Ron Paul: The US will end up occupying Pakistan

posted at 3:22 pm on May 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Via the Daily Caller, consider this a palate cleanser for the afternoon.  Ron Paul appeared on Morning Joe this morning and tangled a bit with Mike Barnicle on the MSNBC show over the Obama administration’s handling of Pakistan.  If you think the moment of highest irony comes at the one-minute mark when the Congressman who plays footsie with Truthers like Alex Jones talks dismissively of “conspiracy theorists,” stay tuned.  That’s just the irony warm-up:

“I see the whole thing as a mess,” he said. “And I think that we are going to be in Pakistan. I think that’s the next occupation, and I fear it. I think it’s ridiculous, and I think our foreign policy is such we don’t need to be doing this. So when I talk about doing it differently, I talk about in the context of our foreign policy and not in the fact of whether or not we should have gotten him. As a matter of fact, I voted for the first authority. I think what’s the real tragedy is that we didn’t get him 10 years ago when we could have and should have. But yet we now have spent $1 trillion. We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden. And to me, we have to reassess the foreign policy just like we have to reassess our economic policies here.”

Later in the segment, “Morning Joe” co-host Willie Geist asked if Paul had any information an actual invasion was in the work. Paul said he didn’t but based it on the past four decades of American foreign policy.

“No – just because I look at what has happened in the past 30 or 40 years of all the unintended consequences and what we have done and how we are spreading and how we are spreading in the attitudes that has been pervasive in our government for the past 10 years that we have this obligation to spread our goodness and protect our financial interests,” Paul said. “And right now Pakistan is a big problem. And the people there, we have created a civil war there. And the fact that we go over there and we violate their security and the people rebel against the government because they see their government as being a puppet of the American government, so it’s total chaos, and I am afraid — I hope I’m absolutely wrong — but I’m afraid we will be in Pakistan trying to occupy that country, and it will probably be very unsuccessful.”

Nor is this the only conspiracy theory that Paul spins in this segment. Two minutes after dismissing conspiracy theorists, Paul states that he doesn’t believe the account from the White House on when Osama bin Laden was killed, when they got the DNA, and asks if anyone at MSNBC has any information on it. “But — that’s a conspiracy theory!” the panel says, sounding shocked, shocked! that Paul might float such a notion. Don’t stop there, though, because Paul then explains the factual basis of his prediction that the US will occupy a nation of over 140 million people, armed with nuclear weapons.

And to think that some people don’t take his presidential bid seriously …


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

I think he’s a “Pentaverate” rant and a felony conviction away from being Lyndon LaRouche.

teke184 on May 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Only thing missing from this interview was Paul wearing his customary tinfoil hat.

pilamaye on May 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Oh Lord.

You’ll really rile up the Paultards with this one…

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Wait, so now Ron Paul is arguing FOR international law?

This guy is all over the place.

tetriskid on May 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM

Ron Paul – the libertarians best gift to the democrat party.

Rebar on May 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Communists could invade Texas and this guy would blame us for it, vote against retaliatory action, and then come up with some conspiracy about the US invading some random place.

amerpundit on May 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM

tetriskid on May 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM

He’s for whatever position puts the United States as the bad, imperialist power.

amerpundit on May 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Wait, so now Ron Paul is arguing FOR international law?

This guy is all over the place.

tetriskid on May 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM

He started that when he was talking about how he wouldn’t have taken out UBL.

I don’t think the Ronulans have un-pretzled themselves from that clusterfark yet.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM

He’s for whatever position puts the United States as the bad, imperialist power.

amerpundit on May 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM

You know who else that sounds like?

0bama.

Rebar on May 18, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I would honestly vote for Obama over this guy. Obama may be a horrible president but at least he isn’t insane.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 18, 2011 at 3:30 PM

WTF?????

What is this clown smoking?

It would take the entirety of the current US ground forces to ‘successfully’ occupy Pakistan. And it’d still be a disaster.

The more likely, unfortunate, scenario would laying waste to that worthless anthill.

I won’t even go into the total implications of that.

Let’s just say that we’d be, for all intents and purposes, declaring war on the Ummah.

Let your imaginations roll with that.

CPT. Charles on May 18, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I assure Ron Paul that WE will NEVER occupy Pakistan.

India might, but we won’t.

SuperCool on May 18, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Remember when – I think it was back in, oh, 2006 when Herr Doktor was predicting we would be invading Iran using a “contrived Gulf of Tonkin type incident”.

Good times, good times…

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM

But he has great fiscal ideas/policy.

/

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:35 PM

I think what’s the real tragedy is that we didn’t get him 10 years ago when we could have and should have. But yet we now have spent $1 trillion. We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden. And to me, we have to reassess the foreign policy just like we have to reassess our economic policies here.”

Well, how would we have gotten him ten years ago without at least one of those wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden?

And the toll is 8,000, Mr. Paul — not 5,000. You forget who attacked first.

Next, how could we have broken the back of al Qaeda — you know, the other guys around bin Laden — without said wars?

How would Paul have done this — hunker down inside Fortress America and duck all the falling jetliners?

unclesmrgol on May 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

You could argue the case on his side for the Iraq war. I think it’s wrong, but you can make the argument. But Paul seriously claims the Afghanistan war had nothing to do with bin Laden?!?

jwolf on May 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Really, how is this guy a congressman?

tommer74 on May 18, 2011 at 3:39 PM

But Paul seriously claims the Afghanistan war had nothing to do with bin Laden?!?

jwolf on May 18, 2011 at 3:36 PM

I think he believes they were ready to arrest him etc.

the_nile on May 18, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Spathi is going to have kittens…

Seven Percent Solution on May 18, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Can we cross him off the list now too?

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM

We are more likely to Nuke them than occupy, and thats only if the proverbily Sh!t hits the fan.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Would somebody please adjust Dr. Paul’s medication?

kingsjester on May 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

He’s for whatever position puts the United States as the bad, imperialist power.

amerpundit on May 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yep. That’s his framework and he crams everything into it.

The entire world is full of goodhearted people who are only corrupted by US foreign policy… oh, and by Israel’s existence.

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Ron Paul floated the Conspiary Theory a la Michael Moore, that Afghanistan was ‘mostly about building OIl Pipelines”

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-on-afghanistan-oil-pipelines.html

Lets see, lets play how many Conspiracy theories Ron paul has backed?

NAU, Amero, NWO, NAFTA Superhighway, Bush plotting Gulf of Tonkin to make war on Iran…..and we haven’t if touched on the Federal Reserve and FEMA yet

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Yep. That’s his framework and he crams everything into it.

The entire world is full of goodhearted people who are only corrupted by US foreign policy… oh, and by Israel’s existence.

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 3:44 PM

get a copy of his latest book, its unbelievable what all he says. Too much to touch on, he says for example that Jews distort their religion to “STEAL Arab and Muslim Lands

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Can we cross him off the list now too?

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM

and blackball him out of the GOP in the same manner Buckley and Goldwater kicked out his idol Murray Rothbard and the Birchers

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Whatevs. He’s twice as good as anyone else running right now.

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Maroon!

bernzright777 on May 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Really, how is this guy a congressman?

tommer74 on May 18, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Cynthia McKinney.

Pakistan’s been in a civil war for a long time, before we got there. in the 1980s in Karachi it was ugly. It’s made up of several ethnic groups not all of whom really care for each other.

rbj on May 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I would honestly vote for Obama over this guy. Obama may be a horrible president but at least he isn’t insane.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 18, 2011 at 3:30 PM

If Paul got GOP nomination, I’d change party ID to Independent or some 3rd party the next day. and I imagine many would, effectively destroying the GOP.

I’d not vote for Obama though, I’d vote 3rd party or write in Ronald Reagan’s corpse.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I’m surprised Paul isn’t froathing at the mouth over this one!
But then again, the day is still young!

pilamaye on May 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

He makes a lot of good points on domestic economic policy. But on foreign policy, he’s just crazier than a Californian!

Pablo Snooze on May 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 18, 2011 at 3:48 PM

forget the / tag?

bernzright777 on May 18, 2011 at 3:52 PM

I think he’s a “Pentaverate” rant and a felony conviction away from being Lyndon LaRouche.

teke184 on May 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM

I can easily see Paul carrying off a Stuart MacKenzie rant.

“The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went t_ts up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. ‘Oh, you’re gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!’”

No problem at all.

DRPrice on May 18, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Really, how is this guy a congressman?

tommer74 on May 18, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Earmarks. His district is nothing like him.

RachDubya on May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Back in 2001, how many here thought we would still be in Afghanistan, ten long years later, and with 100,000 troops and as many pseudo troop contractors?

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Can we cross him off the list now too?

mankai on May 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM

You could cross him off the list four years ago when he blamed 9/11 on us.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

And once again Ron Paul shoots off at the mouth only to hurt himself politically for the Republican POTUS nomination.

Carl on May 18, 2011 at 3:54 PM

He makes a lot of good points on domestic economic policy. But on foreign policy, he’s just crazier than a Californian!

Pablo Snooze on May 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM

I would love to see him as head of the FED in the coming Republican administration. I wonder if he would eliminate it and his own job.

Corsair on May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Back in 2001, how many here thought we would still be in Afghanistan, ten long years later, and with 100,000 troops and as many pseudo troop contractors?

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM

You’re right.

Then the Islamists attacked America and here we are.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I would love to see him as head of the FED in the coming Republican administration. I wonder if he would eliminate it and his own job.

Corsair on May 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM

he wouldn’t have the power as Fed Chairman, only Congress can eliminate the Fed.

Not going to happen, we don’t want Barney Frank and the rest of congress critters to have complete control over Monetary policy.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I guess this just shows how bad it is out there when in addition to Paul, a hypocrite and a bottom feeder like Donald Trump, a confessed liberal on taxes, health care, and trade, a man who stooped to using eminent domain in an effort to steal an elderly woman’s home so he could pour a limousine parking lot on top of it, is suddenly presented as the new hope of the Republican Party and limited government, I think its time to pack up our preconceptions about there being any such thing as a two party system.

I’m waiting for a Third Party Candidate…

PatriotRider on May 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Nor is this the only conspiracy theory that Paul spins in this segment.

It’s speculation, not a conspiracy theory. If it’s a conspiracy, where is the conspiracy? Do you not even know what a conspiracy theory is?

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

the frustrating thing about Ron Paul, is he gets away with so much overall and is still invited on these shows by people not at all fully familar with his politics, panderings and past.

The MSM could abosolutely have Paul ran out of Washington DC, if they gave him 1/100th the Sarah Palin treatment of scrutiny. Since he’s fringe and is hurting Conservatism, he gets a pass.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Herr Doktor is not fit for any office or position.

Can we stop with the “wish he were head of the Fed” or whatever? Please?

He thinks the Fed is illegal anyway. If he’s actually were a “true man of principle” why the hell would he want to be in charge of it?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM

I have just reread the quote and I can not find a conspiracy theory anywhere there. Does one need special glasses to see it?

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:59 PM

It’s speculation, not a conspiracy theory. If it’s a conspiracy, where is the conspiracy? Do you not even know what a conspiracy theory is?

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

that we are uh, plotting an Occupation and war against Pakistan, their nukes and 130 million people.

much like his lie on the House floor claiming Bush was plotting a Gulf of Tonkin for War against Iran.

Paul accuses Conservatives and the government of “Fear Mongering” on these issues, but it seems to me Ron Paul is using quite a bit of FEAR and Paranoia himself.

Ron Paul has no Honor.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Does Rand Paul endorse this Stupidty?

Will Rand Paul endorse this loon father of his and campaign for him?

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Is that an admission that he his not taking his Presidential run seriously?

southsideironworks on May 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Then the Islamists attacked America and here we are.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM

No “we” are over there. 100,000 troops and 100,000 contractors of us anyway. There are now, according to secdef Gates, less than 100 AlQ in Afcrapistan. So we have 1,000, or more troops in Afcrapistan, and 1,000, or more contractors, in Afcrapistan for every 1 AlQ in Afcrapistan. This makes the U.S. Post office look stellar by comparison.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM

“But — that’s a conspiracy theory!” the panel says, sounding shocked, shocked!…

Hey Ed…

… Does Tina know about the The Captain Louis Renault Award?

Seven Percent Solution on May 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM

What? Does anyone think if the government of Pakistan – a NUCLEAR POWER, need we be reminded – were to collapse due to the ongoing instability and fighting there, and it looked as though a radical Islamic government backed by, say, the Pakistani Taliban might come into power, that we wouldn’t send troops into Pakistan without delay to try and stabilize the situation?

Allahpundit, how is Ron Paul saying he fears we’ll end up occupying Pakistan a conspiracy theory? It sounds to me as though he’s expressing his fear that our policies in the region will eventually result in our deciding we must stabilize Pakistan, likely in a situation like that I just mentioned. It’s not as if he said, or even implied, that there’s some sort of secret government plot to take over Pakistan.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

the frustrating thing about Ron Paul, is he gets away with so much overall and is still invited on these shows by people not at all fully familar with his politics, panderings and past.

He gets invited because he shows the stupidest, worst side
of the GOP, whether we want him around or not.

And there are still ppl who will come in here and defend him. It’s really amazing.

WitchDoctor on May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Speculation? Based on what?

Whats more likely (given Herr Doktors history):

That he is making his “speculation” based on rational and reasoned hypothesis based on evidence and measurement?

That he is making his “speculation” based on emotional reaction to his warped worldview and understanding of foreign policy that everything in the world would be much better if not for America?

Nevermind. I know what you’ll say:

RON PAUL!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!11!!!!!!

CATCH THE rEVOLution!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!11!!!!!!!

BTW, DID YOU SEE OUR SUPER-AWESOMER BLIMP?!!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!11!!!!!!

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Wait, so now Ron Paul is arguing FOR international law?

This guy is all over the place.

tetriskid on May 18, 2011 at 3:26 PM

I think he’s saying that we should try to respect other countries’ sovereignty; given that he wants to defend US sovereignty from being compromised by international organizations like the UN and the World Court, I fail to see a contradiction.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Then the Islamists attacked America and here we are.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM

BTW, they were not “Islamists”, they were Muslims. “Islamists” belongs in the same category as “kinetic action” and “oversees contingency operations”. You need to shake off the bondage of political correctness.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Then the Islamists attacked America and here we are.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM

No “we” are over there. 100,000 troops and 100,000 contractors of us anyway.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Pray tell. Do you think fire can’t melt steel?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I would honestly vote for Obama over this guy. Obama may be a horrible president but at least he isn’t insane.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 18, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I wouldn’t vote for BHO, but I would be pulling the lever for a third party candidate.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

How many troops do we have in Egypt? Or Syria?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM

If you don’t know what “conspiracy theory” means just look it up online. There is no shame in that. Ed Morrisey is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own definition of words and terms. He is not suppose to be Bill Clinton after all.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

You need to shake off the bondage of political correctness.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I’m just fine, thank you very much.

You, on the other hand, need to pull your head out of your aZZ.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:12 PM

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

that’s fine. But I also asked you a question. Speculation as you call it based on…what?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I think he’s saying that we should try to respect other countries’ sovereignty; given that he wants to defend US sovereignty from being compromised by international organizations like the UN and the World Court, I fail to see a contradiction.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM

you must be blind, intentionally.

He wants us to submit first to “International law” instead of the Constitution and US Law here. he wants us to first follow Pakistani Sovereignty over US Sovereignty.

He’s a leftist nutter.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Pray tell. Do you think fire can’t melt steel?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I think your mind has wondered off. Better go see if you can find it before it gets too far.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

You need to shake off the bondage of political correctness.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I’m fine, thank you.

You, on the other hand, need to pull your head out into the sunshine.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Its hilarious Ron and the Paultards roped themselves into criticizing one of the greatest events in recent US History(killing Bin Laden), and are still dumb enough to defend that position and along with it our nations enemies.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

You realize we already are working with the government of Pakistan to secure their nuclear material, right? This is an open secret that’s been discussed in the press for years.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

You, on the other hand, need to pull your head out of your aZZ.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:12 PM

You have the debating skills and articulation of a 3 year old.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

How many troops do we have in Egypt? Or Syria?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

1.) There’s no reason to believe that a Taliban-style theocracy will be established in either of those places; indeed, in Syria there’s no real evidence the protesters will even succeed in overthrowing the government; and

2.) More importantly, even if a theocracy were to form in Egypt, neither of those nations is a nuclear power.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Pray tell. Do you think fire can’t melt steel?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I think your mind has wondered off. Better go see if you can find it before it gets too far.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Give that man a Cupie Doll! A Truther.

Of course.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

You realize we already are working with the government of Pakistan to secure their nuclear material, right? This is an open secret that’s been discussed in the press for years.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

It’s not working real well. You did see this story, didn’t you: “Pakistan Seen Rapidly Expanding Nuclear Arsenal”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520469,00.html

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Also, Ron Paul is flatly lying on the facts surrounding the event.

Pakistan gave the US permission years ago to go into their country to do such raids.

In recent history, elements within the Pakistani govt. have tipped off Al-Qaeda when we first notified Pakistan of our mission.

Ron Paul is at best the ULTIMATE USEFUL IDIOT, at worst a Treasonous Traitor willfully spouting Jihadist propaganda.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Give that man a Cupie Doll! A Truther.

Of course.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

You are so dumb you are begining to make my teeth hurt.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

The premise of your original comment was we’d send in the troops if the government were in danger of being taken over by a radical Taliban-type theocratic mechanism.

Granted, the nuclear weapon issue is a wild card but why assume – given your original comment – that India wouldn’t invade as opposed to us?

The government in Syria and (especially) Egypt are in greater danger of falling to islamic theocrats as it stand right now. For all intents and purposes, one could argue that Pakistan is already a de-facto Taliban nation anyway.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I said we’re helping to secure it, not that we’re stopping them from expanding their nuclear program. Typical Paulian. You guys are just like your leader.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM

You are so dumb you are begining to make my teeth hurt.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Why?

For calling you out for what you are?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Pauliana won’t happen in my life span so no worries.

As for American doctrine, we need one that says if you want to fight we want the right to sell what we take to the highest bidder. Chose wisely.

Limerick on May 18, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Ron Paul is at best the ULTIMATE USEFUL IDIOT, at worst a Treasonous Traitor willfully spouting Jihadist propaganda.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM

It’s not Ron Paul, he’s rather harmless after all and mainly useful for fill in hotair threads, it’s General Imam David “Holy Qur’an” Petraeus who is the ULTIMATE USEFUL IDIOT to Islam and treasonous traitor, getting so many American Soldiers and Marines killed with his almost Code Pink/See no Islam, hear no Islam, see no Islam, know no Islam ROE, which put the lives of Muslims above the lives of his own troops.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM

He wants us to submit first to “International law” instead of the Constitution and US Law here. he wants us to first follow Pakistani Sovereignty over US Sovereignty.

He’s a leftist nutter.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

I know it’s not worth engaging with you, since the fact that you show up and start foaming on any post that so much as mentions the words ‘Ron Paul’ suggests that you probably have a framed picture of Ron Paul with a brass plate engraved ‘Nemesis’ on it hanging in your den, but I can’t let this pass.

No, he doesn’t want us ‘to first follow Pakistani Sovereignty over US Sovereignty’. I’m at a loss to even explain what that means. He believes in protecting US sovereignty from infringement by international organizations, yes. He also believes respecting the sovereignty of other nations and not engaging ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations is the wisest course for success in our diplomatic efforts. How are those positions contradictory?

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:26 PM

The Welfare-Warfare State is collapsing before our very eyes, and Paul’s the crazy one. I love it.

You right-wing neo-Wilsonians helped kill our republic right along with the progs. Take a bow.

Speaking of the NAU conspiracy, you might want to read the latest from Wikileaks. Why not? Our Constitution’s dead anyway. And after all, it’s worked out so great for the EU…

Rae on May 18, 2011 at 4:28 PM

The premise of your original comment was we’d send in the troops if the government were in danger of being taken over by a radical Taliban-type theocratic mechanism.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM

The premise of my comment was that ‘we’d send in the troops if the government were in danger of being taken over by a radical Taliban-type theocratic mechanism’ because they have nuclear weapons.

Here’s what I said:

if the government of Pakistan – a NUCLEAR POWER, need we be reminded – were to collapse due to the ongoing instability and fighting there, and it looked as though a radical Islamic government backed by, say, the Pakistani Taliban might come into power, that we wouldn’t send troops into Pakistan without delay to try and stabilize the situation

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Give that man a Cupie Doll! A Truther.

Of course.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Please don’t feed it.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I think he has a good idea and a terrific handle on the situation…can’t argue with him, he is spot on. And I understand how his followers are so passionate about him, he reeks with confidence and analysis problems subjectively and comes up with solutions that will resolve the problem, not exacerbate the challenge. He certainly has changed my mind on who I am supporting for President…(that’s just in case a paultard follows me home, you never know what those nutcases will do)…yeah, Ron Paul is the man, love the guy, great guy, lot’s of good ideas, yeah, can’t get enough of him, I SAID I THINK HE IS JUST PEACHY KEEN

right2bright on May 18, 2011 at 4:32 PM

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Were their deaths Petraeus’ fault too?

Idiot.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Yeah, and I mentioned that. Then stated everything else being equal, why wouldn’t India invade Pakistan as opposed to us?

We also haven’t invaded Iran, who has nuclear ambitions – just to keep that fact in check – contrary to Herr Doktors fear-mongering.

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I said we’re helping to secure it, not that we’re stopping them from expanding their nuclear program. Typical Paulian. You guys are just like your leader.

strictnein on May 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Listen, I think we’re talking past each other. Sure, we’re providing support to secure loose nuclear material, to try to stop up the AQ Khan network, etc. That’s not the point.

First of all, to the extent that we’re trying to keep nuclear devices out of terrorist hands, the fact that Pakistan is expanding their nuclear program and dispersing it throughout the country is undermining those efforts – so they’re not being very good partners in this. Second, and more important, if the government of Pakistan is overthrown, the worry is not only that the people who take over might not accept our help to secure their nukes, but might be inclined to let them ‘accidentally’ fall into the wrong hands. This is the very reason that we may end up sending troops into Pakistan to stabilize it, which was my whole point from the beginning!

I fail to see what’s ‘typical[ly] Paulian’ about this point.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Ron Paul: The US will end up occupying Pakistan

With WHAT?

The IOUs government issues?

Sir Napsalot on May 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM

No, he doesn’t want us ‘to first follow Pakistani Sovereignty over US Sovereignty’. I’m at a loss to even explain what that means. He believes in protecting US sovereignty from infringement by international organizations, yes. He also believes respecting the sovereignty of other nations and not engaging ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations is the wisest course for success in our diplomatic efforts. How are those positions contradictory?

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Wrong, he repeatedly now has said he would not have ordered the Bin Laden raid and said we should have followed “International Law” instead.

that is Pakistani Sovereignty before US Sovereignty, and “International Law” before US Law under the Constitution.

Get away from the slavish cult, and think.

jp on May 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Yeah, and I mentioned that. Then stated everything else being equal, why wouldn’t India invade Pakistan as opposed to us?

catmman on May 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Because, while it’s very possible the leadership of the Pakistani military would ask for our help to stabilize the situation and protect key sites throughout the nation, they would never, NEVER allow, let alone ask for, Indian help. I think you underestimate how much Pakistan hates India. I am convinced that, even in the midst of collapse, Pakistan would send all remaining loyalist divisions to the Indian frontier to keep them out – they probably would even use those nukes of theirs.

Inkblots on May 18, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Ron Paul and the Charlie Foxtrots!!

Somehow I’m thinking that if things keep on going the way they are, it will be the flat, glassy plain option for Pakistan.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Don’t stop there, though, because Paul then explains the factual basis of his prediction that the US will occupy a nation of over 140 million people, armed with nuclear weapons.

HotAir commenters repeatedly call for the US to confiscate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons so it can’t be tha off-the-wall crazy.

aengus on May 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

How do you define non-combat? Soldiers killed in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans and other places might have been there for humanitarian reasons but the people who killed them were practicing combat even if they weren’t.

aengus on May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM

More American troops died in non combat during the 8 years Bill Clinton was President than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Were their deaths Petraeus’ fault too?

Idiot.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I will take that desperate non sequitur as an admission on your part that you can not defend Imam Petraues. You should have just remained silent. Maybe you have “Newt Syndrome”.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

We’ve lost 5,000 people, our soldiers, in fighting two wars that had nothing to do with bin Laden.

LOL! Earth calling HalJordan…there’s your conspiracy theory right there.

No need to thank me.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM

I see no reason to thank you from something so poorly thought out from beginning to end. Are you an affirmative action student? OBL was very likely never in Iraq and probably split Afcrapistan for Pakistan very-very early on.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Break out the butterfly nets.

Murf76 on May 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM

With WHAT?

The IOUs government issues?

Sir Napsalot on May 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Well, they’ll start there.

And then they’ll crank up the printing presses.

Nothing we haven’t seen before.

JohnGalt23 on May 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM

We’re going to need a bigger army…

But seriously, if Pakistan goes to h, we send in SEALS to steal or destroy the Paks’ nuclear weapons and critical nuclear facilities and material stocks. If the CIA is doing anything at all in Pakistan, it is meticulously recording the location of all of those targets on an hourly basis.

Strip them of that nuclear capability, and then get out. Occupation would be pointless and impossible.

slickwillie2001 on May 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Idiot.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I will take that desperate non sequitur as an admission on your part that you can not defend Imam Petraues. You should have just remained silent. Maybe you have “Newt Syndrome”.

HalJordan on May 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

I take it back. You’re a genius.

Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2