Operation Mockingbird means he wont get elected.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Holy shit, Flecco... Mockingbird deserves its own thread....
The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul.
Interesting stuff.
Interesting stuff.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008. "
So NAFTA didn't clue in the conservatives on this one? Neither did the recent America/EU "agreement" bill that was passed?
It sounds like either this Hawkins guy is full of shit or just clueless.
Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.
More hollow speculation.... Paul says that we angered some people in our previous foreign policy decisions and that the government has capitalized on our fear, and suddenly, he's branded as a conspiracy nut. If Hawkins really represents the average conservative, then I and anyone else with a brain should avoid this so-called conservatism at all costs.
More hollow speculation.... Paul says that we angered some people in our previous foreign policy decisions and that the government has capitalized on our fear, and suddenly, he's branded as a conspiracy nut. If Hawkins really represents the average conservative, then I and anyone else with a brain should avoid this so-called conservatism at all costs.
You forgot the link http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul341.html .
He is talking about him pandering to conspiracy theorist.
He is talking about him pandering to conspiracy theorist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So the said agreement doesn't bother you in the slightest, eh?Kmarion wrote:
You forgot the link http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul341.html .
He is talking about him pandering to conspiracy theorist.
tbhTurquoise wrote:
Agreed... It kind of sucks to be a "Goldwater" conservative right now, doesn't it?...Kmarion wrote:
It seems you are confusing conservatives with the Republican party (Smaller Gov..etc) The Republican party abandoned conservatives awhile ago. Amnesty would be another obvious current example.
So... Isolationism is a bad thing, but this whole pre-emptive thing has worked OH SO WELL over the last few years. Oh my... can't mind our own business and boost domestic defense and border security, because that might lead to WW3, or even worse.... A BALANCED FUCKING BUDGET.Neocon Hawkins wrote:
#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.
#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.
#8)
In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11:
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here."
And... admitting that manipulating governments of the Middle East for the last several decades might have pissed some people off and caused them to attack is just America Hating, eh?
You wanna know why the Republicans have been losing so much lately? Because people like this guy have been calling the shots. People like this guy are the stereotypical dumbass conservatives that have turned me and many more comprehensive small government types away from the party.
The truth is... these people who call themselves conservative aren't really for smaller government. They're either too afraid to leave the world alone for once, or they make too much money dicking around in other people's wars. And THAT is why Paul shouldn't be in the Republican party.
He's neither a war profiteer nor a paranoid, flag-waving dipshit. True patriotism doesn't involve militaristic internationalism -- it involves a deep appreciation for smaller government and the freedoms that result from it.
Well for one he like to chat with Alex Jones, one of the leading lights of the Truther movement.
"US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran." WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
"Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
These guys said it best, "Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world."
"US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran." WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
"Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
These guys said it best, "Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
#1 - So, you haven't noticed any beating of the war drums lately with regards to Iran?Kmarion wrote:
Well for one he like to chat with Alex Jones, one of the leading lights of the Truther movement.
"US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran." WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
"Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
These guys said it best, "Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world."
#2 - You don't take issue with the Federal Reserve System or the fact that an aristocracy has developed around the system that basically has your funds and the value of your money at their mercy?
#3 - Paul is nothing more than a reductivist thinking conspiracist, but the people who said we have to invade Iraq because of WMD's are the RATIONAL people?.... Christ, they originally thought we'd be welcomed as liberators.... how much more simple-minded can you get?
Hearing the drums?.... as in the whole entire world is hearing them and imposing sanctions on Iran? Are you buying into the vomit that Iran is completely innocent and that if war were to break out we would have to "create" an incident, since Iran is innocent?Turquoise wrote:
#1 - So, you haven't noticed any beating of the war drums lately with regards to Iran?Kmarion wrote:
Well for one he like to chat with Alex Jones, one of the leading lights of the Truther movement.
"US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran." WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
"Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
These guys said it best, "Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world."
#2 - You don't take issue with the Federal Reserve System or the fact that an aristocracy has developed around the system that basically has your funds and the value of your money at their mercy?
#3 - Paul is nothing more than a reductivist thinking conspiracist, but the people who said we have to invade Iraq because of WMD's are the RATIONAL people?.... Christ, they originally thought we'd be welcomed as liberators.... how much more simple-minded can you get?
Simple minded would be a person incapable of seeing the difference between the Iran and Iraq situations. If you want we can review them.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Iran is far from innocent. They are aiding the insurgency, but we're aiding one against Iran as well.Kmarion wrote:
Hearing the drums?.... as in the whole entire world is hearing them and imposing sanctions on Iran? Are you buying into the vomit that Iran is completely innocent and that if war were to break out we would have to "create" an incident, since Iran is innocent?Turquoise wrote:
#1 - So, you haven't noticed any beating of the war drums lately with regards to Iran?Kmarion wrote:
Well for one he like to chat with Alex Jones, one of the leading lights of the Truther movement.
"US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran." WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d8MIENVtKw
"Powerful banking interests" behind the creation of the American central banking system (which has no place Under Our Constitution (TM), by the way).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
These guys said it best, "Again, not really a "libertarian" so much a conspiratorially-minded populist demogogue with the kind of ruthlessly reductivist thinking required by the simple-minded to make sense of a complex world."
#2 - You don't take issue with the Federal Reserve System or the fact that an aristocracy has developed around the system that basically has your funds and the value of your money at their mercy?
#3 - Paul is nothing more than a reductivist thinking conspiracist, but the people who said we have to invade Iraq because of WMD's are the RATIONAL people?.... Christ, they originally thought we'd be welcomed as liberators.... how much more simple-minded can you get?
Simple minded would be a person incapable of seeing the difference between the Iran and Iraq situations. If you want we can review them.
In a situation where multiple sides are engaged in terrorism of some sort, there is no good guy. All that Iraq has proven is that you cannot nation-build without becoming much closer to what your enemy is.
If we want to preserve any of the dignity we have left as a nation, we've got to stop invading countries and mind our own damn business.
If we invade Iran, it will be the last straw. America will have indisputably fallen in a moral sense. We will no longer be anything resembling a leader of the "free" world. We will merely be an aggressive war machine fighting for global capitalists.
I can't sit here and type to you a definitive "Lets stop invading other countries/last straw" statement since I am incapable of predicting the future. My families security is more important than "dignity" or world opinion. That is a fact that won't ever change. I can say however that future responses to attacks against the US and it's allies should be done multi-laterally with the support of the world. Given the impotence of the UN and the unwillingness of Pacifist Europe it is extremely unlikely though. The US is in desperate need of a Diplomatic revolution. However looking at what is being served to us by both parties, I am unable to consume the putrid they pass off to me as anything remotely digestible.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
All I can say is that "your family's security" has nothing to do with what Iran is doing.Kmarion wrote:
I can't sit here and type to you a definitive "Lets stop invading other countries/last straw" statement since I am incapable of predicting the future. My families security is more important than "dignity" or world opinion. That is a fact that won't ever change. I can say however that future responses to attacks against the US and it's allies should be done multi-laterally with the support of the world. Given the impotence of the UN and the unwillingness of Pacifist Europe it is extremely unlikely though. The US is in desperate need of a Diplomatic revolution. However looking at what is being served to us by both parties, I am unable to consume the putrid they pass off to me as anything remotely digestible.
Now, if you lived in Iraq, I'd understand your concern.
The problem is that the government and the media do a damn good job of making people think that Iran is a threat to our national security, but in truth, they're just a regional threat. The pressure we're putting on them isn't improving things though.
Of course, Iran is good at worsening its own fate when it decides to take British soldiers hostage. That was about the dumbest move Iran has made so far.
That's all you can say? You seem to know a lot about the inner workings of Ahmadinejads head. Iran has already demonstrated it's willingness to use proxies as front's on several occasions (Here have a Kaytusha). This concern demonstrates why this has a possibility of exceeding the region. Again I'm not saying what will happen. You are the only one speaking in the definitive, without knowledge of how things will unfold. You can use the past as a reference but not as a tell all prophecy of things to come. You leave yourself wide open to have your mistakes exploited while you retreat to your corner in shame.Turquoise wrote:
All I can say is that "your family's security" has nothing to do with what Iran is doing.Kmarion wrote:
I can't sit here and type to you a definitive "Lets stop invading other countries/last straw" statement since I am incapable of predicting the future. My families security is more important than "dignity" or world opinion. That is a fact that won't ever change. I can say however that future responses to attacks against the US and it's allies should be done multi-laterally with the support of the world. Given the impotence of the UN and the unwillingness of Pacifist Europe it is extremely unlikely though. The US is in desperate need of a Diplomatic revolution. However looking at what is being served to us by both parties, I am unable to consume the putrid they pass off to me as anything remotely digestible.
Now, if you lived in Iraq, I'd understand your concern.
The problem is that the government and the media do a damn good job of making people think that Iran is a threat to our national security, but in truth, they're just a regional threat. The pressure we're putting on them isn't improving things though.
Of course, Iran is good at worsening its own fate when it decides to take British soldiers hostage. That was about the dumbest move Iran has made so far.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So, let just ask this then... Would you say that invading Iran would be a better move than improving domestic security? Would sending your troops into Iran keep you safe from a small terror cell that could possibly sneak into America?Kmarion wrote:
That's all you can say? You seem to know a lot about the inner workings of Ahmadinejads head. Iran has already demonstrated it's willingness to use proxies as front's on several occasions (Here have a Kaytusha). This concern demonstrates why this has a possibility of exceeding the region. Again I'm not saying what will happen. You are the only one speaking in the definitive without knowledge of how things will unfold. You can use the past as a reference but not as a tell all prophecy of things to come. You leave yourself wide open to have your mistakes exploited while you retreat to your corner in shame.Turquoise wrote:
All I can say is that "your family's security" has nothing to do with what Iran is doing.Kmarion wrote:
I can't sit here and type to you a definitive "Lets stop invading other countries/last straw" statement since I am incapable of predicting the future. My families security is more important than "dignity" or world opinion. That is a fact that won't ever change. I can say however that future responses to attacks against the US and it's allies should be done multi-laterally with the support of the world. Given the impotence of the UN and the unwillingness of Pacifist Europe it is extremely unlikely though. The US is in desperate need of a Diplomatic revolution. However looking at what is being served to us by both parties, I am unable to consume the putrid they pass off to me as anything remotely digestible.
Now, if you lived in Iraq, I'd understand your concern.
The problem is that the government and the media do a damn good job of making people think that Iran is a threat to our national security, but in truth, they're just a regional threat. The pressure we're putting on them isn't improving things though.
Of course, Iran is good at worsening its own fate when it decides to take British soldiers hostage. That was about the dumbest move Iran has made so far.
The problem is that we're used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare. This isn't a game of invasions. This is a game of finding a needle in a haystack. We're focusing on exporting conflict rather than on protecting on our own turf, ports, land borders, and airports.
You know I don't know the future anymore than you, but what both of us should know is that the odds of any attack being made on us is far more likely to be in the form of a small dedicated group on our own soil rather than by Iran's conventional forces.
If we invade Iran, it won't make us any safer. Invading Iraq didn't either.
When you said it would be the last straw you seemed to have laid claim to a unique ability of predicting the future.Turquoise wrote:
You know I don't know the future anymore than you, but what both of us should know is that the odds of any attack being made on us is far more likely to be in the form of a small dedicated group on our own soil rather than by Iran's conventional forces.
At what point did you get the impression I was an advocate of an Iranian invasion?
I think this was the first post I made regarding an Iranian conflict.
Kmarion wrote:
An invasion, no. You don't have to invade to use military force anyways. I think sanctions would go pretty far in my opinion. Iran's economy is already volatile and the people are already showing signs of discontent. Moving another carrier into the region was probably nothing more than psychological warfare.
Something you should also think about. Iran's greatest asset is also it's greatest weakness, oil. They are the second largest importer of gas. They lack the ability to be able to refine it to the degree they need to. It also cost Iran much more to pull their oil out of the ground, nearly 9 times what it cost the Saudi's . Any negative price drop affects Iran more severely and the Saudi's know and exploit this. They don't necessarily do this to help the US, it is just a by product. The economy of Iran is not all the great right now as it is anyways. Unemployment is at 11 percent and inflation is nearly 50 percent. Sanctions would cost the Iranian's billions and severely destabilize it. This would make Nuclear weapons and satellites a non priority.
In November Cheney flew to Saudi Arabia to discuss "Regional issues". I'm willing to bet it had to do with Iran and oil. Both Cheney and the Saudi's are very familiar with the Oil bussiness. It is not in Saudi Arabia's best interest for Iran to have a larger sphere of influence in the Middle East. They can already see the pro Saudi government in Lebanon being challenged by Hezzbollah. Iran and the Saudi's may already be fighting a proxy war.
Also, there are only three countries that have the parts Iran needs to get the oil of of the ground. Canada, Japan, and the US. The US has already went to Japan and asked them not to sell them the parts. We have the capabilities to squeeze Iran at both ends with our allies.
I say all this to try and show you that military force is not always necessary to achieve your goals. Diplomacy can work wonders and should always be considered before we put our soldiers in front of a bullet.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Attempting to predict the future would have been more like "when we invade Iran, it will be the last straw."
Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that an invasion should be the absolute last resort.
I don't think I like the Iranian government anymore than you do, but I just find most of what we're doing with regards to them is non-productive.
It seems like most of what Iran is doing is building up its defenses in preparation for being attacked. I think we'd do the same as a country if we were in their position.
I also find it very hypocritical for the country with the most powerful arsenal of nukes to be so adamant about Iran not having them.
Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that an invasion should be the absolute last resort.
I don't think I like the Iranian government anymore than you do, but I just find most of what we're doing with regards to them is non-productive.
It seems like most of what Iran is doing is building up its defenses in preparation for being attacked. I think we'd do the same as a country if we were in their position.
I also find it very hypocritical for the country with the most powerful arsenal of nukes to be so adamant about Iran not having them.
You are predicting the results of an invasion. Not an invasion.Turquoise wrote:
Attempting to predict the future would have been more like "when we invade Iran, it will be the last straw."
Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that an invasion should be the absolute last resort.
I don't think I like the Iranian government anymore than you do, but I just find most of what we're doing with regards to them is non-productive.
It seems like most of what Iran is doing is building up its defenses in preparation for being attacked. I think we'd do the same as a country if we were in their position.
I also find it very hypocritical for the country with the most powerful arsenal of nukes to be so adamant about Iran not having them.
Hypocritical yes, but a worldwide reduction in nuclear weapons most certainly will never happen if other nations are able to acquire the technology. As screwed up as our Government can be I still think it is more stable than the Middle East civilization.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, I can't argue with that... Iran's government is pretty crazy compared to ours, but then again, Pakistan is far worse, and they already have nukes. All this time we spend on Iran is better spent on them.Kmarion wrote:
You are predicting the results of an invasion. Not an invasion.Turquoise wrote:
Attempting to predict the future would have been more like "when we invade Iran, it will be the last straw."
Anyway, I'm glad we can agree that an invasion should be the absolute last resort.
I don't think I like the Iranian government anymore than you do, but I just find most of what we're doing with regards to them is non-productive.
It seems like most of what Iran is doing is building up its defenses in preparation for being attacked. I think we'd do the same as a country if we were in their position.
I also find it very hypocritical for the country with the most powerful arsenal of nukes to be so adamant about Iran not having them.
Hypocritical yes, but a worldwide reduction in nuclear weapons most certainly will never happen if other nations are able to acquire the technology. As screwed up as our Government can be I still think it is more stable than the Middle East civilization.
Holy shit...
Sensible, reasoned, rational debate...
IN D&ST ON BF2S!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! You're melting my mind here!
Sensible, reasoned, rational debate...
IN D&ST ON BF2S!
AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! You're melting my mind here!
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Just want to point out that's false.Neocon Hawkins wrote:
#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.
The USA was isolationist until Woodrow Wilson came along. Retreated into isolationism after he got out of office.
WW2 was not a direct result of USA's isolationist doctrine. It had a lot more to do with the USA fucking over Japan's economic interests and the treaty of Versailles killing Germany's economy.
Edit.
Correcting an asinine mistake.
Last edited by Flecco (2007-06-17 21:18:18)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
True, we did kind of force Japan's hand to initiate WW2. Of course, they deserved to get their asses handed to them after the things they did to China and the Philippines, to name a few.Flecco wrote:
Just want to point out that's false.Neocon Hawkins wrote:
#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.
The USA was isolationist until Woodrow Wilson came along. Retreated into isolationist after he got out of office.
WW2 was not a direct result of USA's isolationist doctrine. It had a lot more to do with the USA fucking over Japan's economic interests and the treaty of Versailles killing Germany's economy.
Wilson was one of the first firmly interventionist presidents, but others before him like Teddy Roosevelt set the stage for our later greater involvements.
Whatever the case, Hawkins is clearly clueless about what he's talking about.