Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

The Global Map, 2017

Anonymous908 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 4:10 PM
If you take a step back, you will see an increase in US enemies since our War on Terror began. It is not the fault of our honorable and capable military, but our leaders who see the globe as a chess board for them to play on. Terrorism has undoubtedly become a greater threat since we increased our meddling in the middle east. See a pattern? If we simply used our military to defend the homeland we would not have these problems.
In response to:

The Irrelevant President

Anonymous908 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 4:05 PM
No comment on the weapons and support that we have secretly funneled into Ukraine to encourage an uprising (coup) for regime change? How many Americans even know that the United States engineered the takeover of a democratically elected leadership in Ukraine. Actually, it is the United States who is meddling in Russia's backyard.
Some comments on your post... (This is coming from a Conservative who has never voted for Obama) 1.) Good, we should have gotten out of Iraq sooner. 2.) How did he ignore the Ayatollahs? (you didn't elaborate) 3.) We continue to give Israel billions in aid, this has not been decreased even a smidgeon. 4.) I agree here. 5.) The red line was based on faulty evidence anyway. There should not have been a red line in the first place. ZERO evidence has ever been shown that proves Assad was behind the chemical weapons. Notice the way the government has stopped talking about this. That's because it never happened. The chemical weapons were used by the rebels. This was an opportunity for the media to lie us into a war we shouldn't be in. Now we switched sides and are join Assad in fighting extremists (go figure).
In response to:

The Jihadists' Eternal Plan

Anonymous908 Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:46 PM
Why is nobody smart enough to ask what is motivating them to expand and inflict damage on the West? We must understand the root cause. It is not just their religion. We got along fine with muslims in the world in the past. We were Bin Laden's ally for pete's sake when Russia was in Afganistan. We armed and supported Bin Laden in at that time. He had no problem with American's then. So their motivation to attack us now cannot be solely blamed on their religion. The only thing that has changed is a drastic increase in US meddling and military operations on their soil. THIS IS THE PRIMARY MOTIVATING FACTOR. It is easy for them to recruit the young and impressionable into their terrorist ranks when we march through their streets with guns. Historically, military occupation of a foreign country is the single greatest motivator for terrorist attacks of any kind.
WJF, you need to be booted from TownHall! It is clear you are not trying to debate, conversate, or anything. You are just trolling and hurling insults at Ron Paul and neglecting to follow up on responses.
Ron Paul won a plurality of delegates in Minnesota , Louisiana, Maine, and Iowa during the 2012 GOP primary. Tell me how 1-2% of voters accomplished this? Lets keep in mind that he accomplished that all while the mainstream media ridiculed him along the way. He got no help from the media, unlike his opponents.
Aren't you clever, WJF. Way to be relevant to the topic.
Sad thing is they don't always believe they are doing the right thing. Somewhere around 40% of returning soldiers from Afghanistan coming home don't agree with the overall mission. That is no fault of our military, that is the fault of our government that uses our military like pawns on a chess board.
I'm pretty sure you have exaggerated both of their positions. McCain doesn't really want to us to settle every dispute in the world, despite the fact that he advocates military intervention on a regular basis. And Ron Paul has never said we should "Never" be involved in disputes in the world. I've been a fan of Ron Paul since 2007, read his books, listened to his interviews, and heard him speak. He has never advocated such a position. He believes is using our military to defend the United States, and that is it. Simple, straight forward as it should be. Ron Paul believes strongly in using our military if we are attacked or are facing an imminent threat. Don't call him an isolationist, he wants more communication and more trade with other countries. That is far from being an isolationist.
So many factually incorrect things in your post. For one, 9/11 was blowback from middle east intervention. Don't believe me? Osama Bin Laden proclaimed this himself after the attacks. Granted, the media didn't give this much attention because it goes against the false narrative that the terrorists attacked us because we are rich and free. Osama Bin Laden said very clearly that these attacks are a response to US military stationed on their holy ground and due to the harsh treatment of Iraqi citizens in the first gulf war. So 9/11 was not a result of isolationism; precisely the opposite is true. 9/11 is blowback from INTERVENTIONISM. Notice, I am not justifying 9/11 or blaming the United States for what the terrorists did. The terrorists hold all of the blame. But we did give them a reason to hate us through our interventionism. Secondly, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist not an isolationist. I blows my mind how people on this website still don't know the difference.
The GOP could easily win elections if it adopted a more Constitutional foreign policy. It is precisely the neocon foreign policy that scares away independents. McCain, Graham, Hannity - these people scare away needed voters without their 'war mongering' mentality.
Previous 21 - 30 Next