TERRORISM

I hate in when people say well look we havent had a terrorist attack so that means we are doing something right......how long was the gap between the first attack on the WTC and the 2nd. Just because event B (no attacks) happens does not mean event A (our intervention in the middle east ) is the reason. This is a leap of logic that makes little sense and has no proof or evidence to back it up. I supported going after OSAMA and look what happened. WE ignored the people actually responsible.. Just based on the fact we didnt get OSAMA should wake you up to the fact that we arent actually doing well in this "war on terror". WE didnt even get the guy responsible, common man. now he is in pakistan, with a 50% approval rating in pakistan... Wakeup dude. the only reason we got attacked on 9-11 was because our intelligence network had their thumbs up their asses. There are always going to be enemies of the US, i have no problem going after the people responsible but that isnt what we are doing. Taking our a sovereign middle eastern country, occupying it, and nation building is not in the best interests of America. Why do you have this notion that israel cant defend itself, it is not in israels best interests to send all 200 of their nukes into Iran, your using sensationalism to make a point. If israel wants to knock out their nuke plants fine, they are all grown up and can handle what is in their best interests. Why would israel bomb a country in a manner that would piss off millionns of Arabs that are right next door. Do you think Israel is this irresponsible country that just launches missles all over the place and America is keeping them in check. They know what they are doing! Lets protect THIS country, our borders, our imports, our intellegence, so we can actually defend against all the people who didlike America not just a few in the middle east. Our military is overstretched so badly we have to hire firms like blackwater to prop them up. weve got kids serving 3 or 4 tours in the desert and it isnt making the country any safer or making our military stronger. ON the Ron Paul point. Paul supported going after the taliban ( that was important, it was the only time islamic terrorist countrolled a nation state and disrupting that was important) but we still didnt get the guy responsible. We should have killed as many taliban as we could and got out. Nation building is a fruitless endeavor, why do you have so much patriotism but ignore that other countries citizens might have patriotism and narionalistic tendencies as well. The American revolution happened because of British occupation.
Israel would not nuke preemtivly nuke iran.....this is just rediculous. That is in noones best interest. plus the international community would disarm Israel if they ever did a preemtive nuclear attack. Wakeup man. Yes i agree that Iraq is getting better in many respects, but my problem is this. 1. it is not going to be able to form a democracy in our image any time soon, which will require US presence for years. 2. that US presense will bankrupt the country. We simply cannot afford this. The ramifications of bankrupting the nation our not worth a unlikely iraqi democracy. Listen to what the comtroller general is saying about the economic state of our nation. You dont hear the media talk about it but why dont we listen to the accountants and find out what we should do.. Its that simple

Again, food & medical supplies are EXEMPT from US economic sanctions.

Saddam is responsible for the evil things he did to this people, he denied them food & medical supplies, out of greed and control,

If you want to be an apologist for this murderer, go ahead.

Don't let history or the facts get in the way of your "America is bad" nonsense, that would require you to "wake up":thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

NOW...answer me this:
One consistant view of the typical Ron Paul supporter is screw Israel. What would be the side effects IF we were to abandon our allie and what effects would it have on YOUR life if they were to the point of launching their nuclear weapons. 200 bombs across the middle east WILL have an effect on the entire world!

And this: It amazes me that the Ron Paul sector screams this "Constitution" garbage but yet after 9-11 they can't even support the war in Afghanistan. Ron Paul has stated that ONLY wars that have been approved by Congress are constitutionally correct....well Afghanistan was and still is! Now since Afghanistan IS a war approved by Congress, how can he state that it goes against the Constitution?

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Simple. Ron Paul supported finding terrorists in Afghanistan. Now he is for removing the troops. However in the first place, he supported it.

economic sanctions denied materials needed to rebuild infrastructure. Water treatment; sanitation. They arent intended results of our sanctions but they are results non the less. If we do not recognize how our policies effect civilians whether intended or not we do ourselves a disservice. typical attack line, you dont think America always does the right thing therefore your a terrorist sadaam lover...can you please try to be a little more enlightened as to how there could be unintended consiquesnces to our policies and how those unintended consequenses of a misguided foreign policy effect people all the way across the world. Its the same logic when people say. "If we bomb Iran the Iranian people will know they are attacking their government and not the people. It doesnt work like that. BOMBS ARE BOMBS. If Russia started bombing nuke sites in america during the cold war the american populace would take it personal. I am not excusing sadaams brutal regime I am mearly explaining that these policies are misguided and end up creating more problems for the United States.

and when you have economic sanctions after you bomb the shit out of the country it will effect the civilians more that the government.....i dont think its out of line to say muslims resent it.. common just think about if it you were in there situation. Who sent the bombs, who implemented the sanctions. Again im not justifying terrorist behavior I am merely explaining where it comes from.....a disastrous foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BathingApes

Simple. Ron Paul supported finding terrorists in Afghanistan. Now he is for removing the troops. However in the first place, he supported it.

---

Really....show me something that states that please:

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him.
I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It's been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well.
Too often, whether it's a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.
Towards Liberty

There's a reason why he's a favorite of Prison Planet.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

NOW...answer me this:
One consistant view of the typical Ron Paul supporter is screw Israel. What would be the side effects IF we were to abandon our allie and what effects would it have on YOUR life if they were to the point of launching their nuclear weapons. 200 bombs across the middle east WILL have an effect on the entire world!

And this: It amazes me that the Ron Paul sector screams this "Constitution" garbage but yet after 9-11 they can't even support the war in Afghanistan. Ron Paul has stated that ONLY wars that have been approved by Congress are constitutionally correct....well Afghanistan was and still is! Now since Afghanistan IS a war approved by Congress, how can he state that it goes against the Constitution?

Have a good one!:s4:

---

LZ.....still waiting on that response.

IF we leave Israel to itself with NO assistance they'll have Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and probably Saudi Arabia and Egypt all over their asses. In the situation of immenant destruction they WILL launch 200 nukes across the middle east.

As far as the Ron Paul.....how do ya even try to justify that? Good luck!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Really....show me something that states that please:

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him.
I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It's been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well.
Too often, whether it's a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.
Towards Liberty

There's a reason why he's a favorite of Prison Planet.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

As I said, he WAS in support of military action against terrorists in Afghanistan, but now he wants the troops out as we STILL haven't found Osama and he thinks we are there for oil/something not to do with terrorists.

Oh and here is what you asked for:

Project Vote Smart - Authorization for Use of Military Force Member Vote List

About half way down he is there. You obviously dont agree with Paul's statements but I think you're so anti-paul that you assume he is against EVERYTHING you stand for.

no you need to justify that.....go find the declaration of war against afganistan or the taliban....Go find it...an authorization is not a formal declaration of war. You know that. Dont play this game like giving authorization to run rampant in the middle east is a declaration of war like the constitution instructs congress to do. So when you find that war DECLARATION you win. If it were a Declaration it would called a declaration. The congress is a bunch of pussies and didnt want to take responsibility for declaring war, so they told the president to do it......THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

the point is congress does not have the authority under the constitution to grant the president authority to go to war, you would need to ammend the constitution to do that. Therefore the act of granting authority to the president to go to war is unconstitutional. The ONLY way to make it constitutional is to an ammendment. Thats called following the rule of law and having respect for the supreme law of the land.