It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sparesomechange
First of all get your facts straight, Ron Paul is not against gays getting married or pro-drugs as u explained it. He is against the government deciding these issues for us. You have been misled by the media to believe that he is for or against certain topics. Watch when news castors ask him questions or comment on what he says, they always present him as dangerous or they say he just flat out can't be president. I like Ron Paul because he is the only candidate addressing issues that affect me, listen to everyone else, every single other candidate is saying they will put sanctions on Iran or do whatever it takes to establish america as the top world power again. This is the perception that America should be put before everything else in the world. Sanctions will deprive the Iranians of food and water, and war could possibly kill us all. China and Russia will side with Iran.
Originally posted by type0civ
30,000 US soldiers at the DMZ cant stop that missile. But a patriot missile battery in Hawaii might. And NK lobs rounds down south without thinking twice, so it's already a moot point....next.
The current policy is such a success, right? Covert action followed by blowback and then we liberate and educate. We'll teach them to like us by precision predator strikes.
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by SLAYER69
but if i am right there would be peace, is giving peace a chance worth less than 2 lives, one life lost in an ongoing conflict is one to many when the act of pulling out could bring peace, an act if I was the Pres, or a risk I would be willing to take.
edit on 23-1-2012 by bekod because: editting
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
Ron Paul believes that we, as a country, deserved...listen to me DESERVED the 9/11 attacks.
Complete nonsense!
I'm not even going to waste my time reading the rest of your OP.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
OP, you still haven't provided evidence of intelligence that Japan wants to nuke D.C.
Afterall, that IS what you claimed would happen if we left South Korea?
You must've gotten this information (or misinformation) from some source, unless it is your own little conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
OP, you still haven't provided evidence of intelligence that Japan wants to nuke D.C.
Afterall, that IS what you claimed would happen if we left South Korea?
You must've gotten this information (or misinformation) from some source, unless it is your own little conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
OP, are you buying into the Iran war propaganda as well?
You do realize they were wrong and BS'ing about Iraq too, right?
Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by sonnny1
we all know Hitler was a mad man or you saying North Korea is one as well or their leaders? tat being Un, il was ill but he is gone now but what about Un? would he turn on the south if the US left or will he turn on the South if the US stays?or will it be "you stare at me I stare at you" for an other 50 years?
In February 2007, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and South Korean Minister of National Defense Kim Jang-soo reaffirmed that the U.S. Force Korea (USFK), the combined U.S. air, ground, and naval forces, will transfer its wartime command authority to South Korea by 2012. But in September 2010, amid Seoul's concerns over North Korea's provocations, the two countries decided to delay the transition until 2015. The two have agreed on a slow drawdown in the number of U.S. troops, as well as a redeployment of American forces away from populated areas close to the northern border. The United States handed control of some military bases over to South Korea in 2004, and decreased its troop numbers from 37,000 in 2004 to 28,500 by 2008. South Korea is also included under the U.S. "nuclear umbrella," or "extended deterrence."
Originally posted by mrgregbusybee
i think he has the balls to go to war when needed and wouldn't take the approach of....
Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
Yes history is what i look at, and we can get there in no time flat if threat develops. All you have to do is look how fast we got to iraq....twice.
RP certainly does not advocate drawing down the forces, on the contrary he speaks of strenghening them.
Now justify our arrival in Nigeria. Met an air force man leaving on six month deployment there. Why?
Ron Paul believes that we, as a country, deserved...listen to me DESERVED the 9/11 attacks.
Originally posted by Intrud3r
Originally posted by mrgregbusybee
i think he has the balls to go to war when needed and wouldn't take the approach of....
I dont think any president has the "balls" to go to war when needed. Name one president that actually fought a war.
Please dont be so fcking stupid. It's the poor schmucks like yourself (or your children) that will fight the war. [/quote
First off, if you want to address me, refrain from calling me a schmuck as I've not called you a name....isn't that the golden rule? hahahaha. f*ck you!!! that statement you made is of 3rd grade intelligence.... do you actually sit there and think my statement of a president having balls to go to war actually meant the president picks up an m-4 and says, c'mon troopers...we're gonnna attack that hill!!! hahaha
get off the page if you can't contribute anything worth a reply....a$$hole