the headlines and dictate the issues of elections.

I have been saying this for the last 2 years. The War on Terrorism is coming back in 2012. The Republicans always use National Security to govern the country. Always.

God Help Us.

This is a really astute point. The hallmark of the neo cons is their lust for the 'good old days' of the cold war... and in the 'War on Terror' they have found the same kind of perpetual enemy.

Have you, by any chance seen the brilliant BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"?

And here we see how the wookie suiters and the libs are really allies. There is no difference.

 

[dblack]

And here we see how the wookie suiters and the libs are really allies. There is no difference.

You should watch that documentary. See what you think.

 

[Londoner]

Problem is: the GOP voter never questions his party. So the Republican leadership knows they have a blank check when it comes to National Security. This is why the current GOP field is talking about Iran - because they know they can manipulate the budget and write massive checks to their donors by using issues of national security. Why does the GOP Voter trust his party so much when it comes to war? Why does he have so much faith in his big government leaders?

 

[Londoner]

You should watch that documentary. See what you think.

Eisenhower realized that the military industrial complex lead to the biggest government of all.

The Cold War and War on Terror bestowed more centralized, coercive power on Washington than any social program. These structures have not only bankrupted the country, but they enable Big Government to operate in secrecy, under the guise of "National Security". Presidents often use war to intimidate the press, e.g., "questioning the president gives comfort to the terrorists".

They use "national security" to insulate their unaffordable globalist agendas from democratic review. Tragically, the GOP voter never questions his Big Government leaders when it comes to national security and foreign policy. The Left rebelled against LBJ's war, but the Tea Party Apparatchiks always trust dear leader. When will the Rightwing voter learn to question his party?

Throughout history governments have used "national security" to create unaccountable surveillance agencies. Homeland Security is straight out of the old Soviet Union. It is a secretive, undefined agency that has unlimited power to spy on Americans. It is above the courts, and beyond the reach of the voter. (Only a Republican could grow government this much. Only a Republican could grow Washington's power this much)

Why do republicans always grow government in such terrifying ways? How do they find enough moronic voters to keep them in power?

Does Hannity every talk about the country's largest most expensive bureaucracy? Why doesn't the rightwing voter ever research this stuff?
A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

Question for the Right: If you think government is too incompetent to run a laundromat, than why do you give it the budget and power to rebuild the greater middle east?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Is the GOP voter this easy to manipulate?

(Folks: they're coming back in 2012. Wait until you see the Patriot Act III)

Ron Paul is the ONLY answer to this problem. The Right and Left are the same party when it comes to foreign policy.