Posted on 12/18/2007 7:41:42 AM PST by mnehring
I see that you keep flappin your gums about things you havn't got a clue about.
"No, they are not being protected from Iranian attacks since Iran isn't being hit for them."
We can't go after them without a DECLARATION OF WAR remember?
Besides YOUR little cut and run coward has already said that Iran isn't a threat.
"As for U.S. troops in field, Ron Paul has voted to keep them supplied so stop your lying."
The hell he has.
He has voted against every defense budget there's been since 1997.
He has voted against the FY98 defense bill
Voted against the FY99 defense bill to include the military construction bill.
Voted against the FY00 defense bill to include the military construction bill.
Voted against the FY00 Veteran's Affairs appropriations bill.
Voted against the FY01 defense bill
Voted against the 01 supplemental bill that included $5.6 billion for Defense Department, to be used for military health care, military readiness, and the Pentagon's rising energy costs
And
$92 million for Coast Guard expenses
Voted against the FY02 defense bill
Did not vote for the FY02 military construction bill
Voted against the FY02 Veteran's Affairs appropriations bill.
Voted against the FY03 defense bill.
Voted against the FY04 defense bill
Voted against the FY04 military construction bill
Voted against the FY05 defense bill
Voted against the FY06 defense bill
Voted against the FY07 defense bill
Did not vote for the FY08 defense bill.
The ONLY military bill he voted for was the FY07 military construction bill.
So he's 1 for 18, and that's HARDLY voting to keep the military "supplied".
And that's not even all of the DOD supplemental bills that provided emergency funding for body armor and armored vehicles and such since he voted AGAINST those too.
"Iran isn't a threat to the United States, they are a regional threat and can be handled by those other nations in that region."
First you whine that they're a threat and complain that we're not moving fast enough to deal with them, now you say that they're not a threat.
So which is it?
"If they are such a great threat, why haven't they been hit?"
You're the one bitching about it, not me.
And it's YOUR cut and run heerow that says that Iran ISN'T a threat, not me.
"Not if they were in the US, they wouldn't be."
Uh HELLLLOOO......Earth to Captain Oblivious....
The terrorists can hit us here on our shores as they did in 1993 and again in 2001.
"The only one expressing 'blind hatred' is you as shown by the language and tone you use."
Pot, Kettle, Black Mr. Neocon this, and neocon that. Zealot this and zealot that.
"But that is common to all of you anti-Ron Paul zealots."
And cluelessness is common among you paul supporters.
"Well, he is only one Congressman and only Congress does have the right to officially declare war, it is in the Constitution."
Then go bleat at him about the need to deal with Iran.
"More empty rhetoric."
As opposed to the propaganda you spew?
"Well, that is what Ronald Reagan said about him!"
Ronald Reagan said a lot of things about a lot of people, and I can assure you that if Ronald Reagan were to hear the lunacy spewing out of that cut and run coward's mouth that he'd change his opinion of him.
"So, I guess when Reagan took off after Beirut, he was just a 'cut and runner' also."
What Reagan did was a mistake.
"Last I checked, fighting for American interests and not that of the UN were American values."
Nice spin, but once again that coward YOU support doesn't want to fight.
Even if we're attacked, he'd rather treat it as a law enforcement matter.
"Well, that is who is directing the US foreign policy of Globalism."
So says alex jones and lew rockwell.
"The point was that they were charged with 'war crimes' so just because they fell under the auspices of the USMJ, they were still regarded as war crimes."
Gee I dunno how you are not making yourself dizzy with all the spinning you do.
It happened in a war zone. While at war we abide by the Geneva Conventions. Geneva Conventions are quite explicit when it comes to armed combatants harming civilians.
Those troops were tried under the UCMJ in front of a U.S. military court. They were not turned over to the Hague or the ICC or whatever.
"That was just to give you the definition of what a war crime is."
Well thank you Mr. Obvious, but I know what a war crime is.
But it's very telling of what your views are in that you cite an America hating conspiracy website that supports your pet village idiot as a source.
"Considering that you wanted our troops to be under the rules of the Geneva Convention,'
I can't believe that you're this stupid!
OUR TROOPS ARE UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS BECAUSE WE SIGNED THEM!
"they would be vulnerable to all kinds of false accusations, as we have seen in the recent trials."
If they're falsely accused, the Article 32 investigation will exonerate them as we have seen in recent trials.
Now THAT'S empty rhetoric.
Even though, I won’t vote for him; he’s probably right about “wrapped in a flag carrying a cross”.
Not when our troops deal with terrorists, who are not under the protections of the Geneva Convention, since they are criminals not legal combatants.
We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/233/honor-veterans-with-a-better-budget/
It’s not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those who speak the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war. They claim those who want honest reasons for the enormous sacrifice are unpatriotic and un-American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate the social unrest. Any criticism of policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to be motivated by a lack of support for the troops. Yet it is preposterous to suggest that a policy that would have spared the lives of 1900 servicemen and women lacks concern for the well being of our troops. The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and critics. They have no other defense.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=7213
I see that you keep flappin your gums about things you havn't got a clue about.
Really?
A recent article in the Washingtion Times stated that the Defense dept is going to speed up troop withdrawal due to the stress that it is placing on the Army.
[ "No, they are not being protected from Iranian attacks since Iran isn't being hit for them."]
We can't go after them without a DECLARATION OF WAR remember?
Well, don't you think being responsible for the killing of U.S. troops is grounds for a declaration of war?
Besides YOUR little cut and run coward has already said that Iran isn't a threat.
It isn't a direct threat to the United States, but it is a threat as long as we have troops in Iraq.
So, either get our troops out of Iraq or protect them from Iranian attacks.
But all you want to do is complain how 'weak' Ron Paul is on Defense.
We have embarked on the most expensive nation-building experiment in history. We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of U.S. tax dollars. We will pay to provide job training for Iraqis; we will pay to secure Iraq’s borders; we will pay for housing, health care, social services, utilities, roads, schools, jails, and food in Iraq. In doing so, we will saddle future generations of Americans with billions in government debt. The question of whether Iraq is worth this much to us is one Congress should answer now – by refusing another nickel for supplemental spending bills.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10510
Yeah, really.
"A recent article in the Washingtion Times stated that the Defense dept is going to speed up troop withdrawal due to the stress that it is placing on the Army."
Have a link or is this more of your make believe crap?
"Well, don't you think being responsible for the killing of U.S. troops is grounds for a declaration of war?"
Tell that to the cut and run coward you support since he's got the hard on for declarations of war.
"It isn't a direct threat to the United States, but it is a threat as long as we have troops in Iraq."
You just keep painting yourself deeper into that corner don't you?
"So, either get our troops out of Iraq or protect them from Iranian attacks."
The iranians attack we shoot back at them.
"But all you want to do is complain how 'weak' Ron Paul is on Defense."
Because he IS weak on defense, and his own voting record PROVES IT.
“Not when our troops deal with terrorists, who are not under the protections of the Geneva Convention, since they are criminals not legal combatants.”
Uh, YES when we deal with terrorists.
Under the Geneva Conventions, terrorists can be covered the same way a spy or pirate is covered.
So just because we *GASP* take prisoners and either A.) Hand them over to the Iraqis or the Afghanis OR B.) We interrogate them for information ourselves so we can get intelligence on where other terrorists may be hiding.....How do you think we got zarqawi? How do you think we’re able to find weapons cashes, terrorist safehouses, and bomb factories?
But like I said earlier, I don’t expect someone such as yourself who’s never served day one in the military to understand.
Oh wow, ron paul is featured on one of moveon.org’s “sister” websites.
And this guy has the nerve to call himself a Republican?
Yeesh!
Fascism...Liberalism/’whatism’. . .it has already come, Ron Paul. . .and it is carried by those who call themselves ‘Democrats’. . .it is carried ‘en toto’; and et al; by today’s DemocraTIC Party.
Ron Paul got it half right.
Major tag potential....
Yeah. Okay.
Amen. This is one issue on which I disagree with Ron Paul. I believe in the flag (American, not UN) and the cross (Jesus’ cross,not the upside-down twisted cross called the “peace” sign, or the rightside-up twisted cross called the swastika), so I must be a fascist, according to Ron Paul’s definition of fascism.
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.