Pauls foreign policy is like a Jerimiah Wright sermon

Nice crackpot history lesson.

Saudi asked for our help since they feared Saddam overrunning their country too with one of the largest armies in the middle east. I guess you thought it was ok for Saddam to invade his neighbor over debts he couldn't pay back and over their oil he wanted to steal.

As for UBL, he was a religious nut that took advantage of us being in Saudi for his own political advantage. We were on remote bases in Saudi but UBL was telling the idiots we were pillaging Mecca, of course they also believe we rape their women and flush the Quran down the toilet.

Ron Paul is just like UBL, someone taking advantage of lies and half-truths with morons that will follow him off a cliff. UBL in the end loved people like Ron Paul that would pull out of the middle east leaving a hole for him to fill and build up his army of terrorists to eventually destroy big and little Satan.....

Ron Paul actually blames the Clinton Administration as the most proximate cause of 9/11. Big picture-wise, he correctly points to our entangled economic/military involvement in the region and there's really no debate as to whether he's right when you consider the historical reality of the situation. Take Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Bin Laden himself were from. It's not anyone's opinion but rather fact that the Saudi Royal Family since 1973 has agreed to accept the $USD as the only payment for Saudi petroleum in exchange for major US military presence and protection from foreign invasion and domestic coup. For the majority of Saudis, the Saudi Royal Family is an authoritarian monarchy at best and the US military is what stands between the people and revolution. 1+1=2. When Saddam invaded Kuwait with sights set on Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden offered his protection in hopes of breaking the Saudi-US oil-for-military arrangement but the Saudis ignored Bin Laden and the US got to showcase their military might. This sent a clear message to Bin Laden that the Saudi Royal Family had zero intentions of ending their relationship with the US, so Bin Laden then shifted his focus to dissolving the relationship from the US' side and the only way he could do this was by making the petrodollar hegemony gained by the US via exporting its military to the ME not worth the threat of terror and civilian casualties inside the US.

Ron Paul is right about foreign policy and anyone who knows the factual history agrees.

Nice misdirection.

It's not relevant why Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia or why specifically Bin Laden wanted the US military out of the ME. UBL pulled the religion card but I think we both probably agree it was likely UBL trying to use his forces as protection to leverage a power grab. In any case though, it doesn't matter why he wanted the US military out of the Middle East; the operative fact is that he was hellbent on making it happen. So the real question is how he could break up the US-SRF military/economic alliance, and the logical answer given UBL's line of work was to offer protection to the SRF eliminating their need for the US military. Call it the 'competing services' option. UBL had recent proven success vs the Soviets so if he was ever going to steal the US' job as SRF bodyguard, it was when Saddam made his move. Whether the SRF should our shouldn't have rejected UBL's offer is for another debate; what matters here is that UBL would never get a better opportunity to drive out the US military via the 'competing services' option.

It wasn't hard to guess what UBL's next approach would be. If he couldn't convince the SRF to end their relationship with the US, he could try to coerce the US to end it which is what he attempted. And I don't know how much clearer he could've made it either; he literally said multiple times that he would use terrorism against US civilians until the US withdrew its military from the ME. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Understanding your enemy's motive =/= justifying your enemy's motive.
 
Let me get this straight, these right wingers believe religion is nothing more than a tool to control people? Like Government?

Does that mean they are against religion AND government?

Or just Religion?

Or just Government?

Or they think people are so out of control they need to be controlled?

Or they feel they are out of control so everyone else must be out of control too?

Who knows what these simpletons mean?
 
Nice crackpot history lesson.

Saudi asked for our help since they feared Saddam overrunning their country too with one of the largest armies in the middle east. I guess you thought it was ok for Saddam to invade his neighbor over debts he couldn't pay back and over their oil he wanted to steal.

As for UBL, he was a religious nut that took advantage of us being in Saudi for his own political advantage. We were on remote bases in Saudi but UBL was telling the idiots we were pillaging Mecca, of course they also believe we rape their women and flush the Quran down the toilet.

Ron Paul is just like UBL, someone taking advantage of lies and half-truths with morons that will follow him off a cliff. UBL in the end loved people like Ron Paul that would pull out of the middle east leaving a hole for him to fill and build up his army of terrorists to eventually destroy big and little Satan.....

Ron Paul actually blames the Clinton Administration as the most proximate cause of 9/11. Big picture-wise, he correctly points to our entangled economic/military involvement in the region and there's really no debate as to whether he's right when you consider the historical reality of the situation. Take Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Bin Laden himself were from. It's not anyone's opinion but rather fact that the Saudi Royal Family since 1973 has agreed to accept the $USD as the only payment for Saudi petroleum in exchange for major US military presence and protection from foreign invasion and domestic coup. For the majority of Saudis, the Saudi Royal Family is an authoritarian monarchy at best and the US military is what stands between the people and revolution. 1+1=2. When Saddam invaded Kuwait with sights set on Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden offered his protection in hopes of breaking the Saudi-US oil-for-military arrangement but the Saudis ignored Bin Laden and the US got to showcase their military might. This sent a clear message to Bin Laden that the Saudi Royal Family had zero intentions of ending their relationship with the US, so Bin Laden then shifted his focus to dissolving the relationship from the US' side and the only way he could do this was by making the petrodollar hegemony gained by the US via exporting its military to the ME not worth the threat of terror and civilian casualties inside the US.

Ron Paul is right about foreign policy and anyone who knows the factual history agrees.

Nice misdirection.

It's not relevant why Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia or why specifically Bin Laden wanted the US military out of the ME. UBL pulled the religion card but I think we both probably agree it was likely UBL trying to use his forces as protection to leverage a power grab. In any case though, it doesn't matter why he wanted the US military out of the Middle East; the operative fact is that he was hellbent on making it happen. So the real question is how he could break up the US-SRF military/economic alliance, and the logical answer given UBL's line of work was to offer protection to the SRF eliminating their need for the US military. Call it the 'competing services' option. UBL had recent proven success vs the Soviets so if he was ever going to steal the US' job as SRF bodyguard, it was when Saddam made his move. Whether the SRF should our shouldn't have rejected UBL's offer is for another debate; what matters here is that UBL would never get a better opportunity to drive out the US military via the 'competing services' option.

It wasn't hard to guess what UBL's next approach would be. If he couldn't convince the SRF to end their relationship with the US, he could try to coerce the US to end it which is what he attempted. And I don't know how much clearer he could've made it either; he literally said multiple times that he would use terrorism against US civilians until the US withdrew its military from the ME. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Understanding your enemy's motive =/= justifying your enemy's motive.

Well, at least you agree that US policy did not cause any of it. That makes you one step above the Paul-bots here.
 
Let's see....most people I've known in the military for 42 years spanning my dad's career and my career don't rush out with checkbooks for candidates.

They vote when it matters on election day and they support a strong national defense around the world.

Ron Paul is a kook and his foreign policy ideas are asinine, something a 13 year old would invent strung out on drugs watching MTV videos at 3am.

The MAJORITY of recent Vets and current MILITARY support our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan and would laugh at the idea of pulling out of Europe and Asia....to save money.

Only an idiot with no military background thinks we would have cheaper wars if we didn't have forward bases in Asia and Europe....see WWII.

.


Is the goal really to have cheaper wars? War is supposed to be a solution of last resort. Besides we haven't really had a war since WWII, if you want to be honest about it. How much money should we be spending to prevent something that hasn't happened for 70+ years? From your posts I gather that you are career military who has a vested interest in continuing endless war. You are a part of the military industrial complex. You are a burden on the tax payer just as sure as any welfare recipient. You are a drain on our nations resources. War is not a political tool to be used wontonly. Those are people you are killing and you seem supremely desensitized to the suffering of innocents who get in the way of our war machine. You are a part of the problem and the very fact that people like you don't like Ron Paul makes me like him even more.
 
Last edited:
Nice crackpot history lesson.

Saudi asked for our help since they feared Saddam overrunning their country too with one of the largest armies in the middle east. I guess you thought it was ok for Saddam to invade his neighbor over debts he couldn't pay back and over their oil he wanted to steal.

As for UBL, he was a religious nut that took advantage of us being in Saudi for his own political advantage. We were on remote bases in Saudi but UBL was telling the idiots we were pillaging Mecca, of course they also believe we rape their women and flush the Quran down the toilet.

Ron Paul is just like UBL, someone taking advantage of lies and half-truths with morons that will follow him off a cliff. UBL in the end loved people like Ron Paul that would pull out of the middle east leaving a hole for him to fill and build up his army of terrorists to eventually destroy big and little Satan.....

Nice misdirection.

It's not relevant why Saddam wanted to invade Saudi Arabia or why specifically Bin Laden wanted the US military out of the ME. UBL pulled the religion card but I think we both probably agree it was likely UBL trying to use his forces as protection to leverage a power grab. In any case though, it doesn't matter why he wanted the US military out of the Middle East; the operative fact is that he was hellbent on making it happen. So the real question is how he could break up the US-SRF military/economic alliance, and the logical answer given UBL's line of work was to offer protection to the SRF eliminating their need for the US military. Call it the 'competing services' option. UBL had recent proven success vs the Soviets so if he was ever going to steal the US' job as SRF bodyguard, it was when Saddam made his move. Whether the SRF should our shouldn't have rejected UBL's offer is for another debate; what matters here is that UBL would never get a better opportunity to drive out the US military via the 'competing services' option.

It wasn't hard to guess what UBL's next approach would be. If he couldn't convince the SRF to end their relationship with the US, he could try to coerce the US to end it which is what he attempted. And I don't know how much clearer he could've made it either; he literally said multiple times that he would use terrorism against US civilians until the US withdrew its military from the ME. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. Understanding your enemy's motive =/= justifying your enemy's motive.

Well, at least you agree that US policy did not cause any of it. That makes you one step above the Paul-bots here.

If you really think our foreign policy has had zero to do with the reasons we have enemies you're a fool.
 
Let me get this straight, these right wingers believe religion is nothing more than a tool to control people? Like Government?

Does that mean they are against religion AND government?

Or just Religion?

Or just Government?

Or they think people are so out of control they need to be controlled?

Or they feel they are out of control so everyone else must be out of control too?

Who knows what these simpletons mean?

I busted your bullshit question and your response was this? Only you could complicate a game of go-fish.
 
I've heard many of them on the net. The only thing lacking substance is your post.

Funny that, I did a web search and didn't find any. Only the usual out of context and inflammatory exclamations in opinion pieces. I don't believe you've listened to many, post the link so I don't think you're a fibber and a troll.

The shit is 3 years old. You wanna see it dig it up yourself jackass.

Did your nose just grow a bit?
 
Let's see....most people I've known in the military for 42 years spanning my dad's career and my career don't rush out with checkbooks for candidates.

They vote when it matters on election day and they support a strong national defense around the world.

Ron Paul is a kook and his foreign policy ideas are asinine, something a 13 year old would invent strung out on drugs watching MTV videos at 3am.

The MAJORITY of recent Vets and current MILITARY support our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan and would laugh at the idea of pulling out of Europe and Asia....to save money.

Only an idiot with no military background thinks we would have cheaper wars if we didn't have forward bases in Asia and Europe....see WWII.

So, ummm, does this mean you support paying higher taxes to support the 1 Trillion a year military budget?

I frankly don't know why we spend 7% of our GDP on the military when most of our allies don't spend more than 1% on theirs. Or that we spend a more than all the rest of the world combined on military stuff.

I would also be more impressed with the Weird Mormon Robot's support of the war if 1) He had actually served when he was a young man or 2) His own sons were serving in the current conflict.

Naw. Let's some poor kid do it because I moved the factory in his town to China.
 
Let's see....most people I've known in the military for 42 years spanning my dad's career and my career don't rush out with checkbooks for candidates.

They vote when it matters on election day and they support a strong national defense around the world.

Ron Paul is a kook and his foreign policy ideas are asinine, something a 13 year old would invent strung out on drugs watching MTV videos at 3am.

The MAJORITY of recent Vets and current MILITARY support our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan and would laugh at the idea of pulling out of Europe and Asia....to save money.

Only an idiot with no military background thinks we would have cheaper wars if we didn't have forward bases in Asia and Europe....see WWII.

So, ummm, does this mean you support paying higher taxes to support the 1 Trillion a year military budget?

I frankly don't know why we spend 7% of our GDP on the military when most of our allies don't spend more than 1% on theirs. Or that we spend a more than all the rest of the world combined on military stuff.

I would also be more impressed with the Weird Mormon Robot's support of the war if 1) He had actually served when he was a young man or 2) His own sons were serving in the current conflict.

Naw. Let's some poor kid do it because I moved the factory in his town to China.

The military is all volunteer. My neighbor is very wealthy. His son is over there.
Because he VOLUNTEERED.
 
Let's see....most people I've known in the military for 42 years spanning my dad's career and my career don't rush out with checkbooks for candidates.

They vote when it matters on election day and they support a strong national defense around the world.

Ron Paul is a kook and his foreign policy ideas are asinine, something a 13 year old would invent strung out on drugs watching MTV videos at 3am.

The MAJORITY of recent Vets and current MILITARY support our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan and would laugh at the idea of pulling out of Europe and Asia....to save money.

Only an idiot with no military background thinks we would have cheaper wars if we didn't have forward bases in Asia and Europe....see WWII.

So, ummm, does this mean you support paying higher taxes to support the 1 Trillion a year military budget?

I frankly don't know why we spend 7% of our GDP on the military when most of our allies don't spend more than 1% on theirs. Or that we spend a more than all the rest of the world combined on military stuff.

I would also be more impressed with the Weird Mormon Robot's support of the war if 1) He had actually served when he was a young man or 2) His own sons were serving in the current conflict.

Naw. Let's some poor kid do it because I moved the factory in his town to China.

Romney's sons served!

They served this country by "helping him get elected"!

Romney: Sons Serve Country By Campaigning - CBS News

It's like the exact same thing!
 
I just heard this comparison on Fox News Sunday.

"Our chickens have come home to roost."

Made me laugh. Sadly the comparison is valid.

I suspect you are close to the truth, but by accident.

Paul is one of those "rarities". A medical doctor who believes in "magical creation". That means he also believes the world is on a few thousand years old.

And look at Wright. The reason he says "God Damn America" is because he is saying that's what God will do if the US doesn't follow "Biblical law". What is especially hilarious is the right wing has been saying the same thing for years.

I don't have any occult beliefs, but Ron Paul and Wright both do.
 
I just heard this comparison on Fox News Sunday.

"Our chickens have come home to roost."

Made me laugh. Sadly the comparison is valid.

I suspect you are close to the truth, but by accident.

Paul is one of those "rarities". A medical doctor who believes in "magical creation". That means he also believes the world is on a few thousand years old.

And look at Wright. The reason he says "God Damn America" is because he is saying that's what God will do if the US doesn't follow "Biblical law". What is especially hilarious is the right wing has been saying the same thing for years.

I don't have any occult beliefs, but Ron Paul and Wright both do.

Meh Ron Paul believes in a higher power because it's consistent with and critical to the DOI. The whole basis of their argument for sovereign liberty was that it was given to them by a higher power which supercedes any Eurotrash government.
 
If Iowa send Ron Paul to us to vote for, thenIowa people must be living in the dark agees. I caanot believe that anyone in his or her right mind would want to vote for such a wasted guy like paul. If they send him out for us to vote for him then this should be the last time for iowa being early or the first. All states should vote on the same day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top