Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1621

How does one equate “moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants” and
needlessly using depleted uranium ammo, poisonning indiscriminately and ad eternam not only the local population, but our own troops as well ??

70% of all members of the first Gulf war are COMPLETELY DISABLED AND DYING every month from a disease not recognised by this administration, who continualy denies medical care to them.

This from a HUNDRED HOURS WAR.

It is well known new wars are used for testing new armaments; this country has a long history of experimenting on their own servicemen.

And they will keep doing it as long as JERKS like MIKEYALY swallow hook, line and sinker the “humanitarian and benevolent intentions” of our leaders.

1622

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
As far as what you’ve quoted me on you should consider the next line. I said that it should be the citizens, not the military overthrowing tyrants. [/quote]

My bad. Didn’t read the whole thing.

But while we’re at it, here a question that’s bugging me: Do you seriously believe the guys making weapons and their powerful lobby would allow the American military to stop fighting wars? What is your take on Eisenhower’s farewell speech?

1623

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
laughing Oh man, seriously, you’ve made my day.

mike

That’s not an intelligent reply, Mike. You made a statement which is pretty absurd considering all the money, weapons and support the US has given (and is still giving) to tyrants worldwide.

Here’s what you wrote:

And we have a moral obligation to be interfering with the internal affairs of other countries when we have the power to end genocide and put down tyrants.

That’s textbook neo-con talk.

Nope. I agree with the way Mikeyali is dealing with this guy. If jedddirect wants to jump in with the “coward” stuff right off the bat, he doesn’t deserve a serious response. [/quote]

Agreed. The guy is a joke.

1624

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Agreed. The guy is a joke.[/quote]

Nice avatar you have there.

1625

TV ads in new hampshire bought by Paul

http://www.operationnh.com/

Ron Paul blimp taking off soon !!

1626

Ron Paul dominating the Iowa debate:

1627

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:

Ron Paul blimp taking off soon !!

- YouTube [/quote]

Does anyone else find it ironic–or redundant–that the Ron Paul candidacy is to be carried aloft by a bag of inert gas, lighter than air?

1628

And isn’t it ironic that soon the bank notes our economy is based upon will be used as toilet paper ?

1629

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
And isn’t it ironic that soon the bank notes our economy is based upon will be used as toilet paper ?[/quote]

Witless.

You might have answered:

“He is the inflated candidate for our inflated currency,” or
“Gas bags at least display levity,” or…

…never mind.
We have on this forum so many humorless Paulistas, why bother with one more?

1630

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
As far as what you’ve quoted me on you should consider the next line. I said that it should be the citizens, not the military overthrowing tyrants.

My bad. Didn’t read the whole thing.

But while we’re at it, here a question that’s bugging me: Do you seriously believe the guys making weapons and their powerful lobby would allow the American military to stop fighting wars? What is your take on Eisenhower’s farewell speech? [/quote]

That’s really a tough one. The reason we have such a mighty military is because we have made war profitable for the defense industry. I want us to have this great military tech, yet you cannot have it if you aren’t making war profitable.

I don’t think that it is impossible though. You don’t necessarily have to make government waged war profitable. If the defense industry took a smaller cut and shifted its focus toward individuals there can still be a large profit. It would even make our military better. We spend billions on our air force. Do we really need the F-22? Hell no! We would still maintain air superiority if we were flying F-4’s. Very few potential enemies would be able to stand with us if we were stuck with F-4’s. That isn’t to say that I don’t want a powerful air force. Half the reason our ground troops do well is because of air superiority, and I trust that Russia and China have rival aircraft. So we shouldn’t stop the R&D to the air force. We need to spend less and direct that tech toward the infantryman.

You know where we need new tech? We need better comm gear desperately. The PRC-119’s we use are bullshit. Our squad radios are awful and have no range and poor reception. We need to be putting R&D into body armor. We need armor that is breathable and light. We need better weapons. We should not still be using M4’s. They are toy guns. We should be moving across the board to the 6.8mm rifles. How about putting money into testing caseless ammo?

All these things could still make the defense industry money IF IT WERE SOLD TO CIVILIANS. Perhaps if we didn’t have the American Gestapo throwing people in jail (such as the former Camobodian General who was busted by the ATF for trying to raise an army to go fight with the Hmong) then citizens could be going and spreading liberty and prosperity as free individuals instead of spending tax dollars subsidizing the defense industry by having the .gov wage war.

If we did this then we would still make advances in military tech. Then our citizens would be better served as freedom fighters across the globe, and our military would continue to be the best equipped in the world.

mike

1631

Stupid post from a stupid poster.

1632

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Stupid post from a stupid poster.[/quote]

This is kind of cool. I think I have my very own pet troll. It’s like the tickle me elmo of the holiday season. I wonder how much you’ll go for on ebay.

mike

1633

[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
orion wrote:
Cool, I think I`ll start with the 65% or so that did not vote for Allende.

And even if that wasn´t the case, since when is truth decided by a quorum?

They are better off, if they believe it or not is hardly relevant.

No sane citizen of a sovereign nation will ever accept foreign mingling in their leadership.

Not a fat chance in hell.

If you really sincerly believe this, then you’re just demonstrating the irrationality of your fantaisist beliefs.

( or maybe you just read too many of Mikeyaly’s posts, whichever)

[/quote]

And yet every nation has had to deal with this mingling, even the US.

That does not change that, even if this interference was “evil”, could have some positive outcomes, like a strong and stable economy.

1634

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…
You know where we need new tech? We need better comm gear desperately. The PRC-119’s we use are bullshit. Our squad radios are awful and have no range and poor reception. We need to be putting R&D into body armor. We need armor that is breathable and light. We need better weapons. We should not still be using M4’s. They are toy guns. We should be moving across the board to the 6.8mm rifles. How about putting money into testing caseless ammo?
…
mike[/quote]

Seems that radios simply makes little money. ANd replacing casualities is simply more cost effective then new high tech armor. (Although Personal BA seems like high tech to me?)

1635

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…[/quote]

I was at a flexible electronics seminar last week, where we learned that the American soldier carries more load than the Roman soldier used to have on his back. I found that quite scary, but it would explain T-Nation members obsession with “training the wheels” :wink:

Anyway, I am not as optimistic as you are. I don’t think the MIC is willing to cut its margins without a fight. It’s called greed, and is what corporations excel at. The US has nothing to worry about as far as the sovereignty of its soil is concerned. No country will attack a nuclear power militarily - and there is nobody remotely strong enough in your vicinity. Yes, terrorists will set off bombs to kill people, but that’s inevitable. It happens everywhere, and no amount of military might has a chance of ever curbing that. America is quite far ahead of the world in terms of military technology, and if we are to judge by recent history, it has nothing to fear from either Russia nor China. Those are the only countries that will continue to challenge the hegemon.

Bottomline, what you call the “defense industry” has not been doing any defense for a very very long time. It’s turned into an aggressive machine that’s hell-bent on murder and mayhem. The stakes are way too high for them to focus on protecting rather than attacking. The people have become mere spectators, the pilling credits and loans are keeping them in check, and the media are all too happy to feed them baloney. As long as you haven’t hit rock bottom, things are unlikely to change. And that just ain’t gonna happen…

1637

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I want us to have this great military tech, yet you cannot have it if you aren’t making war profitable.
You don’t necessarily have to make government waged war profitable. If the defense industry took a smaller cut and shifted its focus toward individuals there can still be a large profit.

If we did this then we would still make advances in military tech. Then our citizens would be better served as freedom fighters across the globe, and our military would continue to be the best equipped in the world.
[/quote]

Travel the world a little and ask yourself which foreigners still view american soldiers as freedom fighters.

You and your pals are WAR CRIMINALS.

The administration you serve are WAR CRIMINALS.

Making war PROFITABLE ? Selling army equipment to CIVILIANS to make them FREEDOM FIGHTERS ?

From which COSMOS DIMENSION are you typing from ?

Tell me this is for real ?

1638


Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

"WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

“The Fighting Quaker” ,or “Old Gimlet Eye,” was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

During his 34 years of Marine Corps service, Butler was awarded numerous medals for heroism including the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (the highest Marine medal at its time for officers), and subsequently the Medal of Honor twice. Notably, he is one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, and one of only three to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.

1639

The following provides some interesting information into the validity of traditional polling:

From Zogby International:

Assuming John Zogby’s predictions have arrived sooner than anticipated the discrepancy between Ron Paul’s fund raising numbers (now at $18.4 million for Q4) and the traditional polling numbers would appear to be valid. This apparently strange dichotomy does raise some interesting questions to an already fascinating raise for the Republican primaries.

Mr. Zogby believes that, as of 2004, the polling industry will eventually face a crisis. At the time he considers this situation to become more of a reality in approximately a decade.

One wonders however if this prediction, given the current situation, is a little off? While this is a question neither I nor even Mr. Zogby appear certain about it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

1640

Great read for Ron Paul supporters not brainwashed by neocon propaganda:
“Why did I spend $85,000 to support
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul ?” http://ronpaul.cc/LLLetterNYT.pdf

Fot the fringe minority on this forum comprised of STUPID and IRRESPONSABLE GUNG-HO COWARDS, an extract of the said article:

"I see the U.S. involved in an aggressive, undeclared war against a country that did not represent a threat to us in any way. We were lead into this war using false and inaccurate information.

IN MY OPINION, WE ARE FAR LESS SAFE NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ.

This war has INCREASED the number of emotionally charged enemies who conspire to attack us.

Ron Paul voted against invading Iraq. He was a lonely voice speaking in the House against military involvement in Iraq long before the first Congressional vote.

Rather than attack an entire nation, he introduced legislation to convince Congress and our President to strategically target the terrorists responsible for 9/11.

The current Administration has FAILED to capture and eliminate the criminals who perpetrated this crime against us. Those responsible are still at large, our borders are wide open, and our troops are spread thin all over the globe.

We need a leader who will protect us with a strong national defense and keep us out of foreign entanglements that in the end create more enemies than friends. We need a President who will put the national security of the American people, and the safety of our troops first.

To date, this war has lasted longer than World War II, and between 100,000 and 1,000,000 innocent people have died. These figures are between 30 and 300 times the number of people killed on 9/11/2001. Do two wrongs make a right?

FURTHERMORE, THE MAJORITY OF THE 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE SAOUDIS.

Not Iraqis. We are allies with Saudi Arabia and yet Saudi Arabia is far from being a democracy. Yet we were told we went to war to create a democracy in Iraq and set an example for the Middle East.

THE HYPOCRISY IS STAGGERING. THE MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE ARE ENORMOUS. WHY ANYONE BELIEVES ONE THING THAT IS SAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO LED US IN THIS WAR IS A MYSTERY TO ME.

“We will be greeted as liberators.” Wrong. “Oil revenues will pay the cost.” Wrong. “A secular democracy will emerge and be an inspiration for other countries.” Wrong. The list of misjudgments goes on and on.

Were the civilian Iraqis killed by our preemptive war just “collateral damage”? Has anyone taken the time to look at their pictures on the Web? Does ignoring them make their deaths less real? I wonder how their relatives and friends feel about the United States?

I WONDER IF THEY ARE MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO BECOME TERRORISTS AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

I see a country that has VIOLATED the GENEVA CONVENTIONS.

I see a country that has violated the Christian Doctrine of Just War.

I SEE A COUNTRY THAT HAS STARTED A WAR THAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

I see a country that has completely changed since President Eisenhower said, Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not listen to anyone who seriously talked about such a thing. I see a flock of Presidential candidates, most of whom voted for this war and many of whom believe “all options should be on the table” in dealing with Iran. For those who are not current on this subject, that language is code for: we should be prepared to attack Iran with conventional or nuclear weapons.

Think about that for a moment. Leaders in this Country are actually talking about using a nuclear weapon preemptively against a country that has not attacked us. Are they insane?"