Posted on 12/13/2011 2:43:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
You must not have read my post.
Well thank you for your service. But what is your answer to fighting terrorism? Are you saying that your service was for nothing?
If you had fully read mine, then you would have seen the obvious sarcastic theme......
How is the War on Terror bogus? We responded to an attack on our soil on 911 and took it to Al Qaeda and have killed many of their leaders and soldiers. What is “bogus” about that? I’ve been right here for the last 60 years watching mostly Democrat presidents and Congresses decimate the military and ignore the Islamofascists when they declared war on US. I’ve seen the Democrats treat acts of terrorism on our own soil like isolated criminal incidents. I’ve seen presidents like Carter and Obama scrape and bow and apologize to international thugs who laugh behind their backs. I’ve seen mostly Democrat presidents not fight wars to win and make America look weak and without will.
The world will hate us anyway, for who we are, no matter what we do. Fighting communism was a noble pursuit - and Reagan helped defeat the Soviet Union by standing up to it and not rolling over.
So tell me, how would Ron Paul have responded to 911?
So what would he actually do to protect this country from radical Islamic terrorists?
Must be! With lots of Paulnuts I know, would be better giving em lithium or prozac.
Would like to see him as Fed Chairman in next Admin. Talk about having the money changers jumping off bridges..... RP Boss Fed would do it.
In fact; Ron Paul voted with most of the House to authorize use of force in retaliation against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
He pointed out in his book, however, that the more correct response would have been to issue letters of marque and reprisal, which would have been directed at the perpetrators. Doing so would have been the Constitutional response. In case you are not aware, letters such as those would have authorized third-party agents to kill or bring to justice the actual criminals.
What is bogus about the WOT is that it is not defined in scope, nor is the enemy clearly defined, and there is no clearly identified stage at which anybody could say "we won". The war on drugs has cost us lives and tons of money over the past 30 years, and the only measureable result is that drugs are now worth so much that the cartels can field small armies, bribe many in law enforcement and judges. The ones that can't be bought or simply killed. Meanwhile, we have seen an increase in drug traffic, rather than any decrease. I'm afraid that the "war on terror" will be pretty much the same thing.
If only the leaders and soldiers of Al Qaeda were the ones who are killed, no problem, however innocent civilians are also killed. Which serves mainly to recruit more soldiers.
The world hates us because we somehow see it our business to interfere with their internal affairs, asked or not.
We "defeated" the Soviet Union by forcing them to spend more than they could afford. Do you want that same fate to befall the U.S.?
I doubt if he would even take the job, but if he did, it would be to sign all the pink slips and lock the door.
I'm a military veteran with years of service. Does that give you a clue? How bout you madmom?
Well thank you for your service. But what is your answer to fighting bla bla bla
Just what I suspected.
Another bucket mouth beating the wars drums, who's never served a single GD day of their own lives. Don't bother thanking me. I don't need a condescending pat on the back from you.
People like you got freaking nerve to question the patriotism of those that have actually given *years* of their lives serving, popping off like you're some kind of pro-big war supporter hero. Disgusting!
Your the same type who thinks it's perfectly OK to have a strategy of insane endless wars lasting *decades*, playing world cop, costing trillions, putting the entire country at risk, all while at the same time serving up donuts for your compassionate wars.
No doubt you're one of those who think we're going to turn Muslims into Walmart shopping good Christians. Not going to happen Betty!
But what is your answer to fighting terrorism?
Turn your phony neocon attention to door #127.
Is that too anti-war for ya Betty?
Yes. Obama's numbers are that bad, especially after his coming out as a full-throttle America-hating socialist party in Osawattomie. The only Republican in the race I think is a definite fail against Obama is Ron Paul.
Sure, but it would’ve been some light-hearted relief :-)
I believe that -- and if you served in the 1960's, there were many there because they had to be because they were drafted -- something that doesn't figure today.
who has more financial support from the active duty military than all the other Repub candidates combined.
Paulbots are well known for spamming of internet and straw polls. They are just as capable of putting any employer on their donation. Obama's supporters do the same thing. As you know he comes in second place.
Yes, some young tech savvy Paul supporters have been known to spam polls. And I agree that military people seldom have $$$ to spare to contribute much to campaigns, but falsifying those contribution forms is a Federal offense -- and I don't believe for a second that mass numbers of Paul supporters have done that -- not risking jail.
Have no idea where you came up with some "average $500 figure for military donations", because I have never seen that anywhere. Far more likely is that those dollar figures belie a lot of actual military support in $10, $20 and $50 contributions
You can be in as much denial as you want, but it's hard to ignore guys like these or the volume of "Veterans for Ron Paul" groups on youtube, the internet and on Facebook.
What is so hard to understand about the idea that soldiers would want a foreign policy that is consistent to the US Constitution that they swear their lives to, that says they go to war only when the country is behind them via a Declaration of War, they fight to win and then they come home? They are soldiers, not policemen or social workers -- and we are wimping out our military trying to make them into what they are not for the benefit of other countries, not our own.
My Vietnam Vet husband said that he would have done anything for a US policy back then that would have allowed us to fight and win that war, instead of being stuck in a holding war that was insane and schizophrenic in its prosecution from the time he got there -- and that won the US little and lost us so much.
I forgot to include my own personal opinion on fighting the islamist terrorists.Why can't we have Congress declare war, name the country, and turn our military loose to win it?
Personally, I don't see any problem with wiping some middle-eastern hell-hole off the map, hoist "Old Glory", and keep all the oil for ourselves.
You Ron Paul bashers out there might want to book-mark this post for future reference.
“The actual criminals...” This makes it sound like if we find the one or two people who actually plotted the attack, that that would take care of the problem. That is delusional. In fact, the problems is the insane Islamofascists who want to kill us, not because we’re American, but because we’re not Islamofascists. The WOT is not defined in scope - cannot be - because the terrorists are fighting us on numerous fronts - they are amorphous, so we have to fight them as and where we need to. It seems to me that we have done a lot to put a dent in Al Qaeda, having killed many of their leaders, including Osama bin Laden. Yes, innocent citizens are killed, unfortunately - that’s war. You act as if they are going to simply stop bothering us if we “mind our own business.” We were minding our own business on 911 and look where it got us. Should we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely? No, but we also shouldnt have to fight a war with one hand tied behind our back and read a terrorist his nonexistent Miranda “rights.” My beef with you Ron Paul people is that you blame the US, just like the Democrats - in that respect you’re no different.
You’re right, Designer. I forgot to take into account Paul’s divinity among pot-heads, commies and isolationalists.
Ron Paul is a poor representation of what the Libertarian party stood for at a previous time. The man has no concept of private property and the duty of libertarianism to defend that property.
Here we have muslim fascists attacking America on 9-11 and this turd blames America.
I was deeply involved in the Libertarian Party back in the 1990s and helped dissiminate and write the Libertarian party’s tenets on private property. Ron Paul has no idea of our basic libertarian principals we established in the 1990s. He’s a bloody clown and a traitor to libertarian principles.
Harry Brown understood libertarianism. Ron Paul doesn’t and never will.
Look “Conservatives” ...you want to have ANY hope of repealing ObamaCare....shuttering Education, Energy and EPA...your ONLY shot is Ron Paul. That’s it.
Gingrich is doin’ none of that. Perry is doin’ none of that. And Romney will expand them all and try to tell us otherwise...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.