Reply With Quote
And Ron Paul would do a few things at home better than Obama anyway. I think if Paul were president the out of control corporate subsidization in this country would come to an end.
No, I wouldn't say that.
And Ron Paul would do a few things at home better than Obama anyway. I think if Paul were president the out of control corporate subsidization in this country would come to an end.
see above.
I saw Megan Kelley go after Ron Paul on Fox asking him is Iraq attacked Israel would he retaliate if her were POTUS and he said no.
I still wouldn't vote for Paul.
Israel a thousand times.
Our subsidized 51st state. Who gives a ?
Look, Judeo-Christians, you lost the ing God war in the Middle East. Muhammad won, get over it and get the out, its been almost 500 years.
Whats that?
No?
Then like lamb to the slaughter....
You know the GOP attacks Obama for his support of Israel so this should kill Paul's chances.
Paul winning wouldn't make a difference. You still need a non-corrupt Congress. Good luck with that.
I need to start a "Term Limit Party".
I agree, but at the same time the U.N. shouldn't be restricting what military action Israel can take. Let them duke it out on their own and watch Israel whip its neighboring countries.
To a point, I agree.
The problem is, Israel would be -whipping them with US weapons systems, funded by the US via international welfare.
We give Israel money to buy our . To be more clear, the government (ie taxpayers) give Israel money to buy from "our" military suppliers (ie private corporations).
Its basically a money laundering scheme perpetrated by the (summoning boutons here) MIC and the oh-so-willing-for-a-handout Israelis.
I would cut Israel off from US funding immediately but keep the UN pressure on them for a few years. Then let the dog off the leash once its well known that we arent funding them anymore and havent been for awhile. Still the same guns, but perception is reality.
The other concern is that Israel would probably level the entire area. I'm not sure they would even bother with conventional warfare. Just drop the nukes and cleanse. And I think we can for the most part agree that's not really a solution.
I think he'd use it every time it is (in his view) cons utionally warranted to do so.
ie. When Congress declares war.
You're a constructionist, aren't you?
It's not nearly black and white either...military spending is a big part of the debt and there's nothing to indicate that will be decreased as significantly as it should. There's no reason to spend as much money on our military that all other countries in the entire world combined spend. I think it's safe to say Americans are going to be safe at home if we completely pull out of the M.E. and decrease military spending in general. There is no reason to have enough nukes to torch the whole surface area of Earth 100 times.
No, it isnt. Ive never encountered an actual Israeli, Ive never been to Israel, I do not know much about their politics or their intentions.
But I just cant think they would go straight to nukes.
If they did, if anyone did, because of the global impact nuclear weapons have what with the winds sprinkling radiation on San Francisco from Japan, I'd war-dec and curb stomp them.
crofl at the very end right after Paul speaks and the audience cheers...
Reporter: ..(awkward pause)..When we come back ...(awkward pause)...we'll try to get a hold of things.
The only reason Israel doesn't do as they please militarily is, as DoK said, politics. You remove that barrier and IMO, there's no reason to limit the intervention. But perhaps I'm just misguided.
Boom...blew WC's bull right up now didnt ya.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
