Always remember one thing:
Republican Does Not Equal Conservative (Its more of an alliance than anything, though I will admit that now a days they are becoming more and more hand in hand. Its really the same with Democrats/Liberals)
Government Size vs. Social Concepts
If anything, call Ron Paul a Libertarian (Social) Republican (Government, Economic, etc)
Kasz216 said:
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
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. |
You're a Clevelander? Dennis sucks, sorry bro. I really do want Ron Paul to be the next President though, he's the only "no bullshit" guy running on either party. He tells it like it is, tells people what he stands for, and is basically the only politicial that doesn't swing his voted based on lobbying money and political peer pressure.
Ron Paul is amazing. I don't understand why the Christian right won't give him its full support.
He'd be a phenomenal President.
| Slimebeast said: Ron Paul is amazing. I don't understand why the Christian right won't give him its full support. He'd be a phenomenal President. |
Couldn't agree more. Though I would WANT him to come up with a legally binding agreement with other major power to respect the sovereignty of other nations and work within a UN framework. Last thing the the worrld wants is the power vacumn left behind by the US to be filled by the Russians or Chinese or any other.
Badassbab said:
Couldn't agree more. Though I would WANT him to come up with a legally binding agreement with other major power to respect the sovereignty of other nations and work within a UN framework. Last thing the the worrld wants is the power vacumn left behind by the US to be filled by the Russians or Chinese or any other. |
I agree with the first part of working with other major powers to respect the sovereignty. However, they better vastly improve the so called UN framework consider the UN doesn't do shit. The UN response to massacres, genocide, and food shortages is pretty pathetic. If you have trouble trying to feed the starving people when you only need logistics, food, and people to hand it out then you have a major problem. Sure some governments can be blamed for possibly preventing this to happen (Noth Korea, etc..) but most of the blame can be pointed at the UN. Basically, the only thing the UN can threaten is sanctions which they hardly follow through on and doesn't really matter if they do.
| Nik24 said: Not really as he is an isolationist (by definition), is against the government (which is the only institution which can actually guarantee or enforce human rights, see Human Rights Act which Paul is against), wants to cut all foreign aid and certainly is no fan of international organizations, treaties or trade agreements (see UN, NAFTA). |
I am sure there is a decent amount of foreign aid that can be cut which will not affect the poor/needy people of third world countries. Also, I would see no problem in leaving the UN (and kicking the UN out of New York) and NAFTA considering both have served little purpose for USA and the world. If anything NAFTA has created job losses for USA with manufacturers flocking to Mexico for cheap labor. Of course they could easily just go to China as well. USA intervention via aid, CIA involvement, etc... has proven to be highly ineffective way of spending money. Every country USA tries to get involved with usually ends up hating or disliking us. Might as well just say fuck it and become semi isolationist (not talking about trade but involvement with other nations). If they don't give a damn about me then I don't give a fuck about them should be our attitude. Wasting money we don't even have for nations that don't like us makes zero sense.
His problem is that he does not play politics well. He needs a movement of some sort
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| scat398 said: Last night at the Iowa debate, Ron Paul actually made the case for why he should be the next president of the United States and why he is the only republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama, and today on CNN he is getting hammered for it. Ron Paul actually explained to the people of this country that war against Iran is an insane concept. Michelle Bachman and the moderator's tried to call his position "dangerous". The "dangerous" position that Ron Paul of course is endorsing is the ridiculous concept that Iran should be allowed to govern itself without foreign countries trying to dictate and impose their will on them. Now I'm no fan of Iran or any of these freak show middle east countries, but jesus christ back off allready. Iran has zero interest in actually going to war with anyone, they would be anhilitated in days and they know this. But for some reason the neo-conservative wing of the republican party has decided that war with Iran is the only option. We have all seen the polls that show Obama beats both Gingrich and Romney in heads up fight (and let's face it Romney and Obama really aren't very different anyways). But the reason neither of them will be able to beat Obama is they won't be able to pull the independent voters from Obama, but Ron Paul can. Lot's of independent voters voted for Obama because he said we would end our wars and bring our troops home. And for a lot of independent voters Obama has failed to live up to their expectations, but if the only choice is Obama vs Gingrich or Romney they'll stick with Obama because at least he is kind of doing it (it's kind of half assed but something is better than nothing). We need to wake up as republicans. We are the party of individual freedoms and the party that believes that the true way to proseperity is the individual liberty of each and every man, because it is only when man has liberty that he is truly free. Republicans don't believe in government control over the basic tasks in our lives and we don't believe our government should be enforcing it's beliefs on other countries. You may not believe in everything Ron Paul stands for but atleast he will be their to defend your right to say it. |
Having been to Iran multiple times and having a pretty good understanding of the region I can say that no they would not be annihilated in days. If they decide to invade a foreign country then they would surely lose as their army is not structured to be an invading force. However if they were invaded by the United States I can gaurantee you the US would fail on the level of Vietnam if not even worste with massive causualties. There are so many factors that would make trying to invade Iran a total logistical nightmare.
Of course if the US wanted to they could use nukes but the destabilisation that would cause in the region would never make that a viable option.
The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers
Yes as we have seen the US would likley defeat the Iranian army due to a strong airforce.
It would be trying to secure the entire nation and if the people would help. That is what hurt us in Iraq.
On my phone so can't quote but the Iran being destroyed In days was about the idea of Iran invading another country (which as any sane person knows Iran has zero interest in doing). I'm just glad that we have candidate that is interested in keeping our country safe and our troops.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
