You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy - Page 6
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-20-2011, 08:13 PM   #51
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
50% of our population has always had below-average intelligence but we haven't always been a bunch of simpering, unprincipled, ignorant idiots.
....and simpering...I actually had to look that word up. I never heard/seen it used. Guess that puts me in that lower 50%
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 08:23 PM   #52
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
....and simpering...I actually had to look that word up. I never heard/seen it used. Guess that puts me in that lower 50%
Looking up and learning that word kicked you to the upper 50%.

But...now your taxes go up to the next bracket. Sorry.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 08:37 PM   #53
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigByrd47119 View Post
Ok, so lets look at this from another angle. Its 2003 and we all "know" Iraq has nuclear weapons. Why did we attack? They weren't capable of actually hitting the U.S. and only posed a real threat to Europe and Israel. I will revert to my "let Israel handle themselves without U.S. intervention" argument to suggest why the war was irrelevant to begin with.

This is the same exact thing that is going on with Iran. Even if they do have nuclear weapons, we would destabilize the country by attacking them unprovoked instead of allowing Israel to deal with it? What happens if we find out they don't have nuclear weapons like we did with Iraq?

The failure on the part of the Bush administration wasn't getting bad intel, it was refusing to admit they were wrong when it became so obvious that they were.
Well I'm not going to go into a great debate on this. I don't think you would be convinced of anything anyway.

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 by Bush was made and justified because of the US agreeing to stop pounding the crap out of Saddam/Iraq after Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in 1990 if Saddam agreed to certain UN resolutions. For 13 years Saddam snubbed those very resolutions he had agreed to. Those resolutions main features were no-fly zones and allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq. After 9/11, Bush said 'screw it', I'm tired of these Middle East dinks and I'm going after Saddam and Iraq based on violations of the UN resolutions.

Saddam acted guilty by continually kicking UN weapons inspectors out during those 13 yrs. He did his best to make a mockery out of the US and the agreement he signed to stop us from pummeling him in 1990. And he got exactly what he deserved in my opinion.

...and I'm adding this. Saddam having nukes/WMDs or no WMDs wasn't even needed to go after him in 2003. Bush brought that up to convince everyone domestically and internationally for solid support. And it was based on CIA intel. It was only icing on the cake anyway, but really wasn't needed to justify the invasion.
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.

Last edited by Sonic82; 12-20-2011 at 10:04 PM.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 10:06 PM   #54
+ TRES VERBO DICTUM +
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,334
Liked 1735 Times on 897 Posts
Likes Given: 1338

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
Saddam having nukes or no nukes wasn't even needed to go after him in 2003. Bush brought that up to convince everyone domestically and internationally for solid support. And it was based on CIA intel. It was only icing on the cake anyway, but really wasn't needed to justify the invasion.
It’s easy to justify all kinds of stuff if your ass isn’t on the line.
__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 10:13 PM   #55
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincine View Post
It’s easy to justify all kinds of stuff if your ass isn’t on the line.
WTF...Oh, I see... Prime Ministers, Presidents and Heads of State should only make decisions regarding wars if their own ass is on the line.
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 11:34 PM   #56
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
Well I'm not going to go into a great debate on this. I don't think you would be convinced of anything anyway.

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 by Bush was made and justified because of the US agreeing to stop pounding the crap out of Saddam/Iraq after Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in 1990 if Saddam agreed to certain UN resolutions. For 13 years Saddam snubbed those very resolutions he had agreed to. Those resolutions main features were no-fly zones and allowing weapons inspectors in Iraq. After 9/11, Bush said 'screw it', I'm tired of these Middle East dinks and I'm going after Saddam and Iraq based on violations of the UN resolutions.

Saddam acted guilty by continually kicking UN weapons inspectors out during those 13 yrs. He did his best to make a mockery out of the US and the agreement he signed to stop us from pummeling him in 1990. And he got exactly what he deserved in my opinion.

...and I'm adding this. Saddam having nukes/WMDs or no WMDs wasn't even needed to go after him in 2003. Bush brought that up to convince everyone domestically and internationally for solid support. And it was based on CIA intel. It was only icing on the cake anyway, but really wasn't needed to justify the invasion.
So why not attack North Korea? I understand your point and its a good one, don't get me wrong. But why was that never brought up before (at least I never heard mention of it)? The argument for the war was always they have nukes and support terrorists...

Even if that was enough to go to war (I'm not sure I would agree), why didn't we attempt other means, like sitting down both Bush and Saddam to have a damned conversation? It just seems like the last resort became option B to me...and I don't think that it can justify the deaths of so many Americans, Iraqis, other international troops, or the outrageous cost to do all of this, just because Saddam thumbed his nose at us.

Imagine a kid in elementary school beating the **** out of a class mate (and then killing him) just because that class mate told him he would let him have his desert from lunch once every week and failed to do so.

As I understand it, there was no declaration of war which, once again in my opinion, is enough to suggest the war should not have happened. You want to go to war? Fine, but at least do it Constitutionally.
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 11:39 PM   #57
+ TRES VERBO DICTUM +
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,334
Liked 1735 Times on 897 Posts
Likes Given: 1338

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
WTF...Oh, I see... Prime Ministers, Presidents and Heads of State should only make decisions regarding wars if their own ass is on the line.
Civilian control of a powerful military is the exception, not the rule, historically speaking. Civilian control of the most powerful military the world has ever known is a HUGH freaking deal! We owe it to them not to be so cavalier with the gift of their lives.

In my humble opinion; the only people who have the right to make decisions about war are those who have skin in the game. The whole country decided to go to war in WWII. We all were in WWII whether we were in the military or not. If we weren’t in theater, we were bolting bomber parts together or growing our own vegies. And of course more than a few of us had family getting shot at. We had the right to make that decision.

With Iraq we had less than 3% of the population at risk. We’ve had TWO wars going on for TEN years and we barely noticed it. The biggest concern many of us had was what kind of flat TV to get. We could’ve have cared less whether why we were at war made any sense or not. Or at least we didn’t care enough to end the occupation sooner. Rumsfeld couldn’t even be bothered to read & sign his own condolence letters! He had a machine doing it. It made me want to vomit.

Leaders should only make decisions about war when it’s in ALL our names, Bush did it in his.
__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."

Last edited by Vincine; 12-20-2011 at 11:41 PM.
Vincine is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 11:56 PM   #58
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr View Post
i grew up in the 40s and 50s. There was a time when US public schools were among the best in the world.
Notably, the public schools were also good in the 60s and 70s. The American Teachers Union was formed in 1916 and had 45,000 members in 1960 and 400,000 members in 1970. So the schools were good when the union was strong. Since 1960 the ratio of teachers to union membership has stayed pretty constant.

Interestingly: top income tax rates were 91% in 1960. (In the 40's and 50's they ranged between 80 and 90%). I seem to remember we also sent a man to the moon in this period of time too. In the period of time that schools have 'gotten bad due to unions' top tax rates have gone from 91% down to 35%.

Are you sure that teacher's unions were the problem? Betting you are. After all:We are so good at processing facts contrary to our beliefs.

You get what you pay for folks. You want a great nation, you need to pay for it. Our parents and grandparents knew that and invested in this nation by paying incredibly high taxes. We just want to coast on it and to feel good about that, we've decided we need to declare being greedy (I get to keep my money!) as being patriotic.

WWII: The rich paid 91%.
War on terror: The rich took a tax cut to 35%.

Modern patriotism: real sacrifice NOT REQUIRED!
__________________
BarryNiven is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 12:11 AM   #59
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincine View Post
Civilian control of a powerful military is the exception, not the rule, historically speaking. Civilian control of the most powerful military the world has ever known is a HUGH freaking deal! We owe it to them not to be so cavalier with the gift of their lives.

In my humble opinion; the only people who have the right to make decisions about war are those who have skin in the game. The whole country decided to go to war in WWII. We all were in WWII whether we were in the military or not. If we weren’t in theater, we were bolting bomber parts together or growing our own vegies. And of course more than a few of us had family getting shot at. We had the right to make that decision.

With Iraq we had less than 3% of the population at risk. We’ve had TWO wars going on for TEN years and we barely noticed it. The biggest concern many of us had was what kind of flat TV to get. We could’ve have cared less whether why we were at war made any sense or not. Or at least we didn’t care enough to end the occupation sooner. Rumsfeld couldn’t even be bothered to read & sign his own condolence letters! He had a machine doing it. It made me want to vomit.

Leaders should only make decisions about war when it’s in ALL our names, Bush did it in his.
This is the purpose of gaining a declaration of war. Of course this doesn't work when the powers the be bypass that step entirely.
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 12:51 AM   #60
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Also just in, Dr. Paul just received a HUGE endorsement!

__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Ron Paul Foreign Policy BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 10 10-27-2011 08:21 PM
CAN you identify this foreign gun Razorback66 Curio & Relic Discussion 5 04-13-2011 08:57 PM
Obama Foreign Policy??? JTJ Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 03-25-2011 02:31 PM
Professor Schools "Morning Joe" on Obama's Failed Foreign Policy CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 02-15-2011 06:36 AM
Foreign ammo dealers bigfeet1 Ammunition & Reloading 8 07-03-2009 06:16 AM