Ron Paul Was Right, and Now Newt Gingrich is Right...

[Edgetho]

The United States of America is NOT the worlds police. We have NO BUSINESS acting like we are either.

The middle east, after TWELVE YEARS, in nothing more than a HORRENDOUS FAILURE. We've gotten our asses handed to ourselves by cowards running around in bed sheets carrying archaic weapons, and the worst part is, THEY DON'T WANT US THERE, not the people we call ENEMY'S, and not the people we think we're HELPING. It's a LOSE, LOSE situation for us. We should have been smart enough to learn after watching Russia get their asses kicked in Afghanistan for NINE YEARS but we DIDN'T. We should at least be smart enough NOW to GET THE HELL OTTA THERE. How ******* STUPID can we be? How many more soldiers have to come home missing ARMS AND LEGS, how much more MONEY do we need to FLUSH DOWN THE TOILET before we realize, WE CAN'T WIN. There will NEVER, EVER be a WINNING SOLUTION, EVER! Staying in the middle east engaged in these occupying efforts is SHEAR MADNESS.

Yup. Russia realized it was throwing good money after bad, losing soldiers in a losing cause, and got the hell out. They realized how bad it would "look" to the world, but they knew they had no choice.

We were too busy crowing about how we're "exceptional" to look reality square in the face, and look at the price we've paid.

.

The Soviets left because the Soviet Union was falling apart. Not because the Afghans forced them out. People who think otherwise need to buy a new coloring book and leave the adults alone

They left behind a communist government that ruled for several years.

communism fell out of favor after the fall of the Soviet Union

 

[AceRothstein]

I was against Iraq but not Afghanistan. I wasn't for staying in Afghanistan for nearly 15 years though, we should have been out of there long ago.

 

[Vox]

So you consider Gingrich's 180 degree flip flop on Middle East policy a sign of his expertise?

yes, it is. It is a sign of a PRACTICAL politician, not a brick-stone rigid fool.

 

[Spoonman]

Our policies in the middle east of intervention, occupying and nation building have been nothing more than a monumental disaster in the form of wasted money, time and resources, and human life and limb. We need to get the hell out of these countries and let them fight as their hearts desire. Let them kill each other off by the hundreds of thousands as they see fit, or let China or some other country go in there and try their hand at sticking their nose in where it just does not belong. Next time some country or the UN starts bitching about ethnic cleansing or or some other form of genocide, let THEM be the ones go in there and do something about it. It's been 12 years since that moron Bush went into Iraq and deposed Sadam Hussein, and it's been an absolute nightmare in the middle east ever since. We need to get out of the middle east, we need to get out of all these places. It's none of our business to be intervening, occupying or nation building. That is NOT what this country is about, it is NOT in our constitution, and you can top that off with WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!



‘NEOCONSERVATIVE’ NEWT: EXPORTING U.S. DEMOCRACY TO MIDDLE EAST DIDN’T WORK, LET’S LISTEN TO RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZ INSTEAD

?Neoconservative? Newt: Exporting U.S. Democracy to Middle East Didn?t Work, Let?s Listen to Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Instead | TheBlaze.com

Newt Gingrich was my personal choice for presidential candidate, as I have thought him to be tough enough to actually lead a country instead of passively sit by and offer up the taxpayer's earnings to support freeloaders. I also thought he would be effective in foreign affairs. He has been in politics long enough, to have a history, and his baggage is more than others because he has been around longer.

one of obama's biggest faults was his lack of experience. especially his lack of political experience. he got slaughtered by his own team during his first team.

 

[Vox]

communism fell out of favor after the fall of the Soviet Union

because there were none willing to infuse the money into new commie countries to support the rule of commie dictators.

communism was "in favor" only on soviet money and weapons.

which, if you take all the rhetoric aside, was simply the russian expansion in the world - which has been the policy of the russian empire for hundreds of years. the ideology you cloud it with does not matter - be it "for the tzar, the God and the Country" or "working people of all the world - unite" ( under the russian flag, of course)

 

[Edgetho]

Thats not our problem. Furthermore, the sanctions we put on Iraq, much like the ones we now have on Iran, killed millions. The difference in it all is on which angle of the moral compass we come from. It absolutely matters whether or not we should have gotten involved in occupation and nation in those countries. It's cost us a lot of lives and a shit ton of treasure. In the end, those coutnries are still shitholes and will be run by whoever takes power. Our ideals of "spreading democracy" is a failure.

As a nation, it's in our best interest to leave these places to fend for themselves. We have our own to worry about here at home. Wasting resources on nations in the ME is both economically and morally bankrupting.

^^THIS^^ is the party of compassion? Of caring? Of peace? Of love?

I just wanted to quote this so people can see what kind of scum occupy the dimocrap party.

WE, as a Country, WE caused the problems there by telling women they are NOT Beasts of Burden. That their lives matter. That Women are equal. That their Men do NOT have the right beat them, to mutilate them, to murder them on a whim.

That being homosexual is not a capital offense. That.....


dimocraps are the party of scum. the party more than willing to let MILLIONS die because.....

It's inconvenient to protect them

The more I learn about dimocraps, the more I hate them.

subhuman scum

you have to be kidding.

I am as far from the leftist loons as it possibly could be, but I totally agree with the guy - and being cynically practical is what politics is all about.

Well, yes, I remember how everybody got touchy-feely and hopey-changey and all that teary BS, and I also remember ALWAYS that the left is a LIE. LIE and more LIE just to get into power and never let it go, so no, I am not either surprised, nor disappointed - because if one is not expecting integrity from scumbags, one is not going to be.

but I do not suspect that reasonable people forgot that OUR interests FIRST is the whole purpose of the American foreign politics

Then we should have stayed in Iraq and executed any Iraqi that disagreed with us on the spot.

We should have kept all the oil from their wells and seized all their assets.

But that's not how we work.

That's not what we did in Europe..... I'm talking the whole Continent (look up: Plan, Marshall The)

When we go in and topple a Government, don't you think we have a Moral Obligation to hang around long enough to make sure that the Government we toppled doesn't re-form?

If not, then what the ****'s the point?

And sometimes, people you're trying to kill? They don't like it. And they fight back.

We could have asked the Taliban nicely to leave. Betcha that would have worked, huh?

Or Saddam? Bet he would have just given up power if we asked him to. (he almost did, remember?)

I know it's a shock to you. And I'm not being smartass. But most civilians don't think about things like this before we commit our Armed Forces.

Bush tried to explain it. Many dimocraps fought it but they lost the political and legislative battle.

We committed.

We KNEW it was going to be a LONG, HARD struggle. Bush tried to tell you that. Many times.

He knew, I knew and people who pay attention to these things knew that this moment would come.

It happened a LONG time ago on the left. About five minutes after they lost the vote for the AUMF in Congress.

Then they found some ugly old scrunt by the name of Cindy Sheehan. Then Code Pink. Then OWS...

Now you?

That even some on the Right would lose patience with the casualties and want us to withdraw is disappointing but expected

We knew it would be the strategy of those we're fighting. We knew it from the beginning.

We have a Moral obligation to leave behind a functioning, non-genocidal government after we topple an existing one.

even obama knows that.

It's a sad day when dimocrap politicans understand these things better than the man-on-the-street Republican.

We have an obligation.

You have obligations in your life. Children, job, spouse, siblings, parents. Some are legal obligations while most are Moral obligations.

If you're the kind of person who would leave the people of SW Asia to die by the Hundreds of thousands at the hands of radical Islamist murderers then I will not call you 'friend' or consider you the least bit trustworthy.

THAT is the point. NOTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO OTHER ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.

You are in it for those people or you are not.

Period

 

[Edgetho]

I was against Iraq but not Afghanistan. I wasn't for staying in Afghanistan for nearly 15 years though, we should have been out of there long ago.

We've been in Germany for 70 years.

I think having a functioning, friendly Germany is a plus.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sounds like you're in it for the dead children. Kill them all! We'll win if we just kill them all!

And what of regime change? Can you show me the constitutional enumerated power that grants the executive and congress the ability to topple foreign governments we do not like or that do not play by our rules? Oh, thats right, there isn't one.

You know, one would think we as a nation would have figured this shit out decades ago. We toppled a democratically elected official in Iran in the 1950s and replaced him with a dictator. We did the same thing in Iraq years later.

Yes, I know. It's irrelevant HOW we ended up in these fucked up positions as long as we "stay the course". The problem is that this imperial policy is bankrupting our nation. Both economically/fiscally and morally. But we cant stop now, right? We have to see it through. Like we did in Vietman and a host of other conflicts that were abject failures.

Why? Because we have an obligation to police the world once wwe start, right? No matter how bad the consequences get. No matter how much worse the situation becomes. We just need to dig our heels in like 5 yr old children who were told without playing nice there will be no snack, and face the corner anyway.

Sounds really logical, reasonable and pragmatic.......if you're a child or completely insane.

 

[007]

I was against Iraq but not Afghanistan. I wasn't for staying in Afghanistan for nearly 15 years though, we should have been out of there long ago.

We've been in Germany for 70 years.

I think having a functioning, friendly Germany is a plus.

Germany was trying to take over the WORLD, and we bombed them into oblivion.

Is Afghanistan trying to take over the world? Should we bomb the entry country into oblivion?

Explain EXACTLY, what the hell we're doing there and what our exit strategy is. If this is a WAR, then why aren't we fighting like we want to WIN IT?

Otherwise, we're simply there wasting lives and money playing patty cake with a bunch of stone age sons a bitches that no matter how long were there, they're not going to change. Not now, not ever.

 

[Spoonman]

I was against Iraq but not Afghanistan. I wasn't for staying in Afghanistan for nearly 15 years though, we should have been out of there long ago.

We've been in Germany for 70 years.

I think having a functioning, friendly Germany is a plus.

yea, but they have good beer, good food and good women. what does afghanistan have to offer?

 

[Vox]

Then we should have stayed in Iraq and executed any Iraqi that disagreed with us on the spot.
you are probably right. at least that would let the war be war not a messy weak game we played the first 4 years
We should have kept all the oil from their wells and seized all their assets.
yes, we should
But that's not how we work.
we still get blamed for doing it - so who is the fool?
That's not what we did in Europe..... I'm talking the whole Continent (look up: Plan, Marshall The)
It's Europe. The mentality is different.
When we go in and topple a Government, don't you think we have a Moral Obligation to hang around long enough to make sure that the Government we toppled doesn't re-form?

No, we do not. we do not have any moral obligations. Wars are about interests. And if you wage a war and take care of your interests FIRST - the enemy respects you for that.

If not, then what the ****'s the point?

And sometimes, people you're trying to kill? They don't like it. And they fight back.

yes, they do. so conduct a war as a war, not as a election campaign. You are going to blamed for everything you do anyway - so do wat suits YOU. Or do not start it.
We could have asked the Taliban nicely to leave. Betcha that would have worked, huh?

Or Saddam? Bet he would have just given up power if we asked him to. (he almost did, remember?)

I know it's a shock to you. And I'm not being smartass. But most civilians don't think about things like this before we commit our Armed Forces.

Bush tried to explain it.


That was his BIGGEST mistake.

Many dimocraps fought it but they lost the political and legislative battle.

We committed.

We KNEW it was going to be a LONG, HARD struggle. Bush tried to tell you that. Many times.

He knew, I knew and people who pay attention to these things knew that this moment would come.

It happened a LONG time ago on the left. About five minutes after they lost the vote for the AUMF in Congress.

Then they found some ugly old scrunt by the name of Cindy Sheehan. Then Code Pink. Then OWS...

Now you?

That even some on the Right would lose patience with the casualties and want us to withdraw is disappointing but expected

We knew it would be the strategy of those we're fighting. We knew it from the beginning.

We have a Moral obligation to leave behind a functioning, non-genocidal government after we topple an existing one.

even obama knows that.

It's a sad day when dimocrap politicans understand these things better than the man-on-the-street Republican.

We have an obligation.

You have obligations in your life. Children, job, spouse, siblings, parents. Some are legal obligations while most are Moral obligations.

If you're the kind of person who would leave the people of SW Asia to die by the Hundreds of thousands at the hands of radical Islamist murderers then I will not call you 'friend' or consider you the least bit trustworthy.

you do not have to. politics DO NOT work on the friendships, but they work perfectly well on the INTERESTS.

See, this whole crappy thinking "we can make them like us" - is what gets us every time in trouble.

THAT is the point. NOTHING ELSE. THERE IS NO OTHER ARGUMENT TO BE MADE.

You are in it for those people or you are not.

Period

I am all for the people who are willing to go along and help them IF that is not too big of a sacrifice and I compromise the interests and lives of the people I ( as a politician) would be responsible first and foremost - the Americans.

Period.

.

 

[NightFox]

There you have it. The U.S. made a bad situation horrible, and now they have to stay and make it even worse.

On the bright side Kevin, if we keep working at it maybe we can take the title away from the Soviets for "Most idiotic foreign interventionist in the history of the world".

 

[Edgetho]

I was against Iraq but not Afghanistan. I wasn't for staying in Afghanistan for nearly 15 years though, we should have been out of there long ago.

We've been in Germany for 70 years.

I think having a functioning, friendly Germany is a plus.

Germany was trying to take over the WORLD, and we bombed them into oblivion.

Is Afghanistan trying to take over the world? Should we bomb the entry country into oblivion?

Explain EXACTLY, what the hell we're doing there and what our exit strategy is. If this is a WAR, then why aren't we fighting like we want to WIN IT?

Otherwise, we're simply there wasting lives and money playing patty cake with a bunch of stone age sons a bitches that no matter how long were there, they're not going to change. Not now, not ever.

Germany had no delusions of trying to take over the world, idiot.

But anybody that knows anything about the disease known as 'Islam' knows that it is their sworn duty to turn the World into an Islamic Caliphate and impose Sharia Law on it. They say it all the time. They write about it, they make videos about it.

You're just too stupid to know about it

Isn't there a 'Kiddy Board' you can go to?

 

[Redfish]

the problem is that we learned nothing from the 58,000 americans who died for nothing in viet nam, plus the thousands more who lost limbs, sight, brain function, etc.

Sadly, we are still sending our kids off to be blown up in iraq and afghanistan and the result will be the same as viet nam---we will have accomplished nothing.

Will we never learn that we cannot police the world and convert the entire world to our way of living? apparently not. and this is a failure of both parties.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're creating a lot more than you can kill

I am so sick of hearing that incredibly STUPID line of logic.

By that reckoning, there should have been somewhere around Six Hundred Million armed and pissed off Nazis around 1945.

Stupidest line of thought -- Maybe ever. In history.

Beyond stupid, actually.

So there are roughly 80 million Germans today, and you think there were six hundred million in 1945?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There you have it. The U.S. made a bad situation horrible, and now they have to stay and make it even worse.

On the bright side Kevin, if we keep working at it maybe we can take the title away from the Soviets for "Most idiotic foreign interventionist in the history of the world".

We haven't already far surpassed them?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There you have it. The U.S. made a bad situation horrible, and now they have to stay and make it even worse.

On the bright side Kevin, if we keep working at it maybe we can take the title away from the Soviets for "Most idiotic foreign interventionist in the history of the world".

We haven't already far surpassed them?

To the rest of the world, I bet its even worse than that. Here in Amerika, the politicians adn MSM talkingheads immediately divert to talks of "American Exceptionalism" as the reason we have to intervene in every single, solitary squabble that takes place on the globe. Of course, intervening isn't all we do. We also like to create problems adn then run in on "rescue" missions.

We'll never F'in learn. not until the coffer is completely dry and there is no way to continue on either at home or abroad.......was someone saying something about the Soviet Union earlier....

 

[aaronleland]

Gingrich is just trying to cash in on the neo-isolationist fad that's currently hot on the right.

He figures that's the better moneymaking side to take.

You could be entirely right, and I won't even debate it.

However, that still takes nothing away from the fact that he is right, and so is Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

It is IDIOTIC, even ASININE, to call extracting ourselves after TWELVE YEARS of SENSELESS, POINTLESS, NO END SIGHT war, "isolationist," it's shear stupidity.

I'd definitely agree with him there. I agreed with Ron Paul on his non-interventionist policy, while a majority of the Republican party called him naive. The problem with Gingrich is that he spent decades defending America's foreign policy until the opinion of GOP voters changed. It's the old case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

 

[Edgetho]

the problem is that we learned nothing from the 58,000 americans who died for nothing in viet nam, plus the thousands more who lost limbs, sight, brain function, etc.

Sadly, we are still sending our kids off to be blown up in iraq and afghanistan and the result will be the same as viet nam---we will have accomplished nothing.

Will we never learn that we cannot police the world and convert the entire world to our way of living? apparently not. and this is a failure of both parties.

Try to get this your thick skulls.... All of you.

The time for arguing about whether we should have gone into ANY place has long passed.

If we were to face another "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" you might find that I don't believe in sending in Conventional Troops most of the time myself.

Most of the time, they're just 'targets' anyway.

What I'm arguing is that two wrongs don't make a right.

We have an obligation that WE created.

Whether we should have gone into these places is good only for mental masturbation.

Which this Board excels at.

My concern is for the here and now, not for the 'what ifs'.

I don't believe we should leave those people unprotected.

If you want to bring them here, to America. Fine. If you want to establish a Home Land for them and protect them, that's fine.

If you want to leave troops there to protect, that's okay too.

But what too many here are saying is, "**** 'em. Let them all die. I couldn't care less."

And yes, you ARE saying that.

And you disgust me.

 

[Vox]

Try to get this your thick skulls.... All of you.

the same can be said of you, as well, so let's keep our epithets out of the discussion

The time for arguing about whether we should have gone into ANY place has long passed.

If we were to face another "Iraq" or "Afghanistan" you might find that I don't believe in sending in Conventional Troops most of the time myself.

Most of the time, they're just 'targets' anyway.

What I'm arguing is that two wrongs don't make a right.

We have an obligation that WE created.

No, we have not created any obligation and we don't have it

Whether we should have gone into these places is good only for mental masturbation.

Which this Board excels at.

My concern is for the here and now, not for the 'what ifs'.

I don't believe we should leave those people unprotected.

and others believe to the contrary. Either point of view is EQUAL

If you want to bring them here, to America. Fine. If you want to establish a Home Land for them and protect them, that's fine.

here? are you nuts? why on earth should we bring them HERE?!?

If you want to leave troops there to protect, that's okay too.

Nope. Time to go.

But what too many here are saying is, "**** 'em. Let them all die. I couldn't care less."

And yes, you ARE saying that.

And you disgust me.

That is you right to be disgusted. But that does not make your point of view to be correct or morally superior.

.