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 mrgregbusybee
RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."
That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....
Like I've told you several times already, and you've failed over and over again to understand, his foreign policy cuts MILITARISM, not DEFENSE. Militarism means overseas bases and occupations. Defense means bases at home.
RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."
That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....
Originally posted by Rockpuck
The biggest evidence imo that you're simply dead wrong that we need to maintain or expand military expenditures is a vast amount of support Paul has from the military. They are weary of being corporate pawns. They know first hand none of our actions "keep us safe" .. that they are not a detriment to attacks against us, that they cause hate and anger because of political folly's from DC. They are used and abused by politicians for corporate interest.. and asshats like you call it "defense" .. it's not defense, it's offensive econo/political maneuvering for the sake of the bottom line, it doesn't keep us safe at night.
They know this. They've known it. And are obviously tired of being used, abused, then cast aside when not needed anymore and left with subpar care when they get home.
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
Ron Paul's view on foreign policy is as follows; If we aren't there causing problems, they won't have a reason to hate us or I want a policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. As an American, here's how I perceive this man's statement. Listen Iran, I'm pretty sure I'm a nice guy and I think that if I take all our troops out of the Middle East and from every country in the world, I think you will actually respect us and never want to cause us problems because I'm not going to monitor you or bother you anymore.
But Mr. Gingrich went further, saying that the U.S. should bomb Iran's facilities to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power "as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime."
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
Like I've told you several times already, and you've failed over and over again to understand, his foreign policy cuts MILITARISM, not DEFENSE. Militarism means overseas bases and occupations. Defense means bases at home.
RP quote for you: “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference."
That's the kind of statements that your RP makes.... does that sound like a man that is going to protect our country and be prepared for war. or better yet...do you think ron paul will pull the trigger when it's needed and we should be at war?? when his policy allows attacks in our homeland...and you get pissed off and want us to retaliate...will he pull the trigger? i don't believe he would....
His policy isn't to get rid of all guns, battleships, fighter jets, and shut down the military. Did you even watch the video I posted earlier where he clearly explains this very thing? Watch this video:
It's funny that you don't even understand the foreign policy that you're criticizing. :shk:
You're going around in circles. What happens when we pull our troops out of South Korea? Those troops come home and spend that money in America. That's a fact. Your delusions that North Korea will storm across the border as if the US military was some sort of dam are nothing more than speculative paranoia.
and like i've told you...ridding our foreign bases is the beginning to the end. tell me what happens when we pull our troops out of south korea? just answer me that 1 question.
Originally posted by mrgregbusybee
tell me what happens when we pull our troops out of south korea? just answer me that 1 question.
But as I've pointed out, we aren't doing that, because he's not going to take away from our defense. He may leave other countries vulnerable, that being the case if your futuristic vision of North Korea invading South Korea the second we look the other way is true, but America will be in no danger whatsoever.
Listen everyone, my stance on Ron Paul is this, by voting him into the white house, we are leaving ourselves as a country vulnerable strictly because of the predictable actions that will happen.
An allegiance you say? What allegiance is this exactly? And where is such an allegiance specified in the Constitution?
It's not that our troops provide a dam for south korea, it's that we made an allegiance to stand by and protect them from tyranny of North Korea.
And it's well known that A) America is not South Korea, and B) We could get over there in hours as RockPuck pointed out, not that I would support doing that at all.
It's well known that North Korea could take out all the troops in South Korea in under 5 minutes.
Why not put a military base in every country? How about every city in every country in the world?! That way the whole world could be safe!
However; the reason we are there is to keep that from happening
IDGAF
because if they kill any american soldier in an act of war, our military will destroy north korea.
In your opinion. But we don't have the money for all of that world policing. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.
It's inevitable and ignorant to sit there and think if we remove all troops from all foreign bases that we won't see things like what I discussed above happen. It will, without a doubt.
So more occupation and more potential wars creating more potential enemies causing more potential terrorist attacks in the form of blowback or more excuses for false flags in order to pass more oppressive tyrannical legislation is a good way to combat this imminent martial law?
I don't understand how you believe the golden rule as someone put it is what our country needs. F*ck...we are in a depression....we are on the brink of martial law by the current idiot...coming from a stance that is weak is the last thing we need
Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
The deal is this,Even if Ron Paul got in,the worst that could happen,is he says NO to any foreign intervention,with his VETO power.
I then ask this serious question..........
Would Newt have a problem rallying congress,for a preemptive strike of Iran?
And if so,does America,right now, need this?
How do you change a theocracy based regime,without troops on the ground?
Is this a wise foreign policy ?
But Mr. Gingrich went further, saying that the U.S. should bomb Iran's facilities to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power "as a last recourse, and only as a step toward replacing the regime."
LINK
Its a touchy subject,I know. One that I think about,cause it affects MANY lives. But the questions do remain..................
No, I just don't care for your muscle flexing. I don't feel the need to make myself and my country feel manly and tough by talking about how many people we could kill and how we would destroy anybody who messed with us. That's just a bunch of testosterone fueled primitive caveman like chest pounding that doesn't mean anything to me.
you summed it up...you don't give a f*ck. therefore you're biased and impossible to discuss this topic with.
Yep! We would save trillions of dollars, and soldiers could pump some money into the economy. Defend our own country, and let other nations do the same.
so let me ask you, you believe that we should bring every troop home and vacate every foreign base and who cares what happens to other countries, weaker countries etc...let the chips fall as they may? is that where you stand?
Originally posted by ping9
reply to post by mrgregbusybee
Please answer these questions
Why did we get attacked on September 11th?
Do you think the financial condition of a country is important to its national security?
Originally posted by TupacShakur
You're going around in circles. What happens when we pull our troops out of South Korea? Those troops come home and spend that money in America. That's a fact. Your delusions that North Korea will storm across the border as if the US military was some sort of dam are nothing more than speculative paranoia.