• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Kind of like this video where he is taking all the credit:rolleyes::

]

No, like the video the night this all went down when he claimed, "I did this" and "I did that" .... as I referred to the in the first post. Go youtube it, you'll find it ;)

We're spending billions of dollars for a "war" JUST so the international banks can profit from the drug money being created by the increase in opium traffic from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, we put people in jail in the US for smoking a doobie.

The "war on terror" is really a "war OF terror", and the REAL terrorists are not men in funny hats living in caves--they are Ivy-league Brooks-Brothers suit-wearing sociopaths living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

This isn't a "left/right" issue. It's a TRUTH and LIBERTY issue.

Ah yes, I see now. Methinks the TRUTH is, you've been taking a little too much LIBERTY with that doobie you mentioned :p

I have no information that Dr. Paul is isolationist. As far as I know he is very supportive of being on good terms with the rest of the world through trade.

I was referring to isolationism more in the sense of non-interventionism, I suppose. Y'know, the "world cop" thing. :rolleyes:

As for the Ron Paul quote. I agree that it wasn't "necessary" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. I don't think we should be over there, but as we are there I don't see any reason to not take out people such as Osama. I just wish the U.S. could quit playing the role of "world police."

If the Britain (the superpower at the time) had been more willing to play "world police" circa 1938, 13+ million Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, etc, might have lived to see 1945. I think the "world cop" bit is cop-out. Being the superpower means occasionally stepping in other places in order to protect national interests or avert a greater crisis. The "government" of Afghanistan at the time gave aid and refuge to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11, bin laden himself included. And would have continued to do so, had we not stepped in. We're still there in order to prevent the same or similar rulers from taking the place back over.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
If the Britain (the superpower at the time) had been more willing to play "world police" circa 1938, 13+ million Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, etc, might have lived to see 1945.


Yeah, and if JP Morgan, Bank de Rothchilds,
Bank of England, Brown Bothers Harriman, Royal Dutch Oil, Union Banking Corporation, Standard Oil, General Motors, and IBM hadn't made loans to fund political campaigns for the NSDAP, sold technology to the 3rd Reich, and set up "shell corporations" in Germany and Vichey France to support contracts with the Nazi's throughout the ENTIRE WAR, the whole "little man from Austria" tragedy may well have never gotten off the ground in the first place...

But the premise that the Nazis were actually funded into existence and supported throughout the war by proto-globalist international corporations, and then given shelter under top-secret US Federal programs in positions of power in American and British universities, corporations, and government positions is just a wack-job conspiracy theory too...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Financed-Hitler-Funding-1919-1933/dp/0671760831

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

http://www.jewishjournal.com/articl...al_motors_helped_jumpstart_the_third_reichs4/

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300106343

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/rockefeller.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-records/rg-330-defense-secretary/

The Nazi's didn't lose the war, they just transferred their base of operations across the ocean...


The "government" of Afghanistan at the time gave aid and refuge to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11, bin laden himself included. And would have continued to do so, had we not stepped in. We're still there in order to prevent the same or similar rulers from taking the place back over.

Yeah, the fact that the Mujahideen (who became the Taliban, and then Al-CIAda) was funded into existence, trained, and equipped by the USA under the direction of Zbigniew Brzezinski--who HAND-PICKED Osama Bin-Laden to be their charismatic leader, doesn't seem to enter into your version of history though, does it?...

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/201...-who-was-created-by-and-died-fo-30154676.html



Just like all that New World Order stuff is BS, and nobody in power REALLY believe in it...

(Listen at 0:52-55)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SISUIhprOa8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVmtbLc4t6M&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptcp07v_w-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7D21rPpBrk&feature=related


WTFU, dude...
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
...mindless babble...

Wow dude... I started this for a rational conversation. You, clearly, are not rational, so I'll introduce you to my ignore list. You go on with your bad self railing about those mean ol' nasty banks. Better add another layer to the ol' tinfoil hat tho, you're starting to get noticed and Cyborg Hitler might find you!

200px-Cyborg_Hitler.jpg
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
Just as an FYI - libertarians generally are all for national defense, they just don't extend that to stationing troops in the roughly 130 countries that we currently do.

Its pretty tough for me to figure out why we are spending our hard-earned dollars providing a defensive shield to Europe, Japan, and Korea when they dedicate almost nothing to their own defense.

As for Pakistan knowing (or not) that OBL was there... who knows? Its not like the US has ever had a "most wanted" type evade capture for years in a US city either. Could their GOV have been helping him? Of course! But its also clearly possible they weren't.

Either way - I do wish the US would follow its own laws much more consistently, here and abroad. Did the raid not remind you a wee bit of standard tactics for serving a pot possession warrant? Shoot a few people and then figure out if anyone was armed afterward...

Pretty easy political "get out of jail free card" on this one though. OBL is surely the most unsympathetic character around for most of us. Only someone who is incredibly bound by their convictions could object to the methods used. Thank goodness we didn't elect Ron Paul to be CIC. :uhoh:
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
...elaborately cited and logically argued point...

Wow dude... I started this for a rational conversation. You, clearly, are not rational, so I'll introduce you to my ignore list.
Metalhead, perhaps it's time to question whether or not everything you were taught in school was the gospel truth. Dreamer provided a ton of links to verifiable information. It's simply not even up for debate that WW2 would not have happened if not for U.S. intervention in WW1 and the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Democrat Woodrow Wilson ran on a campaign of keeping us out of foreign wars, then promptly plunged us into one. Sounds a lot like his successor who made all sorts of promises to "end the wars", then plunged us further into one war and launched two more.

Foreign intervention is not a conservative or Republican tradition. WWI: Democrat Woodrow Wilson. WWII: Democrat FDR. Korea: Democrat Harry Truman. Vietnam: Democrats JFK and LBJ. Kosovo: Clinton.

Ron Paul is right on foreign policy. Several generations of Americans raised on war movies who believe it is a traditional American ideal to launch ships and kick butts, are simply wrong.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Metalhead, perhaps it's time to question whether or not everything you were taught in school was the gospel truth. Dreamer provided a ton of links to verifiable information.

There is quite a difference between "questioning what was taught in school" and giving in to lunatic conspiracy theories. The 9/11 truthers, the "we never went to the mooners," the "Elvis is an alieners," they all have elaborate cites too... to half-truths and ambiguities and carefully crafted nonsense.

It's simply not even up for debate that WW2 would not have happened if not for U.S. intervention in WW1 and the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

I do not disagree.

Democrat Woodrow Wilson ran on a campaign of keeping us out of foreign wars, then promptly plunged us into one. Sounds a lot like his successor who made all sorts of promises to "end the wars", then plunged us further into one war and launched two more.

Foreign intervention is not a conservative or Republican tradition. WWI: Democrat Woodrow Wilson. WWII: Democrat FDR. Korea: Democrat Harry Truman. Vietnam: Democrats JFK and LBJ. Kosovo: Clinton.

I do not disagree. My assertion was that foreign intervention IS a libertarian tradition.

Ron Paul is right on foreign policy. Several generations of Americans raised on war movies who believe it is a traditional American ideal to launch ships and kick butts, are simply wrong.

I do disagree. It's this notion of "if we just mind our own business and leave everyone else alone they'll do the same" that I don't jive with. We all on this forum carry firearms because we realize that even if we mind our own business and leave others alone there are still evil people out there who will seek to do us harm, even "just because." On an individual level, we only need focus on self-defense because we have a police force we can (or at least are supposed to be able to) go to if another party is presenting a legitimate threat, but has not acted upon it yet.

There is no legitimate "police force" or higher authority to appeal to on an international level. The UN? Puh-lease. The UN, like the League of Nations before it, has been a colossal failure, it's very existence is an affront to national sovereignty. International "law" is just as effective against nation-criminals as civil law is against civil criminals. Which means, it's not.

Minding our own business and leaving everyone else alone, on an international level, does NOT mean other nation-states and hostile organizations will leave us alone, or not get hostile with us in the first place. It only means that when the inevitable conflict does finally come, it will be at a time, and place, and manner of their choosing.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I Have never voted in my life. I will register and vote for Dr. Paul.

Here's my thoughts on this, don't find one thing about the guy you disagree about as a rational to not vote for him and continue the cycle, of the fake left and right political machine continuing.

He is the most constitutional politician running. Even though there are a few things I disagree with him on he really is the lesser of the "evils" running.

And for those who think he can't "reason" read his books with an open mind.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Wow dude... I started this for a rational conversation. You, clearly, are not rational, so I'll introduce you to my ignore list.


Yeah, I might have guessed that citing such "irrational" sources like the Guardian, and Yale University Press and backing up every claim I make with easily documentable press articles, and video clips of politicians actually saying things to back it up would be met with such a response from you.

Keep drinking the Koolaid, "Metalhead". Don't let anything like facts get in the way of your "discussion"...
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
I Have never voted in my life. I will register and vote for Dr. Paul.

Here's my thoughts on this, don't find one thing about the guy you disagree about as a rational to not vote for him and continue the cycle, of the fake left and right political machine continuing.

He is the most constitutional politician running. Even though there are a few things I disagree with him on he really is the lesser of the "evils" running.

And for those who think he can't "reason" read his books with an open mind.

+1000.

Well, I do vote though - realizing that all I do it perpetuate the two-party system. I should point out that Ron Paul would be running on the Republican ticket. He should run 3rd party. I would prefer that he run 3rd party....outside of the two-party system.
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
There are several reasons we should not have conducted the Bin Laden raid, The first and biggest is the political sovernity of the country of Pakistan.

My approach would have happened 6 years ago. Pakistan, we supply you with Billions in aid, and we expect something in return. You have 6 months to find and arrest, or execute Mr. Bin Laden, or your aid will be cut off until you do.

BTW: I do support Ron Paul, I have voted for him, I have been a representitive from my precinct to the state republician convention here in WA (years ago) and I still support him...if you are on this forum, and you like the freedoms guaranteed in our constitution, you better study up on him again. He is a strict constitutionalist. What is not specified as a function given to the national government in the constitution, is reserved to the states, and the people.

If you like national contol of things the national government has no business in...you will not like him. it is that simple.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
There are several reasons we should not have conducted the Bin Laden raid, The first and biggest is the political sovernity of the country of Pakistan.

If you like national contol of things the national government has no business in...you will not like him. it is that simple.


Pakistan's sovereignty can kiss my American a$$. The had Bin Laden housed in their country, we had every right, and obligation to sent some men over that 'border', and turn Bin Laden into fish-food. Pakistan wants to be treated like a sovereign State, then they should act like one, and not have top leaders of terrorist groups living in their sovereign State.


I should add that I would vote for Ron Paul because in one or two terms he would hopefully deal with foreign crap that we have our fingers in. Just that would be a full-time job. Domestic issues, well...let's just say I am really hoping he pulls back on our foreign B.S.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Pakistan's sovereignty can kiss my American a$$. The had Bin Laden housed in their country, we had every right, and obligation to sent some men over that 'border', and turn Bin Laden into fish-food. Pakistan wants to be treated like a sovereign State, then they should act like one, and not have top leaders of terrorist groups living in their sovereign State.


I should add that I would vote for Ron Paul because in one or two terms he would hopefully deal with foreign crap that we have our fingers in. Just that would be a full-time job. Domestic issues, well...let's just say I am really hoping he pulls back on our foreign B.S.

A country's sovereignty is important. If we do not respect theirs, how can we expect them to respect ours?

I will give you an example, back to the 60's and the Vietnam war. A young man (not me) from the town I was born in (Port Alberni, BC) who had been a green card alien living and working in LA. He was required to register for the draft which he did. After living in LA for a few years, he decided he need to go home to Canada to help take care of his ailing mother.

After he had been back in Canada for over a year, his draft number came up and he was sent a notice to report. He sent a letter back telling the draft board that he was no longer in the US, but was back in BC taking care of his mother who was ill. WELLLLL

the FBI went up to Canada, and "arrested" this young man for dodging the draft. As he was packing things up, he asked to speak to his mother. He was allowed to, and he told his mother to call the RCMP and tell them he was being kidnapped. The RCMP arrested the FBI agents at the ferry docks, changed them with kidnapping, firearms violations and illegal entry into Canada (they had not disclosed why they were coming into Canada)

Funny part of this story, Canada and the US did have an extradition treaty, and if the FBI had declared their intention, and gone to the RCMP first, they very well could have brought the "draft dodger" back, and never spent a day in jail.

If you ever wondered why draft dodgers (including Clinton) could find safe haven in Canada, you now know "the rest of the story". The US Government had to guarantee Canada they would not violate Canadian sovereignty again, just to keep the FBI agents from spending the next 25 years of their life in a Canadian jail.

The arrogance of the US government as pertains to another country's sovereignty has backfire more than just this "draft dodge". And it just keeps coming back to bite them. Might does not make right. Think about it. If Pakistan had dealt with Bin Laden , tehre would be no reason for anti-American retaliation...don't you think?

You want the government do abide by "the rule of Law" when it pertains to you...but you do not care about the other guy? (country). No, the government is not above the law, just like you are not. Freedom, contains responsibility with it.
 
Last edited:

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
A counties sovereignty is important. If we do not respect theirs, how can we expect them to respect ours?

I will give you an example, back to the 60's and the Vietnam war. A young man (not me) from the town I was born in (Port Alberni, BC) who had been a green card alien living and working in LA. He was required to register for the draft which he did. After living in LA for a few years, he decided he need to go home to Canada to help take care of his ailing mother.

After he had been back in Canada for over a year, his draft number came up and he was sent a notice to report. He sent a letter back telling the draft board that he was no longer in the US, but was back in BC taking care of his mother who was ill. WELLLLL

the FBI went up to Canada, and "arrested" this young man for dodging the draft. As he was packing things up, he asked to speak to his mother. He was allowed to, and he told his mother to call the RCMP and tell them he was being kidnapped. The RCMP arrested the FBI agents at the ferry docks, changed them with kidnapping, firearms violations and illegal entry into Canada (they had not disclosed why they were coming into Canada)

Funny part of this story, Canada and the US did have an extradition treaty, and if the FBI had declared their intention, and gone to the RCMP first, they very well could have brought the "draft dodger" back, and never spent a day in jail.

If you ever wondered why draft dodgers (including Clinton) could find safe haven in Canada, you now know "the rest of the story". The US Government had to guarantee Canada they would not violate Canadian sovereignty again, just to keep the FBI agents from spending the next 25 years of their life in a Canadian jail.

The arrogance of the US government as pertains to another countries sovereignty has backfire more than just this "draft dodge". And it just keeps coming back to bite them. Might does not make right. Think about it.

That was the ARROGANCE of J. EDGAR HOOVER.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
A counties sovereignty is important. If we do not respect theirs, how can we expect them to respect ours?


The arrogance of the US government as pertains to another countries sovereignty has backfire more than just this "draft dodge". And it just keeps coming back to bite them. Might does not make right. Think about it.

Comparing a Draft dodger to a leader of a terrorist group who backed numerous attacks against American's, and on American soil that killed thousands of American lives is comparing apples with rocks. Not even in the same ball park.

Pakistan was either to incompetent to know Bin Laden was right there under their nose, or Pakistan did know, but did nothing about it. Either way, the U.S. had the Authority, and Military Power to cross into Pakistan (who insisted Bin Laden wasn't in Pakistan) and carry out Justice.

Somehow, before completely reading your response I knew you would throw Clinton in the topic of "Draft dodgers." Plenty of post WWII politicians got a free ride when it came to their military service - Bush II as an example, except, Bush II 'served' *rolls eyes*.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Pakistan was either to incompetent to know Bin Laden was right there under their nose, or Pakistan did know, but did nothing about it. Either way, the U.S. had the Authority, and Military Power to cross into Pakistan (who insisted Bin Laden wasn't in Pakistan) and carry out Justice.

This.

Somehow, before completely reading your response I knew you would throw Clinton in the topic of "Draft dodgers." Plenty of post WWII politicians got a free ride when it came to their military service - Bush II as an example, except, Bush II 'served' *rolls eyes*.

Yes, he did SERVE. Was a pretty decent military pilot.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yes, he did SERVE. Was a pretty decent military pilot.

I am not disputing that he did his time (although there are some who do). I am questioning why he was playing pilot, when he should have been knee-deep in rice patties like all the other men who were serving at that time. I am sure his Daddy's political, and financial power had nothing to do with it.
 
Top