View Full Version : Still like Ron Paul? Think again...
Seriously... F*** Ron Paul. Glad he barely got enough votes to even register on a Richter scale.
Ron Paul (https://twitter.com/RonPaul)- Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/04/ron-paul-tweets-about-seal-snipers-death-he-who-lives-by-the-sword-dies-by-the-sword/#ixzz2JxQ8Q3Ar
So to anyone who thinks it was the "lesser of 2 evils" needs to check again- I count 3. Paul has never been supportive of the military and is very outspoken about his stance against military intervention abroad. I only hope his kid isn't the same way. [Mad]
ETA: He's basically saying that if you have PTSD you shouldn't be able to own/use guns... What a POS.
griebel303
02-04-2013, 13:39
Wow Ron Paul, that is a dick statement to make. Rather then leaving his brother in arms to a doctor who has no sense what the soldier has been through, he dealt with it head on and tried to help with his own experience. It is truly sad that Chris Kyle died this way and that people would even think to bash him for it
HoneyBadger
02-04-2013, 13:45
Call me out if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think this has anything to do with PTSD...
GilpinGuy
02-04-2013, 13:46
He was irrelevant. Now he's an irrelevant dickhead.
I agree it was a "dick statement" as griebel303 says. Horribly ill-advised and improper. I tend to think he was commenting about the irony of Chris's profession and death, albeit horribly insensitive. Regardless, what is the general consensus among our ranks, especially any .mil folks or PTSD stricken members/family members, on having firearms while suffering from PTSD? I have to admit, there is some basis for concern with respect to folks with PTSD and firearms.... It's a pretty wide scale though, and nowhere near a "one bucket" issue. I believe it varies case by case.
For example, I volunteer with a phenomenal man who is currently overcoming PTSD from exposure to repeated mutilations on the job. He is a medic. He's also a ccw holder, father of 3, and all around standup patriot. I love the guy. I do not have a single concern about him carrying in my presence. On the other hand I went to school with another man with PSTD that he's developed from the sandbox and coming home to a dying father who has since passed, cheating wife, and bitch of a kid. He worries me more than the medic.
Opinions, insights anyone?
Singlestack
02-04-2013, 13:55
Paul has some very screwy views on national security (Iran, for example). His view on PTSD seems uninformed at best. I really hate politiciians (any politician)talking about things they know nothing about. He should really stick to OB/GYN stuff.
Zundfolge
02-04-2013, 13:55
Dr Paul must have very tasty shoes.
UncleDave
02-04-2013, 14:05
Anyone else think it's a little convenient that a very outspoken defender of 2a rights is allegedly gunned down by a vet with PTSD, when the administration has been demonizing returning vets? Claim that PTSD is too dangerous to have 2a rights for retuning vets, there by disarming those most qualified to put up an effective resistance, and take out someone that is a natural leader. Two birds one stone. Not getting out the tinfoil yet but this is reading like Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
Sharpienads
02-04-2013, 14:16
Man, I'm gonna have to read that book.
I agree it was a "dick statement" as griebel303 says. Horribly ill-advised and improper. I tend to think he was commenting about the irony of Chris's profession and death, albeit horribly insensitive. Regardless, what is the general consensus among our ranks, especially any .mil folks or PTSD stricken members/family members, on having firearms while suffering from PTSD? I have to admit, there is some basis for concern with respect to folks with PTSD and firearms.... It's a pretty wide scale though, and nowhere near a "one bucket" issue. I believe it varies case by case.
For example, I volunteer with a phenomenal man who is currently overcoming PTSD from exposure to repeated mutilations on the job. He is a medic. He's also a ccw holder, father of 3, and all around standup patriot. I love the guy. I do not have a single concern about him carrying in my presence. On the other hand I went to school with another man with PSTD that he's developed from the sandbox and coming home to a dying father who has since passed, cheating wife, and bitch of a kid. He worries me more than the medic.
Opinions, insights anyone?
Like you say- it's not a "one bucket" issue, and some do have issues derived from PTSD, but it is not something to where you can do a blanket judgement on everyone with PTSD- some can function perfectly well (myself included), and some have some very real issues (like a fellow vet who threatened to kill himself when he returned home to AZ after we redeployed). I think there might be other factors at work and PTSD is not the only issue afflicting those who end up harming others or themselves. It's much like a crazy person who has no official history of mental illness on record who goes out and buys a gun- you can't predict what they'll do, but you can't punish everyone with similar disorders or issues without them doing anything illegal. I really hope this doesn't present more of a case for the unlawful disarming of veterans suffering from PTSD... A vast majority of us function well in society, responsibly and safely own and operate firearms, and do no harm.
I agree it was a "dick statement" as griebel303 says. Horribly ill-advised and improper. I tend to think he was commenting about the irony of Chris's profession and death, albeit horribly insensitive. Regardless, what is the general consensus among our ranks, especially any .mil folks or PTSD stricken members/family members, on having firearms while suffering from PTSD? I have to admit, there is some basis for concern with respect to folks with PTSD and firearms.... It's a pretty wide scale though, and nowhere near a "one bucket" issue. I believe it varies case by case.
For example, I volunteer with a phenomenal man who is currently overcoming PTSD from exposure to repeated mutilations on the job. He is a medic. He's also a ccw holder, father of 3, and all around standup patriot. I love the guy. I do not have a single concern about him carrying in my presence. On the other hand I went to school with another man with PSTD that he's developed from the sandbox and coming home to a dying father who has since passed, cheating wife, and bitch of a kid. He worries me more than the medic.
Opinions, insights anyone?
"PTSD" covers a very wide spectrum, and it will affect people very differently. In its acute stage it can be dangerous, especially if the individual's nerves are still too raw to hold a job and they're self medicating with whiskey . . . but there is a curve and most people are able to recover and readjust to civilian life without pills or psychotherapy. And even guys who may be a "danger to themselves or others" are extremely unlikely to go on a shooting spree of any sort. Proposing that veterans collecting benefits related to psychological trauma be barred for life from firearm ownership is reprehensible, and anyone supporting such action should be removed from office.
Aloha_Shooter
02-04-2013, 15:08
Anyone else think it's a little convenient that a very outspoken defender of 2a rights is allegedly gunned down by a vet with PTSD, when the administration has been demonizing returning vets? Claim that PTSD is too dangerous to have 2a rights for retuning vets, there by disarming those most qualified to put up an effective resistance, and take out someone that is a natural leader. Two birds one stone. Not getting out the tinfoil yet but this is reading like Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
There's really no need for conspiracy theory here. It was a tragic incident but tragedies happen. Anyone who pulls the "Karma" or "live by the sword, die by the sword" crap out is a POS waste of carbon and oxygen. Much as I didn't support Ron Paul's candidacy and think his foreign policy is out of the 18th century, I didn't expect this kind of dick-headedness from him.
Paul has never been supportive of the military and is very outspoken about his stance against military intervention abroad. I only hope his kid isn't the same way.
But the majority of current military supported RP the most out of the three candidates.
...when the administration has been demonizing returning vets?.
This administration hasn't done much to demonize returning vets, that I've seen. The Obamas have both been big supporters of treating PTSD. Not arguing with ya, just what I've read, so I'd like to the read the flip side of the coin...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/31/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-improve-access-mental-h
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/michelle-obama-ptsd-treatment-veterans_n_1199136.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-pressler/larry-pressler-obama_b_1948415.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20099337-503544.html
But the majority of current military supported RP the most out of the three candidates.
This administration hasn't done much to demonize returning vets, that I've seen. The Obamas have both been big supporters of treating PTSD. Not arguing with ya, just what I've read, so I'd like to the read the flip side of the coin...
1st- That doesn't change the fact that Paul doesn't believe we should do anything militarily, regardless of the circumstances, and is not pro-military. I don't think your run of the mill troops really looked into his defense and foreign policy very hard, otherwise they'd probably realize that if he really had his way most would be out of a job.
2nd- You didn't see that DHS notice that returning vets are at risk of becoming homegrown terrorists? Yes, this administration is out to demonize veterans... you need to stop getting your news from Huffpo.
UncleDave
02-04-2013, 15:38
^^^^^This^^^^^
I am not saying that there is a conspiracy afoot, but I find the timing fits in a little too well with the agenda of the regime. I agree tragic things happen every day, and they are not all part of an agenda. It is just a little too coincidental for me given the current climate.
"PTSD" covers a very wide spectrum, and it will affect people very differently. In its acute stage it can be dangerous, especially if the individual's nerves are still too raw to hold a job and they're self medicating with whiskey . . . but there is a curve and most people are able to recover and readjust to civilian life without pills or psychotherapy. And even guys who may be a "danger to themselves or others" are extremely unlikely to go on a shooting spree of any sort. Proposing that veterans collecting benefits related to psychological trauma be barred for life from firearm ownership is reprehensible, and anyone supporting such action should be removed from office.
Absolutely, positively agreed. The concerning thing to me is that the left and the media see that small cross-section of PTSD sufferers who are a possible threat (to themselves or the public), as a much larger one than they might actually be. This all goes back to the poor state of our mental health system in this country, and folks not being able to get the help they need...The left and the media will not let any tragedy go to waste where they can vilify a much broader subset of the freedom-loving-community, than any reasonable person would include. Since <1% of returning vets with PTSD could possibly become "home grown terrorists", they're doing their best to make them all out to be. Exactly the same way they see gun-owners...
We need to facilitate a counter to their finger pointing to call them out for their hypocracy and unpatriotic, tyrannical aspirations.... there are tons out there trying, I know there are, but the media is playing against us.
Call me out if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think this has anything to do with PTSD...
That whole PTSD was a balloon put out there by some lib in the media for the defense attorney to glom on to because Texas actually kills their killers.
That whole PTSD was a balloon put out there by some lib in the media for the defense attorney to glom on to because Texas actually kills their killers.
I have to agree... I think PTSD is what the guy suffers from, but I'll bet he has other problems besides that... Just because he happens to be a PTSD sufferer? C'mon... Fvcking liberal media.
1st- That doesn't change the fact that Paul doesn't believe we should do anything militarily, regardless of the circumstances, and is not pro-military. I don't think your run of the mill troops really looked into his defense and foreign policy very hard, otherwise they'd probably realize that if he really had his way most would be out of a job.
Yep, that is true, many of those troops haven't fully vetted RP and ALL his policies, in depth. And yes I'm aware of RP's stance on anti-imperialism and getting our noses out of every foreign venture. I agree with some of his views, but not all.
2nd- You didn't see that DHS notice that returning vets are at risk of becoming homegrown terrorists? Yes, this administration is out to demonize veterans... you need to stop getting your news from Huffpo.
I'm open-minded so I get my news from all over, left/right/center/foreign/etc. then make up my own mind. That includes Fox, CNN, local stations, BBC, Reuters, AP, Huffington, etc. Not only Fox & PrisonPlanet. Just because it's on Huffington doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I linked isn't a fabricated conspiracy. Even the First Lady is a staunch supporter of veteran's health & benefits.
And you're right I didn't see that DHS note, but will need to research further, and within context, to say anything about that.
funkymonkey1111
02-04-2013, 16:12
Yes, the current administration are big advocates of PTSD classification:
http://www.examiner.com/article/senate-democrats-protect-administration-s-right-to-strip-ptsd-vets-of-guns
68Charger
02-04-2013, 16:27
I'm curious if his killer is/was on psychotropic drugs (anti-depressants, etc) and if that could have lead to a psychotic episode...
I find that more plausible than a direct conspiracy...
As for the original topic, Ron Paul sure didn't think before he spoke... Or he's just a dick
The concerning thing to me is that the left and the media see that small cross-section of PTSD sufferers who are a possible threat (to themselves or the public), as a much larger one than they might actually be. This all goes back to the poor state of our mental health system in this country, and folks not being able to get the help they need...
Yes, this. They need to develop a better way to classify that small percentage that is indeed too dangerous to own a gun, while allowing the majority of PTSD-suffering vets to keep their gun ownership rights. It will be interesting to see this guy's background and issues, before he served. If they existed, then I'm sure they would only compound his PTSD and look where we end up. With another tragedy.
Bailey Guns
02-04-2013, 16:41
As for the original topic, Ron Paul sure didn't think before he spoke... Or he's just a dick
Or all of the above?
The latest I've read states that they don't even think the comment actually came from Ron Paul.
Ron Paul gamed the system like the other politicians.
I'll take Rand Paul over his daddy.
I have to admit I was like " WTF Ron" when I heard this with me even being a big Ron supporter... But the more I read what he said the more he's kinda right.
Yeah I know the "live by the sword, die by the sword" was insensitive, but who takes a guy thats having emotional trauma from shooting and killing people to the gun range to shoot some guns???
In that respect Ron is right.
Thats what makes this death so weird.
UrbanWolf
02-04-2013, 18:16
What is the entire statement? Just one phrase doesn't say much.
What is the entire statement? Just one phrase doesn't say much.
Apparently thats all he said. The Blaze is making a big deal out of it, but I really don't see it. He probably should have said it differently, but alas its out in internet universe. The Blaze has always had a thing against Ron because their owner, Glenn Beck, gets a hard on for Israel.
They are just trying to get everybody all hyped up and say "OMG" and " Thats SHOCKING". Some people fall for it. Others do not.
UrbanWolf
02-04-2013, 18:31
"Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense", I'm pretty certain he meant this to the killer.
tmleadr03
02-04-2013, 19:20
Ron Paul is a nut job. He may be a blind squirrel when it comes to some domestic policy but he proves himself to not only look at twats, but to be one on a regular basis.
Treating PTSD at a gun range doesn't make sense for a guy who worked in an office his whole life. Treating PTSD at a firing range makes absolute sense, when dealing with a vet.
Mick-Boy
02-04-2013, 22:38
Wow.... There are a couple of very big topics being discussed here.
I'll admit "You live by the Sword, you die by the sword" was one of the first things that crossed my mind when I heard about Chief Kyle. However, I did not mean it in the context that I think Dr Paul did. I thought Muslims had tracked him down (the radicalized US citizen kind) and had filled him in on the range.
For years I've been pretty sure I will be killed by a fire arm, or IED, or mortar, or whatever. If you are around firearms long enough and use them for violence on your fellow man, you should expect that shit will come back around eventually. If I get smoked at work, "You live by the sword, etc" would not be an out of place summary and I wouldn't consider it disrespectful. I choose to make my living this way. So in that respect, I almost get it..
I say almost because Chief Kyle had hung up his guns and walked away from being a gunfighter to save his family. He no longer employed weapons in an offensive manner to kill or capture his fellow man. He no longer "lived by the sword". He was out trying to help a guy get right.
Let's get something straight here and now. Homicidal tenancies are *NOT*, in any medical resource I'm aware of, a symptom of PTSD. If it is proven that the shooter, for some reason, slipped into reliving a TIC & saw the two victims as muhj before he popped them THEN I think it's fair to address the PTSD claim. reliving events IS a PTSD symptom. Smoking someone because they piss you off or something trips your murder switch is NOT a PTSD symptom.
It should be noted that the scumbag had a DUI recently. If he's being treated with SSRIs, as many vets are being practically force fed by DoD & the VA care systems, then adding alcohol to that is a known bomb fuse. Never mind the fact that the dude might have had screws loose to begin with.
And Fmedges nailed it. Taking a guy suffering from PTSD to the range with like minded people is (in my limited experience) very helpful.
I'm not a shrink and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night, these are just my personal observations and beliefs.
Some PTSD is a result of what you might call "moral injury", people seeing things that fly in the face of what they consider right or good. Some guys have survivors guilt (One of the Marines I led is living at my house who has this in a bad way). Others don't really have "PTSD" so much as they are just really disconnected from American society when they get out of the military. Losing that sense of brotherhood and purpose can be a shock. Finding out that there aren't many places that can fill that void outside the military can be a very depressing realization.
Taking someone like this to the range, spending time with like minded people who have similar experience and doing things they were doing the last time they felt a real connection with people can be extremely therapeutic.
Mick-Boy
02-05-2013, 02:04
And just to muddle the "PTSD made me do it" waters a little more....
Iraq War Vet Had been in Mental Hospital (http://www.ctpost.com/news/texas/article/Records-Iraq-War-vet-had-been-in-mental-hospital-4248233.php#ixzz2Jyrbu7Bt)
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — The Iraq War veteran charged with killing a former Navy SEAL sniper and his friend on a Texas shooting range had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past four months, police records show.
Eddie Ray Routh was taken to a mental hospital on Sept. 2 after threatening to kill his family and then commit suicide, according to police records in Lancaster, where Routh lives. Authorities found Routh walking nearby with no shirt and no shoes, and smelling of alcohol. Routh told authorities he was a Marine veteran who was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Eddie stated he was hurting and that his family does not understand what he has been through," the report said.
Routh's mother told police that her son had been drinking and became upset when his father said he was going to sell his gun. She said Routh began arguing with them and said he was going to "blow his brains out."
Police took Routh to Green Oaks Hospital for psychiatric care.
Dallas police records show Routh was taken back to the same mental hospital in mid-January after a woman called police and said she feared for Routh's safety.
Sniper murder suspect ‘traded soul for a new truck,’ affidavit says (http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Sniper-suspect-traded-soul-for-a-new-truck-affidavit-says-189729711.html)
Eddie Routh, the double murder suspect who allegedly killed retired Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield, might have committed the crimes to steal Kyle’s truck, according to an arrest affidavit obtained by News 8.
Routh confessed to his sister and her husband about the crime on Saturday night, the document says. When they asked whose black truck he was driving, Routh told them “he traded his soul for a new truck,” according to the affidavit.
Routh has a psychiatric diagnosis, not PTSD but something more like schizophrenia, and unknown to Chris and Chad Littlefield (his friend), was off his meds.
http://weaponsman.com/?p=6990
It appears that he was a 2111 MOS (small arms repair). It is beginning to look like he blamed PTSD for much deeper mental issues.
Mick- I won't quote because you had quite a bit there- but I have to say I agree 100%. However, saying someone died in that way because they "lived by the sword" is a very poor choice of words. I also agree that the range is a great place to help with PTSD in vets- it gives them a sense of normalcy (at least it did for me). The left with their rhetoric is deplorable- thinking that every veteran with PTSD just simply forgot their training, lost their instincts, and can't be trusted with a firearm is so disgusting that I would love to feed them their teeth if it weren't inappropriate to do. In this case- it would appear that the killer was a deeply disturbed and very sick individual. I doubt that it will get out in the MSM that his main issue wasn't PTSD.
tmleadr03
02-05-2013, 21:04
What this is is a growing trend by the media to present service members as somehow broken, just because they served.
http://blog.usni.org/2013/02/05/veterans-suicide-facts-against-chatter
Anyone else think it's a little convenient that a very outspoken defender of 2a rights is allegedly gunned down by a vet with PTSD, when the administration has been demonizing returning vets? Claim that PTSD is too dangerous to have 2a rights for retuning vets, there by disarming those most qualified to put up an effective resistance, and take out someone that is a natural leader. Two birds one stone. Not getting out the tinfoil yet but this is reading like Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
and John Noveske...
Bailey Guns
02-05-2013, 23:54
RP issued a really lame-assed "clarification" of his remarks today. He should probably just keep his mouth shut.
I think the manufactured hysteria over his comments is lame.
Bailey Guns
02-06-2013, 00:00
I think the rationalizations by some that his comments were somehow reasonable or appropriate are really...not surprising.
tmleadr03
02-06-2013, 00:01
I think the rationalizations by some that his comments were somehow reasonable or appropriate are really...not surprising.
Indeed.
I think the rationalizations by some that his comments were somehow reasonable or appropriate are really...not surprising.
Appropriate?? No. Way to soon and insensitive.
The fact that a guy who writes a book detailing and somewhat bragging about killing hundreds of human beings, ends up getting killed in the same manner as he dealt death to his book's characters..... Live by the sword, die by the sword?????
And taking a guy who's had two trips to the mental hospital in the last 5 months to the shooting range is gonna have LOTS of people question that decision. Just saying.
With that said.
May God bless the soul of Chris Kyle.
I think of myself as a Libertarian but have always voted Republican. What Ron Paul said is indefensible. He should be ashamed of himself, and apologize to Chris Kyle's family and friends. [Bang]
Bailey Guns
02-06-2013, 00:15
What Ron Paul said is indefensible.
Yeah...you'd think.
Mick-Boy
02-06-2013, 00:54
The fact that a guy who writes a book detailing and somewhat bragging about killing hundreds of human beings, ends up getting killed in the same manner as he dealt death to his book's characters..... Live by the sword, die by the sword?????
Do you honestly not see the difference between killing a man on a battlefield and murder? Did you just refer to the Iraqi insurgents as "characters"?
And taking a guy who's had two trips to the mental hospital in the last 5 months to the shooting range is gonna have LOTS of people question that decision. Just saying.
Do you know for a fact that Chief Kyle was aware of the underlying issues or was this a "hey my buddy/son/cousin/etc is a vet and he's still kind of fucked up and might have PTSD. Maybe you could talk to him" kind of thing? If you have information the rest of us don't please share.
And just so we're all on the same page here; When I'm talking about PTSD, I'm talking about the DSM-IV-TR definition. Not the "I saw this movie once where a guy had PTSD..." definition. And if you were to get all kinds of crazy and actually LOOK the topic up (wild idea right?), you might find that both exposure therapy and peer counseling are widely used tools to treat people with PTSD. So getting a guy out on the range with like minded people for some trigger therapy and bull sessions would not have "LOTS of people questioning the decision" unless those people were so far out of their lane they were in oncoming traffic.
Goodburbon
02-06-2013, 01:53
If you hate him and think he is irrelevant, why would you care enough about what he says to post it here?
bobbyfairbanks
02-06-2013, 03:20
If you hate him and think he is irrelevant, why would you care enough about what he says to post it here?
Well said, even go as far as to say you are putting words into Ron Paul's mouth.
Bailey Guns
02-06-2013, 07:42
Just because someone is irrelevant in the political sense (which is the only context in which I've said Paul is irrelevant) doesn't mean what they say can't have an impact on the lives of others in one form or another.
And people that are hated and irrelevant are discussed here everyday. Why should Ron Paul's comments be any different? It just seems that many think Paul is above reproach, regardless of what he does or says or tweets, and will go to great lengths to try to rationalize why what he said isn't what he meant and really wasn't as bad as it sounded when he said it.
If someone like Obama had tweeted the same thing Paul did we'd never hear the end of it. Rightly so.
And there's no need to put words into Paul's mouth. His exact words are out there for everyone to see. Are you denying he said it?
The point I'm trying to make is its not exactly out of line to come up with those opinions given the circumstances of the story.
That doesn't mean what he said isn't wrong. Don't you see how someone could come up with those opinions rather easily???
Do you honestly not see the difference between killing a man on a battlefield and murder? Did you just refer to the Iraqi insurgents as "characters"?
Do you know for a fact that Chief Kyle was aware of the underlying issues or was this a "hey my buddy/son/cousin/etc is a vet and he's still kind of fucked up and might have PTSD. Maybe you could talk to him" kind of thing? If you have information the rest of us don't please share.
And just so we're all on the same page here; When I'm talking about PTSD, I'm talking about the DSM-IV-TR definition. Not the "I saw this movie once where a guy had PTSD..." definition. And if you were to get all kinds of crazy and actually LOOK the topic up (wild idea right?), you might find that both exposure therapy and peer counseling are widely used tools to treat people with PTSD. So getting a guy out on the range with like minded people for some trigger therapy and bull sessions would not have "LOTS of people questioning the decision" unless those people were so far out of their lane they were in oncoming traffic.
XC700116
02-06-2013, 09:05
If you hate him and think he is irrelevant, why would you care enough about what he says to post it here?
Well said, even go as far as to say you are putting words into Ron Paul's mouth.
I'd go so far as to say, What makes Ron Paul think it's appropriate for him to comment on a private citizen's passing and trying to make a political statement within 2 days of his murder? Especially in the mannor that he did it.
Goodburbon
02-06-2013, 09:28
I dont find it offensive.
Mick-Boy
02-06-2013, 09:30
The point I'm trying to make is its not exactly out of line to come up with those opinions given the circumstances of the story.
That doesn't mean what he said isn't wrong. Don't you see how someone could come up with those opinions rather easily???
Attention to detail isn't really your thing is it?
Please see post #31 in this thread. Take your time.
And once again, do you see no difference between killing on a battlefield and murder?
Singlestack
02-06-2013, 09:41
The point I'm trying to make is its not exactly out of line to come up with those opinions given the circumstances of the story.
That doesn't mean what he said isn't wrong. Don't you see how someone could come up with those opinions rather easily???
No. Absolutely not.
Goodburbon
02-06-2013, 09:47
Attention to detail isn't really your thing is it?
Please see post #31 in this thread. Take your time.
And once again, do you see no difference between killing on a battlefield and murder?
Both by the sword...whats your point? Killing for your country doesnt count as killing?
If someone like Obama had tweeted the same thing Paul did we'd never hear the end of it.
News alert: If oblama said it, it wouldn't even be reported except on faux news ticker tape.
Mick-Boy
02-06-2013, 09:53
Both by the sword...whats your point? Killing for your country doesnt count as killing?
I hope you store all your guns locked away and unloaded. I'd hate for you to murder someone who came into your house illegally to do you or your family harm.
Unfortunately lots more innocent people are going to die till Americans pull their heads out of their asses. If more time was spent using logic vs emotion to make decisions, that have serious consequences, we would all be a lot better off. I really don't give a shit how a loon ended up being a loon, all I care about is the fact that the loon is free to roam and prey on innocents.
We have no problem murdering millions of innocent babies every year who have done nothing, yet fall over backwards to keep potential time bombs alive and free. Talk about living with tortured logic.
I see the latest bullshit balloon being floated by the psych community is that 30% of the WWII vets are suffering from PTSD.
I call horseshit. The only reason they came up with that crap was when someone posed the question, "How is it that WWII vets were able to go to war for years not knowing when they would get to come home, and then when they did return they got on with life and became productive members of their community. They didn't sit around whinging about poor me".
Kind of burst their thesis bubble of excuses for the bad behavior the current crop military personnel who want to act irresponsibly and then blame the military for their behavior. After all they are from the generations who have been raised with the concept that your actions are always the fault of someone else.
Sorry guys, as a fellow Libertarian I just can't understand how RP's statements about Kyle are OK with anyone. If he's trying to make a statement against the war he's picked the worst way possible to do so. I don't cut the communists any slack for using Sandy Hook to further their agenda. I'd be a hypocrite if I gave Ron Paul a pass for doing the same. I agree with RP on a lot of issues (not all) but he's WAY out of line here.
If you hate him and think he is irrelevant, why would you care enough about what he says to post it here?
Really? You seriously just asked that? You are aware that he's not some no-name blogger from Alabama that has a readership of maybe 30 people? It's Ron Paul- the guy ran for president, has been a congressman for years, and his words reach quite a few pairs of ears. I don't hate the man, and due to his standing in our nation as a candidate for president, like him or not, he's somewhat relevant. I care enough to post here about it because it's ignorance being spread to the naive masses that swallow nearly everything their fed. As a veteran with PTSD, I find his comments to be grossly inaccurate and only further the stigma surrounding PTSD. Thanks to him now I have acquaintances that claim they no longer trust PTSD suffering veterans with guns... and these are folks who write to their representatives.
HBARleatherneck
02-06-2013, 10:46
i have talked at GREAT length for about 10 years to a VA psychologist. He has been studying Vets and PTSD, shell shock, etc since the early 80s.
His thoughts about it were, WWII Vets suffered with the same symptoms. They immersed their selves in CAREERS, many times the bottle, some were abusive to wives and children. Each dealing with it in their own ways. Never bringing their pain to light.
Vietnam Vets were treated like shit. They came home and DRANK, used Illicit drugs, etc. AT that time they had no where to turn. Once the enormity of the problem was recognized Veterans started coming in for help. I was told when the influx of Vietnam Veterans started getting treatment and the stigma was (kind of) gone, many WWII and Korea VETS also started coming in. Those same VETS are now in places to make decisions regarding the current generation of VETS. They are unwilling to let us slide into the traps that they got caught in. So, diagnosis and treatment for PTSD is at the forefront right now.
I can see how SOME non VETERANS could think its all bullshit. But, thats because the hardest thing SOME of them did was drink heavily in college or play games in moms basement.
Attention to detail isn't really your thing is it?
Please see post #31 in this thread. Take your time.
And once again, do you see no difference between killing on a battlefield and murder?
You need to loose the attitude. There is no reason to be a dick...
I think you are trying to argue semantics, when Im not.
What im saying is its not unreasonable to have that initial thought right out of the gate
UncleDave
02-06-2013, 11:41
My Uncle's wife is a psychiatrist that specialized in addiction therapy. She worked extensively with the VA from the late 70's until the mid 90's and that was her take. She said that PTSD has been around as long as war. It has been known by many names but has always had the same symptoms. The main difference with the generation going through this now is that they are less mature than say the WW2 generation that lived through the depression before the war. Most of them were working to help support the family by the time they were teenagers. That means that they were more equipped to handle the stresses of battle. Second the average age of a soldier in WW2 was 25, a big difference.
PTSD is real and a concern for returning vets, but the real concern is the climate being set up to use this as an excuse to take the rights of those that stood to defend the constitution.
i have talked at GREAT length for about 10 years to a VA psychologist. He has been studying Vets and PTSD, shell shock, etc since the early 80s.
His thoughts about it were, WWII Vets suffered with the same symptoms. They immersed their selves in CAREERS, many times the bottle, some were abusive to wives and children. Each dealing with it in their own ways. Never bringing their pain to light.
Vietnam Vets were treated like shit. They came home and DRANK, used Illicit drugs, etc. AT that time they had no where to turn. Once the enormity of the problem was recognized Veterans started coming in for help. I was told when the influx of Vietnam Veterans started getting treatment and the stigma was (kind of) gone, many WWII and Korea VETS also started coming in. Those same VETS are now in places to make decisions regarding the current generation of VETS. They are unwilling to let us slide into the traps that they got caught in. So, diagnosis and treatment for PTSD is at the forefront right now.
I can see how SOME non VETERANS could think its all bullshit. But, thats because the hardest thing SOME of them did was drink heavily in college or play games in moms basement.
PTSD is real and a concern for returning vets, but the real concern is the climate being set up to use this as an excuse to take the rights of those that stood to defend the constitution.
^THIS. I'm not a Veteran but I'm absolutely in favor of the second amendment and think it applies to all Citizens equally. Attempts to disarm those that suffer from PTSD will only make them less likely to seek treatment.
My Uncle's wife is a psychiatrist that specialized in addiction therapy. She worked extensively with the VA from the late 70's until the mid 90's and that was her take. She said that PTSD has been around as long as war. It has been known by many names but has always had the same symptoms. The main difference with the generation going through this now is that they are less mature than say the WW2 generation that lived through the depression before the war. Most of them were working to help support the family by the time they were teenagers. That means that they were more equipped to handle the stresses of battle. Second the average age of a soldier in WW2 was 25, a big difference.
PTSD is real and a concern for returning vets, but the real concern is the climate being set up to use this as an excuse to take the rights of those that stood to defend the constitution.
That's just opinion, please don't dress it up like facts. People vary differently, I served with 18 year olds who were better equipped to handle combat stress than some 30 year olds. I also served with a 40 year old who was about as mature, if not less, than some guys in their 20's. It varies from person to person, and this generation is no less mature or equipped for combat than any other. You also should consider how wars are today by comparison to years ago... We're not jumping off a boat to punch a uniformed Nazi in the face- our enemy hides among the civilian population, blends in, and strikes without warning just to fade back into the innocents. Our enemy doesn't treat their captives humanely, and often times beheads them- that's a fear you don't even want to contemplate. You talk about stress and maturity- I'm not sure if you've ever served, but when one of your soldiers says "If we get into a firefight, I'm not letting them take me alive- I don't want my head cut off on Al Jazeera." That has destructive psychological effects. The way wars are being fought today can't even compare to WWII or Korea- thanks to politics and ROE, I don't even think you can compare it to Vietnam. Big difference.
UncleDave
02-06-2013, 12:56
No disrespect intended here Ronin, but I was speaking in generalities. Everyone is different and will react differently. As a whole what I said is true, this generation is not forged in the flames of adversity from childhood like our grandparents were. It is more about the conditioning of a life of hard knocks. As far as the treatment of prisoners, look up what the Japanese did to captured men. Beheading was the nicest thing they did. My grandfather saw it firsthand. I agree fighting an insurgent conflict is different, but the horrors of war are the horrors of war. I would agree that the current rules of engagement add another level of stress to the situation, but that is not what we are talking about. My point was and is that PTSD has always existed for returning soldiers. However in years past you had a several week trip by ship to decompress from the stresses of the battlefield. Now, a short flight and you are back in the world. Not an easy transition.
That's just opinion, please don't dress it up like facts. People vary differently, I served with 18 year olds who were better equipped to handle combat stress than some 30 year olds. I also served with a 40 year old who was about as mature, if not less, than some guys in their 20's. It varies from person to person, and this generation is no less mature or equipped for combat than any other. You also should consider how wars are today by comparison to years ago... We're not jumping off a boat to punch a uniformed Nazi in the face- our enemy hides among the civilian population, blends in, and strikes without warning just to fade back into the innocents. Our enemy doesn't treat their captives humanely, and often times beheads them- that's a fear you don't even want to contemplate. You talk about stress and maturity- I'm not sure if you've ever served, but when one of your soldiers says "If we get into a firefight, I'm not letting them take me alive- I don't want my head cut off on Al Jazeera." That has destructive psychological effects. The way wars are being fought today can't even compare to WWII or Korea- thanks to politics and ROE, I don't even think you can compare it to Vietnam. Big difference.
Mick-Boy
02-06-2013, 14:25
You need to loose the attitude. There is no reason to be a dick...
I think you are trying to argue semantics, when Im not.
What im saying is its not unreasonable to have that initial thought right out of the gate
OK. Getting past the fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around the difference between killing an enemy in combat and murdering two men on a firing range; knowing even a tiny bit about what happened, it's pretty damn unreasonable. Chief Kyle and Mr. Littlefield were not soldiers at war. They were not "living by the sword". They were civilians at the range.
Unless your contention is that everyone who ever pulled a trigger or dropped a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan somehow "has it coming" if they shot, You need to just accept that Dr. Paul said some dumb shit and now he's taking a beating for it.
Bailey Guns
02-06-2013, 14:49
Didn't RP take the Oath of Office as a US military officer? Does that mean he should "die by the sword"?
My Uncle's wife is a psychiatrist that specialized in addiction therapy. She worked extensively with the VA from the late 70's until the mid 90's and that was her take. She said that PTSD has been around as long as war. It has been known by many names but has always had the same symptoms. The main difference with the generation going through this now is that they are less mature than say the WW2 generation that lived through the depression before the war. Most of them were working to help support the family by the time they were teenagers. That means that they were more equipped to handle the stresses of battle. Second the average age of a soldier in WW2 was 25, a big difference.
PTSD is real and a concern for returning vets, but the real concern is the climate being set up to use this as an excuse to take the rights of those that stood to defend the constitution.
You are incorrect. The main difference is society as a whole, not the maturity of the individuals. Just watch TV for ten minutes and I'm sure you will see an ad about some kind of medication you can ask your doctor about. Gone are the days of accepting blame, confronting people, losing, learning how to lose and learning how to deal with adversity. I'm depressed, I have ADD, I have PTSD, I'm an alcoholic, I'm BiPolar, I'm obese, I have blah blah blah. In this society everything must have a definite cause and a definite solution. The fact of it is that if people learned how to deal with adversity instead of wanting things to do it for them then I feel that our generation would mirror the past generations to some degree. We are stronger physically, smarter mentally and better equipped than the generations that have come before us, yet it would seem that so many younger vets are having a hard time dealing with PTSD. No doubt all the previous wars veterans had PTSD as well, but for the most part it wasn't the epidemic that it is today. Why is that? I believe it's because these days something has to be to blame. I do not have PTSD nor do I know anything about it, however my best friend does and he has zero problems living a normal and productive life. You are only a victim if you let yourself be. Wild ass guesses about the average maturity of the WW2 serviceman as opposed to today's serviceman is just that, a guess.
UncleDave
02-06-2013, 16:04
My point was that the servicemen of any generation are taken from the society of the time. As you said society as a whole is sorely lacking the the maturity (ie. taking responsibility, meaning up) department. So we basically agree here Fmedges. I was making a general statement about the mentality of the current generation not the individuals. Ronin had diverted the conversation to some of those he served with. I was merely clarifying my statement.
OK. Getting past the fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around the difference between killing an enemy in combat and murdering two men on a firing range; knowing even a tiny bit about what happened, it's pretty damn unreasonable. Chief Kyle and Mr. Littlefield were not soldiers at war. They were not "living by the sword". They were civilians at the range.
Unless your contention is that everyone who ever pulled a trigger or dropped a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan somehow "has it coming" if they shot, You need to just accept that Dr. Paul said some dumb shit and now he's taking a beating for it.
Your insistence on proving me wrong on a point I wasn't even trying to make, is mind boggling to say the least...[LOL]
I've seen your type before... Your the one that has to prove someone wrong on a technical aspect and can't seem to let go of it.
So..... you are correct...
There is a legal distinction between killing someone in warfare and killing someone in a murderous rage and I've known that for exactly 47 1/2 days also. Aren't I smart???[Flower]
When the opportunity presents itself I will make sure to pass that info to the dead...
tmleadr03
02-06-2013, 18:56
Your insistence on proving me wrong on a point I wasn't even trying to make, is mind boggling to say the least...[LOL]
I've seen your type before... Your the one that has to prove someone wrong on a technical aspect and can't seem to let go of it.
So..... you are correct...
There is a legal distinction between killing someone in warfare and killing someone in a murderous rage and I've known that for exactly 47 1/2 days also. Aren't I smart???[Flower]
When the opportunity presents itself I will make sure to pass that info to the dead...
There is also an inherent moral difference as well, but I feel that eludes you as well.
There is also an inherent moral difference as well, but I feel that eludes you as well.
Sigh
Goodburbon
02-06-2013, 19:20
There is also a difference between defending our country and policing the world, but i feel that eludes you.
tmleadr03
02-06-2013, 20:49
There is also a difference between defending our country and policing the world, but i feel that eludes you.
Ah yes. Now that is the purview of the common soldier. Yup. Damn skippy. What that SEAL should have done was refuse orders. That would have shown him.
Goodburbon
02-06-2013, 20:55
Wow, because thats what i said...im out, you can continue to argue with yourself, i wont interfere anymore.
Ah yes. Now that is the purview of the common soldier. Yup. Damn skippy. What that SEAL should have done was refuse orders. That would have shown him.
I think you read too much into what people say.
tmleadr03
02-06-2013, 21:10
Wow, because thats what i said...im out, you can continue to argue with yourself, i wont interfere anymore.
Don't start nothin, wont be nothin.
Live by the sword by by the sword. How does this not not apply to any militaty member(any) that volunteers to join our imperialististic invading force? There is no reason for us to occupy Iraq, they posed no credible threat to our country. Anyone joining the military lately should realize they are part of an invading, imperialistic, evil force. Just because you kill in the name of the US does not make it morally right. The USA ( gov of the US) holds no monopoly on morality, which should be clear if one knows anything about history. There is no illusion of self defense when you invade a country thousands of miles away with no means of attacking the USA. How can one be a hero for attacking a defenseless poplulace that is not directly attacking us, and is powerless to defend itself from the power such that we possess? There is nothing heroic about slaughtering 'enemies' that are defending their homeland against invaders with superior weapons. His death, tragic as it is, was a direct result of people such as you that glorify killing, falsely, in the name of freedom whilst innocents are being repressed by the very freedom you pretend to defend. These killers that we breed to do our evil bidding, are certain to breed evil when they return home. This is just a sympton of the sickness of our society that many of you so clearly demonstrate. Simply, a sociopath killer was murdered by a disturbed member of our society who could not reconcile our society's blood lust for killing of those who may disagree or outsmart us businessswise.
[MOD: Your second account on the site you created today pissed me off, now I read this crap?! Buh-bye.]
Mick-Boy
02-07-2013, 04:50
Now THAT is how you state a position!
Take a good look bryjcom and Goodburbon. No allusions, no insinuations, no snotty accusations of someone taking what you said wrong. Just a clearly and unapologetically stated belief.
Bailey Guns
02-07-2013, 06:42
Clearly stated and unapologetic? Perhaps. Misguided and brainwashed by leftist propaganda? Absolutely.
axej has most likely happened here by mistake. I doubt his/her tenure will be long with that sort of outlook on things. Or maybe he's just a Paulbot.
HoneyBadger
02-07-2013, 07:30
Holy crap! LOL
Way to make an entrance!
ETA: Bailey Guns: I thought Paulbot at first, but Paulbots never considered the USA to be evil. They really just aren't fans of being the world police.
Bailey Guns
02-07-2013, 07:44
^^ True. But Paul has been known to use terms like "imperialism" and believes US involvement in countries like Iraq is morally wrong. He's also stated how we're (the US) basically the problem in the Muslim world. axej just takes it a step or two further. (S)He's gonna make lots of friends from the substantial military population here. Not. Of course, I somehow doubt that's of much bother to him/her. Hell, who knows. May be in the military.
wow just wow , hell i think ill start calling him/her axejwow-wow .
axe-j-wow-wow dont let the door hit you on the way out [Coffee]
What the hell! I thought this thread was dead.
UncleDave
02-07-2013, 08:34
Zombie thread!
Zombie thread!
More of a, zombies IN the thread, but yeah I see your point. LOL
tmleadr03
02-07-2013, 08:44
Zombie thread!
It wasn't posted in for a day. It isn't a zombie thread. When it comes from the last page then it is a zombie thread. Here let me show you. Check out the first post on the football thread.
XC700116
02-07-2013, 09:15
Yeap the Iraqi dictator never funded terrorists or provided them with weapos or aide for groaning to attack the us
Yeap the Iraqi dictator never funded terrorists or provided them with weapos or aide for groaning to attack the us
why arent we invading saudi arabia then?
Live by the sword by by the sword. How does this not not apply to any militaty member(any) that volunteers to join our imperialististic invading force? There is no reason for us to occupy Iraq, they posed no credible threat to our country. Anyone joining the military lately should realize they are part of an invading, imperialistic, evil force. Just because you kill in the name of the US does not make it morally right. The USA ( gov of the US) holds no monopoly on morality, which should be clear if one knows anything about history. There is no illusion of self defense when you invade a country thousands of miles away with no means of attacking the USA. How can one be a hero for attacking a defenseless poplulace that is not directly attacking us, and is powerless to defend itself from the power such that we possess? There is nothing heroic about slaughtering 'enemies' that are defending their homeland against invaders with superior weapons. His death, tragic as it is, was a direct result of people such as you that glorify killing, falsely, in the name of freedom whilst innocents are being repressed by the very freedom you pretend to defend. These killers that we breed to do our evil bidding, are certain to breed evil when they return home. This is just a sympton of the sickness of our society that many of you so clearly demonstrate. Simply, a sociopath killer was murdered by a disturbed member of our society who could not reconcile our society's blood lust for killing of those who may disagree or outsmart us businessswise.
Hey another minnesotan makes an entrance. Must be the water up there. [ROFL1]
Live by the sword by by the sword. How does this not not apply to any militaty member(any) that volunteers to join our imperialististic invading force? There is no reason for us to occupy Iraq, they posed no credible threat to our country. Anyone joining the military lately should realize they are part of an invading, imperialistic, evil force. Just because you kill in the name of the US does not make it morally right. The USA ( gov of the US) holds no monopoly on morality, which should be clear if one knows anything about history. There is no illusion of self defense when you invade a country thousands of miles away with no means of attacking the USA. How can one be a hero for attacking a defenseless poplulace that is not directly attacking us, and is powerless to defend itself from the power such that we possess? There is nothing heroic about slaughtering 'enemies' that are defending their homeland against invaders with superior weapons. His death, tragic as it is, was a direct result of people such as you that glorify killing, falsely, in the name of freedom whilst innocents are being repressed by the very freedom you pretend to defend. These killers that we breed to do our evil bidding, are certain to breed evil when they return home. This is just a sympton of the sickness of our society that many of you so clearly demonstrate. Simply, a sociopath killer was murdered by a disturbed member of our society who could not reconcile our society's blood lust for killing of those who may disagree or outsmart us businessswise.
Wow... I'd love to make you eat those words, guy.
http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/kill+yourself+_e254008b3bdac700d8f2535e19c01a63.pn g
Aloha_Shooter
02-07-2013, 11:45
Now THAT is how you state a position!
Take a good look bryjcom and Goodburbon. No allusions, no insinuations, no snotty accusations of someone taking what you said wrong. Just a clearly and unapologetically stated belief.
Nope, nothing but pure stupidity augmented by brainwashing from MoveOn.org, OWS and other propaganda tools. I'm ashamed this tool claims to be from Colorado Springs as s/he sounds more like a Boulderite or Kommiepornia whackjob.
S/he may sincerely believe this garbage but all the belief in the world won't make him/her right just as all the hope and change in the world won't fix effed up fiscal policies, anti-American foreign policy or intentional ignorance about the Constitution.
why arent we invading saudi arabia then?
Two words- Oil money. I'm serious- The Kingdom of Saud is one of the most wishy washy foreign policy issues we face. 1/2 love us, the other 1/2 hate us- but where it counts in their government they love us. We have an agreement- they trade oil with us, we provide military support. 1991, we protected them from Saddam. We found oil there, we made it so they have one of the most prosperous economies in the region, we sell them equipment, provide training, etc.
Live by the sword by by the sword. How does this not not apply to any militaty member(any) that volunteers to join our imperialististic invading force? There is no reason for us to occupy Iraq, they posed no credible threat to our country. Anyone joining the military lately should realize they are part of an invading, imperialistic, evil force. Just because you kill in the name of the US does not make it morally right. The USA ( gov of the US) holds no monopoly on morality, which should be clear if one knows anything about history. There is no illusion of self defense when you invade a country thousands of miles away with no means of attacking the USA. How can one be a hero for attacking a defenseless poplulace that is not directly attacking us, and is powerless to defend itself from the power such that we possess? There is nothing heroic about slaughtering 'enemies' that are defending their homeland against invaders with superior weapons. His death, tragic as it is, was a direct result of people such as you that glorify killing, falsely, in the name of freedom whilst innocents are being repressed by the very freedom you pretend to defend. These killers that we breed to do our evil bidding, are certain to breed evil when they return home. This is just a sympton of the sickness of our society that many of you so clearly demonstrate. Simply, a sociopath killer was murdered by a disturbed member of our society who could not reconcile our society's blood lust for killing of those who may disagree or outsmart us businessswise.
I would like to meet up and buy you a sandwhich.
Two words- Oil money. I'm serious- The Kingdom of Saud is one of the most wishy washy foreign policy issues we face. 1/2 love us, the other 1/2 hate us- but where it counts in their government they love us. We have an agreement- they trade oil with us, we provide military support. 1991, we protected them from Saddam. We found oil there, we made it so they have one of the most prosperous economies in the region, we sell them equipment, provide training, etc.
...and we sit on our 100yr oil supply (subject to increase, as we reduce our oil consumption with new vehicles and green-energy supplements), all the while consuming theirs.... supposed theory is, eventually we will be the worlds leading oil producer when the middle east runs dry, but it's going to take a long ass time.
HBARleatherneck
02-07-2013, 12:18
I would like to meet up and buy you a sandwhich.
you mean a knuckle sandwich dont you?
...and we sit on our 100yr oil supply (subject to increase, as we reduce our oil consumption with new vehicles and green-energy supplements), all the while consuming theirs.... supposed theory is, eventually we will be the worlds leading oil producer when the middle east runs dry, but it's going to take a long ass time.
By recent estimates- the ME will run out of oil (at current rates of consumption) sometime between 2210-2290 (average is around 2265, +/- 250 years or so)... I don't think we have anything to worry about right now.
...and we sit on our 100yr oil supply (subject to increase, as we reduce our oil consumption with new vehicles and green-energy supplements), all the while consuming theirs.... supposed theory is, eventually we will be the worlds leading oil producer when the middle east runs dry, but it's going to take a long ass time.
And a lot of lives......
you mean a knuckle sandwich dont you?
Possibly
Possibly
Can I join!? Hey, I'm always up to aid a Marine in uh... sandwich "buying"! [Marin1[
Aloha_Shooter
02-07-2013, 12:30
Two words- Oil money. I'm serious- The Kingdom of Saud is one of the most wishy washy foreign policy issues we face. 1/2 love us, the other 1/2 hate us- but where it counts in their government they love us. We have an agreement- they trade oil with us, we provide military support. 1991, we protected them from Saddam. We found oil there, we made it so they have one of the most prosperous economies in the region, we sell them equipment, provide training, etc.
It's nice to blame it all on oil money but that's really not accurate. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? The primary answer is that the GOVERNMENT of Saudi Arabia didn't provide aid and support to ObL or Al Qaeda; they kicked him out of the country. Yeah, he still had family ties but he hadn't been in country for years. That's like saying we should invade Great Britain because Piers Morgan is a dick. In fact, one of ObL's complaints was that he felt our long term presence in Saudi Arabia was an invasion in all but name.
You ARE right in that a large part of the country hates us for essentially the same reasons ObL did but that's a far cry from governmental action whereas Saddam essentially welcomed ObL as a comrade-in-arms and the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan for a period.
Mick-Boy
02-07-2013, 12:31
Nope, nothing but pure stupidity augmented by brainwashing from MoveOn.org, OWS and other propaganda tools. I'm ashamed this tool claims to be from Colorado Springs as s/he sounds more like a Boulderite or Kommiepornia whackjob.
S/he may sincerely believe this garbage but all the belief in the world won't make him/her right just as all the hope and change in the world won't fix effed up fiscal policies, anti-American foreign policy or intentional ignorance about the Constitution.
Oh I agree it's nonsense. But I respect someone with the courage of their convictions to come right out and say what they think. As opposed to some of the weak willed alluding that has happened in this thread.
I prefer an enemy that will look me in the eye.
It's nice to blame it all on oil money but that's really not accurate. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? The primary answer is that the GOVERNMENT of Saudi Arabia didn't provide aid and support to ObL or Al Qaeda; they kicked him out of the country. Yeah, he still had family ties but he hadn't been in country for years. That's like saying we should invade Great Britain because Piers Morgan is a dick. In fact, one of ObL's complaints was that he felt our long term presence in Saudi Arabia was an invasion in all but name.
You ARE right in that a large part of the country hates us for essentially the same reasons ObL did but that's a far cry from governmental action whereas Saddam essentially welcomed ObL as a comrade-in-arms and the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan for a period.
I agree- and yes, OBL was effectively exiled from Saudi lands and denied safe haven... But I was responding to bryjcom's question as to why we're not at war with them since the Wahabi elements in the Saudi government are hugely anti-western and support terror.
Rust_shackleford
02-07-2013, 12:47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ
Rust_shackleford
02-07-2013, 12:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
tmleadr03
02-07-2013, 12:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKX6luiMINQ
I love these videos! Bush makes a joke at an appropriate venue and people say he is callous about the deaths of soldiers.
That man made more time for any Soldier, Sailor, Marine, AirForce then any other president. He still takes time now for them. He would destroy his schedule to make time for the family of our departed brothers. I have heard more good things from my fellow guys in uniform about him then anyone else.
bobbyfairbanks
02-07-2013, 12:58
Bush has grabbed more freedom from Americans then almost any other President. He can talk his news show and stick it. He should feel guilty for what he has done. That means sitting at the sides of beds of Service members. Oh and before you scoff, I am a service member.
XC700116
02-07-2013, 14:13
why arent we invading saudi arabia then?
Because they currently own our sorry assed economy, because we're too worried about insects and bunnies to drill the oil we have here.
And honestly, we shouldn't have ever invaded either of them IMO, we should have kicked their tails back to the stone age and left. All could be done in a matter of months instead of years. Invasion/occupation was a poor choice in a punative effort, which was the basis of public support for both Iraq and Afghanistan (this time around).
Sidebar - Damn autocorrect on the phone seriously butchered that last post of mine [shithitsfan]
XC700116
02-07-2013, 14:17
It's nice to blame it all on oil money but that's really not accurate. Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? The primary answer is that the GOVERNMENT of Saudi Arabia didn't provide aid and support to ObL or Al Qaeda; they kicked him out of the country. Yeah, he still had family ties but he hadn't been in country for years. That's like saying we should invade Great Britain because Piers Morgan is a dick. In fact, one of ObL's complaints was that he felt our long term presence in Saudi Arabia was an invasion in all but name.
You ARE right in that a large part of the country hates us for essentially the same reasons ObL did but that's a far cry from governmental action whereas Saddam essentially welcomed ObL as a comrade-in-arms and the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan for a period.
I have to agree with you 100% on this, but I will say it's suspected memebers of the Saudi royal family are funding Jihadis under the table.
XC700116
02-07-2013, 14:27
Hey another minnesotan makes an entrance. Must be the water up there. [ROFL1]
WTF are you talking about?
Bush has grabbed more freedom from Americans then almost any other President. He can talk his news show and stick it. He should feel guilty for what he has done. That means sitting at the sides of beds of Service members. Oh and before you scoff, I am a service member.
Just because you were a service member doesn't make you less of an idiot.
[MOD: Let's control the personal attacks.]
Aloha_Shooter
02-07-2013, 14:57
Just because you were a service member/professor/intelligence analyst/engineer/mathematician/reporter/etc. doesn't make you less of an idiot.
+1 but I added some categories in red because there are an awful lot of idiots that somehow think being a member of a particular profession automatically means they're geniuses or at least aren't idiots.
+1 but I added some categories in red because there are an awful lot of idiots that somehow think being a member of a particular profession automatically means they're geniuses or at least aren't idiots.
But you forgot politicians... no one is more grievously mistaken in their self-image than those folks! [Beer]
DavieD55
02-07-2013, 15:32
People need to wake up and stop bickering among one another about who did what when. Both (R) and (D) have screwed us in some way or another. There are members on both sides who are working together at doing the same s---. They are taking our money and setting up a system that will be used to enslave us. They are both taking our liberties in the name of safety. They are both useing social issues to distract and divide the American people. Stop being divided by those bastards and look at the big picture.
Goodburbon
02-07-2013, 20:19
Oh I agree it's nonsense. But I respect someone with the courage of their convictions to come right out and say what they think. As opposed to some of the weak willed alluding that has happened in this thread.
I prefer an enemy that will look me in the eye.
I Didn't know we were enemies.
You want my position, no "alluding"?
I don't find what RP said offensive. The man lived by the gun, sold books about the gun, trained people with guns, and died at the barrel of a gun. Was the death right? No. Did he deserve to die that way, at that time, by hands of a man he was trying to help? No.
but he did
I also see the statement as a reflection of our foriegn policy in general. If RP had been president this guy wouldn't have gone overseas, developed PTSD, and killed another Veteran for no reason.
I also refuse to argue with someone who takes what I say, interprets it to mean something completely extreme, and proceeds to destroy THAT. That guy wasn't debating, he was having fun beating up straw men.
I don't believe that RP is saying that we're the CAUSE of the problems in the middle east. He's saying that if we hadn't meddled with them, their focus wouldn't be on us, and that we would have the moral high ground. We meddled, pissed them off, tried to control the direction of their growth, and financed them. This has them pissed off, and it's directed at us. Deserved or not. Out of sight, out of mind, we are not out of sight.
I also don't believe that RP's foriegn policy is wacky after reflecting on it a bit. I did at first, but then I sat and really thought about what it is that I believe that America is and stands for. Currently We act like we think we can buy friends so we pay countries like Pakistan. We supply enemies who suppress what we believe are worse enemies Like the Egyptian government pre-Arab spring. We helped to create a Jewish state in the middle of downtown Muhammedville, and the muzzies hate us for it, it's not because we are "free". It's not because we are immoral in their eyes, though that does help them justify killing us. It's time for the world to fend for itself. We try to help and they all hate us for it, so fuck them. I'm not saying isolate, I'm saying stop meddling and picking sides in foriegn conflicts, it only serves to bite us in the ass when the other side prevails. Protect our Country, come to the aid of our Allies when they are in need, that is the function of our military. Not to invade countries to "establish democracy", not to "project force". Our military should be the sleeping dragon that no one dares to awaken, not the dog on a chain that everyone taunts to the limits of that chain.
RP also supports repealing the NFA acts.
am I a paul bot...no. I do not hold all things he says sacred, nor would I follow him to the ends of the earth. I do believe that he was a glimmer of hope at restoring our country, and that most "conservatives" are too stubborn to see that. You can see it when they bluster at the thought of his foreign policy before even hearing it out and understanding it.
Ron Paul made an insensitive statement. That does not mean " He hates the Military" or Since when is being against a foreign war unpatriotic or un- American? 9/11 is and was the resposnibility of the Saudis a terrorist organization, and our governments lack of preparedness. We knew something like this could happen. We got Bin-Laden. Time to come home. I have been to Afghanistan on a combat deployment and can tell you with 100% certainty it is a complete and utter waste of lives,time, and resources. Spending 12 years, Billions of dollars, and thousands of lives fighting across the world has gotten the American people very little except less freedom than we have ever had before, more debt than we can hope to repay, and the loss of some of the best lives this Nation had to offer. I love this country, I am not a Paul-ite I just think we need to look at this situation with a little more clarity and a better frame of reference. Also there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between his FB page and his message on twitter. R.I.P. Chris Kyle
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.