Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Lessons from Paris

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 12, 2015 5:54 PM
Violent jihad correlates perfectly with Foreign military occupation of a region or country. History shows this time and time again. When a country is occupied for an extended period of time, violent retaliation, often in the form of terrorist attacks is likely to follow. For example, we use to be friends with Osama Bin Laden. His religion was the same then. He was perfectly fine working with our CIA. It wasn’t until we soon after ramped up our military involvement in the Muslim world that he and his evil followers took aim at us.
In response to:

Lessons from Paris

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 12, 2015 5:36 PM
Wrong. Ron Paul SUPPORTED and voted for Bush’s authorization to bring to justice those responsible for 9/11. Your attempt to make stuff up just failed.
He better read a lot. lol.
Reagan said himself That the very essence of conservatism is libertarianism. There you have it from Mr. Conservative himself. And given your definition of ‘Conservative’ can you name a single politician that meets that definition? I really doubt it.
Yes. Empire. We have military in almost 150 countries. I would bet my bottom dollar you could not name that many countries without looking at a map. I know that most of these are not there for the purpose of warfare but it does speak to how much we have covered the globe. Furthermore, we continue to conduct military operations (the combat kind) in several countries despite not having a declaration of war. Most Americans do not even know how many wars we are fighting right now (this speaks to how much war has become a mainstay of our society). Kids who are now entering college have never been alive at a time the United States wasn’t at war. These wars are also being fought on borrowed or printed money BECAUSE WE MAINTAIN AN EMPIRE BEYOND OUR MEANS. Tell me how it makes sense to borrow money from China so we can provide for the defense of Europe by blowing up bridges in Iraq and then paying to rebuild them. Sounds to me like a recipe for economic disaster.
he disagrees with is the ideology from Washington DC that thinks we can police the world. This approach does not make us safer, it puts a target on our head. As to your example of pulling out of Iraq and the mess this created. Creating a power vacuum is the inevitable outcome if we destroy the ruling power in that region. We could stay another 10 years longer and still face the same thing when we pull out. The whole middle east region is a giant cluster of warring people groups. This is not going to change when we leave. Furthermore, our prolonged presence becomes the very thing people fight against. It is great that our military is honorable, does good in the world, and even does good things while stationed in places like Iraq. But we will never have peace as long as we are there because it is out military presence on their land that is the chief recruitment tool of the jihadists. Take away their recruitment tool and they lose the ability to recruit large numbers of impressionable young people.
He has never said such a thing. Why do you put words in his mouth?
In response to:

The First Tea Party President?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 02, 2015 4:11 PM
A Rand Paul presidency would at least do a lot to disrupt some of the troubling trends our nation has been seeing. His respect for the Constitution is obvious, especially when compared to others in DC. He may be the very best candidate of 2016 when it comes to limiting government spending. I believe he takes this more seriously than any other potential candidates. Further more his stances against QE of the Fed, and against military adventurism would do the country well. It is not economically feasible, nor strategically wise to wage several wars at once (something that some of our leaders seem intent on doing – John McCain would have us in Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, North Korea, Ukraine).
In response to:

Is War in the Cards for 2015?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 02, 2015 4:01 PM
false
In response to:

Is War in the Cards for 2015?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 02, 2015 11:33 AM
"History has tod ushat appenswhen countries ignore Islmic fores...we were no killng them before the Kobar Towers,9/11 or the Cole..but got attacked just the same." Not exactly correct. The 9/11 attacks were conducted specifically in response to the large number of civilian deaths in Iraq following the first gulf war (primarily due to destroyed infrastructure such as not having clean water) and because of the US military build up on their homeland. Please don’t misunderstand me, I do not point this out to in any way justify the 9/11 attacks. But it is not as if 9/11 was unprovoked. Bin Laden explained very explicitly the reason for the attacks, we just don’t talk about it very much.
In response to:

Bush, Romney, Cruz, Paul, Perry or ?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Dec 29, 2014 5:57 PM
CNN does not fear Perry. Where are you getting this?
Previous 11 - 20 Next