Posted on 05/11/2007 3:15:42 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
There already was an investigaion. How many more does he want? All he's doing (as is obvious from the websites who feature him) is keeping this 9-11 "truther" nonsense alive, and that is unforgivable.
Do you agree that Kucinich is a complete wacko?
Of course.
So does it concern you that Paul speaks so well of Kucinich instead of denouncing him? And that he has no problem cosponsoring a bill reinvestigating 9-11?
Here are more words from Paul about 9-11 (from an earlier post):
Heres how I think we should pull out of Iraq. Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a strategic withdrawal from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.
How to Stand Up to Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36
Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.
15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts
Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. Its the South vs. the South.
Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we dont want to play that role, Iraqs civil war will end with A or B.
Lets say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a withdrawal from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when were all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldnt really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.
.
.
I have posted in the past that I think the key to the strategy in the middle east is to start with an independent Kurdistan. If we engaged Iran in such a manner we might earn back the support of these windvane politicians and wussie voters who dont mind seeing a quick & victorious fight but hate seeing endless police action battles that dont secure a country.
I thought it would be cool for us to set up security for the Kurds on their southern border with Iraq, rewarding them for their bravery in defying Saddam Hussein. We put in some military bases there for, say, 20 years as part of the occupation of Iraq in their transition to democracy. We guarantee the autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan as long as they dont engage with Turkey. But that doesnt say anything about engaging with Iranian Kurdistan. Within those 20 years the Kurds could have a secure and independent nation with expanding borders into Iran. After we close down the US bases, Kurdistan is on her own. But at least Kurdistan would be an independent nation with about half its territory carved out of Persia. If Turkey doesnt relinquish her claim on Turkish Kurdistan after that, it isnt our problem, its 2 of our allies fighting each other, one for independence and the other for regional primacy. I support democratic independence over a bullying arrogant minority.
The kurds are the closest thing we have to friends in that area. They fought against Saddam (got nerve-gassed), theyre fighting against Iran, they squabble with our so-called ally Turkey (who didnt allow Americans to operate in the north of Iraq this time around).
Its time for them to have their own country. They deserve it. They carve Kurdistan out of northern Iraq, northern Iran, and try to achieve some kind of autonomy in eastern Turkey. If Turkey gets angry, we let them know that there are consequences to turning your back on your friend when they need you. If the Turks want trouble, they can invade the Iraqi or Persian state of Kurdistan and kill americans to make their point. It wouldnt be a wise move for them, theyd get their backsides handed to them and have eastern Turkey carved out of their country as a result.
If such an act of betrayal to an ally means they get a thorn in their side, I would be happy with it. Its time for people who call themselves our allies to put up or shut up. The Kurds have been putting up and deserve to be rewarded with an autonomous and sovereign Kurdistan, borne out of the blood of their own patriots.
Should Turkey decide to make trouble with their Kurdish population, we would stay out of it, other than to guarantee sovereignty in the formerly Iranian and Iraqi portions of Kurdistan. When one of our allies wants to fight another of our allies, its a messy situation. If Turkey goes into the war on Irans side then they aint really our allies and thats the end of that.
I agree that its hard on troops and their families. We won the war 4 years ago. This aftermath is the nation builders and peacekeeper weenies realizing that they need to understand things like the “15 rules for understanding the Middle East”
This was the strategic error that GWB committed. It was another brilliant military campaign but the followup should have been 4X as big. All those countries that dont agree with sending troups to fight a war should have been willing to send in policemen and nurses to set up infrastructure and repair the country.
What do you think we should do with Iraq?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752311/posts
Posted by Kevmo to Blue Scourge
On News/Activism 12/12/2006 9:17:33 AM PST · 23 of 105
My original contention was that we should have approached the reluctant allies like the French to send in Police forces for the occupation after battle, since they were so unwilling to engage in the fighting. It was easy to see that wed need as many folks in police and nurses uniforms as we would in US Army unitorms in order to establish a democracy in the middle east. But, since we didnt follow that line of approach, we now have a civil war on our hands. If we were to set our sights again on the police/nurse approach, we might still be able to pull this one off. I think we won the war in Iraq; we just havent won the peace.
I also think we should simply divide the country. The Kurds deserve their own country, theyve proven to be good allies. We could work with them to carve out a section of Iraq, set their sights on carving some territory out of Iran, and then when theyre done with that, we can help negotiate with our other allies, the Turks, to secure Kurdish autonomy in what presently eastern Turkey.
That leaves the Sunnis and Shiites to divide up whats left. We would occupy the areas between the two warring factions. Also, the UN/US should occupy the oil-producing regions and parcel out the revenue according to whatever plan they come up with. That gives all the sides something to argue about rather than shooting at us.
So you believe, as does Ron Paul, that the US is going to fake an attack by Iran to justify an invasion?
I can't say that such an occurrence would be outside the realm of possibility. And neither can you. All you have is your trust in government, apparently the bigger the better. All I have is my distrust of government and a history of deception of all governments against their citizens.
So do you believe, as Rudy does, that a womens right to abort her fetus is inshrined within our Constitution?
Are your views on gun ownership as leftist as the views of the candidate that you support?
Yeah, about that Secure Fence Act...
Guess who not only voted for it, but coauthored it? ;)
Duncan Hunter: A Man of Action
Liar.
Please link ONE post that says I support Guliani, and I'll leave FR forever.
The rest of your post is a mixture of 9-11 truther paranoia and strawmen based on the lie of my support for another candidate.
I would suggest there is a large difference between what Paul said, which i am not defending, and the various crap about steel not melting, LIHOP, MIHOP, etc.
to
I see by your past posts that you are a defender of the liberal Rudy Gilliani. Explains much about you.
My easy answer to solve this mess:
Give the Kurds their own state. Trade Iran southern Iraq for its border provinces that are Kurdish. Give the rest of Iraq to Syria.
The Kurds are fine.. The Iranians and Syrians will impose peace in about two days.
Problem solved.
Plus, we have the benefit of a border between Syria and Iran where the populations don't like each other, thus fomenting conflict between Iran and Syria.
The basis of the truther movement is that there is a conspriacy to cover-up what happened on 9-11, this quote shows he is of the same mind:
"we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."
I don't see how anyone can read that and still support him as a candidate (I'm not referring to you RK).
At any rate you didn’t answer my questions.
So do you believe, as Rudy does, that a womens right to abort her fetus is inshrined within our Constitution?
Are your views on gun ownership as leftist as the views of the candidate that you defend?
What? You think you are going to trap me here?
If you had read that thread, and others, like you said you did, you would have read my unwavering pro-life views, and you would have know I'm a CCW permit holder (Kel-Tec P11).
I only defended Guliani on that thread because it was so obviously a MSM hit job. I dare you to find a thread anywhere where I defend Guliani as a person, or his views on abortion, gun control, immigration or anything else.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Guess who not only voted for it, but coauthored it? ;)
Duncan Hunter: A Man of Action
Thank you for pointing this out. I am grateful to Congressman Hunter for this!
Thanks, Eaglet. Here’s what was posted:
* Ron Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Amnesty for lawbreakers is not the answer, and its time to rethink birthright citizenship, Paul added. (”Paul Votes for Stronger Border Security”)
* Ron Paul is a co-sponsor of HR 487, which “expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway or enter into any plans to create a North American Union between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.”
* “We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.” Ron Paul (source)
___________
Now, as I asked before, show me one piece of legislation that Ron Paul has INTRODUCED (sponsored) to secure the borders. His speech sited above is from 2006. Show me where he has come out against illegal immigration before that — Ron Paul is late to this game.
Let’s look at some of his history. Ron Paul has done some good things, but immigration was never one of them until recently!
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm:
Trade 1998: “ Unless a nation represents a clear and present danger to our national security, we should allow, even encourage, our best ambassadors ... to engage in mutually beneficial trade with people of all nations and regions. As goods are traded, so are ideas. And just as American products are the finest in the world, so too is the philosophy of liberty.
Trade 1999: Free trade, not isolationism or subsidization, is the most moral of instruments between men. Engagement, not irrational fear or political paybacks, is the best force for bringing change to China and our relations with its people.
Trade, 2005: statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese government. Take the demand that the government revalue its currency, for example. This will disproportionately affect Americans of lower incomes and, as a consequence, slow the economy and increase the hardship of those struggling to get by
_________________
Through all his writings and all his speeches, this is what I found on immigration before 2006, I have found NO legislation by him to control the problem:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst010702.htm
“Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war.” (otherwise he mentions nothing about the 20 mil aliens)
On the ‘Tips’ program where citizens report unusual activity by possible terrorists we might see (Does he approve of the guy that turned in the Albanians???):
July, 2002, “Busybodies across the country will clamor to join the effort and act as self-appointed neighborhood vigilantes. Unscrupulous individuals of every stripe will abuse the program by snitching on ex-spouses, personal enemies, and racial groups they dont like. Bickering neighbors will enjoy calling in to report unkempt lawns and barking dogs as sure signs of nefarious activity.A civilized and free society would not be discussing, much less seriously debating, any proposal to enlist private citizens to act as federal neighborhood snitches. “
This seems to be his immigration policy:
(2005) “If we took some of the steps I have outlined here - eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders - we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens”
(2006) This is a curious statement: “And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume- especially medical care. “
“The immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. “ -( What about punishing employers who break the law?? )
Seminar callers or otherwise, I am glad to see that Paul is getting more coverage on the airwaves. What talk shows were these?
That tells me that Ron Paul is listening and responsive to concerns of the electorate. I was initially interested him because of his positions on income tax relief, defunding the UN, defending national sovereignty, and impeaching President Clinton (while raising security issues in the process).
He should be commended for his increased activity in defending the borders.
Heard one on Hewitt, and then switched to local and there was one on and then I think it was Savage or Levin I heard one try later.
Or better yet, here's his opinion about what to do concerning the illegals already here: "I don't think there's anything wrong with asking folks who come in illegally ... to go home. We deport thousands of people every month. I don't see any other way to re-establish the currency of American law than to keep the law."
How many times have we seen this same thing posted, by this same poster? It is taking on the form of spam.
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.