By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ron Paul did something amazing last night

bouzane said:
MrBubbles said:

anyone with knowledge of iran, knows they are dangerous. they have a militant religiously fanatical government, have a number of armed groups under their direct control around the region and are part of successful terrorist attacks as far away from iran as argentina.


That may be true but America's current war debt will drag the entire nation down and starting another war will shorten the nation's reign as a super power. Warmongering is simply a race to oblivion. The Soviet Union collapsed not because their military was inadequate, but because they allocated far too many resources to war. The same thing is happening to America because those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

the war has already been going for some time.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
MrBubbles said:
bouzane said:
MrBubbles said:

anyone with knowledge of iran, knows they are dangerous. they have a militant religiously fanatical government, have a number of armed groups under their direct control around the region and are part of successful terrorist attacks as far away from iran as argentina.


That may be true but America's current war debt will drag the entire nation down and starting another war will shorten the nation's reign as a super power. Warmongering is simply a race to oblivion. The Soviet Union collapsed not because their military was inadequate, but because they allocated far too many resources to war. The same thing is happening to America because those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

the war has already been going for some time.

But you would agree that war is destroying us financially, right?  Many independents want no part of any war with any country in the middle east or any where else for that matter.  Most independents want us to mind our own business.  If Iran invades a foreign country, then war it is, but Iran won't do that. 



Kasz216 said:

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

How do you come to this conclusion?

I agree than when Obama talks publically about Iran and a possible war on Iran, he sounds pretty much the same as most republican candidates.

But my impression is that those words are mainly PR and that behind the curtain Obama is actually clearly against attacking Iran. For example, as far as I know, Obama's foreign policy is heavily influenced by america's geostrategical mastermind Brzezinski, and it is known that Brzezinski is strictly against attacking Iran, going as far as suggesting the USA should shoot down israeli warplanes if they were about to attack Iran.



Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.



Well do not assume Obama is a War Hawk.

What Obama is doing with calling in drone strikes and such is using the vastly increased Presidential Powers after 9/11 when it comes to National Security and War.

I think he likes that part of the job lol...



Around the Network
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.

I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran.  Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.



ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

How do you come to this conclusion?

I agree than when Obama talks publically about Iran and a possible war on Iran, he sounds pretty much the same as most republican candidates.

But my impression is that those words are mainly PR and that behind the curtain Obama is actually clearly against attacking Iran. For example, as far as I know, Obama's foreign policy is heavily influenced by america's geostrategical mastermind Brzezinski, and it is known that Brzezinski is strictly against attacking Iran, going as far as suggesting the USA should shoot down israeli warplanes if they were about to attack Iran.

I base it on his great expansion to the "Global War on Terror". 

I mean, he took the occasional breaching of Pakistan's soverinty and turned it into a hobby.

I mean look at this.  It's ridiculious

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#2010


That it took Pakistan so long to publicly blow up at us is freaking amazing.

 

Obama clearly ain't afraid to bomb a country if something is going on within the country he doesn't like... let ALONE bomb a country ACTIVLY doing something we don't like.

 

I think this gets GREATLY understated because republicans are trying to convince their base that Obama isn't doing enough on the war on terror, when the reality is... he's GREATLY expanded what bush was doing.

 

To bring it back to Ron Paul.  He and Dennis Kusnich actually tried last year to get a vote to withrdaw from Pakistan.

I wonder if Dennis! would consider running as Vice President if Paul ran as an Independent.

Probably not, but it'd be cool since he seems likely to lose his district and doesn't want to fight a fellow Democrat for it.   (Which is a shame, I really like Dennis Kusnich.  Voted for him more then once.)

He's one of maybe.... 3 politicains who tells it how he see's it most of the time.  For example, suggesting Obama should be put on trial for an impeachment after invading Libya... one of the few people who stayed true to the "Bush should be impeached" point of view.

He and Paul would balance each other out nicely on some of the issues.



Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.

I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran.  Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.


I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.



I agree with what he says, because I'm exactly the type of person he's talking about



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't see why Iran would be a big reason.

Obama seems like he's just as willing to go to war vs Iran as any republican candidate is.

Also, attacking Iran isn't quite as unpopular as you'd think.

"However, asked if the U.S. should take military action if sanctions against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons program proved to be unsuccessful, 50 percent voted in favor of using military force."

All the Republican candidates (apart from Paul) are saying that America should have attacked Iran over the drone which they lost while spying on them.

Doesn't matter if it's popular, invading Iran would be rather stupid, especially when there is a decent chance the pro-democracy movement in Iran could take over when the next election is rigged.

I never said it'd be smart to invade Iran.  Or even go to war with Iran, which isn't the same thing as invading it.


I was just saying that Obama (who hasn't gone to war with Iran over the drone) is less of a warmonger than most of the Republican field who say that he should have.

You have to remember those Republicans who have been calling more more aggressive actions are just doing that because they are either on the campaign trail or not in power or both and the consequences of what they are saying is small. As President they would have a lot of options to weigh up before committing to any actions and must accept any potential consequences from the resulting fallout. And as Kaz has correctly pointed out Obama has sharply escalated the 'war on terror'.  Bush Jr may have had suspects kidnapped and interrogated using 'enhanced' interrogation techniques (i.e torture) but Obama doesn't even bother with that. He'd just not take any chances and send it in a drone strike which has killed way more civilians than suspected millitants.