Video: Ron Paul reacts to Bhutto’s death by playing the same tired blame-America tune
posted at 4:47 pm on December 27, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
In a very, very narrow sense, he has a point: I argued at the time of the emergency rule that we were pushing too hard and too soon on Musharraf, a man attempting to lead a country that is about as riven with difficulty as a country can get. I argued that the course of pushing democracy was too risky at this point, and that the Bush administration ought to take a long look at what democracy delivered on Israel’s borders before pushing for more of the same in Pakistan. Pakistan is peculiarly troubled: All of its heroes, including Bhutto, are deeply flawed; neither Musharraf, Bhutto or Nawaz Sharif trust each other; all of them would benefit in one way or another if one or both of the others weren’t around, yet they all claim to be the only thing that can save Pakistan; and any could also be weakened by the untimely demise of any of the others. Behind them there’s the rising Islamist threat that, sorry John Derbyshire, Patriot Paul does not understand to a depth greater than a nanometer. The problems in Pakistan are not, ultimately, the results of busted American foreign policy. Our short-term policy hasn’t helped, but the environment in which the problems thrive goes back a few decades, or a few centuries. As we ought to have learned in Afghanistan during the 1990s, rubble can make a very great deal of trouble indeed.
But in Ron Paul’s world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our “puppet” in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops. There is, of course, at most a neglible possibility that we’ll send troops into Pakistan to do anything beyond taking on al Qaeda or securing the nukes. India might, but even that’s highly unlikely. And never mind that Pakistan’s history with democracy is sketchy, to say the least. Should we not have attempted to work with Musharraf against al Qaeda, Patriot Paul? Paul also tosses out the canard that we supported Osama bin Laden. Someone really needs to disabuse him of that notion one of these days. Someone should bone him up on the history of al Qaeda as well. It didn’t form because we support Musharraf, as Paul seems to think.
Paul doesn’t even offer a pro forma statement of condolences either for Bhutto or Pakistan. As a doctor, he must have had splendid bedside manner.
Update: My mistake, Patriot Paul did issue a pro forma statement that Bhutto’s assassination is a “horrible tragedy.” It’s in the last third of the clip, and was short enough that I missed it the first couple of times I listened to the clip to summarize it.
Update: Ron Paul is, indeed, a first-rate ignoramus and a high-voiced crank. Here’s a response to today’s events that’s a little closer to my thinking. And I’m sure that if it gets enough exposure it’ll cause Patriot Paul to have an aneurysm.
I just got an e-mail from a buddy who’s now a senior enlisted military man, who says:
Musharraf, or the Pakistani people or who ever is still in charge, needs to open the northwest sector of their country up to us and we can hunt the [Al Qaeda terrorists] down and kill them like rabbits running out of a fire.
Special Forces, air support, a few drones with Hellfires attached. Nothing fancy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Suddenly………the ronulans disappear.
Off settling disputes in another dimension I suspect.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:40 PM
You group the two wars together as though the causes were similar. Muyoso’s explanation of WWI and its impact is pretty good. The first war caused the second, but Wilson and FDR faced very different choices.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 10:40 PM
But seriously Talon. I support RP for his bid for the nomination. Who do you support? I’ll put myself out there because I know I can defend why I like RP, can you do the same for a candidate?
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Ron Paul is very different from Goldwater in 1964 on the use of the American military. Overall, though Paul might be closer to Goldwater than the other GOP candidates. Perhaps because of that Goldwater’s son has endorsed Paul.
Goldwater today couldn’t possibly get the GOP nomination.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 10:49 PM
HOORAY!!!
Ronulans respond!!!!!!!
muyoso………
You and and the entire ronulan state are morons.
Got that??? Oh,,,,,don’t take that on just my word….when your messiah gets COMPLETELY REJECTED BY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY…let that be a hint. I know, I know, you and .0000005% of the country think you have it all nailed down, but ……uhhhh….no. You don’t. You are a retard.
Admit it…….you ride the little bus and wear a helmet.
If you have the strength……answer my questions.
All of them.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Paul doesn’t even think Iran has an army. Defend that.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Again he described that intervention [Vietnam] as “a useless war” and it is almost unimaginable that Barry Goldwater would have had us in Vietnam until 1975 going through 60,000 dead American troops.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM
@ Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM
I can’t defend that statement. I could defend it if he was comparing Iran vs Israel, but he didnt say that. Give me a candidate you support, and I will find a bunch of stupid things they have said. I support his positions and his record, what you will do is find statements which were wrong, out of context or try and affiliate him with some group that gave him money. I agree with him on his position that Iran’s army is in no position to fight a war with any nation.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Where else does Paul get to inherit the Goldwater mantle? From the same speech:
Or this:
There’s very little, if any Ron Paul in any of that.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:55 PM
And again, his complaint was that we weren’t fighting hard enough.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:57 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Wow, I SERIOUSLY need to know who you support for president. You are so elegant and eloquent in your speaking style, it just throws off this aura of intelligence. I have answered all of your inane questions, you answer mine, and then maybe ask a serious question for a change.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Bryan, ban me if you must but, step off. Frankly that comment is beneath you. I had come to respect you highly from reading your posts, but I’m about to give up on you, AP, Michelle, and the whole lot of holier-than-thou posters here.
You bash Paul endlessly and your first response to anyone who shows up to defend him is to attack them as being Ronulans or some other derogatory name. Some of us want a true conservative to reduce the size of the government, return to a Constitutionally governed Republic, and stop meddling in other country’s affairs. You tell me who’s gonna do that better than Ron.
Gulliani – Flaming liberal Democrat anywhere by NY
Romney – But my hair looks good (Party Hack flip-flopper)
Huckabee – Arky liberal and frankly a liar
McCain – big gov, mc-feingold, amnesty shill flip-flop
Tanc – we appreciate your efforts on immigration
Hunter – good guy, no media, will you stand up to rinos?
Thompson – close as it comes to right, is he trying?
Paul – more right on domestic Constitutional policy than any other, against foreign intervention and THAT makes him the devil?? What is your problem?
I’m about 60% Paul, 40% Thompson right now so I forsee myself voting Paul.
Straight up, no bull – who are you voting for.
y2church on December 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM
You called him an idiot twice about a half hour ago.
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Ooops….my turn for the Wii!
See you all later!
JohnTant on December 27, 2007 at 11:00 PM
You will note that Goldwater never was a proponent of nation building.
He was an American nationalist, not a Wilsonian.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Taft supported the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan and many other “interventionist” policies. He also was not a “blame america” fool like Paul.
your moral compass has to be upside down to look at the world and see the United States as the source of all foreign policy related problems.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 10:49 PM
I know you see the presidential nomination as some sort of popularity contest, where the people who voted for the winner are somehow better people, but remember, 7 are running for the republicans, there are going to be 6 people completely rejected and 1 person accepted. Come to grips with that. I never stated that I think RP is going to win the nomination, you will never find a quote of me saying that. That doesnt mean I won’t support him, as I refuse to compromise what I believe to be best for the country to rather “gain popularity???” by voting with the majority of the people.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM
You’re 60% for a guy who thinks Iran doesn’t have an army (when they have one of the world’s largest). So I’ll take your lecture to me with that very much in mind.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Goldwater didn’t just complain about not fighting hard enough, he said we should Nuke the North Vietnamese and should’ve gone in to Vietnam 10 years earlier than we did.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM
It’s not out of context. Go read the post that’s linked. He said it. It’s indefensibly stupid.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Truth be told ronulan, I have no dog that I can support in this race.
They all suck. IMHO.
Mitt???………..NO WAY
Huck?……….NO WAY
Mccain?……………NO WAY
Rudy?…….NO WAY!
ETC>>>>>>>
I have no candidate.
First time since I was able to vote that I had no-one that I could jump on the band wagon for EXCEPT Ronald Reagan.
So I have no dog in this race.
But RP is completely nuts and he would destroy this country if he was allowed to have his way with it.
RP thinks that if we withdraw ALL of our military from the world, our problems go away.
Do you believe that?
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:05 PM
@ jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The thing that is wrong with the republican party is that NO one is willing to admit a mistake of the US, so much so, that when a republican comes along that does it, he is immediately labeled a “blame America firt” guy. Giuliani for example, believes that Islamists hate us because we buy cheeseburgers and are free. That is so retarded. They have stated thousands of times why they are mad at us. They, through their warped savage minds, think that our “occupation” (having a base) of SA and other middle eastern countries are in violation of their religious doctrine and as a result they must wipe us off the map. They have stated this multiple times. Stating this isnt “hating america” its simply telling the truth.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Dude, it’s hyperbole. Can you really not see that? OK, cue the “Ronulan arrives to explain what he said” attack. Seriously, have you ever heard TO or any other stud WR tell the DB across from them that they got nothing? “You couldn’t stop my little brother’s high school team, chump.”
You want the truth? Iran has no army. Bone up on military history if you must. When’s the last time Israel was defeated in battle? Compared to Israel, which was the context of the conversation, Iran’s got jack squat. That was his point. Or have your anti-paul glasses blinded you to common sense? Iran will not attack Israel whether we’re defending them or not, and if they do attack, they’ll lose again like the Arabs have the last 4 times they tried.
y2church on December 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:05 PM
You support no one in the race? Convenient.
Of course our problems don’t go away. But can you as a “conservative” (I am guessing), justify to me why we have a base in Germany? Why do we station 35k troops in South Korea defending their border when we have say, 100 defending ours? I CAN tell you why we are there, and its because the government NEVER downsizes. The cold war ended, when those bases WERE needed. Now, they are a waste of tax payer money, and serve no purpose. There are dozens of other examples as well.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Thank you MB4.
As you can see the nasty hateful Nation building neo-con Bush worshipping let’s-repeat-our-mistakes wingnut Republicans are out in full force here.
You cannot disagree without getting pelted with rotten fruit and hateful gestures. They are more concerned about being blamed, i.e big ego megalomania prevails and this idealogy only leads to big government and spending – than finding out the root of the problem and where we went wrong.
There is no dealing with them, it’s like wrestling a self involved egocentric pig.
The only one who has any fun is the pig.
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Ron Paul is like the little odd looking guy who talks funny, and wears thick glasses, on the beach. He has no chance of getting the girl in the bikini but some still find it hard to resist kicking sand in his face.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:11 PM
@ y2church on December 27, 2007 at 11:07 PM
I agree, as that is OBVIOUSLY what RP was getting at. But if these guys want to take him out of context and jump on every mis-spoken phrase, let them. One doesn’t need to agree with every single thing a candidate says or does in order to support them. Let them have the mis-spoken instances, as long as they refuse to argue against policy and focus rather on rhetoric, it isn’t helping their cause at all.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:12 PM
NO it is not “telling the truth”, its downright WRONG on so many levels. Not to mention naive and stupid.
Robert Spencer just had a blog posting on Paul’s stupidity related to this: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019306.php
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 PM
@ jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 PM
The first sentence of that quote is retarded. Who said there will be peace if we leave the region. The point isnt to leave the region to create peace, its to leave the region because we have no damned business being over there in the first place.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Hezbollah attacked Israel in the summer of 2006 and, in fact, still regularly launches rockets at Israeli civilians from Lebanon. Iran is the master of Hezbollah, and Hezbollah does nothing without Iran’s approval. Hezbollah is a terrorist adjunct army. Ergo, Iran has an army that is attacking Israel quite regularly.
And that’s not counting its regular army of about 350,000 troops, or its development of ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel. Google “Shahab missiles” if you’re not familiar with them.
Iran’s president has repeatedly vowed and threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Google it.
Paul also said Iran has no navy, which would be news to the British sailors who were captured a while back by the Iranian navy. And he said that it has no air force, which is news to anyone who’s aware that Iran has developed its own fighter jet indigenously.
Paul says some good things about small government but he lacks the very first clue on foreign policy.
Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I certainly never made a case for the U.S. being the source of all its own foreign policy problems.
Taft supported the Truman Doctrine, but opposed NATO, condemned the Nuremberg trials, challenged Truman’s handling of Korea, and had strong reservations about the Marshall Plan, feeling that the US was doing what the Europeans should be doing themselves.
Paul is more isolationist than Taft, but Taft was much less interventionist than the other GOP candidates.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM
@ jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 PM
That quote is seriously so stupid.
Christians changed, why couldnt Muslims? You seriously see no difference in how the savages would get marginalized if we left compared to if we stayed? You seriously don’t think that daily the people are being preached to that America is on “holy land” or whatever that means, trying to rile up more hatred? You seriously don’t think that if we left, a lot of that stupid rhetoric would die down, and only the fringiest of fringiest would continue to strive to attack us? All of that is mute anyway, as appeasing the stupid jihadies isnt the point, the point is, we have no business being over there, and our very presensce there causes more hatred than good will.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Mr. Spencer is exactly right that they will continue to attempt to conquer. But dude, we’re a couple of oceans away from them and if we concentrated our efforts on the homefront we can significantly reduce our risk of attack.
Let’s do an opportunity cost analysis. Imagine for a minute that we didn’t spend trillions over the past 2 decades fighting police skirmishes and manning bases in Korea, et al. Now, take that opportunity cost and instead apply it to border control, immigration monitoring, and other national infrastructure. Just imagine it, for a long while.
Do the 9-11 hijackers get caught?
Attention All….. That is not me blaming America for the attack. The Islamic terrorists are to blame for the attack. I’m questioning whether our government has been prusuing the best course of action to protect us.
y2church on December 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Neo-con????
Why can’t you just say what you REALLY mean. WTF is a “neo-con”???
SAY IT!!! YOU MEAN JOOOOS!!!!
ZIONISTS!!!
SAY IT!!!
Neo-con my arse!
Cowards.
Say what you mean.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM
And again he said it was a useless war. That is what he ended up concluding and that is what he said and that is what it was. Totally fracken useless.
Would he have much earlier on ever actually have dropped nuclear bombs on North Vietnam to get it over quick?
Maybe, but I really doubt it. There is no way on God’s green earth that he would ever have had us bogged down there for over a decade with 60,000 dead American troops.
He might have sent a couple of U.S. Army divisions up Highway 1 to pay a meet and great with Hanoi I suppose, but it would have only been a short term affair, nothing lengthy.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:29 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Seriously, are you like 13 years old sitting in your bedroom debaing whether to play another game of COD4 or comment stupidly on HA?
A neocon, at least in my view, is a “republican” who campains on smaller government, but increases its size hugely when given the chance. A neocon wants the border to mexico wide open. A neocon favors security over personal liberty. Basically all of the worst parts of GWB, is what I view as the new republican party. God, Gays and guns. At least I can agree with the last one, even though republicans are getting very weak on that issue too.
Basically, a neocon is almost like a RINO, except that they still talk tough, but they have absolutely no resemblance to the republican party when looked at under a magnifying glass.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:30 PM
meet and
greatgreetMB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Bryan,
Ok, you don’t see the hyperbole, so fine, we’ll leave it at that. But Iran doesn’t have a navy. The problem is the Brits involved didn’t have a spine. The Iranians could have used a row boat and some 22 snub noses and the Brits would have surrendered.
Air force? Indigenously? How’s that stack up against the worlds best air force flying all but the latest US tech? The Israeli’s will do as they wish in Iranian airspace when the time comes, and it will come.
Yes, the Iranians have a large number of human fodder. Yes they can bomb Israel much like Saddam did. The Israelis live on and will do so until the end times. At which time NO nation will defend them against the onslaught. And yet, they win again.
They. Don’t. Need. Us.
Our weapons to buy – yeah, those are pretty helpful for now.
y2church on December 27, 2007 at 11:34 PM
That is pretty much what Hugh Fitzgerald, Robert Spencer’s “cohort”, says, certainly with regard to Iraq.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Can ya’ tell me why we had bases in Honolulu on December 7, 1941???
Is it possible that MAYBE JUST MAYBE someone smarter than an OB/GYN guessed that the biggest threat to the security of these United States was ……uhhh……………the Soviet Union and NOT a yeast infection????
But here again….you RP supporters try to ignore what YOUR guy has said. Iran has no Army, no Air Force and no Navy. He said that. HOW could I support that?!?!??!
RP said that the only reason the islamonuts are attacking us is because we have bases in muslim countries. You believe that?!?!?!
RP said that our troops “get us in trouble” when they are deployed out of country. HE SAID THAT!!
HOW DO I SUPPORT THAT !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Let’s not even go to his fascism/flag/Christianity statement. Or would he have kicked the pilgrims off of the rock back then???
That is YOUR guy. Deny those statements if you like, spin them if you will. I take a man at his word. Those are RP’s words.
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 PM
and last summer when a vote that was basically one of moral support for Israel against the Terrorist they were at war with, terrorist every bit as vile as Al-Qaeda and their ideological cousins, which both came out of the Muslim brotherhood. heck, hizzbollah is probably more powerful than AL-Qaeda. I don’t live far away from a sleeper cell of theirs that got busted.
anyway, 2 worthless congressmen refused to show support for Israel and in fact voted against Israel and thus taking Hizzbollah’s side morally., a truely “nuetral” vote would have been a “present” vote, instead Paul and Kucinich voted NO against Israel, a democracy and ally.
the paultards should google the “Neutrality Acts” of the 1930’s and how they played out.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I don’t think that it’s too unreasonable to say that Iran has no Navy and no Air Force, if you figure in it’s all relative.
No Army though, that is a stretch even though, if they weren’t depleted and bogged down “nation building” in Iraq it would probably take all of a few weeks for the U.S. Army to go through them like a knife through butter.
He is not going to get the GOP nomination anyway, can’t we get back to beating up on McCain or The High Reverend Huckster.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Insert “islamo-fascism” or Jihadism for Communism. and 50 years before then Nazism and so on.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM
He’s not saying we should become the Swiss for crying out loud. He’s just saying mind our own business until someone messes with our own business, then DECLARE war if you must and wage it effectively.
Dude, are you seriously comparing the US Naval base at Hawaii in the pre-WWII era to the current US bases in South Korea and Saudi Arabia? Hawaii existed to protect our western border from naval attack, worked pretty good didn’t it.
y2church on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Ha Ha. That is very practical thinking. I think Huck will quickly reach a ceiling of support. McCain though may end up as the consensus candidate.
dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Bier und Frauen.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Again, you didnt answer a single one of my questions, but instead showed yourself as the simpleminded person I came to expect when reading your posts. Maybe the reason we had a naval base at Hawaii was because it was one of our territories???? You know, it was part of our country?
I will ask again, why do we have troops currently in Germany and South Korea?
And I am not going to go into your ridiculous “quotes” which are completely out of context, not his actual words, and are written by a person which has shown himself to be dishonest or ignorant, I still havent decided.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Iran has a defacto Army that is more powerful than our army, they are perfect soldiers. And that is Hizzbollah and Hamas. they are suicidal maniacs that will do anything, if they could get their hands on a nuke, they would gladly smuggle it wherever and detonate it taking out an entire US City and themselves.
the irony of the paul campaign and the Paleo’s is at heart they are actually very anti-Liberty. and have a long history of being on that side of history.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:55 PM
I am not one of those “just come to my house and find out” kind of bullshitters. A person entering illegally on my property would be in for a serious world of hurt. Nuff said.
Got your definition of neo-con. Thanks. Apparently…you did not get the memo.
None of you ronulans have answered the questions I asked, instead you deemed them “idiotic”. Fine. I expected nothing less and I completely expected your insults. Thanks again.
Last question ronulans….If the United States withdrew EVERY soldier from the world theater, would OBL be happy and stop his quest for world-wide sharia law?
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM
OMG, this is a joke – isn’t it?? Are you talking to me – the Jewish Princess?? Who you talking too??
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You idiot, you have have to really be Gannon in the flesh…
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I am the biggest – jooo – your word, hardly mine, we prefer to call ourselves jews, not the Klan spelling, thank you – here.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
AprilOrit on December 27, 2007 at 11:57 PM
thats exactly what we did, but that is not what Paul is saying. RP is a ghandi wishful thinker at best, he is explicitly against the Use of Force, especially by the govt.
jp on December 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Then there was this fella.
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM
@ MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 PM
That I can respect, but we need no base for that. A boarding pass, hotel room, fistful of cash and a flexible moral conscience can get those just as easily.
muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM
hey Talon/Gannon – my name is
April Orit Ginsberg.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
AprilOrit on December 28, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Yes. I have a lot of respect for Ike.
dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:00 AM
I should correct to state that hizzbollah and Hamas are more powerful than the US Army in a way but not totally, granted they don’t have nukes yet which would make them more powerful than ours. But they do have brainwashed, devoted lunatics that don’t wear uniforms but are at War with the US and have been for decades, really since before the US was created.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM
the Iraq War wasn’t a ‘pre-emptive’ war, it was justifiable on a number of levels and had been for years. the ‘pre-emption’ part was about al-qaeda/terrorist getting hands on weapons from Saddam and using them in a 9/11 style attack. there are plenty of reason’s for taking Saddam out, mentioned in the War Resolution voted on by congress and starting with the decades worth of “Acts of War” committed by Saddam on the US. Not to mention harboring terrorist, including those from the 93 WTC, one of which was on the Govt. payroll
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:06 AM
I’m glad you came back to your PC. I was about to comment from memory to that effect.
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:07 AM
@ Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM
When you ask stupid questions, I am going to call you stupid. When you imply that all people who support RP are conspiracy theorists with your stupid questions, I will call you an idiot.
You already asked that same question in a different form, and I already answered it. I have answered ANY and ALL of your questions, except for the stupid ones (most of them). I like how you added the “make OBL happy” line in there. See, it implies that the REASON we want to withdraw troops is to make OBL happy. You are trying to set up your next dumb counterattack using a dumb arguement tactic. Of course its not about making OBL happy, but frankly, if we withdrew our troops, and he had an orgasm of joy, I could care less. Again, no, it won’t instantly make us safe, do you think staying in the region will make us safe? How about if we say, invade Iran and Pakistan, do you think that would end terrorism? Do you not think that the trillions of dollars we spent on this entire struggle with savage islam could have been spent better? You know, maybe secure the borders of the country you are trying to protect BEFORE sending troops out to the other side of the globe to fight for our “security”???
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM
It’s just that occupation is costing us a trillion dollars more than containment.
dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:10 AM
You are an amazing gem of hypocrisy!!
“Maybe it was one of our territories”??? “Part of our country”???!!!???
Are you that “BLEEPING” DENSE!??!?!?!!?
NO!!! RONULAN!!! IT WAS NOT PART OF OUR COUNTRY!!!
GEEZIS H CHRISTMAS!!! DID YOU SKIP SCHOOL THAT DAY?!?!?!?
Listen Borg….before you debate this with me you better get in touch with the collective.
They have ALL the answers………..except for those questions I posted earlier.
ronulans answer only questions they ask.
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
We have troops in that region because its in our vital National Security Interest, on a number of levels. To act as if we have no interest in the region is foolish and an Act of Faith. the type of act that has got many people killed………..its the same kinda of interest Thomas Jefferson saw for over 15 years lobbying for War with the Barbary Pirates and their city-state sponsors, and finally taking us into the First Barbary War under his watch, and unlike Bush he didn’t get congress to vote on it. Of course, the POTUS has the constitutional Authority to do that regardless of what the Vagina doctor says.
but then Paul isn’t arguing much about that so much as picking and choosing Islamist talking points and trying to craft an insane policy from that, which fits with his idiotic Murray Rothbard world view on this stuff..
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Just wait till he also meets Diana West or Debbie Schlussel.
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Talon on December 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM
He voted to authorize the invasion of Afganistan. He is not Ghandi. I do think he now regrets that vote as it was out of line with his belief that Congress must declare war. This in one of the few instances I have where he voted contrary to his own positions. I suppose it could be argued that we were not at war with Afganistan, but rather with the Taliban and OBL. We were definately at war with Iraq and it should have been declared or we should not have gone. He did not vote to authorize that action.
Wanna hear and ironic story? When the vote was announced concerning the authorization to go to war with Iraq, my dad and I saw that 1 lone Republican had voted against it. Some idiot named Ron Paul. My dad and I both accused him of being a traitor and said he should have been kicked out on his ear and possibly imprisoned. I’ve learned a lot about that little known politician since then and I regret that my rash decisions were so incorrect.
Cue the “Should stick to your first impression” jokes.
y2church on December 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Defense spending is less now than it was in the 1980’s, some context really needs to be placed on this. Especially after foolishly gutting the military in the 90’s under the false notion of a ‘peace dividend’.
and ‘containment’ wasn’t working. They need to take troops/funding from Germany and Japan and send them to our new National Security Interest. the problem is these countries don’t want us to leave and are paying a big chunk of the cost of us being over there. So just leaving cost us in geo-politically and so far hasn’t been feasible.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM
@ jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:06 AM
You consider a foreign body sending our troops to war legitimate then? If you bring up the UN resolutions, you are basically saying that a foreign body gave us the orders to attack. Isn’t that EXTREMELY against what the constitution stands for, and what pretty much every previous president has stood for?
And instead of trying to kill everyone who wants us harm, wouldnt it be a better goal to just stop them from being able to attack us? You know, security at the airports, seaports, and on the border? Then scale back our military from the million or so countries they are stationed in, giving them less targets to hit?
Your argument about Hamas being stronger than us is kinda very wrong too. How about this, seal our borders, tighten seaports and air security, and THEN lets compare the two armies, US vs Hamas. First you have the US, which in the matter of a couple of hours could obliterate with bombs and have advanced teams on the ground anywhere in the world. Then, you have Hamas which has to sneak something up their bumholes and hope they can get past United security screeners to get an attack on us. So one, has literally no way to attack the other without the other exposing themselves needlessly, and the other can attack and obliterate any country on earth in under a day. Yea, I see your point.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Hamas which has to sneak something up their bumholes and hope they can get past United security screeners to get an attack on us.
ARrrrghhhhh. RoFL. Classic.
y2church on December 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM
If it was intense enough maybe it would even give him a heart attack.
Hopefully the goat would survive though.
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM
@ Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Why don’t you try reading wiki once in a while before you make yourself sound like a complete moron. You are finished. Your argument style is primitive, your awareness of the world questionable. You have failed. Go back to COD4 and leave us adults alone.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:23 AM
But, but, but, but ….. some here are of the Iraqi-centric belief system:
1) All roads start in Iraq.
2) All roads end in Iraq.
3) The Sun revolves around Iraq.
4) The moon revolves around Iraq.
5) The stars revolve around Iraq.
6) If the United States does not keep sufficient troop mass in Iraq, the orbital stability of the Earth will become unbalanced and all Muslim terrorists will slide into America.
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:23 AM
if it ever went to court, which it want, it would be argued what they did do, the “Iraq War Resolution”, did “Declare War” as the constitution grants and common sense would dictate. Because anytime the Congress points the military at a country and says go fight them, you have our okay, they are ‘declaring war’. The Constitution doesn’t have CONTEXTUAL REQUIREMENTS. just remember, “Dr. Paul” is a Vagina Dr., not a constitutional scholar. He’s also a crackpot.
of course, even that isn’t necessarily required. See Barbary Wars by Jefferson. Reagan didn’t get one for Greneda(which paul cricized, as this nutball fringe does every war).
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Adjusted for inflation, should our defense spending be higher or lower than it was while fighting the Soviet Union? Interesting question, but my point was that marginal difference between containment in Iraq vs occupation will total between $1 & $2 trillion.
If you are saying we couldn’t take resources from Germany or Japan to run containment then where did we get the resources for 100,000+ troops on the ground in Iraq? I don’t believe that the cost of containment could be greater than the cost of occupation.
dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Spent better on what??? WHY was it taken from me in the first place?!??!!??!
I would stand right next to you when it came to SEALING our borders. AND I MEAN SEALING!
So RP knows how to spend the money the federal government takes from me …..BETTER???? SO DOES HILLARY! So she claims.
Does Iran have an army? RP says no. What say you?
Does Iran have an Air Force? RP says no. What say you?
Does Iran have a navy? RP says no. What say you?
Does the current government of Iran want to “wipe Israel of the map”?? RP says no. What say you?
Can we negotiate with the terrorists? RP says yes. What say you?
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM
@ jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Authorizing a war and declaring war may seem similar to YOU, but there is a GIANT difference. You might have forgotten, but congress isnt just a building of cranks who sit there and make policy. They are the representatives of the PEOPLE. Therefor, their actions are the actions of the people. Authroizing war, is when the congress tells the president that they AGREE with HIS decision to go to war. Declaring war is when the congress TELLS the president that the PEOPLE of the land are united and want to fight a war. In authorizing, the president or executive decides to go to war, in declaring, the PEOPLE decide to go to war. There is a large difference even if you see it as only semantics.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM
actually, it was the United States Congress and the POTUS that sent our troops to war abroad, see the Iraq WAR Resolution
also see the 1998, “Regime Change in Iraq”, Policy which was unanimously approved in Congress and the reasons for it.
the Security Council at the UN wasn’t all that for it, since 3 key members were BRIBED by Saddam in the Largest Financial Scam in World History.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:32 AM
@ Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I think you missed the memo buddy. You are finished. No more internet battles for you. Go back to playing Hello Kitty Island Adventures on the Wii.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:33 AM
@ jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:32 AM
I know the history behind it. I was just pointing out the words you wrote made it seem as though you think the UN resolutions seriously gave us a reason to go to war. Sure, it could be justified using international law, but is “saving” Iraq from the leader which they allowed to take power and they refused to depose worth the cost of American lives? I say no. I don’t think its the job of the US to make sure every country is happy with their leaders, and if not to go ahead and swap them out for someone new. Focus on the US first, US second, US third. THEN, if there are fourths, go ahead and focus on the US one more time.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Ha. But what about the US?
dedalus on December 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Hey jackass. It was annexed!! Got that?!?!? NOT PART OF OUR COUNTRY!! Did they pay taxes jackass? NO!!!! DID THEY HAVE REPRESENTATION IN THE GOVERNMENT JACKASS??? NO!!!
NOT PART OF OUR COUNTRY !!!
RP would have voted “NO!!!!”
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:39 AM
When in a hole, first stop digging.
- Murphy
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Fun to see more than one Ronulan sock-puppet in the same thread. I was beginning to believe that Alex Jones was the only actual MoRon in the country.
myoso, your WWII analogy exposes you as a hypocrite and a liar — everyone knows that our involvement in that European border war was a fraud, and that we were sucked into the war when Roosevelt lied and seamen died. Are you just a little lamb? Don’t you know we had multiple warnings that the Japs would attack Pearl Harbor, which, incidentally, was not part of the U.S.? And he ignored it, just like Boooossshhhh and the Jooooooz ignored the threat against NY, and let them waltz right in.
Several bizarre overreactions later, we’re in a global conflagration and millions are dead. What kind of blind party hack are you to support this interventionist conspiracy? We were never attacked, this was just an understandable lashing out by the Japanese against an imperial naval power that was meddling in their business. We had no right to be in Hawaii in the first place!
You tool…
Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Tell ya what ronulan….
enjoy your mother’s basement.
Iran has no Army.
Iran has no Air force.
Iran has no Navy.
That is what RP said.
Your hero.
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:46 AM
I don’t get the Ron Paulians. Just stick your head in the sand and it will alllllll go away.
Look, I’m a conservative. That, to me, means conservative values. Smaller government? Great! Lay down in front of evil and say, “I caused it! Walk all over me!” no can do.
That’s Ron Paul’s position: everything bad in the world is the US’s fault. If we only built a wall around the US, we could let the rest of the world hang! Until it turns out the rest of the world hates us and is united under the banner of jihad.
Burke, pretty much the founding father of Conservatism, said that for evil to triumph, good just has to do nothing. And that’s Ron Paul’s position: do nothing. Oh, Israel can take it! Who cares if a few million Jews die in the process? We’ll be sitting here, fat and happy, until they attack us, too.
It would be nice to not have to worry about other countries. It would be nice to be, basically, Sweden. Never mind the Islamists raping all your women like they do there…..
But we aren’t. We are the United States of America, the beacon of the west. We (and some of our allies) represent the last gasp of classical liberal values. If we don’t defend them in the world, who will? No one? And for Ron Paul, that’s just fine. Don’t defend any values, don’t stand for anything. And what happens when the Islamic revolution, or the Communist revolution, comes here?
Evil exists, dear Ronulans. I don’t think if we let it grow and fester it gets better. You guys do.
And that’s why I don’t like Paul.
Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Saddam Hussein fired at United State’s airplanes on a near daily basis, tried to assassinate our POTUS, harbored Terrorist that attacked us(both in 93 WTC and Al-Qaeda). He killed American Citizens in countries like Israel via the Hamas Suicide bombers he was funding! These are Acts of War! He also violated the Cease Fire Agreement he signed with us regularly, each time being a case to resume the war that we ended too soon and shouldn’t have allowed him to stay in power.
the 93 WTC attack happened on anniversary of liberating Kuwait. the Al-Qaeda attackers came to US on an Iraqi passport and Youssef was Khalid Sheik Mohammeds nephew!. Yassin, the other bomber fled to Iraq and was on the Govt. Payroll up until we disposed of Saddam.
add to all of this, there is a good chance Saddam played some role in the Ok. City bombings among other things. Iraq was labed a “State Sponsor of Terror” for over a decade for a reason. the fact he offered assylm to Bin Laden in 1999 should be all you need to know about his regime.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM
@ Talon on December 28, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Calm down there buddy. Take a quick sip of that apple juice and calm down. Territories ARE part of our country. That is why we call them territories, and not just, that place over there. Again, I, the person you call a “ronulan” consult an encyclopedia instead of dipping into the vast delusion that is called your mind.
Please, take my advice. You obviously are not up to the task of debating even a middle schooler, so don’t try and bring your failed game in here where even the simplest of google searches can prove your ignorance. Calm down, go have a cig or something, maybe pet your cacophony of cats tha you undoubtedly have, and leave the internet battles to someone a little more experienced.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Territory:
1. A subdivision of the United States that is not a state and is administered by an appointed or elected governor and elected legislature.
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the House of Representatives: yesterday, December 7th, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
- FDR
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 12:50 AM
@ jp on December 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Don’t think I am defending him. He
iswas a scumbag. What I am saying is that we have a history involving the middle east and actually of pretty much everything else regarding our military actions of leaving things undone. Think about it like this:WWI – Left Germany to gain power
WWII – Left Russia to gain power
Korea – Didnt solve anything
Vietnam – Failed mission of stopping communism
Gulf – Failed to stop Saddam
Iraq – ????? What horrible legacy from this war will come to haunt us in 10-30 years? It WILL be something. We should stop with going to war whenever the president feels like it. Congress should be forced to declare war, which also gives them no wiggle room to later deny their vote. And if we go to war, which should be RARE, it should be for nothing less than complete and utter victory.
That said, we need to regroup, as complete and utter victory just isnt an option in Iraq. There is no winning there, its too far gone already. We need to regroup.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM
I saw that!
You did see that story today about what happens to those who disrespect cats didn’t you?
I have got my eyes on you.
FeralCat on December 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Any of the Paul supporters:
Explain Paul’s Iranian military threat analysis in the context of an Israel without U.S. support. I don’t know all of his pronouncements on Israel and our economic and military support, but maybe you guys do.
Is he in favor of our continued support, or would he decrease funding and intelligence interaction with the country that he thinks can whip Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.?
Again, maybe I have him wrong, but for a guy that doesn’t seem to have much use for Jews in general, and has based his entire foreign policy and national security positions on pulling back to our borders completely, he sure has a lot of confidence in this country the size of Vermont that defends itself with no small amount of U.S. support.
Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Foxtrot Charlie,
the “Bier und Frauen” deserves the same reward, even if
Da streiten sich die Leut herum
Oft um den Wert des Glücks,
Der eine heißt den andern dumm,
Am End’ weiß keiner nix.
–Ferdinand Raimund (Hobellied)
Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM
just picking and choosing crankery here do to time, however to say Korea didn’t accomplish anything is absurd. Truman, once hated as much as Bush, is now considered a top 10 President in large part because of Korea and what it accomplished. Own an LG or Samsung phone for example? funny how North Korea doesnt’ produce companies like that.
We literally Turned the LIGHTS ON in South Korea
had we not intervened the whole pennisula would be in the dark today, the Soviets would have had a stronger hand and the world would be worse off today, with less Freedom and more danger.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM
@ Vanceone on December 28, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Don’t get your views on RP from a site like this. GO actually listen to his speeches, listen to him speak, there are a thousand clips of him on Youtube. You pointed out positions he never takes, and perverted those that he does. He is not for complete isolationism which you seem to think he is. He is for an open foreign policy regarding trade and diplomacy. He isnt for never going to war, but he is for reserving it for when the US is specifically under direct threat or is attacked. He thinks that congress should declare war, not some president which will be out of office before the war is over. He thinks that part of the reason that the crazy jihadists are growing in ranks is because we are sitting in the middle east, on what they consider holy land, and allowing them to stir up anti-US sentiment very easily.
Consider this. After Ruby Ridge, if the government had declared martial law over the area, and really shown its force, do you think that anti-government sentiments would have GROWN or would have LESSENED? That is what we are dealing with in the middle east. They go to their “churches” or whatever it is they call them, clay huts, and preach how evil the US is, and all of the people listening can walk home and see this foreign person with a gun policing THEIR country. Day after day, it builds. If we arent there, its just the rantings of a person that maybe strikes a cord with a couple people, but not the masses like it does now.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:03 AM
ronulan…….look at what you just posted. You are saying that Hawaii was absorbed by the USA. Was there a vote in Hawaii??? What would RP have said about this??? IMPERIALIST!!!
THE ONLY AND I MEAN THE ONLY REASON THE USA WAS ABLE TO DECLARE WAR ON JAPAN WAS BECAUSE OF THE ATTACK AGAINST OUR NAVAL VESSELS!!!! THAT IS IT!! Japan could have bombed Hawaii all day and NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE!! It was ENTIRELY BECAUSE THE JAPANESE ATTACKED AMERICAN SHIPS THAT WE WENT TO WAR. Understand that ronulan?
So YOU go back to watching Sesame Street or start reading history.
Ron Paul said: Iran does not have an army.
Ron Paul Said: Iran does not have an Air Force.
Ron Paul Said: Iran does not have a Navy.
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 1:03 AM
So…………..it’s America’s fault???
Talon on December 28, 2007 at 1:05 AM
@ jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM
So you would have considered it a success if we really boosted West Germany to modern times, but east germany remained behind the Iron Curtain to this day? Sorry, but I dont see that as a success. Fighting wars to simply stalemate is stupid. Fight to win or dont fight at all. Its not a win unless the enemy is defeated or surrenders. Otherwise, you are throwing American lives at a problem that isn’t going to get solved.
muyoso on December 28, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Well Jorge “ROP” Arbusto has left our borders wide open and his State Department has been issuing visas to the ME, especially Saudi Arabia, like there was a fire sale and his Tonto Juan McAmnesty is on deck, so get ready.
MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM
he’s trying to feed his followers the Kool-Aide that “Israel can defend itself” because they have nukes. Thinks MAD applies with the Iranians like a fool, and not only that acts as if Iran funding Suicide bombers that attack Israel regularly not to mention the war with Hizzbollah…none of this matters apparently.
and of course, if Iran gets a nuke all it will take is hitting Israel once and they are finished since the land mass is so small. They would take out the military and there would be no Israel left to fight. and it also goes right along with the mullah’s 12th Imam Islamic theology.
Of course, decent chance Paul knows this and doesn’t care because he hates Israel himself. there’s alot to back that up actually.
jp on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Aside from the obvious fact that Ron Paul is nuts, I like most of his policy positions, and love the rest. I wish I could graft his small government mentality onto Mitt Romney’s brain.
But the same nitwits who have criticized Bush for 7 years for having allegedly alienated all of our allies in the world with his cowboy foreign policy are now cheering a guy who would simply disengage from every one of these allies militarily and let them fend for themselves, and if we did? The shrieking from that crowd would be deafening.
More to the point, no significant plurality of Americans are going to support such a policy or such a candidate, so we won’t have to argue the point much longer.
Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM
Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM
In fairness, sorry to not have posted this with the original :(
And so the people fight and fight
Often about luck’s worth
The one the other dumb derides
And in the end, none anything knows
–Ferdinand Raimund
Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Heh, careful muyoso your “twooferism” is showing! Correct me if I’m wrong but Bush did go to congress before going to war in Iraq, in fact congress voted on it and it was agreed to go to war. Also, the president in a time of war (the attacks of 9-11 were an act of war against us) is not required to seek congressional approval to go to war, the fact he did go to congress to get their “approval” says a lot about how willing Bush is to go the extra mile, although I don’t know why he would especially considering what a bunch of ungrateful and sniveling idiots there are in congress!
Now go back to your mother ship twoofer!
Liberty or Death on December 28, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »