• 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
Just saw this on fox.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

And it kind of irked me. Especially this quote:

The Texas congressman questioned whether Obama could have gotten away with the operation if Usama bin Laden had been in a country other than Pakistan.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

If he'd been in a country other than Pakistan, with a government that's like compromised, such a raid wouldn't have been needed in the first place. Then it goes on to mention Rep Paul's continued opposition to our presence in Afghanistan, and that's what made me feel like ranting.

Over the last couple of years since I've started carrying, and really understanding my rights for the first time, my political ideals have changed a lot. Shifted even further to the right. Now I have tremendous respect for mr Paul (at least his opposition isn''t based on the peacnik "war is baaaaad" mantra), and at this point I could *almost* call myself a libertarian, but what keeps making me :banghead: is their stubborn adherence to isolationist foreign policy ideals that just don't work. Wasn't the first half of the 20th century enough proof that minding our own business is NO guarantee that others won't set out to do us harm, and the dire consequences of allowing such evil to propagate unchecked?

There now... That should either generate some interesting banter or the ire of the moderators :cool:
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
Never drawn to him, he would have never got my vote even with-out the statement.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
If you don't know much about Ron Paul you should take an hour to research into him a bit. If everyone took at least an hour to research a canindate before committing a vote to them then perhaps canindates would feel more inclined to have principle and integrity.
However, it is sadly the norm that people take far too much heart to what they hear from the T.V. box thingy. My personal belief is that something as important as voting to give someone the power to govern you is worth a little bit of your time to make sure you know WHO you're voting for. Unfortunately, voters are a minority... educated voters greatly more so.
 

KYKevin

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
323
Location
Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
If you don't know much about Ron Paul you should take an hour to research into him a bit. If everyone took at least an hour to research a canindate before committing a vote to them then perhaps canindates would feel more inclined to have principle and integrity.
However, it is sadly the norm that people take far too much heart to what they hear from the T.V. box thingy. My personal belief is that something as important as voting to give someone the power to govern you is worth a little bit of your time to make sure you know WHO you're voting for. Unfortunately, voters are a minority... educated voters greatly more so.

I do research them. I am just not ready to yet. Too many people like trump making a dog and pony show out of things right now. I'll wait til it quiets down a bit. See who is serious and then research. I am just not sure if any of em will have what it takes to knock obama out right now. Running mates are gonna make a big difference too. Who do you think Ron will go with as a running mate?
 

jag06

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
292
Location
, North Carolina, USA
Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.

Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.

As far as his comment regarding binladen, he said we should have worked with pakistan, he said we should have consulted them and worked with them instead of going in without their permission(which is essentially an invasion). What if the Mexican government(though very unlikely to happen) decided to go after one of the drug lords that was hiding in Arizona on a raid just like we did to Osama? Would you be supporting Mexico for invading our country to nab a drug lord without our permission or would you be screaming for something to be done to Mexico for invading our country without permission?

Besides, the whole raid was just one big staged publicity stunt. Its only purpose was the give Obama a jump in points and to keep us distracted for whatever they are doing behind the scenes, and by the I am talking about the global elite.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.

Even if he doesn't end up officially running, I'll vote for him again as well.
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
Ron Paul from what I understand would be considered a pretty strict Constitutionalist type voter.

Which explains why he votes NO, against most every bill he gets a vote on. If it doesn't follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution, he'll vote against it. I carry quite a bit of respect for him because of this.

This is where I respect him too, and wish there were generally more like him. But where he totally looses me is on foreign policy issues that ( usually) have nothing to do with the constitution and are completely at the discretion of the congress & president!

Now someone called the mission an invasion. Not right. Invasion implies sticking around to occupy territory, which we did not. This was an incursion, and one that I find justifiable due to the fact that the pakistani govt is not just possibly but LIKELY compromised by operatives friendly to bin laden. If we had notified them, the possibility that obl could have slipped away again would be too great. Hence the incursion. That's what diplomats are for.

What I find infuriating are obamas attempts to take credit with "I did this" and "I did that" when this entire thing was made possible ONLY by interrogation and detainment policies put in place by the Bush administration, and that Obama swore up & down he would end!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
It may not change much as far as encouraging terrorists to not join some group to commit a terrorist act against Americans.

But...

It is sure nice to hear that Bin Laden is no longer alive because a SEAL shot a bullet in Bin Laden's head. Well, and that Bin Laden is fish-food - likely at this point fish feces.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
What I find infuriating are obamas attempts to take credit with "I did this" and "I did that" when this entire thing was made possible ONLY by interrogation and detainment policies put in place by the Bush administration, and that Obama swore up & down he would end!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kind of like this video where he is taking all the credit:rolleyes::

[video=youtube;EAw25BNfzlE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAw25BNfzlE[/video]
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
MetalHead,

Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

And when you add on to that the fact that the Mujahideen were actually CREATED by the CIA to fight the Russians, and only got cranky with the US when we stopped sending them "welfare checks" once the Soviets backed out, there really is no legitimate reason for us to be there.

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.

I like Ron Paul on almost EVERY issue (with the exception of his stance on women's reproductive health issues). He is a life-long, steadfast Constitutionalist. That is why I vote for him--he's not part of the false left-right paradigm, and he's not in the pockets of the big international banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMC, and the Federal Reserve.

He is the lesser of all available evils, so he gets my vote.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Thats the reason I voted for him in 08 and its the reason why I will vote for him in 12. He is the only person in congress I know of that actually looks through the constitution on each bill to find out if the constitution gives him and congress the power to pass that bill, if it does not then he votes against it. The rest of them up there just vote on a bill based on who gives them the most money.

As far as his comment regarding binladen, he said we should have worked with pakistan, he said we should have consulted them and worked with them instead of going in without their permission(which is essentially an invasion). What if the Mexican government(though very unlikely to happen) decided to go after one of the drug lords that was hiding in Arizona on a raid just like we did to Osama? Would you be supporting Mexico for invading our country to nab a drug lord without our permission or would you be screaming for something to be done to Mexico for invading our country without permission?

Besides, the whole raid was just one big staged publicity stunt. Its only purpose was the give Obama a jump in points and to keep us distracted for whatever they are doing behind the scenes, and by the I am talking about the global elite.

If Mexico did what you say then it would depend on the particulars. For example if they tried to work with the U.S. but got stonewalled and the U.S. refused to act on any intel then I would be furious with our own government for not acting to remove the drug lord. Additionally I would be furious that our own government was so inept as to be unable to detect a heavily armed group of people moving across the border like this and would make me seriously question the safety of the country (not that I don't question it already).

If Mexico acted w/o informing the government then I would still need to know why. If the reason was because our government is so corrupt that they would have tipped off the drug lord, then I would again be furious with our own government for being so corrupt.

In the end it all comes down to the particular reasons the attack was made w/o our government's knowledge. And chances are I wouldn't be mad at those who had the balls to take action, I would be mad at those who are either too corrupt and simply refuse to take action.

MetalHead,

Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

And when you add on to that the fact that the Mujahideen were actually CREATED by the CIA to fight the Russians, and only got cranky with the US when we stopped sending them "welfare checks" once the Soviets backed out, there really is no legitimate reason for us to be there.

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.

I like Ron Paul on almost EVERY issue (with the exception of his stance on women's reproductive health issues). He is a life-long, steadfast Constitutionalist. That is why I vote for him--he's not part of the false left-right paradigm, and he's not in the pockets of the big international banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMC, and the Federal Reserve.

He is the lesser of all available evils, so he gets my vote.

Ahh leave it to Dreamer to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory on why we're in Afghanistan. I was beginning to wonder where these posts had gone!


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."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
So, let me get this straight. We read a news source that does not give us the full, entire, complete quote so we can see the entire context, and we decide to get bent out of shape?

A news source that starts out attributing to the man a controversial position in the very first paragraph without actually quoting him in that paragraph. And, then doesn't really give any hints of his rationale until the sixth paragraph.

Just days before he is set to announce his presidential candidacy?

This is the American lamestream media we're talking about here.

You don't suppose that news source has a candidate they prefer?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
what keeps making me :banghead: is their stubborn adherence to isolationist foreign policy ideals that just don't work.

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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

I don't know if Dr. Paul thinks that exactly. But, I'll bet he understands the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. Certainly Dr. Paul understands the banking system.

PS: I used to think the so-called military-industrial complex was just so much liberal nonsense. Til I found out Eisenhower was the one who warned about it. (In his farewell speech. Its on youtube.) When you have a former military man--the former Supreme Allied Commander--warning you about the relationship between the military and its suppliers, you want to pay attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Ahh leave it to Dreamer to come up with a crazy conspiracy theory on why we're in Afghanistan. I was beginning to wonder where these posts had gone!


Yeah, a crazy conspiracy like the fact that when the Taliban was "in control" of Afghanistan (as if ANYONE has ever been in control of Afghanistan...) the Opium exports from Afghanistan were at an all-time historic low.

And since we have occupied that nation, the opium production has increased exponentially, and street prices, especially in the US, have dropped dramatically:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6239734.stm

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2005/Jun/taylorJun05.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/21/77535/killer-crop-afghan-opium-fuels.html

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


And the fact that this increase in drug money being laundered through the big international banks actually helped stave off their collapse in 2008-9, and kept the most egregious fraudsters afloat fro a little longer, despite their uncanny ability to vampirically drain capitol from otherwise well-off, prosperous nations like Greece and Ireland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims


Yeah, it's just a crazy conspiracy.

Well, it IS a conspiracy--one so crazy that no rational person would think to pull it off. A collusion of power, drugs, and control perpetrated by an international cabal of generational sociopathic neo-feudalists, who are willing to do ANYTHING to re-establish the feudalistic social structure of their ancient forefathers...

Our founding fathers are Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and their ilk.

The "founding fathers" of the "people" (and I use that term loosely) are the likes of Ivan the Terrible, Elizabeth Bathroy, Genghis Khan, Nero, and Machiavelli...

Wake the f*** up, man...
 
Last edited:
Top