Ron Paul Tops McCain in Cash on Hand

[red states rule]

The terrorists attacked us because of me? Wow !

According to the kook left - it was not terrorists who attacked us

9-11 was an inside job by the Bush government. I wish Eddie would get his talking points right

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bin Laden attacked us because we are NOT Muslims, to be more correct we also are not the "right" Muslims. Further, he attacked us because in his opinion ( and it is being borne out by Liberals) we are weak, uninterested in defending ourselves and willing to be cowed into submission. So in a sense our "Foreign Policy" does have a direct bearing on the attack.

 

[red states rule]

Bin Laden attacked us because we are NOT Muslims, to be more correct we also are not the "right" Muslims. Further, he attacked us because in his opinion ( and it is being borne out by Liberals) we are weak, uninterested in defending ourselves and willing to be cowed into submission. So in a sense our "Foreign Policy" does have a direct bearing on the attack.

The eight years of Clinton had alot to do with the impression America was weak and would not fight back

 

[Paulie]

And whether it was a good idea, or not, terrorists do not get to dictate our foreign policy. Period.

ahh, but they HAVE. Bush ran for president on a conservative, "no nation building", less federal government, campaign.

We got attacked, by terrorists, as Bush has pointed out about 987 trillion times, and he changed his foreign policy to what? NATION BUILDING. And he's still considered conservative becauuuussseee.....???

1 million people have died because of our foreign policy under the Bush administration.

And turrrrists dictated that.

the turrrrrrrrrists haven't benefitted one IOTA from, or since, 9/11. (i'd be happy to see someone show just ONE way that they have).

The bush administation certainly has, though.

Thanks alot, bin laden!

The eight years of Clinton had alot to do with the impression America was weak and would not fight back

Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Mogadishu, plenty of bombing in Iraq over 8 years...should i go on?

Where in his 2 terms did it seem as though America wouldn't "fight back"? First of all, America wasn't "attacked" in a style like 9/11 by terrorists, so there wasn't anything for America to "fight back" against. But there was plenty of military use around the world.

I'm going to say the same thing to you everytime i address you in a post, from now on: WAKE THE FUCK UP.

 

[dilloduck]

ahh, but they HAVE. Bush ran for president on a conservative, "no nation building", less federal government, campaign.

We got attacked, by terrorists, as Bush has pointed out about 987 trillion times, and he changed his foreign policy to what? NATION BUILDING. And he's still considered conservative becauuuussseee.....???

1 million people have died because of our foreign policy under the Bush administration.

And turrrrists dictated that.

the turrrrrrrrrists haven't benefitted one IOTA from, or since, 9/11. (i'd be happy to see someone show just ONE way that they have).

The bush administation certainly has, though.

Thanks alot, bin laden!



Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Mogadishu, plenty of bombing in Iraq over 8 years...should i go on?

Where in his 2 terms did it seem as though America wouldn't "fight back"? First of all, America wasn't "attacked" in a style like 9/11 by terrorists, so there wasn't anything for America to "fight back" against. But there was plenty of military use around the world.

I'm going to say the same thing to you everytime i address you in a post, from now on: WAKE THE FUCK UP.

Bush isn't considered a conservative anymore. The Republicans are looking for one that will run in 2008. People have died because of Bin Ladens cult chose to use WAR instead of negotiation.

 

[Paulie]

Bush isn't considered a conservative anymore. The Republicans are looking for one that will run in 2008.

Ok, then Ron Paul. He's the only one that's actually a conservative. None of the others even come close to conservative.

Ron doesn't suggest that we hide behind our borders, people have been spoonfed that labelling of him by the mainstream media, because that's how the establishment is getting people to stay away from him.

The mere fact alone that they don't want people knowing about, or supporting Paul, is quite telling.

Non-interventionism means leave sovereign countries the fuck ALONE. Trade with them, set a good example for them, but stay the fuck out of their business. If they attack, we defend ourselves. Simple as that.

What's so wrong about that?

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, then Ron Paul. He's the only one that's actually a conservative. None of the others even come close to conservative.

Ron doesn't suggest that we hide behind our borders, people have been spoonfed that labelling of him by the mainstream media, because that's how the establishment is getting people to stay away from him.

The mere fact alone that they don't want people knowing about, or supporting Paul, is quite telling.

Non-interventionism means leave sovereign countries the fuck ALONE. Trade with them, set a good example for them, but stay the fuck out of their business. If they attack, we defend ourselves. Simple as that.

What's so wrong about that?

Because we WERE attacked by bin ladens quasi religious cult and they don't intend to stop.

 

[Paulie]

Because we WERE attacked by bin ladens quasi religious cult and they don't intend to stop.

So what has the 150,000 troops in Iraq accomplished?

Not stopping terrorism...al-qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before we got there...now they apparently are operating out of there, thanks to us. (Not to mention Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11...and being a target of the DoD even before 9/11)

And that will probably happen wherever we intended to invade next...Iran? Syria? You think al-qaeda won't go there too and rebel?

They want us out of the Middle East. It's their land. I don't condone the killing of human beings as a justified way of responding to aggression. No matter which side it's coming from.

They have oil, but they don't want us establishing our military all throughout their land. The only problem is, Israel just happens to be smack dab in the middle of all of it, and is our closest ally.

So what's a country to do?

How about tell them that since we've provided them with all of the most cutting edge military technology that we possess, to fucking do your own dirty work and protect yourself. Stop infringing on land that isn't yours, and maybe the hatred for you will start to level off, and eventually fade.

We've seen times of peace there. It's not impossible, but Israel needs to stop being so greedy about it. They have nukes, the arab world that we are trying to conquer right now has nothing even close.

Direct covert intelligence, if used properly, and secure borders as tight as a bug's ass here in the US, should be all we should need to keep ourselves safe.

There's no reason for us to be invading nations and committing what amounts to genocide, under the pre-tense of "national security".

That's bullshit.

Everyone wants "world peace", right? Well, to leave countries alone, would be a huge start.

 

[Annie]

So what has the 150,000 troops in Iraq accomplished?

Not stopping terrorism...al-qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before we got there...now they apparently are operating out of there, thanks to us. (Not to mention Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11...and being a target of the DoD even before 9/11)

And that will probably happen wherever we intended to invade next...Iran? Syria? You think al-qaeda won't go there too and rebel?

They want us out of the Middle East. It's their land. I don't condone the killing of human beings as a justified way of responding to aggression. No matter which side it's coming from.

They have oil, but they don't want us establishing our military all throughout their land. The only problem is, Israel just happens to be smack dab in the middle of all of it, and is our closest ally.

So what's a country to do?

How about tell them that since we've provided them with all of the most cutting edge military technology that we possess, to fucking do your own dirty work and protect yourself. Stop infringing on land that isn't yours, and maybe the hatred for you will start to level off, and eventually fade.

We've seen times of peace there. It's not impossible, but Israel needs to stop being so greedy about it. They have nukes, the arab world that we are trying to conquer right now has nothing even close.

Direct covert intelligence, if used properly, and secure borders as tight as a bug's ass here in the US, should be all we should need to keep ourselves safe.

There's no reason for us to be invading nations and committing what amounts to genocide, under the pre-tense of "national security".

That's bullshit.

Everyone wants "world peace", right? Well, to leave countries alone, would be a huge start.

You are ignoring DD's response to your earlier post:

If they attack, we defend ourselves.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ron Paul is the only honest R running.

I dont always agree with Ron but I always admire him.

 

[dilloduck]

So what has the 150,000 troops in Iraq accomplished?

Not stopping terrorism...al-qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before we got there...now they apparently are operating out of there, thanks to us. (Not to mention Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11...and being a target of the DoD even before 9/11)

And that will probably happen wherever we intended to invade next...Iran? Syria? You think al-qaeda won't go there too and rebel?

They want us out of the Middle East. It's their land. I don't condone the killing of human beings as a justified way of responding to aggression. No matter which side it's coming from.

They have oil, but they don't want us establishing our military all throughout their land. The only problem is, Israel just happens to be smack dab in the middle of all of it, and is our closest ally.

So what's a country to do?

How about tell them that since we've provided them with all of the most cutting edge military technology that we possess, to fucking do your own dirty work and protect yourself. Stop infringing on land that isn't yours, and maybe the hatred for you will start to level off, and eventually fade.

We've seen times of peace there. It's not impossible, but Israel needs to stop being so greedy about it. They have nukes, the arab world that we are trying to conquer right now has nothing even close.

Direct covert intelligence, if used properly, and secure borders as tight as a bug's ass here in the US, should be all we should need to keep ourselves safe.

There's no reason for us to be invading nations and committing what amounts to genocide, under the pre-tense of "national security".

That's bullshit.

Everyone wants "world peace", right? Well, to leave countries alone, would be a huge start.

Genocide-----?? now your just being silly. and you think Al quaeda is cool with us having covert agents operating in the Middle East too? We will never be safe. You need to accept that.

 

[Paulie]

You are ignoring DD's response to your earlier post:

ok, so we went to afghanistan. We didn't get bin laden, we didn't get al zawahiri, and we "cut and ran" before the job was done, which obviously is not the case with Iraq.

If we defend ourselves, shouldn't we do it 100%?

Our only reason for not continuing the hunt into Pakistan is that the area they are supposedly in is a mess of many different tribes that control various regions of it, and that the Pakistani government really doesn't have much say in that.

WHAT?

If we can invade Iraq and kill 500,000 plus civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11, then we can certainly invade a region of Pakistan that has groups protecting the people that we say were the perpetrators. Also, WAY LESS civilians to be sacrificed, and at least the government can say the operation was worth the casualties. No one can say that about Iraq.

Blind faith, Kathianne. Blind faith.

 

[dilloduck]

ok, so we went to afghanistan. We didn't get bin laden, we didn't get al zawahiri, and we "cut and ran" before the job was done, which obviously is not the case with Iraq.

If we defend ourselves, shouldn't we do it 100%?

Our only reason for not continuing the hunt into Pakistan is that the area they are supposedly in is a mess of many different tribes that control various regions of it, and that the Pakistani government really doesn't have much say in that.

WHAT?

If we can invade Iraq and kill 500,000 plus civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11, then we can certainly invade a region of Pakistan that has groups protecting the people that we say were the perpetrators. Also, WAY LESS civilians to be sacrificed, and at least the government can say the operation was worth the casualties. No one can say that about Iraq.

Blind faith, Kathianne. Blind faith.

We still have troops in Afghanistan. For someone who "supports" them you might wanna know where they are.

 

[Annie]

ok, so we went to afghanistan. We didn't get bin laden, we didn't get al zawahiri, and we "cut and ran" before the job was done, which obviously is not the case with Iraq.

If we defend ourselves, shouldn't we do it 100%?

Our only reason for not continuing the hunt into Pakistan is that the area they are supposedly in is a mess of many different tribes that control various regions of it, and that the Pakistani government really doesn't have much say in that.

WHAT?

If we can invade Iraq and kill 500,000 plus civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11, then we can certainly invade a region of Pakistan that has groups protecting the people that we say were the perpetrators. Also, WAY LESS civilians to be sacrificed, and at least the government can say the operation was worth the casualties. No one can say that about Iraq.

Blind faith, Kathianne. Blind faith.

Assuming all you are saying is true, neither Ron Paul nor yourself would be for this. Right? It's just a diversion, right?

 

[Paulie]

be for what?

 

[Annie]

be for what?

Avoiding, noted.

 

[Truthmatters]

AQ is a beast you starve not kill.

Chop it up and it turns into a thousand heads ready to grow a body.

You kill it by giving its message an inability to spread by making WISE international decisions.

 

[Paulie]

Avoiding, noted.

hah whatever, Kathianne. It was a serious question.

He said "be for this". I typed a lot of things...so specifically, be for WHAT?

 

[Annie]

hah whatever, Kathianne. It was a serious question.

He said "be for this". I typed a lot of things...so specifically, be for WHAT?

This

If we can invade Iraq and kill 500,000 plus civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11, then we can certainly invade a region of Pakistan that has groups protecting the people that we say were the perpetrators. Also, WAY LESS civilians to be sacrificed, and at least the government can say the operation was worth the casualties. No one can say that about Iraq.

 

[Paulie]

AQ is a beast you starve not kill.

It would have been nice if we didn't even create it to begin with though.

Thanks Brzezinski.