Posted on 12/27/2007 2:33:22 PM PST by SeafoodGumbo
Ron Paul blames the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on the “interventionist”
policy of the United States, and says Al Qaeda is justified in being “annoyed” at us.
The man is beyond disgusting. He’s an America hater.
You’re a ROMNEY fan?!? Ick.
I hope you were drinking when you posted that.
Yes it is.
When doesn’t he blame America?
I’m more worried about the idiots who think our foreign policy DOESN’T have an affect on how the world views us.
“”.....and now I’m scared to death we’re going to be marching in there and have another war””
Ah, such a presidential type of statement wouldn’t you agree?
Has anyone actually watched the video?
I see the same pattern every time, people only read the thread title, usually from an extremely anti-Paul site like "little green footballs" and then it's, knee-jerk time!
I watched the video twice... and I'd like to know - what is it specifically that he said that you so vehemently disagree with? Here is roughly what he said in the video...
"We've been supporting the Musharraf government, he's a military dictator, and we just gave them 10 billion dollars over the last 7 years. He's supported by 8 % of the people - and that does annoy some people. It just gives incentive for people to resort to violence. We don't need to be further involved over there - we shouldn't have been supporting this military dictator anyway."
“Ok, please point out what specifically you think is untrue.”
This is untrue: “We don’t need to be further involved over there - we shouldn’t have been supporting this military dictator anyway.”
“And please answer this question: Is no one ever allowed to disagree with a particular foreign policy? Is no one ever allowed to hold the position that a particular foreign policy is against our best interests?”
I see you want to play strawman this morning. Now who has told you that you can’t hold a particular position? The disagreement with Paul is that his policy recommendations are not in the best interest of the United States.
“And if not agreeing with a particular foreign policy makes one “anti-American” - then what you are doing is stating that “America” is synonymous with ANY foreign policy. And in that case, by that logic, there should have been NO criticism or disagreement with Clinton’s foreign policy - because foreign policy is synonymous with America, and all of us who disagreed with Clinton’s foreign policy were “anti-American” by YOUR reasoning!”
More strawmen.
The disagreement with Clinton was that his foreign policy was selected with what was in Clinton’s best interest, not that of the US.
8% support? We created this?
Thank God most people see thru this POS.
A few comments if I may. We are fighting a WoT, stability in Pakistan being pretty paramount to our success in this.
Pakistan for the most part has been an ally to our country. The country is totally unstable — the money and support we have been giving Musharraf has largely been payment to buy us time before this inevitable meltdown would happen. Musharraf made a huge error when he declared martial law, and shut down the press as in doing so he alienated those who stand with him against the extreme faction of Islam. GWB intervened, Musharraf complied, Bhutto was murdered. Instability ensues. This we cannot prevent, but we certainly can support those who share our ideals and goals for this region. It is in the best interest of our Nation (and the world for that matter) to do so.
Please tell us what would have happened had we not supported Musharraf’s government? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda who find themselves limited to the tribal areas of the Pakistan borders would have pretty much taken over the entire country. Nuclear Pakistan would be under the strangehold of terrorists. Then what Dr. Ron?
Looking away now would be rather detrimental to our country. Dr. Ron’s foreign policy platform is dangerous in theory and would be disasterous in practice. His stumping his nonsense on the campaign trail and getting press coverage for it makes me sick to my stomach.
I have to laugh too at Paul’s statement that Musharraf is only supported by 8% of the people. Paul barely has 2% support in the Nation. The dictator can pull more support than the insane “Republican” from Texas.
Easy.
I disagree that our aid to Pakistan gave people in that country an incentive for violence.
The people there who are predisposed to violence need no incentive from anyone. They are a violent people and a violent country. Not all of them but far too many.
The aid was so Pakistan’s army and gov’t would help us in the war on terror. Paul is saying give them nothing in aid and just get out of that area. I disagree. He’s wrong. Much of the aid is designed to secure Pakistan’s nukes, and other classified stuff almost equally important.
As for only 8% public support, well, Paulie boy should know that we were trying to get a more popular figure in there, namely Ms Bhutto, but the terrorists killed her.
And the low popularity isn’t the point. The point has always been, we need to be engaged with that country and someone or other is going to be head of the gov’t, whether popular or not.
So you see there’s lots to disagree with in his statement and I have no problem doing it.
What you need to do is get off your high horse. You have no moral position from which to critique others. We know enough to know that this man finds America at fault around the world. He makes no bones about it, you dunderhead.
So if someone didn’t mind their p’s and q’s to suit you, who cares? I don’t give a rip.
Me? No. This was the implication of your claim that the Paul campaign had already spent the Neo-Nazi's $500 and therefore couldn't give it back (or shouldn't because it would be some other donor's $500).
See? I warned you to just forget the old crazy excuses and concentrate instead on the new crazy excuses. You're already getting confused. Life as an internet aPAULogist can't be easy. Best keep it simple (as possible).
His campaign said the money was already spent. I'll trust the campaign over those with an agenda, thank you.
So, it's simultaneously absurd to suggest that the campaign separates particular, individual donations within the coffers; yet sensible to trust that they can determine and have determined a particular, individual donation to have been spent.
That's one way to keep it simple, I suppose: abandon basic logical consistency. It's the first thing that has to go in the practice of aPAULogetics.
Why am I NOT surprised? One more reason to NOT vote for this dufus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.