Oh by all means let's whip out the Staples "Easy Button" or Harry Potter's magic wand to make it happen right now because YOU say it's going too slow.
Oh, you don't think five years is too long?
[ "If U.S. troops are going to be exposed to the Iranians, they should be protected."]
They are protected. No thanks to that POS coward you support who has voted against providing the very protective equipment they need.
No, they are not being protected from Iranian attacks since Iran isn't being hit for them.
As for U.S. troops in field, Ron Paul has voted to keep them supplied so stop your lying.
[ "If Iran is such a threat, why isn't anything being done about them and why aren't you tough talking sorts demanding it?"]
Funny but your cut and run heerow said that Iran isn't a threat....And we all know that EVERYTHING he says is the truth.
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.
If they are such a great threat, why haven't they been hit?
[ "Paul would remove U.S. troops so they wouldn't be targets."]
And those troops will still be targets no matter where your cut and run heerow places them.
Not if they were in the US, they wouldn't be.
[ "Paul is an honorable man-and nothing you anti-Paul zealots had brought up shows otherwise."]
Pull your head out of his rear end and get a clue.
Brillant answer.
[ "Speaks more to the blind irrational hatred on your part and the rest of the anti-Paul zealots."]
As opposed to your blind hatred towards anyone who dares to tell the truth about that cut and run coward you worship?
The only one expressing 'blind hatred' is you as shown by the language and tone you use.
But that is common to all of you anti-Ron Paul zealots.
[ "I guess it makes you feel more patriotic to attack him but not to attack the guys in power who actually have the ability and responsibility to do something."]
We are attacking the guy who has the power to do something about it since he swears up and down that only Congress has the power to declare war.
Well, he is only one Congressman and only Congress does have the right to officially declare war, it is in the Constitution.
[ "And I expect nothing less from the anti-Paul zealots."]
As opposed to the brainwashed sheeple that worship at the feet of the cut and run coward and ignore the truth about him?
More empty rhetoric.
[ "As for defense spending, Paul believes in a strong national defense."]
BS! He's on record whining about how the clinton military cuts didn't go DEEP enough. He has voted against every military budget since he slithered into office. He has voted to kill numerous defence programs to include the B-2. He has voted against providing our troops with body armor. So do me a favor, save that "He's for a strong defense" BS for your fellow clueless sheeple.
Well, that is what Ronald Reagan said about him!
[ "That is exactly his position, that he is representing the principles of the Old Right, of non-interventionism and defending American interests, not those of the Globalists, as put forth by the neocons."]
Surrendering to the enemy is NOT a principle of the "Old Right". And how is the cut and run coward going to defend our intrests when his policy is that of isolationism?
So, I guess when Reagan took off after Beirut, he was just a 'cut and runner' also.
[ "No, you can support a Republican who actually wants to defend American values, not those of the UN."]
Defend American values? Last I checked, retreating in the face of an enemy, and sticking our heads in the sand are not American values.
Last I checked, fighting for American interests and not that of the UN were American values.
[ "Well, you had better check out who is actually in control of the foreign policy of this nation and their neocon affiliations." "No, but if any of those major candidates get nominated, it will just be 'business as usual' with the same neocon foreign policy."]
Neocon, neocon, neocon......You're sounding like a broken record.
Well, that is who is directing the US foreign policy of Globalism.
[ "Charged with war crimes, U.S. troops get legal help from home http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/asia/troops."]
Hmmm shows what little you know because those soldiers were charged under the UCMJ, and were tried by OUR military in a court martial. But I guess that we should look the other way when our troops rape and murder a 14 year old girl and her family. Oh the outrage that they be held accountable for their actions.
; 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.
[ "http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html"]
Oh what's this? Figures that you'd rely on a website that spews hatred for America as a source for information.
That was just to give you the definition of what a war crime is.
Considering that you wanted our troops to be under the rules of the Geneva Convention, while the enemy is not, they would be vulnerable to all kinds of false accusations, as we have seen in the recent trials.
As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best.
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=40
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.