A Sea Of Red

I know quite a few FlameFans support Ron Paul, so just a question to throw out. Why did Ron Paul say this? (from the transcript of last night's debate:)

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONEY!

But then again we all know Iran and their nutty president are just peace loving members of the world community!

YEAH, SO LETS KILL THEM ALL AND THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND ALL GO BUY GUNS AND KILL ALL THE CRIMINALS AND NOT LET ANYONE SMOKE POT OR HAVE AN ABORTION...


Sorry, I felt like having stereotype-tourettes.


If I got into this discussion it would cause an uproar.

So I will abstain.

however, if Scorcho will jump into this, i might follow.

Who is saying let's go kill them all?

jcmanson wrote:Who is saying let's go kill them all?

Haha. I was being overly-dramatic by making lots of right-wing stereotypes.

whmatthews wrote:I know quite a few FlameFans support Ron Paul, so just a question to throw out. Why did Ron Paul say this? (from the transcript of last night's debate:)

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous.

He said it because it's true. Iran would never attack the United States directly, especially now that they're laying claim to the early stages of nuclear technology.

I think Ahmadinejad is delusional about his place in the hierarchy of power. I think Iran poses a danger to their immediate neighbors. I think they sponsor terrorism and fund Iraqi insurgents. I think that they are generally up to no good. I don't think any of those things make it likely that they will attack the United States. They're just stirring up things at home. Ahmadinejad knows what equals good politics with his constituents, and he's playing to them.

Are you seriously afraid of Iran attacking us here?

P.S.

Don't wait up for a response from me tonight. I just took some Benadryl so I'm off to dream about things much more pleasant than you ladies here.

He didn't say that it's crazy that they do pose a threat, he said it's crazy that they could pose a threat. He's saying that it's preposterous to think Iran could ever pose a threat. Am I afraid they'll attack? No. I'd hope we get them before they get us. But anyone with nuclear capabilities who sponsor terrorism (Terrorists have attacked, and yes I'm afraid they could attack again) Iran has paraded Shahab-3 missiles covered with banners proclaiming "We will crush America under our feet." Oh, and they are good buddies with China, Russia and North Korea. I'd already consider them a threat, and if and when they do attack Israel, I'd pray that we help them out.

whmatthews wrote:He didn't say that it's crazy that they do pose a threat, he said it's crazy that they could pose a threat.

Really, I think it just is a matter of how you interpret the statement since he used the word "imminent". I interpret that to mean right now, not down the road, but he also said "could" which does make it murky. Without hearing it for myself or in context, I'll stick with my interpretation.

whmatthews wrote:Am I afraid they'll attack? No. I'd hope we get them before they get us.

And that is why I support Ron Paul. Pre-emptive strikes are illegal, unconstitutional and immoral. They also have have a solid history of not working out so well for us.

whmatthews wrote:(Terrorists have attacked, and yes I'm afraid they could attack again)

Sorry, but I'm not afraid. They might attack again. They might even kill some people. More people will die of a heart attack this year than of terrorism on U.S. soil. They don't scare me. Although, if we keep it up with the pre-emptive strikes, invasions, military occupations and base constructions in foreign nations, it certainly is more likely.

whmatthews wrote:Iran has paraded Shahab-3 missiles covered with banners proclaiming "We will crush America under our feet."

That's why we have built and successfully tested the missile defense shield system. Let them try. MAD isn't just a funny magazine. However, again, I believe it to just be political posturing for folks in Iran.

whmatthews wrote:Oh, and they are good buddies with China, Russia and North Korea. I'd already consider them a threat, and if and when they do attack Israel, I'd pray that we help them out.

We prop up China's economy. They're not going to attack us. Russia has an inferiority complex, but they're all too familiar with the aforementioned MAD. North Korea is the only nation out of the lot that I'd actually fear...if they weren't starving to death. Kim Jong Il is a certifiable nut case, but we've been sitting directly to his South for a long time. If he was going to attack us or provoke us into an attack, he could have done it a long time ago.

Now I'm really going to bed.

why is everyone ignoring the obvious here? Iran doesn't pose a threat to launch a missle all the way over here BUT they are, I believe, VERY likely to start an extremley serious situation with israel, just as N. Korea and jung ill pose a threat to japan and s.korea.
Unless some of you "christians" on here don't believe that defending israel is a noble cause, israel and america's security are mutually inclusive. Ron Paul needs to do himself a favor and join the libertarian ticket, which is more suiting to his viewpoints. He ran under that designation about 20 years ago, and he could very well end up being the 2008 version of ross perot (which will actually probably result in hillary getting the office without 50% of the vote.)
Today's is far to dangerous to err on the side of assuming that islamo-facisits are simply going to talk the talk.
I'm not saying we should flat out invade Iran,( I think if things escelate, an overnight tactical air strike on the nuke facilities would be the best method,) but to blow them off as simply trash talkers is flat-out irresponsible when we know the history of sponsored terrorism within that country and the obvious desire of muslim extremists to whipe israel off the map. Radical Islam wants to rule that entire region, regardless of what country the faction is from-jordan,syria,iran-even saudi arabia. I view amnidenijad (spelling) as more of a spokesperson for radical islam than the actual nation of iran. The bottom line is, regardless of which party your allegiance is with, you can't write-off this guy's threats as mere rhetoric. Ok, I have to head off to work now.

Ron Paul is many things....but Ross Perot he is not

somethingbrewing wrote:Ron Paul is many things....but Ross Perot he is not

you're right, at least ross perot was sane enough not to say , like Ron Paul did, that we should get rid of the CIA and the dept. of education. While the second one is somewhat rational, how the #$@% are we supposed to defense ourselves if you don't even believe in intelligence surveilence? heck, even Bill MAHER! said that he would "feel pretty naked without the CIA" paul's thinking is to extreme to every be taken seriously enough for his current pinnacle status of 0-5%.

hoopsmalone wrote:

somethingbrewing wrote:Ron Paul is many things....but Ross Perot he is not

you're right, at least ross perot was sane enough not to say , like Ron Paul did, that we should get rid of the CIA and the dept. of education. While the second one is somewhat rational, how the #$@% are we supposed to defense ourselves if you don't even believe in intelligence surveilence? heck, even Bill MAHER! said that he would "feel pretty naked without the CIA" paul's thinking is to extreme to every be taken seriously enough for his current pinnacle status of 0-5%.

Actually, the CIA is only one of something like 20 intelligence services that the US operates and, thanks to it being largely built as a function of the Cold War, today it is also one of the least effective. I don't have a problem with the CIA specifically but we wouldn't exactly be hanging out in the breeze if it were gone.

That's what the NSA is for.

You mean the CIA that has provided insufficient information, and even incorrect information, that is leaked to the media anyways, during every war since it has been in operation?

Quoted from the wikipedia entry about the CIA... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_In ... nce_Agency

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest mistakes was the training, arming, supplying and supporting of the Mujahedeen (Islamist fighters) in Afghanistan[citation needed], initiated under Carter and greatly expanded under Reagan, as American proxy soldiers against the Marxist regime and later the Soviet intervention. Part of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later became the core cadre of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Islamist organization.[42] Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter, has discussed U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan in several magazines.[43] [44]

That's the sort of stuff our CIA does.

Plus, All spying does is tick people off, anyways.

I mean, watchin newspapers and tv from another country to see what's going on is pretty fair game.

But anything beyond that is just asking for a spy to get erronous information, either purposefully or on accident, or to give information to the wrong person, or to just make us look bad.

And it appears the CIA is going to start taking to the good ole' US of A if we keep electing people who support the Patriot Crap, errrr, Act.

Because My phone call to the pizza guy should be monitored because i might kidnap him and use him for a terrorist plot.

And our churches should be monitored because of all the hate we preach, in preparing for an uprising.

We aren't trying to be ignorant, but theres a difference between being informed and being overactive and paranoid.

ToTheLeft wrote:You mean the CIA that has provided insufficient information, and even incorrect information, that is leaked to the media anyways, during every war since it has been in operation?

Quoted from the wikipedia entry about the CIA... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_In ... nce_Agency

Often cited as one of the American intelligence community's biggest mistakes was the training, arming, supplying and supporting of the Mujahedeen (Islamist fighters) in Afghanistan[citation needed], initiated under Carter and greatly expanded under Reagan, as American proxy soldiers against the Marxist regime and later the Soviet intervention. Part of the Mujahedeen trained by the CIA later became the core cadre of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda Islamist organization.[42] Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter, has discussed U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan in several magazines.[43] [44]

That's the sort of stuff our CIA does.

Plus, All spying does is tick people off, anyways.

I mean, watchin newspapers and tv from another country to see what's going on is pretty fair game.

But anything beyond that is just asking for a spy to get erronous information, either purposefully or on accident, or to give information to the wrong person, or to just make us look bad.

And it appears the CIA is going to start taking to the good ole' US of A if we keep electing people who support the Patriot Crap, errrr, Act.

Because My phone call to the pizza guy should be monitored because i might kidnap him and use him for a terrorist plot.

And our churches should be monitored because of all the hate we preach, in preparing for an uprising.

We aren't trying to be ignorant, but theres a difference between being informed and being overactive and paranoid.

I'm not sure which side you're trying to argue here. Either way, you're not helping.

How so?

I think that the CIA is nest to useless, and often times a negative, and I threw in a jab at the Patriot act to boot.

you guys do love your Wikki

PAmedic wrote:you guys do love your Wikki

Well you know what Michael Scott says...

And if you don't...

Michael Scott: Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.

ToTheLeft wrote:How so?

I think that the CIA is nest to useless, and often times a negative, and I threw in a jab at the Patriot act to boot.

OK, first and foremost, the CIA was absolutely necessary during the Cold War and I have no problem with what they did in Afghanistan with the mujahadeen. The mujahadeen drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan and they likely would not have been able to do that without our help. The problem arose with them not when we trained them but when we abandoned Afghanistan the minute that the Soviets did. So, thank you, random Wikipedia editor.

Secondly, spying is an absolute necessity of foreign policy. Even your friends lie to you. If you don't know what's going on in the world how do you expect to properly respond to what happens in it?

And, reading the newspaper? Are you kidding? That's the absolute best way to get information that's completely inaccurate and/or incomplete especially in countries lacking a free press, which by the way, is about half of them. This is exactly why we need spies in the first place.

After that you just launched into the tired blather of every other conspiracy theorist/ TBN viewer. I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act b/c I think it can too easily be abused but I can see where parts of it are useful. However, to assume and/or believe that the government is listening in on you or monitoring the sermons in your church, well, that's what you get for watching too many Will Smith movies. Personally, I'm glad that we pay people in this country to be paranoid so that I don't have to be.


This is why you're a freshman.

I'm a freshman because I have convictions?

Because I'm not a freshman based on status. That would technically make me a senior

Seriously tho, they have screwed up soooo much.

If we didn't tick people off, we wouldn't need to be worried about them plotting against us.

hoopsmalone wrote:why is everyone ignoring the obvious here? Iran doesn't pose a threat to launch a missle all the way over here BUT they are, I believe, VERY likely to start an extremley serious situation with israel, just as N. Korea and jung ill pose a threat to japan and s.korea. Unless some of you "christians" on here don't believe that defending israel is a noble cause, israel and america's security are mutually inclusive.

That last sentence is so poorly constructed that I can't read it. I do believe that defending Israel is a noble cause that we're obligated to based on our involvement with the last real war we were in. However, while their security is related to ours, it is not equivalent. No one is saying we wouldn't help Israel. Serious threats to Israel are nothing new. But as an actual threat to the physical United States? Come on. That's what we were talking about.

hoopsmalone wrote:Ron Paul needs to do himself a favor and join the libertarian ticket, which is more suiting to his viewpoints.

Or maybe the Republican party can remember what their economic philosophies used to be so that many of us who would otherwise support them won't have to be splintered off into a third party? Please don't tell me you actually defend the ridiculous and irresponsible spending of the current administration.

hoopsmalone wrote:He ran under that designation about 20 years ago, and he could very well end up being the 2008 version of ross perot (which will actually probably result in hillary getting the office without 50% of the vote.)

If Hillary (or any other Dem) wins, it is only the fault of the Republican party. If I vote for Ron Paul it is because the Republican party has left me disenfranchised. "But Hillary will win!" is no longer a good enough excuse for me to vote for the GOP. I've learned my lesson now and I'm not compromising what I believe in out of fear.

hoopsmalone wrote:Today's is far to dangerous to err on the side of assuming that islamo-facisits are simply going to talk the talk.

Thanks for the heads up, Savage.

hoopsmalone wrote:I'm not saying we should flat out invade Iran,( I think if things escelate, an overnight tactical air strike on the nuke facilities would be the best method,) but to blow them off as simply trash talkers is flat-out irresponsible when we know the history of sponsored terrorism within that country and the obvious desire of muslim extremists to whipe israel off the map.

We weren't talking about Israel. We were talking about the physical security of the United States. Do you think a military strike of any kind is going to change the desire of muslims to see the demise of Israel? Do you think us expanding military efforts in the middle east is the answer to making the terrorist threat go away?

hoopsmalone wrote:Radical Islam wants to rule that entire region, regardless of what country the faction is from-jordan,syria,iran-even saudi arabia.

In case you haven't noticed, radical Islam already rules that entire region. If the people wanted to revolt, they obviously don't have any shortage of weapons, bombs or guerilla warfare knowledge. So far the only attacks they have decided to engage in have been on the foreign military forces that are occupying parts of their nations. You do know that they don't actually hate freedom, right?

Listen, I understand that some people think Ron Paul's foreign policy is too extreme. Could be. But at least he has a coherent foreign policy. My support for him is (mainly) because of his understanding of our economy. The current administration has spent more money than any administration before them. We are deeper in debt as a nation than ever before. A lot of that debt is to China. The dollar is weakening by the day. Government is getting bigger while liberty and justice are dwindling. It's time to shrink the government and give freedom back to the people. If that comes in the form of consolidating our intelligence agencies, I'm fine with that. (Based on their refusals to cooperate, it actually sounds like a great idea to me.) It's time to overhaul the tax code. It's time to give the dollar real value again. It's time to pay attention to what's going IN America. We need to bring our focus back home for a while. All of this foreign involvement is coming at a price, and it's going to catch up to us soon.

RagingTireFire wrote: Secondly, spying is an absolute necessity of foreign policy. Even your friends lie to you. If you don't know what's going on in the world how do you expect to properly respond to what happens in it?

By objectively looking at what happens and responding to it. Spying is about as consistent as our defense's tackling. (hahah I made a funny)

Seriously tho, my ideals are based on what I think should have happened for a long time now.

At this point, I concede, we need to be spying, because we have ticked so many countries off, we need to be sure we aren't about to be ripped a new one.

But it shouldn't have to be that way at all.

ToTheLeft wrote:I'm a freshman because I have convictions?

I'm not sure what convictions you're referring to in this thread but you're a freshman b/c you're naive.

If we didn't tick people off, we wouldn't need to be worried about them plotting against us.

This is why you're still a freshman.

El Scorcho wrote:All of this foreign involvement is coming at a price, and it's going to catch up to us soon.

Ding ding ding.

RagingTireFire wrote:

ToTheLeft wrote:I'm a freshman because I have convictions?

I'm not sure what convictions you're referring to in this thread but you're a freshman b/c you're naive.

If we didn't tick people off, we wouldn't need to be worried about them plotting against us.

This is why you're still a freshman.

NO!

Thats not naive at all.

We meddle where we shouldn't meddle, get involved where we shouldn't get involved.

We have this "Holocaust" complex about trying to take down anyone or anything that looks or smells like Hitler.

When we need to stop trying to police the world and fix our junk back at home.