Ron Paul info Coverting conservatives on Foriegn Policy

[revelarts]

Grassroots video on Ron Paul's foreign policy converts many


Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy, in 2007 and now again in 2011, has been called "dangerous," "naive," and Bill O'Reilly on the 'Today' show (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/170049/watch-bill-oreilly-dismisses-ron-paul-for-his-anti-american-foreign-policy/) on Monday even said it disqualifies Paul not only as a candidate, but "as an American."
Sean Wheeler, a clinical hypnotherapist in Atlanta, could not disagree more. A Ron Paul supporter since 2007, Wheeler decided to spend his nights and weekends over the last three months creating a video he half-jokingly hoped would "change the world," or at the least change some minds about Ron Paul's foreign policy. He kept hearing people say that they liked everything about Ron Paul, except his foreign policy. He said, "It occurred to me that if voters understood and supported his foreign policy, he would win the Republican nomination in a landslide."....
...
Posted on YouTube just last week, the video has already gotten over 189,000 views. Wheeler says the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Viewers tell him that the video brings them to tears, that they've watched it multiple times, and then they email it to their families and their entire mailing list. Wheeler said that he believes when honest people discover the truth that most of them will do the right thing.






Matthew Urzua, a disabled veteran who served in the active army from 2006 to 2010 declared,
I'm a Ron Paul supporter as of this video. What stood out most in this video is when Paul said to put our money back into the economy and let the countries defend themselves. So many times I've seen soldiers killed because the Iraqis refused to combat terrorism and go on missions.


Josh Brown, of College Station, Texas, wrote,
I am a fairly conservative person who grew up in a traditional blue collar Republican household in Texas. In the past few months, I have been listening to all the Republican candidates, and Ron Paul's stances have sounded more and more appealing to me, but I never made the leap to vote for him because of his foreign policy. That is until I saw your video.

I am now convinced that he is not a crazy isolationist like others have made him out to be. His stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and relations with Iran make complete sense.


Charles Eson wrote in a comment that when he heard conservative talk show hosts constantly attack Ron Paul's foreign policy stances, he began to question them himself and began to lose confidence in his candidate. He said,
I began to think that a Ron Paul presidency would endanger our national defense, UNTIL I saw this video. Now I have no doubt whatsoever that Ron is right on ALL the issues that matter.


Jacob Areford of Savannah, Georgia, wrote,

I was able to convert my dad with this video. He used to believe the Bush/Mccain foreign policy and now has been converted. I've been trying to do this for a long time, and I think this was the trigger video.


A commenter on YouTube with the username "triggerhappy899" said,
I showed my parents this video the other day. They were blind like me, they believed that these "terrorists" hated us because we were free and prosperous. We had no idea before this video of what blowback was or how the CIA caused some of the motive behind 9/11 and the hostage situation in the 70s. And now they agree with Ron Paul, that we get into these situations because we don't mind our own business.






http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-salt-lake-city/grassroots-video-on-ron-paul-foreign-policy-converts-many



<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8NhRPo0WAo?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Funny how you want to post more and more "positive" crap about Ron Paul, as if you work for his campaign, but then fail to address, or refuse to address, the negative crap about him in the other threads. I guess when questioned, ignore the thread and start a new one? LOL

Post all you like though, Rev, it'll give you something to reminisce about when Paul goes down the shitter again. He's a proven racist, or incompetent racist supporter, and one who thinks it's a good idea to feed the habits of crackheads and heroin addicts.

[ConHog]

Funny how you want to post more and more "positive" crap about Ron Paul, as if you work for his campaign, but then fail to address, or refuse to address, the negative crap about him in the other threads. I guess when questioned, ignore the thread and start a new one? LOL

Post all you like though, Rev, it'll give you something to reminisce about when Paul goes down the shitter again. He's a proven racist, or incompetent racist supporter, and one who thinks it's a good idea to feed the habits of crackheads and heroin addicts.

Ron Paul does have a few good ideas, but WAY too many bad ideas to ever be considered a good idea as President.

[jimnyc]

Ron Paul does have a few good ideas, but WAY too many bad ideas to ever be considered a good idea as President.

Sure, I have a few good ideas too, but that doesn't make me presidential material. He has newsletters go out, that are racist, on his letterhead, makes $$$ from them, but then claims not to be aware of them? Yeah, sure, he's "disavowed" them, but who wouldn't when running for office? Racist and/or incompetent at best. Then he plays kiddie politics and walks out on interviews when the questions are too tough? What's he going to do as the debates go further and further, and he gets asked the same on-stage, in front of the nation - will he just walk off then?

Again, might have some good ideas, but he's no presidential material. He's a kook with a suit.

[CSM]

Sure, I have a few good ideas too, but that doesn't make me presidential material. He has newsletters go out, that are racist, on his letterhead, makes $$$ from them, but then claims not to be aware of them? Yeah, sure, he's "disavowed" them, but who wouldn't when running for office? Racist and/or incompetent at best. Then he plays kiddie politics and walks out on interviews when the questions are too tough? What's he going to do as the debates go further and further, and he gets asked the same on-stage, in front of the nation - will he just walk off then?

Again, might have some good ideas, but he's no presidential material. He's a kook with a suit.

I too have some great ideas but would make a lousy president ... dictator however is another matter. I would make a really awesome dictator!

[Little-Acorn]

It's true that new information from Ron Paul will help strengthen people's views about him.

Thought there wasn't anything new in this video, Paul did make a statement in the last debate in Iowa, that I hadn't heard before. He was trying to maintain that we can avoid wars better by negotiation than by direct military action. And he stated that, at the time he was drafted in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis was fresh in everyone's minds, and that then-President Kennedy averted the crisis simply by picking up the phone and negotiating with Kruschev.

Apparently Ron Paul's mind wasn't as fresh as it should have been, even then. Somehow he seems to have forgotten a few other things that had gone on then.

Kennedy didn't just pick up the phone. He first sent reconnaisance aircraft over Cuba (no doubt in violation of Cuba's airspace or some such law) and took picures that revealed the presence of Russian nuclear missile facilities, and Russian ships unloading more. And then he sent U.S. warships to blockade Cuba - an action usually only taken during wartime - and announced that all Russian ships approaching Cuba would be stopped, boarded, and inspected, and that if any were found to be carrying war materials, missiles etc., they would be SUNK. In other words, in response to apparently warlike moves by the Soviets, Kennedy committed several direct, aggressive acts of war.

Only then did he pick up the phone and give his buddy Nikita a call.

It wasn't just a friendly phone call and some genial negotiations that averted the Cuban Missile Crisis and got Russia to remove its nuclear missiles off the shores of the U.S. It was DIRECT, AGGRESSIVE MILITARY ACTION, and the credible threat of more to come. And the only reason the threat was credible, was because WE HAD ALREADY TAKEN SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS.

The "new" information we have here from Ron Paul, is that he is apparently willing to rewrite known, documented history to try to pretend his views are valid, flying in the face of facts that demonstrate they are not. This "new" information does indeed strengthen my views about him... though perhaps not in the way hoped by the OP.

"Kook" is actually a rather mild word used to describe Ron Paul's beliefs and attitudes. I have stated before that some of the man's beliefs border on the insane. Here he has given us another such.

Ron Paul's attitude toward fiscal conservatism (as if there were any way to divorce fiscal concerns from the rest of conservatism, a common mistaken belief) are laudable, and his regard for the sanctity of the Constitution and its original intent place him far above any other candidate in these categories.

But his delusional foreign policy beliefs, some of which border on actual insanity, make him completely unacceptable as a President, regadless of his excellence on other important matters. And his supporters, with their equal willingness to disregard, ignore, and rewrite history in their desire to get the excellence in Constitutional fealty that Paul offers, are just as kooky. Again, to put it mildly.

[ConHog]

Sure, I have a few good ideas too, but that doesn't make me presidential material. He has newsletters go out, that are racist, on his letterhead, makes $$$ from them, but then claims not to be aware of them? Yeah, sure, he's "disavowed" them, but who wouldn't when running for office? Racist and/or incompetent at best. Then he plays kiddie politics and walks out on interviews when the questions are too tough? What's he going to do as the debates go further and further, and he gets asked the same on-stage, in front of the nation - will he just walk off then?

Again, might have some good ideas, but he's no presidential material. He's a kook with a suit.

Hey, claiming that he had no idea what the guy preaching to him for 20 years was REALLY about worked out well for Obama. I see no reason Paul couldn't use the same excuse. :laugh2:

[revelarts]

Ron Paul

I am not a racist.
I didn't write them.
I don't speak like that.
No one has ever heard say anything like that.
Usually there's a clip of some racist comments their is none because I don't talk like that.
Rosa Parks is 1 of my heroes.
Martin Luther King is 1 of my heroes.
Libertarianism is anti racist, racism is a collectivist idea.
I see Everyone as an individual.
It's not the color of a persons skin that matters it's the content of their Character as MLK said.
I would Pardon ALL of the Blacks and Whites in jails for non violent drug crimes.
The Judicial system is unfair to Blacks and Discriminatory.
The Death Penalty is unfair to Blacks and I'm against it now.
I repudiate all of these statements, My whole life is a repudiation of those statements.

Most comments from CNN 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
One comment form CSPAN 2008

How many of you are for pardoning all BLACK non violent drug criminals?
How many of you think the judicial system is discriminatory against Blacks?
Does that sound racist to you? Can I get an honest answer to that?
Don't run.
How Many of you Consider Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks among your heroes?


If you think he's not just a racist but a liar as well that's fine. he hasn't denied it enough nothing will sway you he could marry a black women and it wouldn't be enough. "those newsletters" tell you everything you ever WANT to know. Fine.
Funny how people managed to give Cain the benefit of the doubt but Paul's denials, life and policies are not credible.
Fine, everyone has to come to there own conclusions, But I've addressed this here now in about 8 different threads but some how i keep getting accused of avoiding the question.
There's nothing left for me to say except for Paul to come out and deny it again, which I'm sure he'll have to do. over and over and over. Comes with the territory. And you can say he's a Lying racist again if you like. Fine.
I'll be looking for you all to celebrate MLK day with this year Unlike last year when we couldn't get but a hand full of comments to join me from everyone here that's so concerned about race all of a sudden.

[revelarts]

It's interesting,
I've been looking into some Black peoples reaction to this. And from what I've seen so far many , don't like the newsletters (of course) or his latest reaction but they don't think that the newsmedia or the republicans really care about Blacks anyway and that the enemies of Paul, "the establishment", are using race as a tool to try to bring him down. And even with the newsletters they've never heard of a candidate that has proposed pardoning non violent drug crimes, certainly not a racist stromfront type idea. But bottom line many who were leaning that way still do but with caution and wait and see and those that were serious supporters for his overall positions are still with him.

[revelarts]

Back to his foriegn policy position.

When A certain NewYork Mayor Challeged Paul on it, Part of Pauls response the next day was to give Him a readng list so that the New york Mayor would be more informed on the issue.
He recommended he read the 9-11 commission report, Blowback, Imperial Huberus and Dying to win.
Part Here's part of a product desciption of the book Dying to Win.


Ron Paul also mentioned the book "Dying to win" after Giuliani made the ignorant (but politically expedient) statement about suicide attacks, here's a product description of "Dying to win" from Amazon.
Suicide terrorism is rising around the world, but there is great confusion as to why. In this paradigm-shifting analysis, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has collected groundbreaking evidence to explain the strategic, social, and individual factors responsible for this growing threat.

One of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Professor Pape has created the first comprehensive database of every suicide terrorist attack in the world from 1980 until today. With striking clarity and precision, Professor Pape uses this unprecedented research to debunk widely held misconceptions about the nature of suicide terrorism and provide a new lens that makes sense of the threat we face.

FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.

FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka–a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.

FACT: Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support.

FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern. Although Saudi Arabia is not under American military occupation per se, one major objective of al-Qaeda is the expulsion of U.S. troops from the Persian Gulf region, and as a result there have been repeated attacks by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden against American troops in Saudi Arabia and the region as a whole.

FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective.

In this wide-ranging analysis, Professor Pape offers the essential tools to forecast when some groups are likely to resort to suicide terrorism and when they are not. He also provides the first comprehensive demographic profile of modern suicide terrorist attackers. With data from more than 460 such attackers–including the names of 333–we now know that these individuals are not mainly poor, desperate criminals or uneducated religious fanatics but are often well-educated, middle-class political activists.

More than simply advancing new theory and facts, these pages also answer key questions about the war on terror:

• Are we safer now than we were before September 11?
• Was the invasion of Iraq a good counterterrorist move?
• Is al-Qaeda stronger now than it was before September 11?

Professor Pape answers these questions with analysis grounded in fact, not politics, and recommends concrete ways for today’s states to fight and prevent terrorist attacks. Military options may disrupt terrorist operations in the short term, but a lasting solution to suicide terrorism will require a comprehensive, long-term approach–one that abandons visions of empire and relies on a combined strategy of vigorous homeland security, nation building in troubled states, and greater energy independence.

For both policy makers and the general public, Dying to Win transcends speculation with systematic scholarship, making it one of the most important political studies of recent time.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0yOa7FrgUg?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0yOa7FrgUg?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

Iranian threat


Iran Military Strength

Iran Military Strength Detail by the numbers.
Record Last Updated: 6/30/2011 | Authored by Staff Writer


PERSONNEL

Total Population: 77,891,220 [2011]
Available Manpower: 46,247,556 [2011]
Fit for Service: 39,556,497 [2011]
Of Military Age: 1,392,483 [2011]
Active Military: 545,000 [2011]
Active Reserve: 650,000 [2011]


http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-army.gif LAND ARMY

Total Land Weapons: 12,393
Tanks: 1,793 [2011]
APCs / IFVs: 1,560 [2011]
Towed Artillery: 1,575 [2011]
SPGs: 865 [2011]
MLRSs: 200 [2011]
Mortars: 5,000 [2011]
AT Weapons: 1,400 [2011]
AA Weapons: 1,701 [2011]
Logistical Vehicles: 12,000

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-aircraft.gif AIR POWER

Total Aircraft: 1,030 [2011]
Helicopters: 357 [2011]
Serviceable Airports: 319 [2011]


http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-oil.gif RESOURCES
Oil Production: 4,172,000 bbl/Day [2011]
Oil Consumption: 1,809,000 bbl/Day [2011]
Proven Reserves: 137,600,000,000 bbl/Day [2011]




http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-logistical.gif LOGISTICAL
Labor Force: 25,700,000 [2011]
Roadway Coverage: 172,927 km
Railway Coverage: 8,442 km

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-financial.gif FINANCIAL (USD)
Defense Budget: $9,174,000,000 [2011]
Reserves of Foreign Exchange & Gold: $75,060,000,000 [2011]
Purchasing Power: $818,700,000,000 [2011]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-geography.gif GEOGRAPHIC
Waterways: 850 km
Coastline: 2,440 km
Square Land Area: 1,648,195 km
Shared Border: 5,440 km


http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-ships.gif NAVAL POWER
Total Navy Ships: 261
Merchant Marine Strength: 74 [2011]
Major Ports & Terminals: 3
Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2011]
Destroyers: 3 [2011]
Submarines: 19 [2011]
Frigates: 5 [2011]
Patrol Craft: 198 [2011]
Mine Warfare Craft: 7 [2011]



VS the U.S.A



http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-soldiers.gif PERSONNEL

Total Population: 313,232,044 [2011]
Available Manpower: 145,212,012 [2011]
Fit for Service: 120,022,084 [2011]
Of Military Age: 4,217,412 [2011]
Active Military: 1,477,896 [2011]
Active Reserve: 1,458,500 [2011]



http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-army.gif LAND ARMY

Total Land Weapons: 56,269
Tanks: 9,573 [2011]
APCs / IFVs: 26,653 [2011]
Towed Artillery: 2,163 [2011]
SPGs: 950 [2011]
MLRSs: 1,430 [2011]
Mortars: 7,500 [2011]
AT Weapons: 8,000 [2011]
AA Weapons: 2,106 [2011]
Logistical Vehicles: 267,247

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-aircraft.gif AIR POWER

Total Aircraft: 18,234 [2011]
Helicopters: 6,417 [2011]
Serviceable Airports: 15,097 [2011]


http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-oil.gif RESOURCES
Oil Production: 9,056,000 bbl/Day [2011]
Oil Consumption: 18,690,000 bbl/Day [2011]
Proven Reserves: 19,120,000,000 bbl/Day [2011]





http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-logistical.gif LOGISTICAL

Labor Force: 154,900,000 [2011]
Roadway Coverage: 6,506,204 km
Railway Coverage: 226,427 km

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-financial.gif FINANCIAL (USD)

Defense Budget: $692,000,000,000 [2011]
Reserves of Foreign Exchange & Gold: $150,000,000,000 [2011]
Purchasing Power: $14,660,000,000,000 [2011]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-geography.gif GEOGRAPHIC

Waterways: 41,009 km
Coastline: 19,924 km
Square Land Area: 9,826,675 km
Shared Border: 12,034 km


http://www.globalfirepower.com/imgs/design/icon-ships.gif NAVAL POWER

Total Navy Ships: 2,384
Merchant Marine Strength: 418 [2011]
Major Ports & Terminals: 21
Aircraft Carriers: 11 [2011]
Destroyers: 59 [2011]
Submarines: 75 [2011]
Frigates: 30 [2011]
Patrol Craft: 12 [2011]
Mine Warfare Craft: 14 [2011]
Amphibious Assault Craft: 30 [2011]




Site Disclaimer (http://www.globalfirepower.com/disclaimer.asp) | Privacy Policy (http://www.globalfirepower.com/privacy-policy.asp)

©2011 www.GlobalFirepower.com (http://www.globalfirepower.com/) • Content ©2006-2011 GlobalFirepower.com • All Rights Reserved • Site design by RunawayStudios.com (http://www.runawaystudios.com/)



NUKES

United States: Approximately 5,113 active and inactive [2 (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat#2)] nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,790 deployed strategic warheads [1 (http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat#1)], approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.

Israel: Approximately 75 to 200 nuclear warheads.

Iran: Approximately ZERO but might get 1 maybe one day maybe, and get a way to deploy that one someday too.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat


Just the facts Maam

[Gaffer]

"Maybe" becomes WILL, if they are not stopped. Look at their strength and think about the fact the govt there is run by hard line, fundamentalist, islamic nut cases and you have all the ingredients for a major war. And ron paul wants to be their friend.

If the guy next door is a serial killer, I'm not going to ignore him or be his friend. I'm going to take action to remove him.

[red states rule]

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-salt-lake-city/grassroots-video-on-ron-paul-foreign-policy-converts-many



<IFRAME height=360 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8NhRPo0WAo?feature=player_embedded" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

Remember this Rev

You want Ron Paul to be President of the US

and people in Hell want ice water

Good luck on both :laugh2:

[Toro]

I too have some great ideas but would make a lousy president ... dictator however is another matter. I would make a really awesome dictator!

Pfft!

I'd be a great king!

[Toro]

The one thing that bugs me about Ron Paul is that there are a disproportionate amount of 9/11 twoofer nutters who support him.

[red states rule]

The one thing that bugs me about Ron Paul is that there are a disproportionate amount of 9/11 twoofer nutters who support him.

Nothing new there

Nuts supporting a nut. Ron Paul is looney tune that would make a great WWF character

[revelarts]

"Maybe" becomes WILL, if they are not stopped. Look at their strength and think about the fact the govt there is run by hard line, fundamentalist, islamic nut cases and you have all the ingredients for a major war. And ron paul wants to be their friend.

If the guy next door is a serial killer, I'm not going to ignore him or be his friend. I'm going to take action to remove him.

Who have they Killed? what nation have they attacked.
Supplying and a assisting Hezbollah and Iraqi Insurgents is not the exactly the action of an out of control nut case. And besides we've assisted terrorist and Iraqis our selves when it's suited our purposes. Not to mention other terrorist groups in Iran right now. If supporting terrorist means your nuts then it' the pot calling the kettle black. And the only thing that will cause a major war is if WE Attack them. From the Mid east point of view it will look like this.
the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no reason, had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, killed it's presidentand then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

Only in a few people eye's here it's seen as "prevention". what neo-con proaganda considers prevention is actually provocation. The 9-11 report calls it that, CIA analyst call it that, only neo-con and chiken hawk politicians say any of this pre-emptive strike crap is preventative. It's Orwellian double speak -war is peace- -attacking is defense- BS. It's provocation.

[red states rule]

Merry Christmas Rev - this is for you buddy

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qaJkjDXmgXk" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[jimnyc]

Who have they Killed? what nation have they attacked.
Supplying and a assisting Hezbollah and Iraqi Insurgents is not the exactly the action of an out of control nut case. And besides we've assisted terrorist and Iraqis our selves when it's suited our purposes. Not to mention other terrorist groups in Iran right now. If supporting terrorist means your nuts then it' the pot calling the kettle black. And the only thing that will cause a major war is if WE Attack them. From the Mid east point of view it will look like this.
the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no reason, had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, killed it's presidentand then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

Only in a few people eye's here it's seen as "prevention". what neo-con proaganda considers prevention is actually provocation. The 9-11 report calls it that, CIA analyst call it that, only neo-con and chiken hawk politicians say any of this pre-emptive strike crap is preventative. It's Orwellian double speak -war is peace- -attacking is defense- BS. It's provocation.

Look at Rev tossing out support for those that promote terrorism!

We didn't go into Iraq "for no reason". That's your lame belief from watching too many Youtube videos. We didn't kill the Libyan president, and there is video to prove it. You talk about "neocon propaganda" while yourself spouting "Rev propaganda" full of lies, rhetoric and exaggeration. Yes, there are a few facts sprinkled in there, but then you ruin even them with your rhetoric.

Ron Paul is as laughable as many of your posts. As Toro said, he is unelectable. He's a kook. He's a racist. He's anti-Israel. He profits from racism then denies it. He shows NO qualities at all to be a leader. His foreign policy is crap. He wants to give more access to drugs for the blacks to show he isn't a racist! LOL

[revelarts]

Look at Rev tossing out support for those that promote terrorism!

We didn't go into Iraq "for no reason". That's your lame belief from watching too many Youtube videos. We didn't kill the Libyan president, and there is video to prove it. You talk about "neocon propaganda" while yourself spouting "Rev propaganda" full of lies, rhetoric and exaggeration. Yes, there are a few facts sprinkled in there, but then you ruin even them with your rhetoric.
...

Let me correct the point you mention

the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no DEFENSIBLE reason, -OIL-Militarily strategic staging ground and Stop Oil trading in Euros maybe- ,had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, , killed it's president (BECUASE THE REBELS HAD ZERO CHANCE UNLESS WE HELPED) and then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

[red states rule]

Let me correct the point you mention

the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no DEFENSIBLE reason, -OIL-Militarily strategic staging ground and Stop Oil trading in Euros maybe- ,had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, , killed it's president (BECUASE THE REBELS HAD ZERO CHANCE UNLESS WE HELPED) and then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

For you Rev AND Ron Paul

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qgpE3r-jcLY" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[jimnyc]

Let me correct the point you mention

the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no DEFENSIBLE reason, -OIL-Militarily strategic staging ground and Stop Oil trading in Euros maybe- ,had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, , killed it's president (BECUASE THE REBELS HAD ZERO CHANCE UNLESS WE HELPED) and then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

Sure, here we go with the "we went to war for oil" crap, and that's what it is, pure crap.

And Rev, there is video showing the rebels capturing and then killing the libyan president. We caught Saddam and jailed him and there is no reason to believe WE wouldn't have done the same here. Nato is NOT the US, and it WAS the rebels who killed him. Your views on things are mildly distorted, or you just outright lie as usual to make your points.

And Ron Paul is still a man who profited off of racism. He is still anti-Israel. He still panders to the truthers. He still wants to feed the minority drug addicts more drugs.

[Gaffer]

Let me correct the point you mention

the U.S. Overthrew Iranian president Mossadegh in 1959 installed a brutal dictator the Shaw.
Supported Hussin in Iraq, Then gave weapons to fight war against Ayatollahs.
Then the U.S. Attacked Iraq for no DEFENSIBLE reason, -OIL-Militarily strategic staging ground and Stop Oil trading in Euros maybe- ,had Hussin Killed in 2003-5 UN "US" occupied and controlled.
Then it attacked Libya for no reason, , killed it's president (BECUASE THE REBELS HAD ZERO CHANCE UNLESS WE HELPED) and then Nato "U.S." occupied.
AND US is killing innocent people and destroying property in Pakistan and Yemen with bombs. with no compensation.

The U.S. keeps attacking middle eastern countries that have done nothing to it. How many times is it going to happen before WE CAUSE a real war against us.

I am going to have to dig up some stuff about the shah getting control of iran in 59. It wasn't as simple as you make it out to be but I will have to look for the info.

The US did not support iraq in their war with iran. Iraq was a russian puppet and armed with soviet equipment. The US did supply photo's and intelligence to them.

The US attacked iraq because they refused to cooperate with the un inspectors, they repeatedly attacked the aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, and it was believed they had WMD's, which later ended up in syria. (Remember that mysterious bombing done by Israel a few years ago.)

Had hussien killed? He was captured, turned over to the iraqi's and they executed him. They also executed a number of other thugs and minions. Do you mourn their demise as well?

Libya was purely the dark lords doing. He got things started then turned it over to nato. ghadaffi was a victim of his own people. You want to complain about tank busting and taking out artillery positions go complain to the British and the French. It was done for european oil interests. And I don't recall there being any occupation troops put into libya other than securing the embassy compound. You need to read more than headlines about these events.

Yemen and pakistan have elements of al qaeda and taliban working as insurgents. pakistan calls them army troops to keep the US from going after them. Yemen is a shit hole with more islamists than they have camels. They have prisons with trap doors in the floor so the al qaeda prisoners can slip away easily. You act like the US is blowing up people in their houses with picket fences and not paying them for the damage.

The US has made attacks in ME countries against known islamists, to prevent those islamists from carrying out attacks in those countries and in other countries including the US. When you have intelligence on your enemies where abouts you take action. You don't sit and wait for him to make the first move.

Iran is a clear and present danger and needs to be dealt with before they can do any real harm. Islamists, who are not a small minority, need to be hunted down and killed no matter where they hide.

[revelarts]

ROn Paul trying to get people to see the whole story about the conflicts in the M.E.
he's been critized for saying that Israel helped create Hamas,

again Ron Paul is right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html


How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas

By ANDREW HIGGINS (http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ANDREW+HIGGINS&bylinesearch=true)Moshav Tekuma, Israel
Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.
"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.
View Slideshow

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html#)




<cite></cite>Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas.



Last Saturday, after 22 days of war, Israel announced a halt to the offensive. The assault was aimed at stopping Hamas rockets from falling on Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hailed a "determined and successful military operation." More than 1,200 Palestinians had died. Thirteen Israelis were also killed.
Hamas responded the next day by lobbing five rockets towards the Israeli town of Sderot, a few miles down the road from Moshav Tekuma, the farming village where Mr. Cohen lives. Hamas then announced its own cease-fire.
Since then, Hamas leaders have emerged from hiding and reasserted their control over Gaza. Egyptian-mediated talks aimed at a more durable truce are expected to start this weekend. President Barack Obama said this week that lasting calm "requires more than a long cease-fire" and depends on Israel and a future Palestinian state "living side by side in peace and security."
A look at Israel's decades-long dealings with Palestinian radicals -- including some little-known attempts to cooperate with the Islamists -- reveals a catalog of unintended and often perilous consequences. Time and again, Israel's efforts to find a pliant Palestinian partner that is both credible with Palestinians and willing to eschew violence, have backfired. Would-be partners have turned into foes or lost the support of their people....

[Gunny]

http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-salt-lake-city/grassroots-video-on-ron-paul-foreign-policy-converts-many



<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8NhRPo0WAo?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Ron paul couldn't convert anyone on foreign policy except someone as out of touch with the real world as he is. That private little world he lives in doesn't exist and it's about time he, you and whoever the Hell else get a damned clue. You sound like a bunch of ostriches with your heads in the sand.

"If I can't see them, they can't shoot my big ass sticking up in the air":cuckoo:

And it wouldn't matter if he was 100% right about any and everything else in the world. His foreign policy is a deal breaker, period. It's unrealistic and definitely brings his judgment into question. We had a pipe dreamer like that for President once. How long was it again the Iran Hostage Crisis lasted?

[revelarts]

Ron paul couldn't convert anyone on foreign policy except someone as out of touch with the real world as he is. That private little world he lives in doesn't exist and it's about time he, you and whoever the Hell else get a damned clue. You sound like a bunch of ostriches with your heads in the sand.

"If I can't see them, they can't shoot my big ass sticking up in the air":cuckoo:

And it wouldn't matter if he was 100% right about any and everything else in the world. His foreign policy is a deal breaker, period. It's unrealistic and definitely brings his judgment into question. We had a pipe dreamer like that for President once. How long was it again the Iran Hostage Crisis lasted?


this guy real world enough for you... so real CNN feed broke up my my

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3TSxm2V8aVQ?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3TSxm2V8aVQ?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

And all of the active military that support him with donations, more than ANY of the other candidates, must be living in a fantasy land too.

[revelarts]

The former head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit tracking terror leader Osama bin Laden, Michael Scheuer (left), endorsed Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for President in 2012, days before the Iowa caucus. He argued, among other points, that the top-tier GOP hopeful is the best candidate to protect America from violent Islamic extremism. In a column entitled "Iowa’s Choice: Dr. Paul or U.S. bankruptcy, more wars, and many more dead soldiers and Marines (http://non-intervention.com/1018/iowa%E2%80%99s-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/)" published on his website over the weekend, Scheuer said voting for any candidate other than Paul would help inflict further damage on an already-wounded America. It would also contribute toward the continuation of a foreign policy that will ensure total national bankruptcy, noted the 22-year intelligence-community veteran, who now serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.

“Dr. Paul’s non-interventionist policy will allow foreigners to work out their political destiny in their own way and at their own pace; prevent unnecessary additions to America’s growing list of enemies; and save countless young lives,” Scheuer wrote in his endorsement, blasting senior leaders and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle with harsh words. “Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States.”

Scheuer, who has authored several books criticizing U.S. foreign policy, emphasized the fact that Paul’s campaign has received far more donations from the American military than all other Republican candidates combined. He also lambasted establishment talking heads and politicians for improperly mischaracterizing the 12-term GOP Congressman’s non-interventionist views, pointing again to his strong support among members of the armed services....


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10420-top-cia-terror-expert-endorses-ron-paul-in-gop-race


head in the sand, CIA bin laden unit head, must be a foreign policy no nothing kook out of touch with the "real world" .

[Abbey Marie]

It's true that new information from Ron Paul will help strengthen people's views about him.

Thought there wasn't anything new in this video, Paul did make a statement in the last debate in Iowa, that I hadn't heard before. He was trying to maintain that we can avoid wars better by negotiation than by direct military action. And he stated that, at the time he was drafted in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis was fresh in everyone's minds, and that then-President Kennedy averted the crisis simply by picking up the phone and negotiating with Kruschev.

Apparently Ron Paul's mind wasn't as fresh as it should have been, even then. Somehow he seems to have forgotten a few other things that had gone on then.

Kennedy didn't just pick up the phone. He first sent reconnaisance aircraft over Cuba (no doubt in violation of Cuba's airspace or some such law) and took picures that revealed the presence of Russian nuclear missile facilities, and Russian ships unloading more. And then he sent U.S. warships to blockade Cuba - an action usually only taken during wartime - and announced that all Russian ships approaching Cuba would be stopped, boarded, and inspected, and that if any were found to be carrying war materials, missiles etc., they would be SUNK. In other words, in response to apparently warlike moves by the Soviets, Kennedy committed several direct, aggressive acts of war.

Only then did he pick up the phone and give his buddy Nikita a call.

It wasn't just a friendly phone call and some genial negotiations that averted the Cuban Missile Crisis and got Russia to remove its nuclear missiles off the shores of the U.S. It was DIRECT, AGGRESSIVE MILITARY ACTION, and the credible threat of more to come. And the only reason the threat was credible, was because WE HAD ALREADY TAKEN SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS.

The "new" information we have here from Ron Paul, is that he is apparently willing to rewrite known, documented history to try to pretend his views are valid, flying in the face of facts that demonstrate they are not. This "new" information does indeed strengthen my views about him... though perhaps not in the way hoped by the OP.

"Kook" is actually a rather mild word used to describe Ron Paul's beliefs and attitudes. I have stated before that some of the man's beliefs border on the insane. Here he has given us another such.

Ron Paul's attitude toward fiscal conservatism (as if there were any way to divorce fiscal concerns from the rest of conservatism, a common mistaken belief) are laudable, and his regard for the sanctity of the Constitution and its original intent place him far above any other candidate in these categories.

But his delusional foreign policy beliefs, some of which border on actual insanity, make him completely unacceptable as a President, regadless of his excellence on other important matters. And his supporters, with their equal willingness to disregard, ignore, and rewrite history in their desire to get the excellence in Constitutional fealty that Paul offers, are just as kooky. Again, to put it mildly.

:clap: Excellent post, LA.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wyx9tw0TEPM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wyx9tw0TEPM?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

Reagan understood that a strong defense here at home was our best defense, which is exactly Ron Paul’s stance. (though Reagan didn't do as he said exactly in this respect -Grenada etc-)
Here are Reagan’s own words from his famous “Star Wars” speech:

...

U.S. Defense Policy The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression – to preserve freedom and peace. ...




..Reflecting a more conventional Republican view likely in line with Lord's, talk host Sean Hannity said in 2009: "You can't deny that George Bush was conservative on national security issues." Well, at varying times, Bill Buckley, George Will, Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, Paul Weyrich and many other conservatives did indeed deny that Bush's foreign policy was conservative.
So did Ron Paul.
So did some of the most prominent figures in the history of American conservatism -- and that's even leaving out the libertarians. Traditionalists such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet were some of the heaviest intellectual hitters at early National Review and each held foreign policy views far closer to what Paul believes than what today's Republican hawks try to portray as conservatism.
Ronald Reagan even won the Cold War with a foreign policy marginally closer to Paul's cautious approach than what Bush represented, or as former chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene notes: "Reagan resorted to military force far less often than many of those who came before him or who have since occupied the Oval Office. . . . After the (1983) assault on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, it was questioning the wisdom of U.S. involvement that led Reagan to withdraw our troops rather than dig in. He found no good strategic reason to give our regional enemies inviting U.S. targets. Can one imagine one of today's neoconservative absolutists backing away from any fight anywhere?"
No, one can't imagine it. In fact, if using the definition of 2008 Republican presidential nominee and hardline neoconservative John McCain -- Reagan would be considered an "isolationist."...


Jack Hunter

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UkSNHJPpo80?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UkSNHJPpo80?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[Gaffer]

Okay paulites. Who will ron paul select as his VP? who would be his Sec. of State? who would head the DOD? Who would be in his cabinet? Who is he going to surround himself with? Domestically he has good ideas and plans. Foreign policy wise he's very naive at best.

Countries like russia, china and iran would like to expand. Russia is a thugoracy that wants to return to it's former empire status. China is communists and wants to expand into areas with natural resources. Iran wants to bring islam to the world. Not to mention the many smaller countries that just want to take over their neighbors. The only thing preventing any of them from doing as they want is the US military, which paul wants to gut and bring home.

Isolationism, like socialism, doesn't work. Letting another get an advantage over you doesn't work. Appeasement doesn't work. And these are all part of paul's platform. That's why he doesn't work for most people.

[revelarts]

Okay paulites. Who will ron paul select as his VP? who would be his Sec. of State? who would head the DOD? Who would be in his cabinet? Who is he going to surround himself with?
Obviously those who agree with or who, at least, would follow his lead in those areas. There are quite a few military that have retired,many on principal, during W's and Obama' terms that would make decent candidates.
But do you know the answer to any of that for any of the other candidates? Or should we assume that there will be practicality no changes to Obama's choices and policices which was basically the same folks/policies as W's?



Domestically he has good ideas and plans. Foreign policy wise he's very naive at best.

Countries like Russia, china and iran would like to expand. Russia is a thugoracy that wants to return to it's former empire status. China is communists and wants to expand into areas with natural resources. Iran wants to bring islam to the world. Not to mention the many smaller countries that just want to take over their neighbors. The only thing preventing any of them from doing as they want is the US military, which paul wants to gut and bring home.


Isolationism, like socialism, doesn't work. Letting another get an advantage over you doesn't work. Appeasement doesn't work. And these are all part of paul's platform. That's why he doesn't work for most people.
is China Isolationist?
How many foreign bases do they have?
Is Russia Isolationist?
How many foreign bases do they have?
how many foreign troops will they dispatch if we leave? What's your proof for that? Russia is a thugocracy and doesn't have the wherewithall to reboot the empire. and the muslim populations in many of the former satelites and their petty dictators wouldn't stand for it. Russia's not looking for more Afghanistan's to fight. And in their war with Afghanistan WE did not have troops on the ground. -unless you count Rambo and Col Trautmen- yet somehow Afghantistan manged to rebuff a Superpower, if we really need to be afraid of what you say, can we learn from that model and drop the other hot/cold war model of U.S. bases everywhere and troops on the ground? Is it possible that the U.S. could survive without War, no the new "PREEMPTIVE war" as a foundation of or Foreign policy? Seems to me we could.
I mean Korean War is over
Veit Nam is over
The cold war is over. our troops were supposedly overseas mainly for that reason.
heck WWII is over, why are we in Germany? Germany has nukes just as well has Russia and China whats the real threat.
IMO the real question is can we out trade the Chiniese and Russians.

[Gaffer]

Obviously those who agree with or who, at least, would follow his lead in those areas. There are quite a few military that have retired,many on principal, during W's and Obama' terms that would make decent candidates.
But do you know the answer to any of that for any of the other candidates? Or should we assume that there will be practicality no changes to Obama's choices and policices which was basically the same folks/policies as W's?


is China Isolationist?
How many foreign bases do they have?
Is Russia Isolationist?
How many foreign bases do they have?
how many foreign troops will they dispatch if we leave? What's your proof for that? Russia is a thugocracy and doesn't have the wherewithall to reboot the empire. and the muslim populations in many of the former satelites and their petty dictators wouldn't stand for it. Russia's not looking for more Afghanistan's to fight. And in their war with Afghanistan WE did not have troops on the ground. -unless you count Rambo and Col Trautmen- yet somehow Afghantistan manged to rebuff a Superpower, if we really need to be afraid of what you say, can we learn from that model and drop the other hot/cold war model of U.S. bases everywhere and troops on the ground? Is it possible that the U.S. could survive without War, no the new "PREEMPTIVE war" as a foundation of or Foreign policy? Seems to me we could.
I mean Korean War is over
Veit Nam is over
The cold war is over. our troops were supposedly overseas mainly for that reason.
heck WWII is over, why are we in Germany? Germany has nukes just as well has Russia and China whats the real threat.
IMO the real question is can we out trade the Chiniese and Russians.

I knew when the dark one got in office that we were in serious trouble cause of who he surrounded himself with and who his friends were. Paul cause me the same worries. As for the other repub candidates I'm sure it will be business as usual with them in office. I'm just hoping whoever is selected as the nominee will put a stop to the shit zero has caused. But at least they won't be bowing to our enemies, or pulling out of strategic positions around the world.

Russia has been provoking things in Europe for years. Flying bombers into other countries air space. Instigating problems in Ukraine and even invading Georgia. They have ships in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and most every ocean in the world. Without the US to stop them they would over run eastern Europe again in a very short time. Four years of paul would give them all the time they need.

China has a natural resource problem. They need oil and other materials. They control NK and would release them on SK and Japan if we weren't there to contain them. They would also be eyeing Taiwan and Indonesia. They are looking for resources. They are already building their navy and air force up to counter us in the Pacific.

Iran wants nukes so they can dominate the middle east and threaten anybody that gets in their way. And the govt there is headed by fanatical nut jobs who want to start a cataclysmic world war. Paul wants to just leave them be.

The Russian pulled out of afghan because they were going broke. It was just prior to the collapse. You give the afghan's too much credit.

You should find something on utube that explains about logistics and how supply lines work. We have bases in other countries not just to protect those countries but to provide a mobilization point and supply point for operations in other areas. Pulling everything back reduces our reach to areas of conflict if we do get attacked and have to fight a war. Not to mention that the countries we have bases in have invited us to stay, even after we have defeated them militarily. Iraq wanted us to leave so we did. They are suffering for it now.

We have bases in Germany, England, France, Japan, Italy, the Philippines, S. Korea, Thailand and many other places. They provide support and intelligence throughout the regions. Without our presence there we would be blind and they would be helpless. This is all basic stuff that Paul has no clue about and apparently neither do you or the other paulites.

[revelarts]

We have bases in Germany, England, France, Japan, Italy, the Philippines, S. Korea, Thailand and many other places. They provide support and intelligence throughout the regions. Without our presence there we would be blind and they would be helpless. This is all basic stuff that Paul has no clue about and apparently neither do you or the other paulites.

no clue, others are helpless, our enemies ready to pounce (so you say) .

I'm not going for a long rebut here . After rereading our last few post and thinking a bit,
....I'm just wondering....
you said earlier that isolationism like Communism doesn't work. Well you know Rome tried to "rule the world" and their supply lines became thin, they began to rely on foreign troops and tried to keep the empire at all cost while at home they lost the small embryo of a free republic they had and got a military dictatorship. And that empire finally crumbled anyway and not from foreign invaders.
But reading your words and thinking of others here I wonder if America's just been a martial nation for to long. If we can, as a people, even imagine Winning the peace for a change. instead of always being on the brink of war with some new or sleeping enemy that going to gobble us up if we don't fight. the U.S. has been at war for nearly 100 years with some enemy here or there with just shorts breaks in between. There's barely been a generation that hasn't seen a war/conflict of some kind and some times those that have missed a war are considered weak for not having the privilege. We take so much pride in it. more than we do in finding peace. we are Strong martial nation, it so much of our identity I wonder if we as a country can seriously dream of a strong peaceful 20, 50, 70 years.

[Dilloduck]

But it's our role in the New World Order. We gotta keep the world stable for our great great great grandchildren.

[gabosaurus]

There is only one thing you need to know about Ron Paul: He is unelectable. Everything else is irrelevant.

[revelarts]

There is only one thing you need to know about Ron Paul: He is unelectable. Everything else is irrelevant.

And so was a young one term black male senator in the U.S.. hmmm? this is still America nearly anything is possible.

[fj1200]

There is only one thing you need to know about Ron Paul: He is unelectable. Everything else is irrelevant.

Kind of missed the point didn't you?

[jimnyc]

There is only one thing you need to know about Ron Paul: He is unelectable. Everything else is irrelevant.


And so was a young one term black male senator in the U.S.. hmmm? this is still America nearly anything is possible.

One is unelectable and the other we can only wish was unelectable. On sat by idly listening to racism while the other signed his name to racism.

[revelarts]

One is unelectable and the other we can only wish was unelectable. On sat by idly listening to racism while the other signed his name to racism.

Any stick good enough to beat a dog

Well others disagree Jim
here's a Guy who's known him for 20 years, says he's not a racist , but you know better than anyone who's every know him worked with him been treated by him i guess.

Dr. Walter Williams as the guest host on the Rush Limbaugh Show Defends Dr. Ron Paul on (12-30-11) — "The accusations of Ron Paul being a racist are plainly not true. I've know Ron Paul personalty, for 20-25 years. He's a Good Guy."

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eqoKVES_KKI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">




</object>
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">
</object>Eric Dondero<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">
</object>Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;">...</object>Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile. ...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>

[jimnyc]

Any stick good enough to beat a dog

Well others disagree Jim<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"></object><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>

You can post 60,000,000 videos of people stating he is not racist and NONE of it will change the FACT that he signed off on racist newsletters and profited off of them. Why do you think videos YEARS after the fact somehow erase deeds from the past?

[krisy]

Like Gaffer and jim,and others,I don't like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy either. I read through all of rev's posts trying to keep an open mind,but previous statements by Paul just stick in my head. One of the biggest being something like ....if Israel was attacked(by Iran,I'm sure) they don't need our help. Makes me think of the U.S. staying out of WW2,until Pearl Harbor. How could we stand by and let evil hurt our friends?

I also don't believe the whole "we were in Iraq for oil" thing. Why was gas $4 a gallon then?

I also am firmly against legalizing drugs and making them easier for my kids to get a hold of. I think politicians who want to legalize them want tax dollars for them,and thats the biggest reason. There's such an outcry about how bad cigarettes are,but why haven't they been made illegal then? Too many tax dollars pouring in. I'm not saying cigs should be made illegal either,while very bad for you,they obviously don't impair ability to think straight.

I do think Paul sounds good domestically,and I do appreciate his compassion for the military. I've even wondered if he was right about pulling troops out of Germany and several other places around the world,but I'm guessing that probably keeps more peace in those areas of the world than we realise. I believe there are lots of things the American people don't know as far as intelligence goes,which are reasons the U.S. does what it does. Obama spoke as if he would end all violence in the world,until he got into office and saw things that we will never know or see.Things that Ron Paul doesn't even know.

[jimnyc]

I also am firmly against legalizing drugs and making them easier for my kids to get a hold of. I think politicians who want to legalize them want tax dollars for them,and thats the biggest reason. There's such an outcry about how bad cigarettes are,but why haven't they been made illegal then? Too many tax dollars pouring in. I'm not saying cigs should be made illegal either,while very bad for you,they obviously don't impair ability to think straight.

Ron Paul claims that the drug laws are discriminatory towards blacks. The way I see it, there is NO race mentioned in the LAW. You break it, you pay the price. It applies the same to all. It's no ones fault but the user/buyer if they break the law and are busted.

Anyway, he feels that is a way to make things even, by dismissing the drug laws and legalizing drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin. Neither drug has ANY benefit to society. They simply do 2 things, ruin lives and kill people. The epidemic of drug abuse and deaths as a result need to be addressed, but not by legalizing them so more lives can be destroyed.

And this coming from a "doctor" no less. This mans brain sometimes lives on its own island. "Ron Paul's brain island"

[krisy]

Ron Paul claims that the drug laws are discriminatory towards blacks. The way I see it, there is NO race mentioned in the LAW. You break it, you pay the price. It applies the same to all. It's no ones fault but the user/buyer if they break the law and are busted.

Anyway, he feels that is a way to make things even, by dismissing the drug laws and legalizing drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin. Neither drug has ANY benefit to society. They simply do 2 things, ruin lives and kill people. The epidemic of drug abuse and deaths as a result need to be addressed, but not by legalizing them so more lives can be destroyed.

And this coming from a "doctor" no less. This mans brain sometimes lives on its own island. "Ron Paul's brain island"

"discriminatroy toward blacks" is really stupid. I guess he's saying more blacks use drugs?

Good point about him being a doctor,good gosh! Legalizing these drugs makes me shudder.

[fj1200]

"discriminatroy toward blacks" is really stupid. I guess he's saying more blacks use drugs?

Good point about him being a doctor,good gosh! Legalizing these drugs makes me shudder.

No, the laws are discriminatory by who's impacted by them; blacks use crack with stiffer penalties while whites use powder cocaine with more lenient penalties. If cocaine is bad then the penalty shouldn't differ.

[jimnyc]

No, the laws are discriminatory by who's impacted by them; blacks use crack with stiffer penalties while whites use powder cocaine with more lenient penalties. If cocaine is bad then the penalty shouldn't differ.

And yet both blacks and whites have access to both drugs, and the law applies equally to whomever uses the drugs. Same as heroin, all races use the crap and the penalties are equal.

Regardless, seek change with the system and the penalties then, don't just get rid of law altogether and allow drugs that do no more than kill to be legal.

[revelarts]

Ron Paul claims that the drug laws are discriminatory towards blacks. The way I see it,....

He doesn't "claim" anything he points to the numbers.
More whites are arrested but blacks get the most hard jail time.
period. the Law isn't the question it's the enforcement,
it's called selective enforcement and harsher punishments for the same crime. the Judges have desecration on sentencing to a point and use it in a ways that discriminates against Blacks.
Like if the mayor daughter gets pulled over by the cops and gets waved on after running the stop sign with the broken tail light Or if she does go to court she's let off with "community service" But if Jim NYC gets stopped for the same he's hit with a $500 fine and a day in jail for looking at the cop funny. the law is the same the punishment is not.

Study after study proves this out, it's beyond opinion or the way you or I want want to see it.
It's just the facts.

[revelarts]

No, the laws are discriminatory by who's impacted by them; blacks use crack with stiffer penalties while whites use powder cocaine with more lenient penalties. If cocaine is bad then the penalty shouldn't differ.

correct

[fj1200]

And yet both blacks and whites have access to both drugs, and the law applies equally to whomever uses the drugs. Same as heroin, all races use the crap and the penalties are equal.

Regardless, seek change with the system and the penalties then, don't just get rid of law altogether and allow drugs that do no more than kill to be legal.

Who writes the laws?

[jimnyc]

Who writes the laws?

I'm not playing 20 questions or trick questions. Laws can and have been changed before. It can be done again. But to seek to legalize deadly drugs instead of working towards change is stupid.

[jimnyc]

He doesn't "claim" anything he points to the numbers.
More whites are arrested but blacks get the most hard jail time.
period. the Law isn't the question it's the enforcement,
it's called selective enforcement and harsher punishments for the same crime. the Judges have desecration on sentencing to a point and use it in a ways that discriminates against Blacks.
Like if the mayor daughter gets pulled over by the cops and gets waved on after running the stop sign with the broken tail light Or if she does go to court she's let off with "community service" But if Jim NYC gets stopped for the same he's hit with a $500 fine and a day in jail for looking at the cop funny. the law is the same the punishment is not.

Study after study proves this out, it's beyond opinion or the way you or I want want to see it.
It's just the facts.

So legalize it, let more lives get ruined and even more people die. Awesome idea!

[fj1200]

I'm not playing 20 questions or trick questions. Laws can and have been changed before. It can be done again. But to seek to legalize deadly drugs instead of working towards change is stupid.

All you need to do is acknowledge the disparate impact that laws have. Laws should change when they aren't working as intended.

[jimnyc]

All you need to do is acknowledge the disparate impact that laws have. Laws should change when they aren't working as intended.

I agree, but we don't throw current laws to the wind before the changes are met.

[Abbey Marie]

No, the laws are discriminatory by who's impacted by them; blacks use crack with stiffer penalties while whites use powder cocaine with more lenient penalties. If cocaine is bad then the penalty shouldn't differ.

I could be wrong, but don't people on crack tend to do some crazy-bad stuff? Coke users just like to tell everyone who will listen how amazing they are.

Penalties can and should vary according to the devastation caused. There's a reason that pot possession tends to carry a smaller penalty than heroin or meth. Or, at least I thought so...

[jimnyc]

If someone says that murder laws are geared to harm black people more... And there was an uneven amount of people in jail (which there is actually)... Would we as a society, or our politicians, work to have the laws changed to be more equal to all? And if so, should murder become legal until such time the laws can be more satisfactory to all? Of course not, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise.

[jimnyc]

I could be wrong, but don't people on crack tend to do some crazy-bad stuff? Coke users just like to tell everyone who will listen how amazing they are.

Penalties can and should vary according to the devastation caused. There's a reason that pot possession tends to carry a smaller penalty than heroin or meth. Or, at least I thought so...

They are stating that whites tend to stick with cocaine and blacks use crack - and that the laws are designed to make the penalties harsher towards crack users, or blacks.

But you are correct, crack is much more deadly and much more addictive than cocaine. They are NOT the same and aren't even used the same way. Of course the "worse" the drug the harsher the penalty. That's why marijuana has one of the more "lenient" penalties.

[Abbey Marie]

If someone says that murder laws are geared to harm black people more... And there was an uneven amount of people in jail (which there is actually)... Would we as a society, or our politicians, work to have the laws changed to be more equal to all? And if so, should murder become legal until such time the laws can be more satisfactory to all? Of course not, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise.

3138

[ConHog]

They are stating that whites tend to stick with cocaine and blacks use crack - and that the laws are designed to make the penalties harsher towards crack users, or blacks.

But you are correct, crack is much more deadly and much more addictive than cocaine. They are NOT the same and aren't even used the same way. Of course the "worse" the drug the harsher the penalty. That's why marijuana has one of the more "lenient" penalties.

Yep, crack is modified cocaine. Modified in a way that makes it a much more dangerous drug than cocaine by itself . Much like lacing pot with acid would make pot more dangerous.

Also, crack tends to be used by the criminal element, whether black or white, unlike cocaine which is a rich person's drug, so when the crack user gets arrested he's usually charged with additional crimes as well.

[fj1200]

I could be wrong, but don't people on crack tend to do some crazy-bad stuff? Coke users just like to tell everyone who will listen how amazing they are.

Penalties can and should vary according to the devastation caused. There's a reason that pot possession tends to carry a smaller penalty than heroin or meth. Or, at least I thought so...

I wonder how many on this board are coke then. :thumb:

Devastation caused is a completely different standard but if rev is right and it's how the laws are applied then altering the law is not going to help.


If someone says that murder laws are geared to harm black people more... And there was an uneven amount of people in jail (which there is actually)... Would we as a society, or our politicians, work to have the laws changed to be more equal to all? And if so, should murder become legal until such time the laws can be more satisfactory to all? Of course not, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise.

Then apparently society is OK with laws being applied unevenly and aren't in a hurry to alter the laws. And I don't even think RP is suggesting that drug laws be completely scrapped... but I could be wrong.

Switzerland Likely To Approve Prescription Heroin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)

The program has been criticized by the United States and the U.N. narcotics board, which said it would fuel drug abuse. But governments as far away as Australia are beginning or considering their own programs modeled on the system, which is credited with reducing crime and improving the health and daily lives of addicts.

And approved as I recall.

[revelarts]

Like Gaffer and jim,and others,I don't like Ron Paul because of his foreign policy either. I read through all of rev's posts trying to keep an open mind,but previous statements by Paul just stick in my head. One of the biggest being something like ....if Israel was attacked(by Iran,I'm sure) they don't need our help. Makes me think of the U.S. staying out of WW2,until Pearl Harbor. How could we stand by and let evil hurt our friends?

I also don't believe the whole "we were in Iraq for oil" thing. Why was gas $4 a gallon then?

I also am firmly against legalizing drugs and making them easier for my kids to get a hold of. I think politicians who want to legalize them want tax dollars for them,and thats the biggest reason. There's such an outcry about how bad cigarettes are,but why haven't they been made illegal then? Too many tax dollars pouring in. I'm not saying cigs should be made illegal either,while very bad for you,they obviously don't impair ability to think straight.

I do think Paul sounds good domestically,and I do appreciate his compassion for the military. I've even wondered if he was right about pulling troops out of Germany and several other places around the world,but I'm guessing that probably keeps more peace in those areas of the world than we realise. I believe there are lots of things the American people don't know as far as intelligence goes,which are reasons the U.S. does what it does. Obama spoke as if he would end all violence in the world,until he got into office and saw things that we will never know or see.Things that Ron Paul doesn't even know.

Thanks for taking a look see, As far as Israel is concerned , we aren't in any treaty with them, that's how they like it. no one wants there friends hurt but Israel is not helpless. And frankly right now spots in Iran are being blown up and Nuke scientist are being assassinated. If Iran was doing that to Israelis facilities and scientist wouldn't Israel claim that as a reason to Attack them? What if we could prove they were doing that to us? Seems to me Israel and the U.S. are provoking Iran. for them to strike BACK at this point wouldn't be a surprise at all.



Obama spoke as if he would end all violence in the world,until he got into office and saw things that we will never know or see.Things that Ron Paul doesn't even know.
Krisy that might be true but it's an assumption. And frankly Obama never claimed world peace, he threatened Pakistan in the campaign and in general based on what happened in the past it seems the truth goes in the other direction. I gave W the benefit of the doubt too but he never came up with any proof of secret intell on WMDs, they weren't there and the the intel was wrong or fabricated. Much of the threat they they claimed was bogus. this Iran situation to me seem very much parallel. A lot of the claims that Iran is ready to strike any minute is the part of the intel that seems to be hyped at this point. the idea that Iran want a nuke seems true but what the IAEA U.N. and the Obama admin have said about it his basically hype if you read the docs. however some unnamed intel sources do think that Iran may ALREADY have nukes, but somehow the mullahs haven't struck yet. My main point has always been the iranians are not suicidal.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/82WV5EMoGJE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2QDIxhaEPN0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

there's lots to think about but I can't get past the idea that a small country in the M.E. is some horrible threat. it makes no sense to me. I'm not Afraid of the mullahs or muslims blowing me up in my sleep or the plane. It's Political hype, I'm more likey to get struck by lighting than be killed by a terrorist. The threat is political hype to make us think we need this aggressive military stance. i smell BS.

[jimnyc]

I wonder how many on this board are coke then. :thumb:

Devastation caused is a completely different standard but if rev is right and it's how the laws are applied then altering the law is not going to help.



Then apparently society is OK with laws being applied unevenly and aren't in a hurry to alter the laws. And I don't even think RP is suggesting that drug laws be completely scrapped... but I could be wrong.

Switzerland Likely To Approve Prescription Heroin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)



And approved as I recall.

How bad was the epidemic in Switzerland with crack and heroin before any changes might have been made?

Ron Paul outright stated that the legalization of heroin would be "an exercise of liberty". He's not in this for any medical reason, or to make the daily lives of addicts any better - he simply thinks it's a personal liberty issue and we should all be able to have access to it and decide for ourselves. He also states the same about prostitution. He stated it's the same as someone choosing to go to daily prayers or church. He stated this stuff outright during a debate when questioned by Chris Wallace.

[ConHog]

How bad was the epidemic in Switzerland with crack and heroin before any changes might have been made?

Ron Paul outright stated that the legalization of heroin would be "an exercise of liberty". He's not in this for any medical reason, or to make the daily lives of addicts any better - he simply thinks it's a personal liberty issue and we should all be able to have access to it and decide for ourselves. He also states the same about prostitution. He stated it's the same as someone choosing to go to daily prayers or church. He stated this stuff outright during a debate when questioned by Chris Wallace.

I would be okay with legalizing prostitution. Nothing inherently dangerous about that like there is with heroin or crack or what have you.

[fj1200]

How bad was the epidemic in Switzerland with crack and heroin before any changes might have been made?

Ron Paul outright stated that the legalization of heroin would be "an exercise of liberty". He's not in this for any medical reason, or to make the daily lives of addicts any better - he simply thinks it's a personal liberty issue and we should all be able to have access to it and decide for ourselves. He also states the same about prostitution. He stated it's the same as someone choosing to go to daily prayers or church. He stated this stuff outright during a debate when questioned by Chris Wallace.

With all the benefits that an open, regulated market provides and without all the downsides of black market realities and crime.

Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs! (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/)

[jimnyc]

With all the benefits that an open, regulated market provides and without all the downsides of black market realities and crime.

Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs! (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-30/ron-paul-end-the-war-on-drugs/)



I've read all that already. There is absolutely no good reason to legalize heroin. Great, people will be able to legally profit from it. More people will now make money and the people who's lives are slowly being ruined, and that of their families, will only get worse and increase. This isn't a recreational drug we're talking about. You go from 100mph - to ZERO in no time and you end up dead. Help people with addictions? Sure, but don't just let everyone have access to something like this and call it liberty.

[revelarts]

..Thomas Sowell


No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with.
If you're against a certain policy, you see, it is claimed that you're against the stated intentions of said policy (you know, those things which pave the road to hell).
If you're against welfare for example, you want others to eat dirt. If you're against social security, you want grandma to eat cat food and die. If you're against the War in Iraq, you're pro-terrorist. If you're against the Drug War, you're a long-haired, dope-smoking, ideological hippie who desires a lawless society.
See how that works? It keeps things simple in order to avoid discussing said policies "unintended consequences." (http://the-classic-liberal.com/bad-policy-bad-intent/)



Drug raids are good politics, but they don't make a dent in the problem.
Like prohibition, the ban on drugs has been a financial bonanza for organized crime, and its profits have financed the corruption of law enforcement agencies, politicians, and judges.
It is a dangerous illusion that we have the omnipotence to undue every evil. A crusading mentality can easily makes things worse. Drugs are inherently a problem for the individual who takes them, but they are a much bigger problem for society, precisely because they are illegal.
This is just one more area where we have to recognize government has its limits. Ignoring those limits is not only reckless arrogance, but dangerous.
Dose of Realism in a Drug War (http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/10/29/dose_of_realism_in_a_drug_war/page/1)
The Economist magazine says this means that more than 200 million people -- almost 5 percent of the world's adult population -- take illegal drugs, the same proportion as a decade ago. The annual U.S. bill for attempting to diminish the supply of drugs is $40 billion. Of the 1.5 million Americans arrested each year on drug offenses, half a million are incarcerated. "Tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars," The Economist said.
"There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer." Do cultural differences explain this? Evidently not: "Even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates."
The good news is the progress America has made against tobacco, which is more addictive than most illegal drugs. And then there is alcohol.
In "Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson," historian David S. Reynolds writes that in 1820, Americans spent on liquor a sum larger than the federal government's budget. By the mid-1820s, annual per capita consumption of absolute alcohol reached seven gallons, more than three times today's rate. "Most employers," Reynolds reports, "assumed that their workers needed strong drink for stimulation: a typical workday included two bells, one rung at 11 a.m. and the other at 4 p.m., that summoned employees for alcoholic drinks."
The elderly Walt Whitman said, "It is very hard for the present generation anyhow to understand the drinkingness of those years. ... it is quite incommunicable."
It's time to face the music folks ... The Drug War is more dangerous than the drugs are themselves.



The History of the Illegalazation of drugs is questionable, look into dupont and hemp. As far as coke goes it wasn't always illegal either, COKA-cola anyone.

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ikLIRqv0wZY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ikLIRqv0wZY?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

Instead of the cost of war on drugs, Rev, how about the #'s on people who's lives have been destroyed, or have been literally killed, and families completely upended - by just crack and heroin.

I'm sorry, if you guys think easier and legal access to those 2 drugs somehow is good for our society, that's your right, I disagree.

[ConHog]

I've read all that already. There is absolutely no good reason to legalize heroin. Great, people will be able to legally profit from it. More people will now make money and the people who's lives are slowly being ruined, and that of their families, will only get worse and increase. This isn't a recreational drug we're talking about. You go from 100mph - to ZERO in no time and you end up dead. Help people with addictions? Sure, but don't just let everyone have access to something like this and call it liberty.

Subjects like this is why I get upset with people who it's all about principles.......... Sure , by pure principle, heroin for anyone dumb enough to take it, reality says that we the people will most likely end up paying for their stupidity, so we the people get to say no we don't want that, go away with your legalizing drugs bullshit.

[fj1200]

I've read all that already. There is absolutely no good reason to legalize heroin. Great, people will be able to legally profit from it. More people will now make money and the people who's lives are slowly being ruined, and that of their families, will only get worse and increase. This isn't a recreational drug we're talking about. You go from 100mph - to ZERO in no time and you end up dead. Help people with addictions? Sure, but don't just let everyone have access to something like this and call it liberty.

Some thought there was no good reason to repeal prohibition but we did. Even if RP is only interested in maximum liberty doesn't mean that the states are just going to completely repeal any law relating to drugs and replace them with nothing. Your assumption seems to be only the worst without acknowledging what would likely replace any outgoing laws. If there's a better way then experimental state laws will eventually find the ideal outcome.

[ConHog]

Some thought there was no good reason to repeal prohibition but we did. Even if RP is only interested in maximum liberty doesn't mean that the states are just going to completely repeal any law relating to drugs and replace them with nothing. Your assumption seems to be only the worst without acknowledging what would likely replace any outgoing laws. If there's a better way then experimental state laws will eventually find the ideal outcome.

RP is an anarchist. Let anyone do anything they want. WOOHOO freedom for all.

[revelarts]

Instead of the cost of war on drugs, Rev, how about the #'s on people who's lives have been destroyed, or have been literally killed, and families completely upended - by just crack and heroin.

I'm sorry, if you guys think easier and legal access to those 2 drugs somehow is good for our society, that's your right, I disagree.

Prohibition has failed twice now. it didn't stop alcoholism and all the horrors that go along with it and it hasn't stopped drug addition. Out in the open programs for help is what's needed not legal prohibition which throws the addicted people in jail.

And here's a question for you Con and Abby.
When are we going to stop protecting the poppy farmers in Afghanistan? Your very concerned about herion and opium but our military is openly aiding in it's production. the largest production in the world protected by the U.S. military. What's wrong with this picture?

[ConHog]

Prohibition has failed twice now. it didn't stop alcoholism and all the horrors that go along with it and it hasn't stopped drug addition. Out in the open programs for help is what's needed not legal prohibition which throws the addicted people in jail.

And here's a question for you Con and Abby.
When are we going to stop protecting the poppy farmers in Afghanistan? Your very concerned about herion and opium but our military is openly aiding in it's production. the largest production in the world protected by the U.S. military. What's wrong with this picture?

Your argument would be better suited to one of making alcohol illegal then it would be to making drugs legal.

And I disagree with our policy of how we deal with the poppy growers in Afghanistan as well.

[Abbey Marie]

Prohibition has failed twice now. it didn't stop alcoholism and all the horrors that go along with it and it hasn't stopped drug addition. Out in the open programs for help is what's needed not legal prohibition which throws the addicted people in jail.

And here's a question for you Con and Abby.
When are we going to stop protecting the poppy farmers in Afghanistan? Your very concerned about herion and opium but our military is openly aiding in it's production. the largest production in the world protected by the U.S. military. What's wrong with this picture?

If that is what we are doing, then we need to stop it now. But that doesn't justify making hard drugs legal.

[ConHog]

If that is what we are doing, then we need to stop it now. But that doesn't justify making hard drugs legal.

Supposedly the CIA is buying the poppy and burning them, to keep others from cultivating them.

[revelarts]

If that is what we are doing, then we need to stop it now. But that doesn't justify making hard drugs legal.

Its true we protect a lot of it.
And the only person that would stop it is Ron Paul. he might legalize it, if he could get the votes, but a president he would have the power not to Protect it or approve any subsidize for it. No others R or D would.


No "war" on drugs in Afghanistan.
Afghan Opium Trade Supplies 93 Percent Of World's Demand

"Opium production in Afghanistan has increased by 34 percent over the past year, and the country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market, according to a report by the United Nations' anti-drug agency.

"Afghanistan's opium production has thus reached a frighteningly new level, twice the amount produced just two years ago," says the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime's annual opium survey, released Monday in Kabul."

: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701356.html?nav=rss_business)


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ekwrNSDigMA?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[revelarts]

Supposedly the CIA is buying the poppy and burning them, to keep others from cultivating them.

:lol:

CIA buying the poppy, ok I'm with you there, but burning it?!!!? That's Funny. the DEA maybe but the CIA? they've got other uses for it.



http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/28/95240.shtml


" Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. According to these sources, Pakistani intelligence had threatened to overthrow President Musharraf if the crops were destroyed...."
... This Is Your CIA on Drugs
The CIA decision not to stop the Afghan opium production has been greeted silently by U.S. allies. According to intelligence sources, both the U.K. and French governments have quietly given their approval of the American policy by not acting in accordance with the U.N. global ban on opium traffic.
However, one foreign intelligence official was quick to point out that the CIA has a history of supporting international drug trafficking.
"The CIA did almost the identical thing during the Vietnam War, which had catastrophic consequences – the increase in the heroin trade in the USA beginning in the 1970s is directly attributable to the CIA. The CIA has been complicit in the global drug trade for years, so I guess they just want to carry on their favorite business," noted an allied intelligence official who works closely with U.S. law enforcement..."

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmJENSpdtW0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmJENSpdtW0?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[jimnyc]

Prohibition has failed twice now. it didn't stop alcoholism and all the horrors that go along with it and it hasn't stopped drug addition. Out in the open programs for help is what's needed not legal prohibition which throws the addicted people in jail.

And here's a question for you Con and Abby.
When are we going to stop protecting the poppy farmers in Afghanistan? Your very concerned about herion and opium but our military is openly aiding in it's production. the largest production in the world protected by the U.S. military. What's wrong with this picture?

Although one has nothing to do with the other, I'll answer my POV at least. I have no fucking idea when they will stop. I don't even know the legalities and the history behind it. I'm of the belief that they shouldn't be protecting an "illegal crop" that would further be sold to addicts down the road. I would certainly take issue with that.

But whether you stop that, or don't stop it, won't change the fact that legalizing such hard drugs is a recipe for disaster. If you want to offer programs as I've read, do that in addition to the current laws. All the things I heard that can be offered along with legalization, can also be offered under the current laws. Legalizing and offering the programs will still kill and ruin lives. Just like your reference to prohibition - make it legal and it'll be everywhere and in every city, bringing nothing but destruction. Pretty much the single largest way of cleaning up heroin addicts is jail.

[ConHog]

Although one has nothing to do with the other, I'll answer my POV at least. I have no fucking idea when they will stop. I don't even know the legalities and the history behind it. I'm of the belief that they shouldn't be protecting an "illegal crop" that would further be sold to addicts down the road. I would certainly take issue with that.

But whether you stop that, or don't stop it, won't change the fact that legalizing such hard drugs is a recipe for disaster. If you want to offer programs as I've read, do that in addition to the current laws. All the things I heard that can be offered along with legalization, can also be offered under the current laws. Legalizing and offering the programs will still kill and ruin lives. Just like your reference to prohibition - make it legal and it'll be everywhere and in every city, bringing nothing but destruction. Pretty much the single largest way of cleaning up heroin addicts is jail.

You're so mean, and the tenth amendment very clearly means the federal government can't stop me from doing whatever the hell I want to do.

[logroller]

I've read all that already. There is absolutely no good reason to legalize heroin. Great, people will be able to legally profit from it. More people will now make money and the people who's lives are slowly being ruined, and that of their families, will only get worse and increase. This isn't a recreational drug we're talking about. You go from 100mph - to ZERO in no time and you end up dead. Help people with addictions? Sure, but don't just let everyone have access to something like this and call it liberty.

You assume then illegitimate sales and use have resulted in lesser profits and lives being ruined? I'm not convinced of that, but regardless, I don't think there are masses of people just waiting to use heroin, but refrain solely because its illegal. I can understand a people wanting it to remain so, but that doesn't mean that experiments in decriminalization shouldn't be allowed at the state level. Would you agree with the Feds staying out, leaving the issue to the states?

[fj1200]

You're so mean, and the tenth amendment very clearly means the federal government can't stop me from doing whatever the hell I want to do.

:laugh:

[jimnyc]

You assume then illegitimate sales and use have resulted in lesser profits and lives being ruined? I'm not convinced of that, but regardless, I don't think there are masses of people just waiting to use heroin, but refrain solely because its illegal. I can understand a people wanting it to remain so, but that doesn't mean that experiments in decriminalization shouldn't be allowed at the state level. Would you agree with the Feds staying out, leaving the issue to the states?

I assume that lives are being ruined by crack and heroin regardless of how it gets into their mouths/veins. And I'm not even speaking of new people starting the drugs, although it being legal isn't much of a deterrent. I'm speaking solely of those already addicted. This would be a nightmare scenario for them, they just won't know it.

As for the feds, I don't see them doing much now as it is. The majority of penalties going towards those caught with drugs are already state laws. Sure, there are the major busts, but the every day addict is caught by their local police and fall under the laws of the state they are in. Any type of legalization is simply easier access for the addicts, and an easier path to destruction and death. People dying from drug overdoses is one of the leading causes of death in the US.

[jimnyc]

These stats are dated and I'll guarantee have since increased, but this came up first in search results! Furthermore, this is strictly heroin, and I believe the crack epidemic is much worse, if not as deadly and as quick as heroin. Anyone who thinks these statistics will do anything other than get worse, for those using/addicted, are very naive.


In the 25 to 49 age group, illicit drug overdose is the fourth leading cause of death, about the same number as motor vehicle crashes.

Children as young as 13 have been found involved in heroin abuse. According to statistics in 1999 heroin overdose has caused more deaths than traffic accidents.

The 1999 National Household Survey on drug abuse (NHSDA) estimated that there were 149,000 new heroin users in 1998 and that nearly 80 percent were under the age of 26.

Last year, there were approximately 84,000 visits to emergency rooms in the US due to heroin.

Over 80% of heroin users inject with a partner, yet 80% of overdose victims found by paramedics are alone.

The dependent person use between 150 - 250 milligrams per day. Divide into 3 doses.

The heroin addict spends between $150 to $200 per day to maintain a heroin addiction.

In 1998. 65% of the heroin seized in the United States originated in South America, and 17% came from Mexico.

Data from the 1999 National Household Survey on drug abuse suggest purity is partly responsible for the 75% of new heroin users who are snorting or smoking, not injecting the opiate. In 1991 the number of new users was 46%.

The 1999 NHSDA survey adjusted the average age for initiation of heroin use to just above 21 years of age. Other surveys, and experts have said many new users are between 18 to 25 years old.

According to Drug Abuse Warning Network, or DAWN, heroin and morphine accounted for 51% of drug deaths ruled accidental or unexpected in 1999.

Out of the 11,651 deaths... accidental and intentional by way of suicide... reported to DAWN by medical examiners in 1999, the most recent year for which complete statistics are available, 4,820 were the result of heroin or morphine abuse, or some combination of those and other drugs.

In 2000, as part of DAWN's year-end emergency data report, heroin related emergency room visits increased 15% from the last year.

Treatment admission rates for primary heroin abuse increased in publicly funded substance abuse treatment facilities across the nation between 1993 and 1999. In 1993, the treatment admission rate for primary heroin abuse in the United States was 95 admissions per 100,000 persons age 12 or older. By 1996, the admission rate had increase 7% to 102 per 100,000 and by 1999 it had increased by another 3% to 105 per 100,000.

The route of administration among heroin users entering treatment has been changing. In 1993, 74% of admissions for heroin abuse were injectors. By 1999, this had declined to 66%. There was an increase in admission for heroin inhalation for 23% in 1993 to 28% in 1999.

http://drug-statistics.com/heroin.htm

[jimnyc]

Here's a quick search on crack cocaine:


10 percent of publicly-funded drug abuse center admissions in 2006 were for crack cocaine.

Approximately 36.8 million Americans ages 12 and older had tried cocaine at least once in their lifetimes.1

19.5% of eighth graders, 28.2% of tenth graders, and 38.9% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2008 reported that powder cocaine was "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain (Whitehouse Drug Policy, 2008).

3.3% of students (high school and college) reported being current users of cocaine, meaning that they had used cocaine at least once during the past month.2

1 out of 4 Americans between the age of 26 and 34 have used cocaine in their lifetime.

Over 15,000 deaths annually associated with stimulants in the US (APA).

In 1988, about 300,000 infants were born addicted to cocaine.

During 2004, cocaine was the primary drug involved in Federal drug arrests. There were 12,166 Federal drug arrests for cocaine in 2004. (ONDCP).

Cocaine hydrochloride is very stable. It binds closely to the ink in paper currency. FBI chemists have discovered that traces of cocaine can be found on almost every dollar bill in circulation. (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2004, 27.5% of those incarcerated had been regular users of cocaine/crack – regular was defined as using at least once a week for at least a month.

http://www.myaddiction.com/education/articles/cocaine_statistics.html

[Sir Evil]

Here's a quick search on crack cocaine:



You and Ron Paul should do a quick search of each others crack..........Ron Paul?:gives:

[jimnyc]

You and Ron Paul should do a quick search of each others crack..........Ron Paul?:gives:

I'm simply pointing out what a fruitloop he is if you add up all of his voting record, stances, racism, homophobia & a handful of other things that make him both laughable and unelectable.

[Sir Evil]

I'm simply pointing out what a fruitloop he is if you add up all of his voting record, stances, racism, homophobia & a handful of other things that make him both laughable and unelectable.

Ummm, exactly......:gives:

[Joyful HoneyBee]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V36MT5lAMrc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> (http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V36MT5lAMrc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)

[Neo]

Pfft!

I'd be a great king!


PPffffffftttt!!!!!! I'd be a great richman! :dance: (if I were a richman, la de da de da de da de da de daaa...)

PS Go U.S.A.! :salute:

You from Canada, eh? LOL! What part? My bro-in-law is from Toronto. Not a bad guy for a Canuck, :laugh2:

[logroller]

I assume that lives are being ruined by crack and heroin regardless of how it gets into their mouths/veins. And I'm not even speaking of new people starting the drugs, although it being legal isn't much of a deterrent. I'm speaking solely of those already addicted. This would be a nightmare scenario for them, they just won't know it.

As for the feds, I don't see them doing much now as it is. The majority of penalties going towards those caught with drugs are already state laws. Sure, there are the major busts, but the every day addict is caught by their local police and fall under the laws of the state they are in. Any type of legalization is simply easier access for the addicts, and an easier path to destruction and death. People dying from drug overdoses is one of the leading causes of death in the US.

'One of' I guess, when lumped into accidental death; though I'd say it's better considered suicide. Either way, I don't see someone dying from drug use as a problem. Even assuming it is; how much of the problem has been abated and at what cost? I would say the problem has evolved into an even bigger problem. So instead of heroin addicts overdosing and destroying their lives, we've criminal enterprises causing even bigger problems. Meanwhile, the costs mount; we enforce it more harshly and the criminals still run the show from behind prison walls. It's pretty screwed up Jim. Maybe legalization isn't the solution, but what we've been doing for the last 30-40 plus years isn't it either. Got a solution?

The feds don't have much call to, since its illegal in most states. So of course you don't see the feds doing much when they can use the local cops to do it instead. Here in Cali, its legal if you have a 'prescription', and I'll be honest, anybody can get one, but that's not really the point. Hearkening to a landmark New Deal case, Wickard v Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v Raich that a person growing/consuming a crop solely for personal use posed a risk to the interstate statutory framework~the Controlled Substances Act. I'm not hating on the USSC, they're following case law. But like so many New Deal styled laws, its long past time for a change. The problem is few politicians want to upset the status quo of authoritarian rule, because God forbid the People of these United States were allowed to make decisions for themselves and deal with the consequences. What would government have to do?

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QHke3S71ygE?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


Ret Lt Col A SHaffer, work in intel found 9-11 threats pre 9-11, says Ron Paul has the most acurate view of the Iranian situtaion, that Romney's and Snatorums views are " ill advised".

Head of Mosad says Iran is not a threat Israel, That they can deal with them themselves.

He says that we have to be realistic in our assessments of threats and Ron Paul is exactly right about Iran.

Says that Iranian policy is not Irrational or Insane or Fanatical, it PAINFULLY rational. that the regime is doing what it needs to survive, in it's on best interest, and not provoke a strike from the U.S. or Israel.

[jimnyc]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V36MT5lAMrc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe> (http://%3Ciframe%20width=%22560%22%20height=%22315%22%20s rc=%22http://www.youtube.com/embed/V36MT5lAMrc%22%20frameborder=%220%22%20allowfullsc reen%3E%3C/iframe%3E)

Didn't I just see this video in another thread? And yes, Ron Paul IS a kook. Look at the coffins in the "still shot" of that video when it's not playing. That will be all the bodies of drug users when RP makes it legal. Heroin is NOT your friend.

[jimnyc]

'One of' I guess, when lumped into accidental death; though I'd say it's better considered suicide. Either way, I don't see someone dying from drug use as a problem. Even assuming it is; how much of the problem has been abated and at what cost? I would say the problem has evolved into an even bigger problem. So instead of heroin addicts overdosing and destroying their lives, we've criminal enterprises causing even bigger problems. Meanwhile, the costs mount; we enforce it more harshly and the criminals still run the show from behind prison walls. It's pretty screwed up Jim. Maybe legalization isn't the solution, but what we've been doing for the last 30-40 plus years isn't it either. Got a solution?

The feds don't have much call to, since its illegal in most states. So of course you don't see the feds doing much when they can use the local cops to do it instead. Here in Cali, its legal if you have a 'prescription', and I'll be honest, anybody can get one, but that's not really the point. Hearkening to a landmark New Deal case, Wickard v Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v Raich that a person growing/consuming a crop solely for personal use posed a risk to the interstate statutory framework~the Controlled Substances Act. I'm not hating on the USSC, they're following case law. But like so many New Deal styled laws, its long past time for a change. The problem is few politicians want to upset the status quo of authoritarian rule, because God forbid the People of these United States were allowed to make decisions for themselves and deal with the consequences. What would government have to do?

Ummmm, we're talking about Ron Paul here, wanting to make it as legal as praying or going to church. Nice family events, go to church, read the bible, and then find a vein to shoot up!

As to the bold portion. I disagree, I think each and every life lost is a problem. I had a great friend die last year from a heroin overdose. Legalizing the drug wouldn't have saved him.

[jimnyc]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>Ret Lt Col A SHaffer, work in intel found 9-11 threats pre 9-11, says Ron Paul has the most acurate view of the Iranian situtaion, that Romney's and Snatorums views are " ill advised".

Head of Mosad says Iran is not a threat Israel, That they can deal with them themselves.

He says that we have to be realistic in our assessments of threats and Ron Paul is exactly right about Iran.

Says that Iranian policy is not Irrational or Insane or Fanatical, it PAINFULLY rational. that the regime is doing what it needs to survive, in it's on best interest, and not provoke a strike from the U.S. or Israel.

And if I post a youtube video with an interview, and it states that Ron Paul is absolutely wrong and insane on his views on Iran & Israel, will it then mean that "Ron Paul is exactly wrong"?

[Gunny]

Funny how you want to post more and more "positive" crap about Ron Paul, as if you work for his campaign, but then fail to address, or refuse to address, the negative crap about him in the other threads. I guess when questioned, ignore the thread and start a new one? LOL

Post all you like though, Rev, it'll give you something to reminisce about when Paul goes down the shitter again. He's a proven racist, or incompetent racist supporter, and one who thinks it's a good idea to feed the habits of crackheads and heroin addicts.

Look at the spelling in the thread title. I might add "illiterates" to your list.:laugh:

[revelarts]

Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of Council for the National Interest (http://www.cnionline.org/) (CNI), is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served 18 years in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was Chief of Base in Barcelona from 1989 to 1992, and designated as the Agency’s senior officer for Olympic Games support. Dr. Giraldi holds an MA and PhD from the University of London. He speaks Spanish, Italian, German, and Turkish.



......The overly ambitious and ethically challenged wannabes who pass as statesmen in today’s United States fail to appreciate that the feckless promises made in their lust for high office could produce a catastrophic result. War is serious stuff, as the past 10 years have surely taught us, and Iran, which has had seven years to prepare for an attack, is a much larger and tougher nut than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Numerous commentators have observed how fuel prices would soar because of threats to close the Straits of Hormuz. Many in the Pentagon, including current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and former Secretary Robert Gates, oppose (http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/12/04/3090553/panetta-tells-israel-palestinians-to-get-to-the-damn-table) such a conflict in recognition of the fact that Tehran would have the ability to hit U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. As the subsequent involvement of Hezbollah from Lebanon is a near certainty, the strike against Iran would quickly escalate into a regional war and would spin out of control.

No matter how one feels about Iran’s government and its ambitions, everyone should be taking notice of what is happening to fuel the drive to war. The drumbeat is incessant, fed by weekly warnings from leading Israeli politicians and truculent editorials and poorly informed op-eds in leading American newspapers. One.... also charged Iran with complicity in al-Qaeda attacks, which most observers would find ridiculous.

The American people are being told over and over again that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, that Tehran is threatening U.S. soldiers, and that Ahmadinejad has pledged to wipe Israel off the map.Though all those assertions can be challenged and even debunked, the case is being made that Tehran’s perceived intransigence is irreversible, and this is making war inevitable. A majority of Americans already believe that Iran has a nuclear weapon and that it poses a threat to the United States that should be dealt with, using military force if necessary.
Pushing back against the tide of conformity on the Iranian menace is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul’s crimes against the status quo consist of saying that he would eliminate all foreign aid, of which Israel is the principal beneficiary, and that he would not go to war with Iran for Israel because Israel, with its large nuclear arsenal and sophisticated military, is quite capable of making its own decisions relating to its security. Paul is also willing to talk with the Iranians instead of constantly threatening them. Those positions, which appear to be reasonable enough, arouse an almost palpable anger among some pundits....
...Over at Red State (http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/12/12/new-gallup-poll-nutjob-ron-paul-only-gets-7-of-the-tea-party-vote/), “mikeymike 143″ wrapped the message of hate in vitriol, declaring that Paul was an “anti-Semite loser” and that his “followers are the dirtbags of society. Conspiracy loons, antiwar leftists, and anti-Semites....
...Well, if that is the case, count me as a miscreant. Apparently objecting to the billions of dollars in foreign aid lavished on Israel and refusing to go to war on her behalf is enough to cast one out into the wilderness,...
(name calling) ...intended to end every debate and to ease the way into yet another Middle Eastern war that the United States does not need to fight, cannot afford, and from which it will likely reap the whirlwind.

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/14/the-inevitable-war-with-iran/

[jimnyc]

Look at the spelling in the thread title. I might add "illiterates" to your list.:laugh:

Maybe that explains why Ron Paul was the ONLY member to vote no on "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

414 members voted yes and Ron Paul was the only one who voted no to the famous bill. Maybe he just couldn't read it? LOL

Nah, I'm sure he and his bots have a great excuse as to why the man simply couldn't "recognize or honor" something so important to our history. Like not agreeing with it probably!!

[jimnyc]

Imagine the stories you'll find on a site called "antiwar.com". Serious question, Rev - do you read "normal" sites, or do you strictly look around for sites that might share the same opinion as you? Do you REALLY think that site would offer both sides of the "story"? :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Maybe that explains why Ron Paul was the ONLY member to vote no on "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

414 members voted yes and Ron Paul was the only one who voted no to the famous bill. Maybe he just couldn't read it? LOL

Nah, I'm sure he and his bots have a great excuse as to why the man simply couldn't "recognize or honor" something so important to our history. Like not agreeing with it probably!!

He's a cult leader with followers. As mentioned before in some thread on this board, the fact rev supports Ron Paul just brings all his "not part of reality" beliefs into focus. I couldn never understand how he could be so stupid about the military and fighting wars until the "lightbulb moment" I found out he was a Ron Pal groupie.

[ConHog]

Maybe that explains why Ron Paul was the ONLY member to vote no on "recognizing and honoring the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

414 members voted yes and Ron Paul was the only one who voted no to the famous bill. Maybe he just couldn't read it? LOL

Nah, I'm sure he and his bots have a great excuse as to why the man simply couldn't "recognize or honor" something so important to our history. Like not agreeing with it probably!!

I wouldn't have voted to honor it either. "hey let's honor our 40th anniversary of passing this monumentally unconstitutional bill..."

Ron Paul is a kook though.

[revelarts]

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227



...On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel. "What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."
The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.
"But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel," one of the envoys said. ...



Not sure who'll you believe, but you'd think it'd be a good idea to listen to the head of the Mosad about what is suppose to be the big concern about Iran.

When Ron Paul says the same thing he's a KOOK who WANTS Iran to have a nuke, look no one WANTS Iran to have nukes but it's not the end of the world if they do. It's not something we the U.S. need to go to war over. That's the point.

[revelarts]

Imagine the stories you'll find on a site called "antiwar.com". Serious question, Rev - do you read "normal" sites, or do you strictly look around for sites that might share the same opinion as you? Do you REALLY think that site would offer both sides of the "story"? :laugh2:


Check the writer and his credentials jim. the same writer has written and reported for huff post, the american conservative mag, FOX NEWS, 60 minites, BBC NPR MSNBC etc.

But if you think that the site his article written on is more important than his foreign policy credentials that's your choice.

[jimnyc]

Check the writer and his credentials jim. the same writer has written and reported for huff post, the american conservative mag, FOX NEWS, 60 minites, BBC NPR MSNBC etc.

But if you think that the site his article written on is more important than his foreign policy credentials that's your choice.

Is he writing news FACTS or he is like a pundit offering his opinion based on his experience? From reading the article, it seems like it's an opinion piece by a pundit, placed on an anti-war site.

[Gunny]

A perfect example of RP supporters:

In Texas, you have 30 days after an election to remove your propaganda. In San Antonio, after RP dropped out of the primary, his signs stayed posted to any-and-everything until basically the South Texas heat and sun burned them off.

Integrity. As much grace in defeat as in winning. Unless you're a Ron Paul weenie. Then it's "we lost. Fuck it."

[ConHog]

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227




Not sure who'll you believe, but you'd think it'd be a good idea to listen to the head of the Mosad about what is suppose to be the big concern about Iran.

When Ron Paul says the same thing he's a KOOK who WANTS Iran to have a nuke, look no one WANTS Iran to have nukes but it's not the end of the world if they do. It's not something we the U.S. need to go to war over. That's the point.

You and Paul are wrong. There is a high degree of likelihood that given the nuclear weapon that nutbag in Tehran would give/sell/loan the technology to Hamaas. And THAT would be a complete disaster for everyone.

And I don't care what he says publicly if the head of Mossad isn't officially worried about that possibility he should be removed from his position as quickly as possible just as RP should be kept out of the white house by any means necessary.

[logroller]

Ummmm, we're talking about Ron Paul here, wanting to make it as legal as praying or going to church. Nice family events, go to church, read the bible, and then find a vein to shoot up!
I'm quite sure that's NOT what he thinks; but rather, the States should decide on such laws governing treatment of medical conditions. He said "we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime", you assume going to church is integral into the problem Jim. I personally disagree, and believe healthy social activities, which one is distanced from when incarcerated, like church and family outings integrally serve as a support system to prevent and treat drug addiction. Furthermore, the people of the states and locals could experiment with different ways of solving social problems; which, I believe, was the founders intent of a Republic. Do you agree with the emboldened idea?


As to the bold portion. I disagree, I think each and every life lost is a problem. I had a great friend die last year from a heroin overdose. Legalizing the drug wouldn't have saved him.
I'm sorry for your loss, but criminal prohibition didn't save him either; so might there be a different solution; in which the resources, now dedicated to criminal enforcement, could be reallocated to alternative treatment like alcohol abuse is now? I asked this before, and I'll ask it again, do you believe that drugs (hard drugs, heroin, crack etc) being legal would cause a significant number of people to use them?

[jimnyc]

I'm quite sure that's NOT what he thinks; but rather, the States should decide on such laws governing treatment of medical conditions. He said "we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime", you assume going to church is integral into the problem Jim. I personally disagree, and believe healthy social activities, which one is distanced from when incarcerated, like church and family outings integrally serve as a support system to prevent and treat drug addiction. Furthermore, the people of the states and locals could experiment with different ways of solving social problems; which, I believe, was the founders intent of a Republic. Do you agree with the emboldened idea?


I'm sorry for your loss, but criminal prohibition didn't save him either; so might there be a different solution; in which the resources, now dedicated to criminal enforcement, could be reallocated to alternative treatment like alcohol abuse is now? I asked this before, and I'll ask it again, do you believe that drugs (hard drugs, heroin, crack etc) being legal would cause a significant number of people to use them?

Here is what he stated:


The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

So I do believe that is what he thinks. And I think it's idiotic of him to compare the two. Stating they are equivalent sounds an awful lot like "no laws at all" on the drugs.

As to your other request, which I have in fact answered earlier, I don't think a lot of new people will be buying/using drugs, although there would be a share of people trying it since it's now "legal". And I think it's way too addictive of drugs to anyone even just trying. I think the bigger problem would lie with the addicts who now have easier access and a better chance to destroy their lives. What little deterrent and ability to forcefully intervene there was, would now be gone.

[revelarts]

Some folks at the pentagon don't seem to think Iran is a horrible threat either, seems many never have.

DoDBuzz.com


As Washington commentator Steven Clemons put it in 2007, “An irrepressible and perhaps irresponsible certainty that America will attack Iran now dominates commentary across the political spectrum.”


This scenario failed to materialize because the political forces pushing for active consideration of the military option — Vice President Dick Cheney’s camp in the George W. Bush White House, hawkish pundits, key congressional leaders and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — have been outmaneuvered by an informal antiwar coalition that included the Pentagon, the military’s top brass, the intelligence community and the Department of State.
This coalition was ably led by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is stepping down from his post at the end of the month. If one person were to receive the top credit for preventing an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would be Gates.
Beginning in his Senate confirmation hearing in December 2006, Gates has repeatedly spoken out against attacking Iran. After President Obama decided to retain him as defense secretary, Gates declared that “a potential strike on the Iranian facilities is not something that we or anyone else should be pursuing at this time.”






Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/28/is-gates-greatest-achievement-no-war-with-iran/#ixzz1k3V12TuS





....Citing a key Bush-era National Intelligence Estimate (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05prexy.html?pagewanted=all) and subsequent CIA findings, Dr. Paul has consistently emphasized that the Iranian government — although domestically repressive — is not pursuing aggressive designs against the United States. For this reason, Iran — like Soviet Russia and Communist China before it — can be dealt with through conventional diplomacy, rather than through pre-emptive war, as every other Republican candidate insists.
O’Reilly, who is Fox News’s ambassador to the geriatric warmonger demographic, consistently displays an unfavorable ratio of certitude to knowledge. He appears to be unaware of a recent official Pentagon threat analysis of Iran which validates Dr. Paul’s assessment (http://www.scribd.com/doc/30277432/DoD-Unclassified-Report-on-Military-Power-of-Iran).
According to the Pentagon — which self-appointed super-patriot O’Reilly must consider a nest of appeasers — the Iranian military is not configured for apocalyptic warfare against the United States, Israel, or any other country:
To ensure regime survival, Iran’s security strategy is based first on deterring an attack…. At present Iran’s forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran’s weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran’s borders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel. (Emphasis added)

“Stated simply Iran wants to obtain the necessary weapons to defend itself in a bad neighborhood where it finds itself surrounded by a global superpower (http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran-has-us-surrounded-all-right.html),” summarizes Shaun Booth of the political and economic affairs blog Milwaukee Story. “The hyping of the potential nuclear program in Iran is Washington’s attempt to establish a pretext that would garner public support for a strike/destabilization campaign on Iran. The obvious goal would be regime change. So the real reason the Pentagon sees a nuclear program in Iran as a threat is not because it would be used as a first strike weapon against Israel, but because it would make it more difficult for the US and its allies to take out the regime in Tehran.”....
http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/iran-the-aggressor-not-according-to-the-pentagon-which-agrees-with-ron-paul.html


Link to Pentagons unclassified report on Iran's military power
http://www.scribd.com/Silendo/d/30277432-DoD-Unclassified-Report-on-Military-Power-of-Iran

[logroller]

Here is what he stated:



So I do believe that is what he thinks. And I think it's idiotic of him to compare the two. Stating they are equivalent sounds an awful lot like "no laws at all" on the drugs.

I realize you don't like the comparison, but it's a solid argument. For it sounds an awful lot like you are assuming religion is allowed to exist under "no laws at all". We have discussed Sharia 'honor killings' at length here, so clearly any liberty, including religion, has bounds. As I best understand it, liberty to express one's personal freedom ends when it interferes with another's, right? It doesn't protect us from being exposed to another's, only prevented from our own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Me using drugs, legal or not, doesn't prevent you from doing otherwise; does it? Any more than being Buddhist, or better yet, being Rastafarian inhibits you from being Roman Catholic. So whether it be religious or habitual, the line between your freedom and mine remains the same...or at least it should, if liberty is to exist.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Funny thing about foreign policy and strategy is that the best laid plans are the ones not laid out in the open. Major corporations don't go around touting their next big product while it is still in development. Cats down howl at mice or birds before they pounce on them. Smart military intelligence requires keeping ones mouth shut and ones eyes & ears open, thus one can see and hear what's really happening because it isn't being drowned out by the sound of ones own voice. Anyone who has any common sense knows that you don't run around making threats for the sake of national security, you just do what has to be done when timing dictates. Does a smart president enter the White House shaking his fist at every nation in the world, or does he stay on top of what's going on around the world, availing himself of timely information? Honestly, I think people are downright stupid to set their sights on the candidate who is verbally forceful about his willingness to push the button.

My dad brought me up with the old saying "Kill 'em with kindness". He told me to let other people say and do what they were going to say and do, but to watch and listen. There's no better way to keep people off guard and catch them with their defenses down. There's a good reason God gave us two ears and one mouth. If we talk half as much as we listen, we learn so much more than the other way around.

I want a president who gives people the impression he's a kindly old harmless man, but who'll send in the big guns when necessary. Of course, at the rate our economy is going down the tubes, China will be repossessing our big guns eventually, so we won't have any to send in. And, no one has asked the million dollar question — what happens when China gets tired of floating our fiat money, anyway? What happens if China decides we are the enemy? We DO need to be self sufficient. I want a president bent on leading us in that direction.

[jimnyc]

I realize you don't like the comparison, but it's a solid argument. For it sounds an awful lot like you are assuming religion is allowed to exist under "no laws at all". We have discussed Sharia 'honor killings' at length here, so clearly any liberty, including religion, has bounds. As I best understand it, liberty to express one's personal freedom ends when it interferes with another's, right? It doesn't protect us from being exposed to another's, only prevented from our own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Me using drugs, legal or not, doesn't prevent you from doing otherwise; does it? Any more than being Buddhist, or better yet, being Rastafarian inhibits you from being Roman Catholic. So whether it be religious or habitual, the line between your freedom and mine remains the same...or at least it should, if liberty is to exist.

Because certain Muslims commit murder and literally break the law in the US, that's hardly an argument that religion operates under the law here. And even less of an argument that it's the same as drugs operating under no laws at all.

But I surrender to you guys. If it's your cup of tea, go for it. I don't believe in making poison available to anyone and everyone under the guise of liberty for all.

[fj1200]

I want a president who gives people the impression he's a kindly old harmless man, but who'll send in the big guns when necessary. Of course, at the rate our economy is going down the tubes, China will be repossessing our big guns eventually, so we won't have any to send in. And, no one has asked the million dollar question — what happens when China gets tired of floating our fiat money, anyway? What happens if China decides we are the enemy? We DO need to be self sufficient. I want a president bent on leading us in that direction.

Everyone has been saying that RP is not an isolationist; are you now saying he is? And China isn't "floating" our fiat money.

[revelarts]

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor explains why Rep. Ron Paul's plan would actually strengthen the U.S. military:
"As Ron Paul has pointed out, we do need to scale back our overseas footprint. Our presence in many parts of the world today is actually a catalyst for conflict. We're not cultivating peaceful conditions, in many cases we're doing the opposite..."
...
"Ron Paul is the only man who is in touch with reality"!"

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lNedMn8_oag" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[pegwinn]

I skipped from page one to page eight. So if some of this is old, sorry bout that.

As far as I am concerned if you have the right to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, then any substance abuse laws are hypocritical. Don't tell me about shortened lifespans or damage to the fabric of society either. Tobacco kills more than heroin and alcohol has ruined more families and communities than crack or weed.

So, you can advocate for liberty in all forms without endorsing anything. It's called being consistent. Something a shit load of pols are not.

I think his foreign policy is not nearly as insane as some people think. I do wish he'd add more to it. Something to the effect of "We will leave you alone. If you don't leave us alone we will utterly destroy you and anyone who interferes. And there won't be a Marshall Plan." I have a hunch that is what he's thinking, but cannot prove it since my Ouija board went UA a long time ago.

[Gaffer]

I skipped from page one to page eight. So if some of this is old, sorry bout that.

As far as I am concerned if you have the right to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, then any substance abuse laws are hypocritical. Don't tell me about shortened lifespans or damage to the fabric of society either. Tobacco kills more than heroin and alcohol has ruined more families and communities than crack or weed.

So, you can advocate for liberty in all forms without endorsing anything. It's called being consistent. Something a shit load of pols are not.

I think his foreign policy is not nearly as insane as some people think. I do wish he'd add more to it. Something to the effect of "We will leave you alone. If you don't leave us alone we will utterly destroy you and anyone who interferes. And there won't be a Marshall Plan." I have a hunch that is what he's thinking, but cannot prove it since my Ouija board went UA a long time ago.

I'm totally against legalizing drugs. Cigs and alcohol are almost illegal now between taxes and restrictions. People who get hooked on drugs are still going to be a problem to society whether they are legal or not. It would just make it easier. Theft and robberies would not change because they would still need to steal to support their habit. Just like an alcoholic will beg, borrow and steal to get booze.

Paul is anti war, period. He is not about to go in and blow an aggressive country away. If you think he will your being naive. He doesn't believe we should have went to war with Hitler. How dumb is that? Not to mention Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Peg your an Oohrah Marine. Ron Paul is an oh that's not nice kinda guy. He'll never need a Marshall plan cause he won't do anything in response to aggression.

Four years of Ron Paul will see Russia back in Poland, The muslims wiping out Israel and invading Spain. Venezuela and Cuba invading Columbia, Nicaragua and Panama, North Korea invading South Korea and China invading Taiwan. But our borders will be protected.

[pegwinn]

I guess that great minds can disagree. I don't think he will roll quite the way you predicted. I think that he has a principled base for his opinions. I also think that if attacked he would respond appropriately.

Just as an academic question for the class: Why do we care if Russia invades Poland? I'm not looking for a wishy washy answer about it being the right thing to do. If you or I were the President why would be send in my Marines if Russia invades Poland? I picked that question because I know that if I asked about Israel the entire board would implode and life as we know it would go to hell.

The next academic question involves our personal liberties. Why is tobacco and Alcohol legal and crack isn't? I am pretty simple minded on things like logic and consistency. So, there is a chance I have overlooked a key element that causes the reality of Tobacco/Alcohol and Crack to make sense.

[Gaffer]

I guess that great minds can disagree. I don't think he will roll quite the way you predicted. I think that he has a principled base for his opinions. I also think that if attacked he would respond appropriately.

Just as an academic question for the class: Why do we care if Russia invades Poland? I'm not looking for a wishy washy answer about it being the right thing to do. If you or I were the President why would be send in my Marines if Russia invades Poland? I picked that question because I know that if I asked about Israel the entire board would implode and life as we know it would go to hell.

The next academic question involves our personal liberties. Why is tobacco and Alcohol legal and crack isn't? I am pretty simple minded on things like logic and consistency. So, there is a chance I have overlooked a key element that causes the reality of Tobacco/Alcohol and Crack to make sense.

If you allow one country to invade and take over another, how long until they get to you? Chamberlain achieved peace in his time doing just that. Well kinda sorta. Russia would like nothing better than to reestablish their old empire and to add to it at every opportunity. Moving in without resistance from other countries just encourages them to continue.

Alcohol can be drank responsibly. Most politicians use it a lot and they can get high taxes from it. It can be controlled. Cigarettes are very addictive. But I think a lot of the bad reports are just like global warming. A scam to raise taxes. Too much of anything is harmful. Crack is a dangerous drug that will kill you in a short time. It's highly addictive, way more than tobacco. I won't even go into the personality changes that take place. There's a long list of very dangerous drugs. You want to legalize all of them?

If you think legalizing drugs would cut down on crime think again. Addicts can't function and hold a job. Just because something is legal and can be bought in the store, you still have to make money to buy it. And it would be taxed out the wahzoo.

[pegwinn]

If you allow one country to invade and take over another, how long until they get to you? Chamberlain achieved peace in his time doing just that. Well kinda sorta. Russia would like nothing better than to reestablish their old empire and to add to it at every opportunity. Moving in without resistance from other countries just encourages them to continue.

In our hypothetical Poland v. Russia situation I would have no problem offering the State Departments services to mediate. I have no problem with defending Poland to the death if the appropriate mutual defense treaties are in place prior to the Russian invasion. If there is no treaty, then Poland will die valiantly. I would not shed your blood or the blood of your kids/grandkids over it.

Those treaties I mentioned are the key. We need to determine who it is that must stand unmolested in our best interest. If an expansionist Russia is scary, then let's make those treaties in a way that makes us money. Right now, Japan foots the overwhelming majority of the costs of US troops garrisoned on their soil. Why? Because they want us as their protector. And, like any protection racket, cash money talks.

Essentially, if we are to be the global cop, then get it in writing and at least get paid for it.

I come by this attitude courtesy of the pols from the sixties till now (my remembered lifetime) that blithly send people off to die while they have another three drink lunch. I would likely feel different if the same pols had actually moved toward some lound noises in thier day. Most didn't. I might feel different if they didn't invent ROE that required a Commanding Officer to have a JAG rep on the mike everytime he issued an operational order.


Alcohol can be drank responsibly. Most politicians use it a lot and they can get high taxes from it. It can be controlled. Cigarettes are very addictive. But I think a lot of the bad reports are just like global warming. A scam to raise taxes. Too much of anything is harmful. Crack is a dangerous drug that will kill you in a short time. It's highly addictive, way more than tobacco. I won't even go into the personality changes that take place. There's a long list of very dangerous drugs. You want to legalize all of them?

If you think legalizing drugs would cut down on crime think again. Addicts can't function and hold a job. Just because something is legal and can be bought in the store, you still have to make money to buy it. And it would be taxed out the wahzoo.

I just cannot see a difference between tobacco, alcohol, and crack. One will kill you quicker than the other two. The other two have amassed a huge bodycount over the decades/centuries. All target the generic loser in society who has little or no self discipline. And, yeah, I smoked for a loooong time and still drink a beer every now and again. My body, my choice, my life, and if it comes to it; my problem.

We tried prohibition and it fueled the rise of organized crime. The war on drugs hasn't exactly been a "mission accomplished" success story either. Personally I think the whiz quiz, administered by employers, has done more to curtail drug use than all the DEA raids. What really gets me is that the enforcement is so, uh, selective. I personally know a guy who did two years in minimum security for possession. And, I have read news accounts of guys who killed someone while driving drunk who only got a bit of time in the county lockup.

I'd rather legalize it and tax or regulate it like the other "approved" addictive/state altering stuff. Imagine the "Whoever Cartel" opening up shop and having to submit to OSHA, the FDA, and the FTC inspections. :laugh:

At the same time, we should state openly that if you are in an altered state at the time of an offense.... that becomes a matter of aggravation and adds to the baseline sentencing. It's time to start treating the adult population like adults. And, that means that if they choose to drive off a cliff we stand there so long as the only loser who dies is themselves.

[revelarts]

even George Will can't see the difference in Romney and Obama's foreign policy, and knows we can decree defense spending and bring troops home from around the world without endangering us or the world. Cold wars over folks. Time for some peace dividends ya think?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/09/george-f-will-obama-has-stolen-gop-advantage-on-national-security/

...Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor, hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.

Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate…
The U.S. defense budget is about 43% of the world’s total military spending — more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8% from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries.

Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw up to 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Union’s death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?
Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama “is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran’s closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”) GOP critics say Obama’s proposed defense cuts will limit America’s ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good…

Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon…” (Leon) Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable” and “a red line for us” and if “we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.”
What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets” are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously than ever, and Guantanamo is still open, so Republicans can hardly say Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding counterterrorism. Obama says that even with his proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at about the rate of inflation through the next decade.

Republicans who think America is being endangered by “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.

[revelarts]

Zbigniew Brzezinski
I kind of hate useing this guy to make a point, i think he's a snake but ... in this case i think he speaking the truth


...This situation has come about, he says, because of America’s economic and political problems at home (including a growing and “eventually unsustainable national debt (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier),” faltering public education and an increasingly gridlocked and highly partisan political process), misguided foreign policy decisions (most notably George W. Bush’s determination to wage an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq) and the growing mastery, by potential rivals, of “21st-century modernity.”....

Mr. Brzezinski notes that President Obama has “failed to speak directly to the American people about America’s changing role in the world, its implications, and its demands,”

....What Mr. Brzezinski does do here — lucidly, and for the most part with great persuasiveness — is explore the consequences that a steady slide by America into impotence and irrelevance might have on the rest of the world. Such a development, he argues, would probably not result in the “ ‘coronation’ of an effective global successor” like China, but would likely lead to a “protracted phase of rather inconclusive and somewhat chaotic realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers.”..




He was interviewed on Cspan about the book and other issues. His thoughts on Iran. -around minute 40- He thinks the world will LAUGH at us if we go to war with Iran. that's it's unnecessary and quotes the Israelis that Iran is NOT an existential threat even with nukes. and that we will plunge the world into an bigger economic crisis and Inflame even more people against us.

And that the way we approach Iran should be to help separate the radicals from the positions of power rather than push the nationalist radials and the people toward radicalism. that Iran could become much more like Turkey.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/303352-1


Expat Iranians point out that the people there were among the most western and democratic thinking in the middle east before the Ayatolyas showed up.

[revelarts]

Even pat Buchanan knows Attacking Iran makes no sense, he thinks it laughable. and we shouldn't be there or in Syria and pull troops from around the world. "Both would be a Disaster"
I'm not a Buchanan fan either but hes right:

Pat Buchanan: "300 nukes in Israel yet Iran a threat? LOL"<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L033M6wqNCI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L033M6wqNCI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0OVgYCMjr8c?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

US Marine Major Christopher Miller Speaks Out at Missouri District 3 Convention
"... we are tired of wars ...
...tired of same old republican democrat garbage!...
...Romney the same old garbage...
...we need real change!"

[tailfins]

US Marine Major Christopher Miller Speaks Out at Missouri District 3 Convention
"... we are tired of wars ...
...tired of same old republican democrat garbage!...
...Romney the same old garbage...
...we need real change!"

I'm OK with Ron Paul's efforts to advance his views in the GOP. What I would NOT be OK with is a Judas. There is room in the GOP for Olympia Snowe and Ron Paul. There is no room for the likes of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, Orange Charlie Crist, L'il Mike Bloomberg, and Missing Linc Chaffee.

[Gator Monroe]

Anyone who thinks there is a viable Far Right Politically in America anymore is delusional.

[tailfins]

Anyone who thinks there is a viable Far Right Politically in America anymore is delusional.

It's easy to make wild claims like that when you don't define your terms. What is the "Far Right"? Do you mean Fred Phelps? On the economic side, do you mean Ron Paul? All I will say is that most Americans are not very good at eating a crap sandwich. If whatever gets defined as "far right" policies bring down unemployment, keep crime low, etc., etc. and contributes to what most people consider a good quality of life they will prosper. Obama's liberal policies sure aren't very enjoyable to live with. I don't know too many people that like a hard labor market, high gas prices, difficulty borrowing, a criminalized society where selling milk can land you in jail, arrogant unionized TSA thugs when they fly, etc.

[Gator Monroe]

To The Left & Middle Left folks like Michael Savage & Rush are far Right