PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul supports.... why should we withdraw from NATO?



appropriatename
10-31-2007, 06:34 AM
should have said supportERS

?????

g1enn
10-31-2007, 06:45 AM
Because we should do US and not worry about other countries.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 06:46 AM
Because we should do US and not worry about other countries.

So if Ron Paul was President during the Cold War, Soviet tanks would have rolled across all of Europe. All of Europe would be red and NATO would crumble against the Warsaw Pact



Gotcha

dabbmw2002
10-31-2007, 06:52 AM
So if Ron Paul was President during the Cold War, Soviet tanks would have rolled across all of Europe. All of Europe would be red and NATO would crumble against the Warsaw Pact



Gotcha

If American and British interests hadn't financed the Communist revolution in Russia there would never have been a Cold War or Soviet Union. The same can be said about WWII and Germany.

JWP58
10-31-2007, 06:52 AM
So if Ron Paul was President during the Cold War, Soviet tanks would have rolled across all of Europe. All of Europe would be red and NATO would crumble against the Warsaw Pact



Gotcha

HAHAHA. It is not our job to take care of the world. We are NOT world police. We cant even take care of ourselves. Maybe thats why we joined the NAU...oh wait, nope thats to dissolve our soveriegnty.

g1enn
10-31-2007, 06:53 AM
Im not saying its the right or wrong way to do things, but dont assume that we necesarry(sp) helped the contries we prevented from becoming communist in the longrun.
Ron Paul believes wars must only be fought to protect the citizens of the United States. Im not sure if the Cold War would have qualified under his administration.

g1enn
10-31-2007, 06:55 AM
If American and British interests hadn't financed the Communist revolution in Russia there would never have been a Cold War or Soviet Union. The same can be said about WWII and Germany.

You'd be suprised how lucky the Boshivecks had to be to come into power. The whole thing was a complete crapshoot and Lenin somehow ended up in power.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 06:56 AM
If American and British interests hadn't financed the Communist revolution in Russia there would never have been a Cold War or Soviet Union. The same can be said about WWII and Germany.

i'd love to read about how the U.S. and UK financed the communist, could you link me to something to read about it?


HAHAHA. It is not our job to take care of the world. We are NOT world police. We cant even take care of ourselves. Maybe thats why we joined the NAU...oh wait, nope thats to dissolve our soveriegnty.

so you think we'd be better letting the communist control europe and asia





would Comrade Paul have let the Soviets put their ballistic missiles in Cuba as well?

devire1
10-31-2007, 06:57 AM
So if Ron Paul was President during the Cold War, Soviet tanks would have rolled across all of Europe. All of Europe would be red and NATO would crumble against the Warsaw Pact



Gotcha

it's funny you should say that since ron paul was a big part of ronald reagan's campaign for president of the US, and ronald reagan is largely credited with ending the cold war.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 06:59 AM
it's funny you should say that since ron paul was a big part of ronald reagan's campaign for president of the US, and ronald reagan is largely credited with ending the cold war.

oh so he helped him become president, but didn't help him act as president... ok

your giving comrade paul too much credit

g1enn
10-31-2007, 07:02 AM
Im not sure did the US or UK did really have much to do with the Revolution of 1903, I took Russian History a long time ago though,

GrassAndRocks
10-31-2007, 07:02 AM
You'd be suprised how lucky the Boshivecks had to be to come into power. The whole thing was a complete crapshoot and Lenin somehow ended up in power.

What in the world are you talking about? Do you have any idea about Russian history? Have you even read anything on the revolutions of 1917?

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:02 AM
oh so he helped him become president, but didn't help him act as president... ok

your giving comrade paul too much credit

ummm... ok, but if you listen to what ron paul says, he agrees with ronald reagon on most things that have to do with foreign policy.

you do listen to what ron paul says?

am i correct?

but anyways, how is your post even relevant to what i said?

dabbmw2002
10-31-2007, 07:02 AM
[QUOTE=appropriatename;91862973]i'd love to read about how the U.S. and UK financed the communist, could you link me to something to read about it?


Read a book called "The Creature OF Jekyll Island". There are other sources, just google it. The banking powers can manipulate a country though financial control. Money runs the world-period.

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:03 AM
i'd love to read about how the U.S. and UK financed the communist, could you link me to something to read about it?



so you think we'd be better letting the communist control europe and asia





would Comrade Paul have let the Soviets put their ballistic missiles in Cuba as well?

if you listen to ANYTHING that ron paul says, you would realize the answer to that question would be a "NO".

g1enn
10-31-2007, 07:04 AM
oh so he helped him become president, but didn't help him act as president... ok

your giving comrade paul too much credit

by the way calling him comrade paul doesnt really do too much to help you try to have a civilized conversation. ESP when Ron Paul advocates free trade.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:04 AM
but anyways, how is your post even relevant to what i said?

your trying to make it seem like ron paul deserves credit for what reagan did

fail



maybe you should ask the kremlin or iran who they would vote for......

my guess is ron paul

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:05 AM
by the way calling him comrade paul doesnt really do too much to help you try to have a civilized conversation. ESP when Ron Paul advocates free trade.

lol.

the "appropriatename" for the OPer would be "TROLL".

:D

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:15 AM
lol.

the "appropriatename" for the OPer would be "TROLL".

:D

i know, i'm a troll because i don't believe we should let russia and china control the world

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:15 AM
your trying to make it seem like ron paul deserves credit for what reagan did

fail



maybe you should ask the kremlin or iran who they would vote for......

my guess is ron paul

Who cares who they would vote for?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:16 AM
Who cares who they would vote for?

because they would vote for the person that weakens the US the most and lets them expand their interests...

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:16 AM
i know, i'm a troll because i don't believe we should let russia and china control the world

They control the world now? The United States is supposed to control the world? lol...

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:17 AM
because they would vote for the person that weakens the US the most and lets them expand their interests...

You've got no case man. How does Ron Paul weaken the US? Our economy would be much stronger under a Paul administration. Free trade, secure borders, and no income tax. Sounds like heaven.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:18 AM
They control the world now? The United States is supposed to control the world? lol...

if ron paul was in charge of the united states, the united states wouldn't be in NATO

what is NATO without the US?

if there wasn't such thing as NATO and if we sat on our hands during the cold war pretty much all of asia and europe would be satellite states to the soviet union

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:20 AM
You've got no case man. How does Ron Paul weaken the US? Our economy would be much stronger under a Paul administration. Free trade, secure borders, and no income tax. Sounds like heaven.

Ummm you haven't even read anything I've said

The world without U.S. influences = field day for the communist to exert control

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:23 AM
Ummm you haven't even read anything I've said

The world without U.S. influences = field day for the communist to exert control

Are you talking in the context of today or during the Cold War?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:25 AM
Are you talking in the context of today or during the Cold War?

both

who would control the middle east if there was no U.S. presence and we didn't back Israel?

the iranians? backed by the russians

do you not think the chinese will be doing the same ****, trying to gain control over the region? you think taiwan could hold without U.S. weapons?

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:25 AM
Ummm you haven't even read anything I've said

The world without U.S. influences = field day for the communist to exert control

how is any of this relevant anyways?

in case you weren't aware, the soviet union is LONG gone, and we aren't doing much to stop the rise of china by staying in a useless war in iraq and weakening the US dollar.

the US's position in the world would only get better with ron paul and the economy strengthening policies ron paul would put in place as president of the US.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:26 AM
how is any of this relevant anyways?

in case you weren't aware, the soviet union is LONG gone, and we aren't doing much to stop the rise of china by staying in a useless war in iraq and weakening the US dollar.

the US's position in the world would only get better with ron paul and the economy strengthening policies ron paul would put in place as president.

sorry.... I dont understand how the U.S. economy would be great when the iranians, russians, and chinese control the middle east's oil

maybe ron paul can explain that

$5 says IF ron paul is elected president he is assasinated by people who know better than to let the world turn red

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:27 AM
sorry I dont understand how the U.S. economy would be great when the iranians, russians, and chinese control the middle east's oil

sorry, but this would not happen with ron paul as president, unless you can prove otherwise, that is?

but, with george bush or some other neo-con president, they are currently selling oil fields in iraq that were fought for and won with US taxpayers' hard earned money to indian and chinese oil companies.

;)

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:29 AM
sorry, but this would not happen with ron paul as president, unless you can prove otherwise, that is?

ron paul has said 23049230949023094 times that he would "bring the weapons home" and he doesn't believe in entangling alliances (no alliance with israel, nothing with NATO)

everyone knows iran wants to control the middle east, and they are backed by the russians... i dont really see who would step up and stop them except the israelis who would nuke them if they had to

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:30 AM
both

who would control the middle east if there was no U.S. presence and we didn't back Israel?

the iranians? backed by the russians

do you not think the chinese will be doing the same ****, trying to gain control over the region? you think taiwan could hold without U.S. weapons?

Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself.

The Chinese taking control of Taiwan is irrelevant. It is of no direct threat to the United States. Same situation if North Korea wanted to push south.

With a foreign policy of non-intervention the US will be extremely influential in foreign affairs simply because of our massive economy. Americans will travel and trade with the entire world.

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:31 AM
i dont really see who would step up and stop them except the israelis who would nuke them if they had to

And there is your answer. Israel is more than capable of taking care of business in the ME.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:32 AM
Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself.

yeah, because they get backing from the United States.......... so imgaine them without US backing (thanks to ron paul)


The Chinese taking control of Taiwan is irrelevant. It is of no direct threat to the United States. Same situation if North Korea wanted to push south.

so if the chinese realize they could walk all over taiwan... where would they stop?


With a foreign policy of non-intervention the US will be extremely influential in foreign affairs simply because of our massive economy. Americans will travel and trade with the entire world.

sorry, but foreign policy doesn't mean **** with countries like iran

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:32 AM
ron paul has said 23049230949023094 times that he would "bring the weapons home" and he doesn't believe in entangling alliances (no alliance with israel, nothing with NATO)

everyone knows iran wants to control the middle east, and they are backed by the russians... i dont really see who would step up and stop them except the israelis who would nuke them if they had to

you misunderstand what the quote means.

it does not mean that he would sever any strategic alliances.

he would only stop the US from being entangled, so to speak, in an alliance and / or alliances that does not benefit the average US citizen in any way.

and, by the way, just in case you missed the part of my post that i edited in.


sorry, but this would not happen with ron paul as president, unless you can prove otherwise, that is?

but, with george bush or some other neo-con president, they are currently selling oil fields in iraq that were fought for and won with US taxpayers' hard earned money to indian and chinese oil companies.

;)

^^^

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:34 AM
you misunderstand what the quote means.

it does not mean that he would sever any "strategic alliances".

he would only stop the US from being entangled, so to speak, in an alliance that does not benefit the average US citizen in any way.

so ron paul doesn't think that having the mutually assured security of NATO benefits U.S. citizens?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:35 AM
but, with george bush or some other neo-con president, they are currently selling oil fields in iraq that were fought for and won with US taxpayers' hard earned money to indian and chinese oil companies.


source

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:35 AM
yeah, because they get backing from the United States.......... so imgaine them without US backing (thanks to ron paul)

so if the chinese realize they could walk all over taiwan... where would they stop?

sorry, but foreign policy doesn't mean **** with countries like iran

Is it the job of American taxpayers to finance a foreign country? No.

What gives you any idea that they would keep going? You have no evidence to support your assertion.

What do you mean our foreign policy doesn't mean anything?

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:36 AM
so ron paul doesn't think that having the mutually assured security of NATO benefits U.S. citizens?

you would have to ask ron paul, but where are you getting this from anyways?

(that is the "mutually assured security part", which is obviously just your opinion in the first place. ;))

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 07:36 AM
so ron paul doesn't think that having the mutually assured security of NATO benefits U.S. citizens?

We have our own military to ensure our safety. No need to get involved in NATO.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:38 AM
What gives you any idea that they would keep going? You have no evidence to support your assertion.

the russians and chinese fought alongside the vietnamese and koreans against us


What do you mean our foreign policy doesn't mean anything?

go look @ what the iranians are doing... we try to negotiate they say "F you" and keep on doing their own thing

do you think that our foreign policy will be any better when ron paul doesn't have the balls to back it up with military force?

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:38 AM
source

i saw it in a news article, i will try to find it or something else.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:39 AM
you would have to ask ron paul, but where are you getting this from anyways?

(that is the "mutually assured security part", which is obviously just your opinion in the first place. ;))

mutually assured security is the whole point of NATO


We have our own military to ensure our safety. No need to get involved in NATO.

nope, not like we need any help or need to help anyone else when a bunch of countries gang up on someone (WWII)

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:41 AM
my apologies, it was the new iraqi government that sold the rights to indian and chinese companies, but it is still the same outcome.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_firms_to_get_oil_contracts_from_Iraq/articleshow/1869478.cms

Lager1
10-31-2007, 07:41 AM
If American and British interests hadn't financed the Communist revolution in Russia there would never have been a Cold War or Soviet Union. The same can be said about WWII and Germany.

pwned.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:42 AM
my apologies, it was the new iraqi government that sold the rights to indian and chinese companies, but it is still the same outcome.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indian_firms_to_get_oil_contracts_from_Iraq/articleshow/1869478.cms

so how hard do you think it would be for the iranians to gain control of iraqi oil without the U.S. in the middle east?

and that argument holds no weight if your using it against me.. because i dont support that decision, i think its wrong too

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:43 AM
mutually assured security is the whole point of NATO



nope, not like we need any help or need to help anyone else when a bunch of countries gang up on someone (WWII)

the US spends more money on it's military the the next top 20 countries COMBINED.

we were not even CLOSE to that level of dominance during WWII.

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:44 AM
so how hard do you think it would be for the iranians to gain control of iraqi oil without the U.S. in the middle east?

if they did, we could buy them out for a lot less then what the 2.4 trillion dollar (estimated) iraq war will cost us.

if you think that is wrong (i am refering to the part that you just edited into your post), then who do YOU support then?

the neo-cons who just sit by and let this happen?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:45 AM
the US spends more money on it's military the the next top 20 countries COMBINED.

we were not even CLOSE to that level of dominance during WWII.

and all that money would be for nothing until the enemy is landing on our beaches because ron paul believes in isolationism

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:47 AM
if they did, we could buy them out for a lot less then what the 2.4 trillion (estimated) iraq war will cost us.

i'm sure the iraqi's would sell us the oil fields when the iranians tell them that either "you sell them to us (the iranians) or we take them by force"


if you think that is wrong, then who do YOU support then?

the neo-cons who just sit by and let this happen?

i don't like any of the politicians, i hate politics

if i had to vote for someone it would be mccain

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:48 AM
and all that money would be for nothing until the enemy is landing on our beaches because ron paul believes in isolationism

now you are just resorting to pathetic strawman arguments.

truely sad.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:49 AM
now you are just resorting to pathetic strawman arguments.

truely sad.

that wasn't supposed to be taken literally (as in them literally landing on our beaches)

but ron paul would sit back and watch the world turn to **** (unless your ivan / mohammed / chairman mao)

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:49 AM
i'm sure the iraqi's would sell us the oil fields when the iranians tell them that either "you sell them to us (the iranians) or we take them by force"



i don't like any of the politicians, i hate politics

if i had to vote for someone it would be mccain

"juan" (jon) mccain?

he would do exactly what george bush is doing, most likely.

what makes you like "juan" (jon) mccain?

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:52 AM
that wasn't supposed to be taken literally (as in them literally landing on our beaches)

but ron paul would sit back and watch the world turn to **** (unless your ivan / mohammed / chairman mao)

ron paul would actually make the US a better place, and not let the US turn to **** like most other candidates would and / or have.

and, you don't think the US has always been doing that all along?

lol.

where was the US during the myanmar province massacre.

the sudanese genocide?

the current brutal palistinian occupation by israel?

etc?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:54 AM
"juan" (jon) mccain?

he would do exactly what george bush is doing, most likely.

what makes you like "juan" (jon) mccain?

like i said, none of them are appealing... just the lesser evil

perfect candidate for me would be:

- completely 100% shut down the mexican border
- gradually deport all illegals
- bomb iran
- abolish social security
- increase military spending (my biggest point)
- support patriot act



as for all the roe v wade abortion rights, pledge of allegiance, blah blah i couldn't care less about that stuff

devire1
10-31-2007, 07:56 AM
like i said, none of them are appealing... just the lesser evil

perfect candidate for me would be:

- completely 100% shut down the mexican border
- gradually deport all illegals
- bomb iran
- abolish social security
- increase military spending (my biggest point)
- support patriot act



as for all the roe v wade abortion rights, pledge of allegiance, blah blah i couldn't care less about that stuff

i am being serious here, it sounds like you would really like tom tancredo.

don't get your hopes up though, because tom tancredo has NO chance at getting the republican nomination, however.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:57 AM
ron paul would actually make the US a better place, and not let the US turn to **** like most other candidates would and / or have.

and, you don't think the US has always been doing that all along?

lol.

where was the US during the myanmar province massacre.

the sudanese genocide?

the current brutal palistinian occupation by israel?

etc?

theres nothing to gain by helping sudan or burma

we have to WORRY ABOUT OURSELVES but also realize that we cant be isolationist

what happens to isolationist? they get sieged

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 07:59 AM
i am being serious here, it sounds like you would really like tom tancredo.

don't get your hopes up though, because tom tancredo has NO chance at getting the republican nomination, however.

i want to see a LEADER lead the country, not a politician or a businessman... mccain is the person with the best leadership quals (in my opinion)

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:01 AM
theres nothing to gain by helping sudan or burma

we have to WORRY ABOUT OURSELVES but also realize that we cant be isolationist

what happens to isolationist? they get sieged

exactly my point, which is what ron paul would do.

i think people take his "isolationism" out of context.

all wars that are fought today by the US are not done in the best interests of the average american citizens, but are done for benefit of military contractors, oil companies, and israel, who all lobby HEAVILY to the US government.

you can actually see obvious trends in the amount of money that is lobbied to the US federal government by these lobbying groups, and the timing of certain military operations if you go to www.opensecrets.org and track the amount of money that is being contributed.

user437490845hjgf
10-31-2007, 08:02 AM
like i said, none of them are appealing... just the lesser evil

perfect candidate for me would be:

- completely 100% shut down the mexican border
- gradually deport all illegals
- bomb iran
- abolish social security
- increase military spending (my biggest point)
- support patriot act



as for all the roe v wade abortion rights, pledge of allegiance, blah blah i couldn't care less about that stuff
You want to increase military spending?

Where do you propose we get the money to finance that?

You want to close off the mexican border and deport all the immigrants? I think the founding fathers would roll over in their grave if they heard that.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:05 AM
You want to increase military spending?

Where do you propose we get the money to finance that?

military spending is LOW compared to what it used to be

i dont have a direct link to it, but military spending as a % of GDP is VERY low compared to what it used to be


You want to close off the mexican border and deport all the immigrants? I think the founding fathers would roll over in their grave if they heard that.

only the ones who are now FELONS because they jumped the fence, not the ones who did it properly

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:08 AM
exactly my point, which is what ron paul would do.

i think people take his "isolationism" out of context.

all wars that are fought today by the US are not done in the best interests of the average american citizens, but are done for benefit of military contractors, oil companies, and israel, who all lobby HEAVILY to the US government.

you can actually see obvious trends in the amount of money that is lobbied to the US federal government by these lobbying groups, and the timing of certain military operations if you go to www.opensecrets.org and track the amount of money that is being contributed.

bump.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:08 AM
here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

only 1.7% of our GDP compared to close to 10% during nam and 30+ % during WWII

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:10 AM
here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

only 1.7% of our GDP compared to close to 10% during nam and 30+ % during WWII

that is quite interesting, but what about during times of peace during those time periods?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:11 AM
bump.

theres 290349029034902390 links to click on that website... how am i supposed to know im reading the same thing you are citing?

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:12 AM
theres 290349029034902390 links to click on that website... how am i supposed to know im reading the same thing you are citing?

oh sorry, i am so familiar with that site i forgot that it is quite a large database.

give me a minute and i will show you the graphs that are relevant.

edit: some of the pages are down, so i can't show you the nice bar graphs, but i can still give you the actual numbers

in the year before the iraq war, contributions from the israeli lobby spiked significantly.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q05&cycle=2002

in the year before bush got elected and before the afghanistan and iraq war, contributions from the oil and gas and pipeline industry REALLY spiked (which is suspicious since they are building a HUGE pipeline from turkmenistan through afghanistan to india, and the taliban was the only thing stopping them from building this pipeline through afghanistan).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=E1140&cycle=2000

i will post the nice bar graphs too when they get back online.

user437490845hjgf
10-31-2007, 08:13 AM
here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

only 1.7% of our GDP compared to close to 10% during nam and 30+ % during WWII
That is an interesting statistic and thank you for the source to back up your claim.

But why increase military spending? Ask any veteran about the efficiency of our military and they will tell you that we can easily down scale our military without sacrificing its effectiveness.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:13 AM
that is quite interesting, but what about during times of peace during those time periods?

graph

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/9628/militaryrelativesizegranl2.png

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:16 AM
That is an interesting statistic and thank you for the source to back up your claim.

But why increase military spending? Ask any veteran about the efficiency of our military and they will tell you that we can easily down scale our military without sacrificing its effectiveness.

in an all volunteer military?

you start asking people to do MORE with LESS and they will leave for greener pastures in the civilian world.

look @ the situation in military aviation.... they want more from less and the retention # for pilots are HORRIBLE because they leave to fly for the airlines

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:21 AM
Short answer: The American people are sick and tired of funding whatever foreign adventures or pet projects our "fearless leaders" decide to pursue this week. We are not the World Police, World Nanny, or World Court.

Here, I'll let John Quincy Adams explain it to you:

"[The United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

John Quincy Adams - 1821

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:23 AM
more info on what i mean, you only need to read the first post to see what i mean

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/showthread.php?t=16418

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:23 AM
oh sorry, i am so familiar with that site i forgot that it is quite a large database.

give me a minute and i will show you the graphs that are relevant.

edit: some of the pages are down, so i can't show you the nice bar graphs, but i can still give you the actual numbers

in the year before the iraq war, contributions from the israeli lobby spiked significantly.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q05&cycle=2002

in the year before bush got elected and before the afghanistan and iraq war, contributions from the oil and gas and pipeline industry REALLY spiked (which is suspicious since they are building a HUGE pipeline from turkmenistan through afghanistan to india, and the taliban was the only thing stopping them from building this pipeline through afghanistan).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=E1140&cycle=2000

i will post the nice bar graphs too when they get back online.

bump.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:24 AM
Short answer: The American people are sick and tired of funding whatever foreign adventures or pet projects our "fearless leaders" decide to pursue this week. We are not the World Police, World Nanny, or World Court.

Here, I'll let John Quincy Adams explain it to you:

"[The United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

John Quincy Adams - 1821

Had John Quincy Adams ever heard of communism?

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:25 AM
graph

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/9628/militaryrelativesizegranl2.png

that is very nice, thank you.

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:27 AM
Had John Quincy Adams ever heard of communism?

nope, so i guess we should abandon free speech, the second amendment, and what not because of that...

lol.

:p

(i know i am taking things out of context here, but so are you, which is the point of my sarcasm.)

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:29 AM
oh sorry, i am so familiar with that site i forgot that it is quite a large database.

give me a minute and i will show you the graphs that are relevant.

edit: some of the pages are down, so i can't show you the nice bar graphs, but i can still give you the actual numbers

in the year before the iraq war, contributions from the israeli lobby spiked significantly.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=Q05&cycle=2002

in the year before bush got elected and before the afghanistan and iraq war, contributions from the oil and gas and pipeline industry REALLY spiked (which is suspicious since they are building a HUGE pipeline from turkmenistan through afghanistan to india, and the taliban was the only thing stopping them from building this pipeline through afghanistan).

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/category.asp?txt=E1140&cycle=2000

i will post the nice bar graphs too when they get back online.

i dont see anything wrong with this

reason why is because i believe invading afghan and iraq helped serve our interest as well as theirs

so its like

israel: hey you should do this it would help us
U.S.: yeah well we were already thinking about doing that





but if it was purely "hey buddy i'll slip you some $$ under the table to do this" when it doesnt serve any of our interest... then its wrong

but like i said, i think that controlling iraq and afghanistan (or atleast having them as allies) will serve our interest better in the future.... so i see nothing wrong with it

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:31 AM
nope, so i guess we should abandon free speech, the second amendment, and what not because of that...

lol.

:p

(i know i am taking things out of context here, but so are you, which is the point of my sarcasm.)

no, i'm not... beacuse adams didn't live in a world where one country can destroy another with nuclear weapons

things change when you can vaporize a whole nation with a couple missiles

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:33 AM
Had John Quincy Adams ever heard of communism?

It doesn't matter. I love when someone tries the tired old, "but.... but.... but....they couldn't have forseen THIS!" It.does.NOT.MATTER. Period. The principals this nation was built upon will apply, regardless of whether you're talking about communism, socialism, cheeseburgers, or the Beatles. It's just like the bogus arguments against the 2nd Amendment. "..but.... but.... the Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen semi-automatic pistols!" So what? The principal still applies, in this case meaning that the right to keep and bear arms is a safeguard against tyranny.

Just because a particular make of car is a piece of crap doesn't mean that the principals of internal combustion are flawed.

Get it?

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:35 AM
i dont see anything wrong with this

reason why is because i believe invading afghan and iraq helped serve our interest as well as theirs

so its like

israel: hey you should do this it would help us
U.S.: yeah well we were already thinking about doing that





but if it was purely "hey buddy i'll slip you some $$ under the table to do this" when it doesnt serve any of our interest... then its wrong

but like i said, i think that controlling iraq and afghanistan (or atleast having them as allies) will serve our interest better in the future.... so i see nothing wrong with it

don't you think we could have spent that 2.4 trillion dollars that we will most likely spend on the iraq war better with something else, or by just giving it back to the tax payer through tax cuts, which is what ron paul would do?

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:37 AM
Get it?

No, I don't get how you can think that you can be A-OK while refusing to adapt to the constantly changing environment around you

if you were an NFL team and your gameplan for a certain game was to play zone D, but you got your ass kicked the first half, would you keep on playing zone D because that was the "principle" of your defense and "we aint gonna change no matter what anyone says?"

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:39 AM
don't you think we could have spent that 2.4 trillion dollars that we will most likely spend on the iraq war better with something else, or by just giving it back to the tax payer through tax cuts, which is what ron paul would do?

guarenteeing us a long time strategic presence in the middle east? no.. they could have slipped me a couple mil and i would have put it to good use, but that presence in the middle east is priceless

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:44 AM
No, I don't get how you can think that you can be A-OK while refusing to adapt to the constantly changing environment around you

if you were an NFL team and your gameplan for a certain game was to play zone D, but you got your ass kicked the first half, would you keep on playing zone D because that was the "principle" of your defense and "we aint gonna change no matter what anyone says?"

That's exactly what I'm saying, but you don't seem to get it. In your example, the objective is NOT to run a particular defensive scheme, but to win the game. The principals are simple:

1. Score as many points as possible.

2. Prevent the other team from scoring.

If you get away from those principals and decide that your objectives are to play as many players as possible and look good for the cheerleaders, then you've lost the game and that's exactly what the USA is threatening to do.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:45 AM
That's exactly what I'm saying, but you don't seem to get it. In your example, the objective is NOT to run a particular defensive scheme, but to win the game. The principals are simple:

1. Score as many points as possible.

2. Prevent the other team from scoring.

If you get away from those principals and decide that your objectives are to play as many players as possible and look good for the cheerleaders, then you've lost the game and that's exactly what the USA is threatening to do.

i never said the defense scheme was the objective (but that the certain formation was the principal of your total defensive scheme , the defense is the means to acheiving the objective......................................... ....




but... what do YOU think the objective of the united states is? and what are the means to acheiving that objective?

ron paul thinks the means is turning the US into a castle... and like i said before castles get seiged

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:46 AM
guarenteeing us a long time strategic presence in the middle east? no.. they could have slipped me a couple mil and i would have put it to good use, but that presence in the middle east is priceless

it is "priceless"?

why is that?

calling it "priceless" doesn't even make sense.

it sounds like something a crusader might say for religious reasons.

like i said, if it is for oil, you could buy whatever government you want for FAR less then 2.4 trillion dollars.

if it is for security, we are creating more terrorists and hatred towards the US just by being over there, and bombing iran would create a HUGE spike in islamic terrorists' hatred towards the US.

ron paul's strategy is to take away this hatred, or at the VERY least, not to increase any further.

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:47 AM
guarenteeing us a long time strategic presence in the middle east? no.. they could have slipped me a couple mil and i would have put it to good use, but that presence in the middle east is priceless

Yeah, it's priceless. It's also the very reason why so many countries around the world absolutely hate us now. There was a time when we minded our own damned business and we were loved and respected by most of the world. Every time our "leaders" decide to bring "democracy" to another country through military force, that's the result. And don't even get me started about the gross misuse of the term "democracy" and how our own politicians don't seem to have a clue as to what it means.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:49 AM
it is "priceless"?

why is that?

because have a strategic presence in the US is important (yeah i know that didn't answer your question.... now your going to ask me why is it important)

its important because if WE dont control it then who will? the iranians

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:49 AM
i never said the defense scheme was the objective (but that the certain formation was the principal of your total defensive scheme , the defense is the means to acheiving the objective......................................... ....

Let's both admit that the football analogy sucks and move on. My point is that freedom works and government doesn't. People are sick and tired of being ruled over. This country wasn't designed to be like this, but we've collectively sat back and allowed a tiny minority of people to become our kings.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:50 AM
Yeah, it's priceless. It's also the very reason why so many countries around the world absolutely hate us now. There was a time when we minded our own damned business and we were loved and respected by most of the world.

yeah... i think i remember that.......... Hitler overran europe and brought russia to her knees

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:50 AM
because have a strategic presence in the US is important (yeah i know that didn't answer your question.... now your going to ask me why is it important)

its important because if WE dont control it then who will? the iranians

read the rest of my post, as i edited.

sorry i keep doing that lol.


it is "priceless"?

why is that?

calling it "priceless" doesn't even make sense.

it sounds like something a crusader might say for religious reasons.

like i said, if it is for oil, you could buy whatever government you want for FAR less then 2.4 trillion dollars.

if it is for security, we are creating more terrorists and hatred towards the US just by being over there, and bombing iran would create a HUGE spike in islamic terrorists' hatred towards the US.

ron paul's strategy is to take away this hatred, or at the VERY least, not to increase any further.

Ex-Terminator
10-31-2007, 08:53 AM
because have a strategic presence in the US is important (yeah i know that didn't answer your question.... now your going to ask me why is it important)

its important because if WE dont control it then who will? the iranians

Who cares? The Middle East has been a cesspool of wars and corruption for centuries, long before the USA was even formed. Is it our duty or responsibility to go over there and police the area, costing lives and money?

I'm a military veteran with eight years of active duty service and I'll be the first one to tell you that we have ZERO business in Iraq. The USA should lead BY EXAMPLE. That is, let the world see that freedom works. Of course, there isn't a hell of a lot of freedom left to demonstrate, thanks to our boneheaded politicians.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:54 AM
calling it "priceless" doesn't even make sense.


yeah i know, i had to take a piss and am getting ready to hit the gym and thats what came out



like i said, if it is for oil, you could buy whatever government you want for FAR less then 2.4 trillion dollars.

why buy it when you can be it


if it is for security, we are creating more terrorists and hatred towards the US just by being over there, and bombing iran would create a HUGE spike in islamic terrorists' hatred towards the US.

like i said, if we werent over there then the iranians would try to overrun the place... something that israel wouldn't tolerate, and israel has nuclear weapons, and i dont think they've forgotten the holocaust


ron paul's strategy is to take away this hatred, or at the VERY least, not to increase any further.

yeah, by holing up and letting the bad guys do whatever they want to

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 08:56 AM
Who cares? The Middle East has been a cesspool of wars and corruption for centuries, long before the USA was even formed. Is it our duty or responsibility to go over there and police the area, costing lives and money?

things change when a country starts to develop nuclear weapons

do you want to see iran and israel at each others throats with nukes?


The USA should lead BY EXAMPLE. That is, let the world see that freedom works.

i'm sure saddam would have been a nice guy had the US set a better example for him to follow

devire1
10-31-2007, 08:59 AM
yeah i know, i had to take a piss and am getting ready to hit the gym and thats what came out




why buy it when you can be it

that makes no sense AT ALL.

you want to take the more expensive route that will cost thousands of american soldiers' lives and 100,000s of innocent iraqi civilians' live so you "can be it"?

i am sure you feel real tough talking like that on your keyboard. do you even know anyone personally that is close to you that is fighting in iraq?


like i said, if we werent over there then the iranians would try to overrun the place... something that israel wouldn't tolerate, and israel has nuclear weapons, and i dont think they've forgotten the holocaust

ok then, if we don't support israel doing that in the process, then that will have no bearing on how islamic terrorists will view the US.

but, it's not like israel could do anything without the support of the west. if we don't want israel to do something, we could just tell them not to, or else, but that is something for a different discussion. ;)


yeah, by holing up and letting the bad guys do whatever they want to

strawman argument #10927 from you. lol. :p.

they wouldn't be "bad guys", as you so "eloquently put it, in the first place, if we didn't bomb their families, freinds, etc.

you are making this sound like some western "shoot 'em up" film.

^^^

my responses are in bold inside the quote.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 09:04 AM
that makes no sense. you want to take the more expensive route that will cost thousands of american soldiers' lives and 100,000s of innocent iraqi civilians' live so you "can be it". i am sure you feel real tough talking like that on your keyboard. do you even know anyone personally that is close to you that is fighting in iraq?


my brother is a ground intelligence officer in iraq and i'll be there as soon as i get commissioned


ok then, if we don't support israel doing that in the process, then that will have no bearing on how islamic terrorists will view the US. but, it's not like israel could do anything without the support of the west. if we don't want israel to do something, we could just tell them not to, or else, but that is something for a different discussion

i dont think the israelis would care what the US says if they believe their existence is threatened like it was before...


strawman argument #10927 from you. lol. . they wouldn't be "bad guys", as you so "eloquently put it, in the first place, if we didn't bomb their families, freinds, etc. you are making this sound like some western "shoot 'em up" film.

well we did and now we have to deal with it, and its not like it was bush that did it.... they've hated us for a long time and will for a long time in the future

devire1
10-31-2007, 09:08 AM
my brother is a ground intelligence officer in iraq and i'll be there as soon as i get commissioned



i dont think the israelis would care what the US says they believe their existence is threatened like it was before...



well we did and now we have to deal with it, and its not like it was bush that did it.... they've hated us for a long time and will for a long time in the future

well i thank you and your brother for your service.

:)

anyways, i don't think they will hate us forever if we just stop screwing with them.

making them hate us even MORE is certainly not the best route to go.

that is not to mention that it is FAR from the most moral route to go.

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 09:10 AM
well i thank you and your brother for your service.

:)


i havent served anything, i just need to get my degree then i get the bars


anyways, i don't think they will hate us forever if we just stop screwing with them.

making them hate us even MORE is certainly not the best route.

that is not to mention it is FAR from the most moral route to go.

like i said, we could withdraw completely and leave the israelis in a fight by themselves... but that wouldn't be pretty

appropriatename
10-31-2007, 09:16 AM
as for the israelis, they know the score... they are survivors and thats why i like them and will stand up for them anytime

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/7919/sigpic101641eh5.jpg

im done with this, going to gym... ron paul will turn america into a castle that, if he is allowed to run things, will be destroyed....

devire1
10-31-2007, 09:18 AM
i havent served anything, i just need to get my degree then i get the bars



like i said, we could withdraw completely and leave the israelis in a fight by themselves... but that wouldn't be pretty

what would they do that they aren't doing already?

the israelis i mean.

anyways, atleast we would have a clear concience (i can't spell that word correctly, by the way :() and would not have as many muslims hating us as we do now.

plus, like i said, if we can boss other middle eastern countries around, we can EASILY boss israel around as well.

the only reasons politicians don't do this are because they get about 2 million dolars every election year in total from the israeli lobby, compared to about the $600,000 TOTAL (that's not every year, but TOTAL) from the arab / muslim lobby in the entire history of people keeping records of political contributions. (yes, that is from an article from www.opensecrets.org.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/pro-israel.pro-arab/index.asp

in case you are interested. :))

Chris Lee
10-31-2007, 09:48 AM
ron paul will turn america into a castle that, if he is allowed to run things, will be destroyed....

Could you tell me exactly what would be destroyed?

Let's see... we'll have...
-Secure borders.
-No income tax.
-Stronger military.
-No federal reserve.
-Adequate money for Medicare, Social Security, and VA programs.
-A foreign policy that doesn't involve policing the world.
-Guaranteed Constitutional liberties at home.
-No welfare state.

Isolationism and non-interventionism couldn't be any more different.

Through all of your strawman style arguments you have not given us any evidence to support your ideas. If a nation is a direct threat to the lives of American citizens Ron Paul would take action with our military. That's what it's there for. Our protection, period. We have letters of marque and reprisal to deal with smaller and harder to find 'terrorist' organizations.

danwild6
11-02-2007, 11:32 PM
So if Ron Paul was President during the Cold War, Soviet tanks would have rolled across all of Europe. All of Europe would be red and NATO would crumble against the Warsaw Pact



Gotcha


Ah well no, we wouldn't be questioning the need for NATO if the USSR still existed. You see NATO was created out of the necessity to counter Soviet expansion into Europe, but the Soviet Union no longer exists so why should NATO.

danwild6
11-02-2007, 11:38 PM
HAHAHA. It is not our job to take care of the world. We are NOT world police. We cant even take care of ourselves. Maybe thats why we joined the NAU...oh wait, nope thats to dissolve our soveriegnty.

Yeah one of the main problems with America's foreign commitments is that they draw so much time and resources that the people here at home suffer. Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina and then compare that to our response to the 2004 East Asian tsunami or the 2005 Central Asian earthquake.

danwild6
11-02-2007, 11:42 PM
if ron paul was in charge of the united states, the united states wouldn't be in NATO

what is NATO without the US?

if there wasn't such thing as NATO and if we sat on our hands during the cold war pretty much all of asia and europe would be satellite states to the soviet union

Yeah but the cold war ended man its over move on. We don't need to be subsidizing European economies with hard earned Yankee greenbacks.

danwild6
11-02-2007, 11:45 PM
Ummm you haven't even read anything I've said

The world without U.S. influences = field day for the communist to exert control

You are retarded. Communism is a died ideology. Its over man. We won the cold war.

danwild6
11-02-2007, 11:51 PM
yeah, because they get backing from the United States.......... so imgaine them without US backing (thanks to ron paul)


Israel is actually not that dependent on America economically and certainly not militarily.



so if the chinese realize they could walk all over taiwan... where would they stop?

Whats after Taiwan....empty ocean. Man just cause Chinese and Japanese kinda look alike doesn't mean we would have to fight the Pacific war over again(we'd win anyways).