Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):
"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."
THAT STATEMENT ALONE MAKES HIM UNFIT FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
If there is even a hint that some Islamic radical has a chem-bio bomb and is planning to launch, we better strike first.
“”I prefer Ron Paul’s approach: declare the war (to prevent the other party from defecting before it’s won as the Dims have done), wage it to win without any quarter for the enemy, win it on terms of unconditional surrender, then bring the troops home (not garrison it as part of a neocolonial system for the next fifty years or more at taxpayer expense).””
Except of course for his vote for military action in Afghanistan..
Ron Paul will do this, and Ron Paul will do that....
Do you realize how unbelievably politically immature you sound? He has accomplished NOTHING in his ten terms as Congressman, yet you cling to the hopes that will somehow change overnight.
Grow the hell up already.
Pretty funny since you continue to pile it on. You can't deny that the presence of US troops in the Middle East is a root problem of terrorism, according to both Paul and bin Laden.
It was one of the reasons bin Laden gave for 9-11. And Paul blames American policy for the rise of terrorism, and a major part of that policy was US troops in the Middle East. To make things right, President Paul would withdraw our troops from the Middle East.
I now understand that Paul and his supporters believe the Cold War was a mistake. That's consistent with believing the War on Terror is a mistake. But if Paul had a better plan after 9-11, where was his leadership in Congress? And if he isn't a leader in Congress, how can he be an effective leader of our country?
It's clear that if Paul had been president on 9-11, he would have agreed with bin Laden's grievances and would have agreed to his demands.
To pretend otherwise is truly BS.
Actually, we already do support their support network, and have been doing so for years.
This is probably difficult for you to get your head around, but it began, and is continuing without any support from "my candidate"; Dr. Ron Paul.
In fact, if you want to compare relative responsibility, consider this:
Dr. Ron Paul, (R-TX) has introduced possibly the ONLY comprehensive plan in Congress, HR 1146, also known as "The American Sovreignty Restoration Act", which would cancel our membership in the United Nations.
By defunding the UN, and witholding foreign aid to rouge nations that have worked to undermine us, our nation would be so much the stronger, and as a side benefit, enjoy greater peaceful interaction with the peace-loving nations of the world.
You just have to wonder at the motives of some "Republicans" who say we should not attempt to undermine the UN.
It’s absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that the Republican Party keeps giving him free publicity and a FORUM for his idiocy be inviting him to the debates. He needs to be excluded from all. He’s a total embarrassment to the Republican Party and conservatism in particular.
I don't know how you can twist logic so badly.
Bin Laden started it, as I recall, so goiong after him is not "violating his rights".
When a criminal acts against another, the criminal has effectively forfeited his own rights.
Or, you could just keep on twisting your reasoning until something breaks.
Superbly done. Bump.
Try as you might, guys, you are wrong again.
If someone like Ron Paul was president in December 1941, I think he would have alerted the fleet in Pearl, and ordered them out to sea, because, as we now realize, FDR had foreknowledge of the Japanese attack, but chose to allow the fleet to take the hit.
He wanted us involved, and this is the way he chose to garner public support for a declaration of war.
He literally sacrificed our own fleet to further his own ambitions.
IMO, Ron Paul would not have done that.
Thank you for stepping in that. Has Iran "gone after us?" Have they killed our soldiers in Iraq? Have they sponsored terrorists who have tried to kill us? Could you answer the same questions of Saddam Hussein? Do you see how silly and paradoxical your argument becomes? Of course not.
The fact that an inordinate number of you Paulites are tinfoilers of the highest order is not to your credit. And you can say, "I think he'd do this" or "I'd think he'd do that" all you want. We are simply pointing out the logical problems with his principled stands. If you don't think he'd really abide by those principles, then that makes them all the more unimportant.
So, to be clear, Ron Paul is ok with first strike if he really knows it's going to happen? If so, can you point to where he said that? If you can find no such citation, we will assume you are solving logical contradictions and difficulties in his positions for which he himself has no solution. And you are solving them by simply mangling his already tortured ideas.
Oh, golly, Duke, I guess you were sleeping or out to lunch when we went through all this the first time.
Anyway, here is a quick recap:
We had intelligence that Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan.
Our action was not against the government of Afghanistan, but rather against the Taliban, and we went in with the help and cooperation of the afghan government.
The mission in Iraq was to depose Saddam Husein, the defacto government of Iraq.
We went in without any help or cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Therefore, it was a pre-emptive hostile action against a foreign government.
BTW: Our govt. has STILL not disclosed the real reason we had to depose Saddam, and it doesn't look as if they ever will.
I don’t either. And hopefully not 1923 Germany either, and I’d prefer we keep it that way too!
And just like eastern europeans thought they’d only see one Napoleon on the doorteps of Moscow.
You should choose a different sceen name.
You do realize, don't you, that such abuse is against the rules here?
The reason we don't always hit the abuse button is because we are marked already, so we have learned to maintain a lower profile.
Um...the Taliban was the Afghan government. Unless you are depending upon the fact that the UN did not recognize their government (snicker). They did control 95% of the country. One would think that possession does count for something.
there’s another thread floating around out there entitled “Reasoning with Ron Paul supporters is like:”
I don’t have anything left here. Too much to do. Time would be better spent on that thread than this one.
Because you can never reason with the unreasonable and you can’t discuss politics with loons.
I was responding in kind.
Please point out your post to George reprimanding him also.
Keep moving along.
Can you please listen to yourself?
According to Paul and Bin Laden.......
Are you kidding me right now?
The role of the President as CIC is absolute with regard to defending this Nation.
And what would that be?
So how did that legislation work out for him? His support being where exactly?
He can’t get it done, he has failed miserably at doing so for 20 years. He is a political loser.
Oh and “Congressman” trumps “Dr.” in the title department. You cling to his MD status as being some sort of qualifying factor to lead the most powerful Nation in the world, but delivering babies really doesn’t rank high on my “must have” qualification list.
Uh, what rights? Is he a US citizen? Did I miss a memo?
An act of war dubs him as a mere “criminal.”
Clintonistas, Paulistas, the line is so blury I can’t see the difference anymore.
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.