http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...plause_gif.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Printable View
http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...plause_gif.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
OK...that I pretty much understand. But there's a simple fix for that whether, as president, you're a R or D.
Define the mission for military commanders:
"General. Country X is a direct threat to the security and safety of the United States. Take your troops and make them not a threat to the United States. As soon as you've done that, bring your troops home and report back to me when you're done."Reassure your military commanders that you support them:"Mr President. You do understand in order to do that I'm going to have to break stuff and hurt people? Maybe innocent people?"If only it worked like that in real life. That's how easy it would be to make the US the safest country in the world.
"Yes, General. I understand. Go break stuff and hurt people and report back to me as soon as you've accomplished the mission. Let me know if you need anything else to accomplish your task."
Now...Ron Paul will NOT make us safer. He's said he would immediately bring ALL troops home from overseas and close all our overseas bases.
That's a disaster in the making.
I don't need to know anything else about Ron Paul.
I took a candidate policy test at this URL:
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
You get a percentage correlation with each candidate and they give you references. My results were:
90% Newt
88% Santorum
I never thought I was that close to Santorum. I think I will look at him more closely.
I agree that Newt is not electable, but he would make a good candidate for a cabinet position.
yes sir ^thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Mine came up:
Newt 95%
Santorum 89%
Not too surprising.
Newt Ftw!
All of you Ron Paul supporters need to read some books from people who were there, and were both leading troops and were also ground level troops. They were also privy to high level intel that was at one point classified.
Here are some that come to mind:
American Soldier; General Tommy Franks
Seal Team Six, Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper; Howard E. Wasdin
Lone Survivor; Marcus Luttrell
These books will help you further understand why we were/are there and maybe, just maybe, make you think before you keep spewing the typical Ron Paul rhetoric. All I hear from you all is the same thing over and over again.
Do some research, learn from people who were actually there before running your mouth about Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there, or why are we still there. There absolutely is good being accomplished there and the people want/need our help. We helped Germany rebuild after we defeated them in WWII, and it took until 1980 to do so.
Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?
Because running Libertarian is a sure way to not be elected. Perhaps you should read All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg8550
Amen to all of the above, and in response to the bold...Quote:
Originally Posted by jmg8550
I would support staying in Afghanistan and raining hell on them for the next 100 years for revenge for what happened on that mission.
RIP Danny Dietz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcantar18c
I Still think we need to pull all of our guys out to the borders and carpet bomb Afghanistan until its flatter than Kansas
The Founders envisioned these United States to be more like Switzerland. Not to interfere in other nation's affairs, not entering into any foreign alliances and entanglements. But still having a strong navy.
U.S. Grant wrote that it was a lie that the Mexican Army attacked us in 1846, but it was used as an excuse to provoke the Mexican-American War.
The Maine blew up due to a problem in the coal bunker, but it was used as an excuse to invade Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
The US also got involved in the rebellion in Panama to get rights to build a canal across it.
Wilson sold munitions to Great Britain and put them on passenger vessels to provoke the Germans to use unrestricted submarine warfare. Thus launching the US into World War I. then he tried to get us into the League of Nations. Don't forget that the population of the US at the time was mostly pro-German, but media propaganda was used to favor the British.
FDR moved the Pacific BB Fleet from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor to provoke a Japanese response (plus his embargoes). This launched the US into WW2. Then he formed the United Nations.
And the list goes on.
I am not an isolationist, but I think we may have been better served by not being interventionists.
Now admittedly, communism is a big problem in the post-WW2 era, but maybe the Nazis and Stalinist might have collapsed from continued warfare. The Japanese Empire may have been a problem, too. OK. The US would have gotten drawn into it anyway.
I disagree with Congressman Paul that we should just pull out overnight. we still need a strong Air Force and Navy. But we certainly could look at ways to slowly pull back.
http://www.millan.net/minimations/sm...ilhatsmile.gif
Someone needs to stop listening to Alex Jones.
Tonantius, show factual documentation for your last post, Especially those statements where we started the wars you mention.
Irving, Isn't All the Kings Men about Humpty Dumpty and how he fell off the wall?[ROFL1]
Exactly. So much for being principled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Alot of what tonantius says is true. Americas past is strewn with excuses to declare war. Look at Bush's invasion of Iraq, the "theme" was to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. Then when no WMD's were found, the "theme" became regime change. Same with Afghanistan, Osama Bin Ladin was in Pakistan. Sun Tzu's writings state that "all war is based on deception" and this is true.
I have stated this before and I will state it again, the U.S. invaded Iraq to secure the worlds fourth largest known oil reserves and we invaded Afghanistan to secure the future route of a large natural gas pipeline.
U.S. war policy is a sort of an international eminent domain action. Do business with us our way, or face military might! As the British have been known to say "The Americans will eventually get it right."
I will summarize this posting by saying, we will in the future have to elect a national leader with vision. Someone who is proactive and selfless, not someone who is out playing golf while our military is risking their lives for us.
*Disclaimer "Above statement is an educated opinion and not the official view of the U.S. Government"
Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet as a rose?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
the deceptions and "misdirection" goes way back.
you should really see what they teach about US History abroad...
your beloved forefathers aren't as squeaky clean as some would believe nor are any of the latter presidents.