Ron Paul Asks: Can Bombs Win War on ISIS?

We need to get the Sunni Arab League Nations involved.

We would also have to get a good number of Special Forces on the ground and we could basically BUY members of the ISIS as you get a guy who is with them and along for the ride because he get's to eat and rape women and then we come up to him and say...."He is $50,000.....we can get your Mom and Sister to the U.S. or Jordan and if you give us actionable intel. we will give you at minimum another $1 Million or as high as $10 Million if you can get us what we need.

$100 to $200 Million is nothing as far as BUYING members of the ISIS compared to what it costs us to constantly run aircraft on missions of opportunity.

We also need to cut off all their monetary support and if necessary seize or destroy any oil production facilities they are using to make money.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

I was tired when I posted that.

Ron is one crazy SOB as well.

AA

 

Why would you blame me for this. What a moronic thing to do. Why not blame our President? He makes these decisions. I'm way down the list.

 

Only if you support the bombings. Do you support Obomba's deadly bombing campaign (complete with hundreds of dead innocent women and children), or do you think he should be a man and take on the Islamic ideology head-on?

- - - Updated - - -

We're intellectual cowards if our gov't can't condemn the concept of Islamic jihad (holy war to defend Islam against Infidels who oppose Sharia Law)....Obama/Hillary won't do that.

 

If we import Muslims we are almost sure to import trouble. That is just the way it is.

 

Yes, of course i do... Just as you will also condemn similar sorts of behaviour recorded in the old testament
These are simply additional reasons why i agree with you that all the abrahamic religions are bunk

Btw, you may be interested to read the following link which lists the age of consent for the year 1890
Age 7 in randy Delaware


http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24

 

Agreed!
Yes, I condemn Mohammad, but sometimes I fail to also condemn Jesus/Moses as well - none of them are any better than the others.

- - - Updated - - -

Their #1 role model said "I have been made victorious through terror", and I've yet to converse with even one Muslim who will condemn Mohammad for that.....so of course we have to be highly suspect...of ALL of them.

 

A poster did an analogy about grapes. If you had a hundred grapes and only one was poison would you eat any of them?

 

Why not Support Assad,
and place a Baathist back in charge of Libya and Iraq.
Let the Baathist do the heavy lifting.
They have a proven record against Islamist.
And this would be the cheapest way to succeed.

Support Your Local Baathist.
As long as it is in the Middle East ​

Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Wow, that is a stupid analogy. One that can be applied to any particular group you hate. How about applying that analogy to Irish or blacks or whites or Spanish or German or Democrats?

 

Other ethnic groups that come to America are not involved in murder of innocent people. What is stupid is importing death.

 

thank you for your support of War Time TAX Rates to prosecute any alleged, times of War.

 

Really? Have you not heard about the 3 mass shootings that have occurred in the last three days in your country? No need to import death as it is already epidemic in the US so perhaps the immigrants are just assimilating with the American culture

 

Military force had wiped out more movements such as the empire of Japan and the German 1000 year reich and going back to before Carthage so perhaps just bombing it not the tool need but military force happen to be.

 

So let's just help the death toll rise by importing more terror. Tell me why we have to import more people. What have we to gain?.

 

Yeah anyone who actually wants peace instead of war and is a strict constitutionalist must be insane. Being a corrupt war mongering criminal who completely disregards the Constitution is a much better qualifier for a candidate for President. It seems the last several administrations proved it is the best qualifier.

 

You have to clarify what you trying to say here.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is on only want's those Constitutional guarantees for HIS kind of people.

AA

 

That's the problem? And who did he say are "HIS kind of people" are (I take it besides Americans)? Do you have a link where Ron claims the above (unless you mean Americans) or are you just making things up? And what "Constitutional guarantees" are the 2 fascist candidates peddling exactly? Anything meaningful besides none? And that's not a problem?

 

This pretty much say's it all.




1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936




6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47?s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))

LINK....http://addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

AA

 

For you, not for me. I agree with quite a bit of Ron Paul's philosophy. And what the author describes is just the author's opinion. Paul is no angel, he is a politician after all. Unfortunately the alternative is an absolute disaster, it already has been and getting worse, much worse.

 

Just because RP is a Republican does not link him to anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis. Not so sure about 9-11.

What I do know is that ad-hom is not an argument for much.

 

Fair enough but, I would also argue that the first step would be to stop arming and supporting the terrorists.

 

I trust Ron Paul has got the solution. He's planned a victorious strategy to erase ISIS from this planet. No doubt!

we are all bowing before of his infinite wisdom!

********************************************************

Ehm ... it's easy to criticize.

On the other hand, I agree that a bombing campaign is not sufficient, it can be useful to contain the territorial expansion of the Islamic State, but local forces have to push it back until they destroy it. The problem today is that in the area there are no great local forces [Kurds are on a defensive stance, the Iraqi Army is still a bit too little and in Syria there is a mess with rebels of all colors].

So we have to wait. There [don't dream about Western armies entering that land, no way], but in Libya something is happening: with the official request of the local government, US are supplying air support [bombing Sirte] to Libyan forces. This could change something ... with the US fighters and bombers in the air the local forces can defeat ISIS guerrillas.

 

Someone who takes the official word of everything their government tells them is the useless one. Always question authority!

 

no, i don't. this is politics. thank you for your support of that measure or be prepared to defend that position for the sake of politics.

 

Well if you would like a reply I at least need to know what the hell you are saying!! LOL!!

AA