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 jibeho
The radical Left/Marxists/Leninists are backing him with hopes that he will destroy our nations defense if he would miraculously win the general election. Strange bedfellows those radicals and Ron Paul eh? Paul is a means to end for them...
We would be out of South Korea which will allow North Korea to overtake by force, South Korea.
Within the 1st year of office, Ron Paul would mind his own business and allow Iran to continue building or complete production of nuclear weapons. Paul would allow Israel to fend for themselves and we all know that Iran wants nothing more than to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. So in under 12 months, we would at a minimum see a war in Korea and one in Israel.
I offer you this though, there's people out there just like countries, North Korea, China, Japan, Iran to name a few, that are radical.
Opinions are like A$$holes
You claim that if we're true united statesians and enjoy our freedoms we shouldn't vote for Ronald Paul. Yet, we currently have the patriot act, national defence authority act, expatriate act, and I'm stuck in an economic slavery cycle. Some freedom that is. I doubt this current setup of government resembles any shred of the constitution and declaration of independence. Much less, does this government have the common man's interest as top priority. Of course, they pretend they do.
I still don't get why it would bother anyone seeing Israel get liberated. Lol, liberated ... I also don't get how people are so fearful of a war breaking out between countries that has nothing to do with theirs. Oh, what about if they use nukes?! Lol, there's plenty of radioactive waste being dumped in various places around the country from nuclear plants. Why is the only thing people usually don't like about Ronald Paul his foreign policy? Is it because he's not a war monger? Is it because he wants to spare the family ache of their children's demise over some natural resources?
Because countries such as Nazi Germany DO POSE A THREAT!
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by LoonyConservative
I watched the video and I'm still wondering when he said that ``we deserved the 9/11 attacks``?
That's right....... he never said it.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)
link
Based on countless “arguments/discussions” with Paul over the years, Dondero claims that no matter how hard the candidate denies it “Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.”
“For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews,’ was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just ‘blowback,’ for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.”
“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”
Moving to more contemporary subjects, Dondero states “with absolute certainty” that Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan and to any military reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
“He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for ‘invading’ Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.”
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by seabag
Because countries such as Nazi Germany DO POSE A THREAT!
Dude.... what decade are you living in?
Originally posted by LoonyConservative
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
you must think that because of the U.N and technology that the world is light years past anything like the holocaust from happening again.
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by seabag
Dude, I swear I'm looking and I DON'T SEE ANY NAZIS!!
Originally posted by seabag
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by seabag
Dude, I swear I'm looking and I DON'T SEE ANY NAZIS!!
So USA is beloved around the world and no country wishes the US harm? I think RP would disagree.
Originally posted by L00kingGlass
reply to post by gabbermatt
I only have about 4 people I truely call friends because everyone else thinks Pot is OK.
They are not harming anyone, that is for them to decide good sir.edit on 23-1-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 6Eyengineer
Originally posted by jibeho
The radical Left/Marxists/Leninists are backing him with hopes that he will destroy our nations defense if he would miraculously win the general election. Strange bedfellows those radicals and Ron Paul eh? Paul is a means to end for them...
Where did you hear that? Why would Marxists or Leninists support RP? That's insane. RP ideals are directly opposed to those of Marxist's. How could you confuse the two? Maybe you are purely uneducated as to what a marxist believes and to what RP believes and just looking to trash him? Who in their right minds thinks a President, in four years, could destroy a nations defense that took 50 years to build? People looking to push fear and stifle RP's campaign, that's who. Get real dude.
• Roll back the size of the Army and Marine Corps as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. The U.S. could save $147 billion over the next decade by reducing the Army’s end strength from 547,400 to 482,400 and the Corps’ from 202,000 to 175,000, the task force says.
• Reduce the number of maneuver units in the Army and Marine Corps. The task force suggests reducing the number of Army brigades from 45 to 42 and the number of Marine infantry battalions from 27 to 24. Doing so would contribute to the $147 billion in savings as the services reduce their end strengths.
• Delay or cancel development of Navy variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The U.S. could save $9.85 billion from 2011 to 2020 by canceling the purchase of JSF jets for the Navy and Marine Corps and buying more affordable F/A-18 jets instead. Doing so would leave the Corps without jump jets once the AV-8 Harrier leaves the service, but the task force argues that capability “has not proved critical to operations in recent wars.”
• End the fielding of new MV-22 Ospreys. The Corps could save $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 10 years by buying new MH-60S and CH-53K helicopters, analysts say. The K variant of the CH-53 is not expected to hit the fleet until at least 2015, but the Navy began replacing outdated CH-46 helicopters early this century with the MH-60 on amphibious assault ships.