Ron Paul's Last hurrah

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraq experience has been a failure for the U.S., even in the most optimistic light.

We cannot keep doing that without busting this nation completely.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Iraq experience has been a failure for the U.S., even in the most optimistic light.

We cannot keep doing that without busting this nation completely.

Good point, so why Obama followed the Bush doctrine in Libya and the other 6 countries he's attacked is very sad and guarantees we're creating the next hotbed for Osama-types like we did in the 80's.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Iraq experience has been a failure for the U.S., even in the most optimistic light.

We cannot keep doing that without busting this nation completely.

Good point, so why Obama followed the Bush doctrine in Libya and the other 6 countries he's attacked is very sad and guarantees we're creating the next hotbed for Osama-types like we did in the 80's.

Because he did not fight major land wars there? Because our allies did the overwhelming job of offensive fighting? Because he built coalitions that often included the Arab League? Because you don't know the difference between Muslims who don''t want jihad and those who do, and that the first hate the second as much? You mean these things?

Really, I am glad you are asking.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The Iraq experience has been a failure for the U.S., even in the most optimistic light.

We cannot keep doing that without busting this nation completely.

Good point, so why Obama followed the Bush doctrine in Libya and the other 6 countries he's attacked is very sad and guarantees we're creating the next hotbed for Osama-types like we did in the 80's.

Because he did not fight major land wars there? Because our allies did the overwhelming job of offensive fighting? Because he built coalitions that often included the Arab League? Because you don't know the difference between Muslims who don''t want jihad and those who do, and that the first hate the second as much? You mean these things?

Really, I am glad you are asking.

So whether or not terrorists take over a country and whether or not we kill civilians depends on if we have boots on the ground? Interesting.

It's not hard to use google and find out the strong Al-Qaeda presence in the Libyan "freedom fighters."

It's Afghanistan from the late 70's to the mid 80's all over again. Supporting and aiding the worst monsters humanity can create.

 

[The Rabbi]

You break it you own it? Couldn't disagree with that more. If a shitty gov't attacks us, and we attack them back, we aren't responsible for cleaning up what they deserved to get.


We had 2 options.

1.) Spend a on of money and time, and sacrifice more great american lives in order to install a piece of shit government.
2.) Not spend that money, not pile on to a deficit and debt, not sacrifice any lives and they end up with a piece of shit government.


I'll take option 2 every time, call me crazy.

Except those weren't the two possible outcomes.
Outcome one was a stable government, which we had until Obama decided to pull out.
Outcome two was a wholly-owned subsidiary of al Qeada and Iran.
We did exactly what you suggest in Afghanistan in the 80s. We see the results. No thanks.

No we did the opposite, i would've been against meddling, your hero Reagan supported and armed Osama and friends. Look where that got us.

And no Afghanistan never had anything close to a stable gov't, and Iraq has always been run by a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah and the gov't itself is based on Islam.

You are honestly trying to compare circumstances from the 1980s with today? Really?
We went in and helped the Muj kick out the Soviets. Then we left them alone and the taliban took over, precisely because we weren't around. They still didnt trust us. Neither did the people in Basra and damned near the Kurds because we did exactly wht you suggest: go in, break stuff, and leave. It is a failed policy.
Iraq has always been run by a dear friend of Iran? Really? Are you totally ignorant or merely stupid?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Except those weren't the two possible outcomes.
Outcome one was a stable government, which we had until Obama decided to pull out.
Outcome two was a wholly-owned subsidiary of al Qeada and Iran.
We did exactly what you suggest in Afghanistan in the 80s. We see the results. No thanks.

No we did the opposite, i would've been against meddling, your hero Reagan supported and armed Osama and friends. Look where that got us.

And no Afghanistan never had anything close to a stable gov't, and Iraq has always been run by a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah and the gov't itself is based on Islam.

You are honestly trying to compare circumstances from the 1980s with today? Really?
We went in and helped the Muj kick out the Soviets. Then we left them alone and the taliban took over, precisely because we weren't around. They still didnt trust us. Neither did the people in Basra and damned near the Kurds because we did exactly wht you suggest: go in, break stuff, and leave. It is a failed policy.
Iraq has always been run by a dear friend of Iran? Really? Are you totally ignorant or merely stupid?

Same policy now as the 80's.

Support monsters with US taxpayer dollars, prop up with power and funding said monsters like we did Osama in the 80's and now Karzai/Al-Maliki and which Al-Qaeda operative takes over Libya.

Meddling and installing shitty gov'ts because at the time they're good puppets, Obama and Reagan have the same policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good point, so why Obama followed the Bush doctrine in Libya and the other 6 countries he's attacked is very sad and guarantees we're creating the next hotbed for Osama-types like we did in the 80's.

Because he did not fight major land wars there? Because our allies did the overwhelming job of offensive fighting? Because he built coalitions that often included the Arab League? Because you don't know the difference between Muslims who don''t want jihad and those who do, and that the first hate the second as much? You mean these things?

Really, I am glad you are asking.

So whether or not terrorists take over a country and whether or not we kill civilians depends on if we have boots on the ground? Interesting.

It's not hard to use google and find out the strong Al-Qaeda presence in the Libyan "freedom fighters."

It's Afghanistan from the late 70's to the mid 80's all over again. Supporting and aiding the worst monsters humanity can create.

You are making some steps. But your error remains confusing what Bush did with what Obama has done. Can you tell the difference?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Because he did not fight major land wars there? Because our allies did the overwhelming job of offensive fighting? Because he built coalitions that often included the Arab League? Because you don't know the difference between Muslims who don''t want jihad and those who do, and that the first hate the second as much? You mean these things?

Really, I am glad you are asking.

So whether or not terrorists take over a country and whether or not we kill civilians depends on if we have boots on the ground? Interesting.

It's not hard to use google and find out the strong Al-Qaeda presence in the Libyan "freedom fighters."

It's Afghanistan from the late 70's to the mid 80's all over again. Supporting and aiding the worst monsters humanity can create.

You are making some steps. But your error remains confusing what Bush did with what Obama has done. Can you tell the difference?

Warmongering? Nationbuilding? Attacking countries that aren't a threat? Making foreign policy decisions that rack up deficits and debt that we're passing on to our kids and grandkids to pay?

Are those 4 things consistent with both?

 

[Contumacious]

We have a deficit that is larger than our GDP! We have budget deficit of $2 trillion annually. Our taxes are insane and our monetary policies are crippling. All candidates say they will cut spending and taxes. The only one people believe is Ron Paul. The only one I believe is Ron Paul. On spending and taxes, Ron is right on. When he talks about taxes and spending he is hard not to love!

Nonsense.

It's not like we are a quadrillion dollars in the hole.

It's just a mere 15 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion.

So , yes, we can afford another welfare/warfare state candidate. They have swore to loot, plunder and confiscate.......

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So whether or not terrorists take over a country and whether or not we kill civilians depends on if we have boots on the ground? Interesting.

It's not hard to use google and find out the strong Al-Qaeda presence in the Libyan "freedom fighters."

It's Afghanistan from the late 70's to the mid 80's all over again. Supporting and aiding the worst monsters humanity can create.

You are making some steps. But your error remains confusing what Bush did with what Obama has done. Can you tell the difference?

Warmongering? Nationbuilding? Attacking countries that aren't a threat? Making foreign policy decisions that rack up deficits and debt that we're passing on to our kids and grandkids to pay?

Are those 4 things consistent with both?

You are making some steps, for sure.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are making some steps. But your error remains confusing what Bush did with what Obama has done. Can you tell the difference?

Warmongering? Nationbuilding? Attacking countries that aren't a threat? Making foreign policy decisions that rack up deficits and debt that we're passing on to our kids and grandkids to pay?

Are those 4 things consistent with both?

You are making some steps, for sure.

Can i get a yes or no?

 

[The Rabbi]

No we did the opposite, i would've been against meddling, your hero Reagan supported and armed Osama and friends. Look where that got us.

And no Afghanistan never had anything close to a stable gov't, and Iraq has always been run by a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah and the gov't itself is based on Islam.

You are honestly trying to compare circumstances from the 1980s with today? Really?
We went in and helped the Muj kick out the Soviets. Then we left them alone and the taliban took over, precisely because we weren't around. They still didnt trust us. Neither did the people in Basra and damned near the Kurds because we did exactly wht you suggest: go in, break stuff, and leave. It is a failed policy.
Iraq has always been run by a dear friend of Iran? Really? Are you totally ignorant or merely stupid?

Same policy now as the 80's.

Support monsters with US taxpayer dollars, prop up with power and funding said monsters like we did Osama in the 80's and now Karzai/Al-Maliki and which Al-Qaeda operative takes over Libya.

Meddling and installing shitty gov'ts because at the time they're good puppets, Obama and Reagan have the same policy.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah American imperialism yadda yadda.
Save it for the next meeting of the cell.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have a deficit that is larger than our GDP! We have budget deficit of $2 trillion annually. Our taxes are insane and our monetary policies are crippling. All candidates say they will cut spending and taxes. The only one people believe is Ron Paul. The only one I believe is Ron Paul. On spending and taxes, Ron is right on. When he talks about taxes and spending he is hard not to love!

Nonsense.

It's not like we are a quadrillion dollars in the hole.

It's just a mere 15 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion.

So , yes, we can afford another welfare/warfare state candidate. They have swore to loot, plunder and confiscate.......

.

We need to up our support for Israel.

 

[Contumacious]

We have a deficit that is larger than our GDP! We have budget deficit of $2 trillion annually. Our taxes are insane and our monetary policies are crippling. All candidates say they will cut spending and taxes. The only one people believe is Ron Paul. The only one I believe is Ron Paul. On spending and taxes, Ron is right on. When he talks about taxes and spending he is hard not to love!

Nonsense.

It's not like we are a quadrillion dollars in the hole.

It's just a mere 15 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion.

So , yes, we can afford another welfare/warfare state candidate. They have swore to loot, plunder and confiscate.......

.

We need to up our support for Israel.

My understanding is that Iran is planning to drop "care packages" into Israel very very soon.

.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are honestly trying to compare circumstances from the 1980s with today? Really?
We went in and helped the Muj kick out the Soviets. Then we left them alone and the taliban took over, precisely because we weren't around. They still didnt trust us. Neither did the people in Basra and damned near the Kurds because we did exactly wht you suggest: go in, break stuff, and leave. It is a failed policy.
Iraq has always been run by a dear friend of Iran? Really? Are you totally ignorant or merely stupid?

Same policy now as the 80's.

Support monsters with US taxpayer dollars, prop up with power and funding said monsters like we did Osama in the 80's and now Karzai/Al-Maliki and which Al-Qaeda operative takes over Libya.

Meddling and installing shitty gov'ts because at the time they're good puppets, Obama and Reagan have the same policy.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah American imperialism yadda yadda.
Save it for the next meeting of the cell.

Of course you have no facts to counter me, your waving of the white flag duly noted.

 

[jaybags]

We have a deficit that is larger than our GDP! We have budget deficit of $2 trillion annually. Our taxes are insane and our monetary policies are crippling. All candidates say they will cut spending and taxes. The only one people believe is Ron Paul. The only one I believe is Ron Paul. On spending and taxes, Ron is right on. When he talks about taxes and spending he is hard not to love!

Nonsense.

It's not like we are a quadrillion dollars in the hole.

It's just a mere 15 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion.

So , yes, we can afford another welfare/warfare state candidate. They have swore to loot, plunder and confiscate.......

.

We need to up our support for Israel.

why on earth do we need to up our support for isreal? oh, your handle explains that.

what type of support would you like to see more of?

are you a zionist?

 

[The Rabbi]

Same policy now as the 80's.

Support monsters with US taxpayer dollars, prop up with power and funding said monsters like we did Osama in the 80's and now Karzai/Al-Maliki and which Al-Qaeda operative takes over Libya.

Meddling and installing shitty gov'ts because at the time they're good puppets, Obama and Reagan have the same policy.

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah American imperialism yadda yadda.
Save it for the next meeting of the cell.

Of course you have no facts to counter me, your waving of the white flag duly noted.

There are no facts to counter anti-American bias. You just have to ridicule it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So because 9/11 happened we needed to head out and build nations?

He would have been seen as a hero if he'd have just gone into Afghanistan and bombed the ******* SHIT out of them, including all the mountain areas where they were hiding. But he didn't.

Are you nuts?

More ordinance was dropped on Afghanistan in 2001 than in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.

What kind of drugs are you on?

Bush announces opening of attacks - CNN

He pussyfooted around, half assed the mission, let them all ESCAPE, and then committed to a huge military operation in some other country before even taking care of the original mission.

There is zero truth to your claims - utter fabrication.

You're a twoofer, aren't you? You just make shit up.

He fucked it up ROYALLY. If it wasn't for the fact that there had been plans drawn up for Iraq before 9/11, it would have at least made SOME sense, but all it really looks like is he took advantage of a convenient opportunity to achieve an agenda that several people in his administration already had prior to 9/11.

This is why people say he lied in his 2000 campaign.

Because he ******* DID.

You're full of shit. ******* moron.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yeah yeah, blah blah blah American imperialism yadda yadda.
Save it for the next meeting of the cell.

Of course you have no facts to counter me, your waving of the white flag duly noted.

There are no facts to counter anti-American bias. You just have to ridicule it.

Lol adorable, I'm anti-american because i dont' like our foreign policy and haven't for decades.

But i'm sure you being against our social security policy for decades or our welfare policy for decades (which i would agree with you on) makes you a superhuman who bleeds patriotism, right?

Speaking against government makes you anti-american, just like all those anti-american assholes who led the revolution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Warmongering? Nationbuilding? Attacking countries that aren't a threat? Making foreign policy decisions that rack up deficits and debt that we're passing on to our kids and grandkids to pay?

Are those 4 things consistent with both?

You are making some steps, for sure.

Can i get a yes or no?

You make the case for what you believe. I don't have to, but I will let you know what I think.