Reply With Quote
will fund billions for your war but won't let one single plane refuel in your territory on it's way to Syria
Saudi kings are some sick puppies
Kerry must suck at negotiation. Cant even get the Arabs to assume some of our Chinese debt in this deal.
Bad business deal.
will fund billions for your war but won't let one single plane refuel in your territory on it's way to Syria
Saudi kings are some sick puppies
This, I completely agree with. The other issue - where you are surprised that 'we are even considering committing U.S. Forces' - is what I think we are NOT doing. Somebody else suggesting a plan of action to us that that they want us to take does not mean that we are considering doing it...it only means that they want us to do this.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have both run for President multiple times since Gore, tbh..... the anti-war candidates have been there, they're just immediately deemed "unelectable" by the media, and like sheep, the electorate falls in line....
Btw, Gore argued for increased military spending and nation-building in 2000.... ironically, Dubya campaigned against it
Elections are all about telling people what they want to hear... that's the bottom line... Ron Paul was never that kind of guy, and so that made him unelectable. It really isn't the media, his message just wasn't appealing.
Guys like him that run mostly on strict ideals don't understand the system: you have to win elections FIRST, then you get the power to do what you want to do.
That's called dishonesty nono
except Dr. Ron Paul was never in it to win the election.
All his moves were calculated at spreading his message, not win the nomination. He knew that he was never going to be nominated. He used the GOP elections to promote his message and wake up tens of thousands of people. He accomplished his goal. But again, he was never in it to win.
It's kind of that Back to the Future scene where Michael J Fox starts playing heavy rock at his paren't home coming high school party. Most didn't get it, but one or 2 did get it and made the phone calls to Elvis thus, triggering the invention of Rock n Roll.
To an extent, sure. You could also qualify it as pragmatic.
The thing with guys like them though is that they chose to be an active part of the system to change it, but the system demands you to attain power to do that. The conduit to that power requires certain concessions, but they're clearly unwilling to do that strictly on a ideological basis.
Rand is a little different on that aspect. He's more of a hawk and been much more willing to toe the party line...
What's the end game? "spreading the word" is cool and all, but it quickly turns into irrelevance without the power to effect change.
you don't think public opinion has changed as opposed to a decade ago? just today few years later after the GOP primaries there are plenty of examples of Paul's influence. Look at the public opinion >90% oppose the war and very vocally. You don't think some of it has to do with Paul's and his followers message?
Paul's message is alive and well, the same cannot be said about Obama's message.
and who said Paul never had power. 40 years in Congress and being able to speak daily face to face with lawmakers and citizens. that's a lot of power
this is not Hollywood. Things don't change one minute to the next.
Obama was masterful in Libya.
sure he was
LOL Benghazi
I don't really see such change, tbh. I haven't really seen anything different: elections keep going to the guy that keeps telling people what they want to hear, and the party/money system the kept Ron irrelevant is alive and well (and by saying that, I'm not particularly endorsing such system, simply giving my assessment).you don't think public opinion has changed as opposed to a decade ago? just today few years later after the GOP primaries there are plenty of examples of Paul's influence. Look at the public opinion >90% oppose the war and very vocally. You don't think some of it has to do with Paul's and his followers message?
Paul's message is alive and well, the same cannot be said about Obama's message.
Barry is going to be a lame duck president like most every president on a second term. Happened to dubya, and pretty much every other two-term president. I frankly still cannot believe the GOP couldn't put together a semi-serious candidate to get him out, he was that bad in his first term already.
There's also plenty of reasons not to want to get into another military involvement. (I personally don't, and I'm no Paulite)
Well, he's gone now, and his kid is a lot closer to the party machine. Not close enough yet, IMO, to get a nomination, but closer.
But this does go at the heart of what I was saying... 40 years in Congress to basically be a witness to see the growth of everything he stood against: bigger government, welfare, military, debt, etc etc etc.
He just never had actual power to effect change. I'm sure his intentions were good, but when you get in that system, you gotta play by certain rules or be relegated to the back seat.
the book is still being written. Nobody can say wether Paul's message changed anything yet. But things are different from last 2 wars. 60+% were for Iraq war, 45+% were for Libya and now its 30-% or worse. how can you possibly say public opinion has not changed regarding nation building and warmongering. Agree it's silly to say it's all due to Paul's message, but it's even sillier to say Pauls message had nothing to do with this change. Paul laid the groundwork of all the arguments against war you are hearing from common folk these days.
in the end it might all be futile, it's true. But I was just answering the question of why Paul ran and it was not to win the election.
you can't really beat a system that triples down every election in money and influence. But the public opinion against war is a good sign at least. Look at Britain, things changed there. It might not happen here but who knows? next war plan vs. Iran could go the way Britain did.
Agree to an extent.
I personally think since Nam, the US population in general has had little stomach for long, drawn out wars (something that's been mentioned on this board quite a few times). Which is the reason I thought the whole concept of "war on terror" (including Iraq, etc) was stupid, especially when no goals were actually set, and we were introduced to concepts such as pre-emptive, never ending wars. I think the gradual decline in support for such interventions it's a natural reaction to that. That said, I also think the economic aspect, especially looking at the current state of the economy, also plays a part. And then obviously, that WMD foobar intelligence certainly caused quite a bit of credibility damage, especially on allies.
All that said, we're going to Syria, in perhaps one more display that public opinion be damned. There's plenty of time to change hearts and minds using the big party/money machine for the midterms next year.
Two things:
Why wouldn't the Arab League be happy to temporarily disrupt a compe or's oil production (particularly when they might gain access to their compe or's product as a prize for being pliant and supportive?).
Moreover -- why would anybody trust the Arab League to actually pay up? Are they really against chemical weapons when they are also against every other manner of human rights? No.
them, their dubious funding, and this sabre-rattling bull . This is capitalism, straight up.
why not just bite the hand that feeds you?
whats actually stopping america from taking over saudi arabia and claim everything?...
america puppet state of saudie now? lmao
So what is stopping the US?
Answer your own question.
Vietnam was a different campaign, it was the campaign against Communism. That campaign ended when USSR disbanded.
I am mainly talking about this new campaign which is basically the Neocon plan to keep and take control of the middle east and resources. Unfortunately it was a plan drawn up out of greed. A couple of decades later and now the public has caught on to the BS. the war on terror, BS. There is no war on terror, you cannot fight a strategy. It's like having a war on sieges.
that is not set in stone. I give the chances of the public giving a big blow to the Neocon plan now at 30%. Most of the Congress members are still undecided and are getting thousands of calls a day to vote NO to war.All that said, we're going to Syria, in perhaps one more display that public opinion be damned. There's plenty of time to change hearts and minds using the big party/money machine for the midterms next year.
Don't forget the Middle East is composed of thousands of Warrior Tribes. And unfortunately US was stupid enough to allow Saudis to build, train, fund and arm a huge chunk of those tribes. They are now like a pack of rabid dogs in their cage ready to eat through anything once let out.
The Saudis and Prince Bandar Bush Bin Satan have the keys to this gate. Get rid of them and the gates of itself will open and the hordes of demons and barbarians would make minced meat of the oil fields and US military bases.
Well put.
Obama wrote a check that he never expected to be cashed and now we're having to pay the er. that man. I don't want to attack a country to save ing face. Its bull .
been a long time coming. Saud and Bandar Bin Satans frankenstein army has awokenSaudis have a lot of stake. They felt their collars tighten while watching the Arab Spring uprisings.
They will not have that and the bombings in Lebanon, promise of $12 billion to the Egyptian army to control Muslim Brotherhood, and now, Regime change in Syria to protect their Eastern province where most of their oil reserves are concentrated are all not only ambitious moves, but moves to protect their livelyhoods. At least that is according to Prince Bandar Bush Bin Satan, the engineer of the NEW MIDDLE EAST.
as I said before, US is just a puppet and Saudi will not let something like democracy or money stand in the way of protecting their trillions. They are in a fight for survival and they have unlimited funds.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/on-...ism-shia-sunni
Saudi Arabia has been in the news because of its staunch support for the military-backed government in Cairo – part of its wider strategy of resisting the Muslim Brotherhood and rolling back change. But closer to home the Saudis also back Bahrain's Al Khalifa rulers, a Sunni dynasty facing down protests by the island state's Shia and democratic opposition.
Toby Matthiesen's new study of the Gulf counter-revolutions demonstrates how the Saudis, Bahrain and Kuwait have all combined repression and cash handouts with an almost instinctive sectarianism to keep demands for reform at bay.
The Saudis had long fretted about unrest in their predominantly Shia eastern province — the heartland of the kingdom's oil industry. But when republican dictators were being toppled in Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli and revolution was in the air just across the Gulf in Manama, anti-Shia feeling was ratcheted up with the mass arrests of local activists who were accused of being part of a "foreign conspiracy." It was supposedly led by Iran, but beyond shrill propaganda from Tehran and dark hints about "sleeper cells," there is no evidence of that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
