Ron Paul vs Duncan Hunter

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;30317 wrote:

PC Free Zone

Direct link. YouTube - Ron Paul vs Duncan Hunter on IRAQ - MUST SEE !

Now you know what those of us that lived in San Diego know about Duncan Hunter. He's one kick ass straight shootin' hawk. The LibDem in town Bob Filner, was recently (and briefly) detained at Reagan airport in DC because his bag was late in coming off the belt. He pitched a fit and ran in one of the restricted areas demanding to speak to someone in charge shouting all the way "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?". What a total jerk - arrogance abounds. Throw their collective asses to the curb, I say.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Ron Paul's forieng policy assesment isn't perfect but he is absolutely correct when he says that the Iraq "war" is illigal. We do need to get out.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Illegal, please explain?

2 Replies

@Drnaline,

Get out and then what, let Muslim kill Muslim while China and Russia come in via the back door and lay the pipeline to steal Iraq's resources? Wow that sounds like the Sudan and the Horn of Africa and look how successful that's been.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;34467 wrote:

Illegal, please explain?

It is Illigal because of a few reasons.

1. We went in under false pretences. The Logic goes thus. We have X reason for going into Iraq, X is no longer an issue, So now we leave.

2. The new reason we are in is to Stablize Iraq. So we are not at war with any one person. We are at war with anyone we want to deam a terror threat.

3. Preemtive war is not allowed by the just war theory unless all other options have been used. We are just being trigger happy. The muslims do hae us. They hate us because it is a fundimental part of the Koran. However, we aren't making anything safer by being over there. Infact I would argue that we are making things worse. As Ron Paul has brought up, Blowback is real.

4. Congress never declared war. I know it doesn't really HAVE to anymore but it still isn't a war.

NOw to the practicall aspect of it. Terrorists don't mind us over there. Us being over there weakens our homeland defenses. Remember that we aren't fighing a nation. We are fighting with muslims. There are a lot of potential terrorists in other parts of the world and we aren't fighting them. WHY?

We killed Sadam Hussen who was our enemies enemy. Now we have just the enemy. Not a great move.

2 Replies

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

It is Illigal because of a few reasons.

1. We went in under false pretences. The Logic goes thus. We have X reason for going into Iraq, X is no longer an issue, So now we leave.

2. The new reason we are in is to Stablize Iraq. So we are not at war with any one person. We are at war with anyone we want to deam a terror threat.

3. Preemtive war is not allowed by the just war theory unless all other options have been used. We are just being trigger happy. The muslims do hae us. They hate us because it is a fundimental part of the Koran. However, we aren't making anything safer by being over there. Infact I would argue that we are making things worse. As Ron Paul has brought up, Blowback is real.

4. Congress never declared war. I know it doesn't really HAVE to anymore but it still isn't a war.

NOw to the practicall aspect of it. Terrorists don't mind us over there. Us being over there weakens our homeland defenses. Remember that we aren't fighing a nation. We are fighting with muslims. There are a lot of potential terrorists in other parts of the world and we aren't fighting them. WHY?

We killed Sadam Hussen who was our enemies enemy. Now we have just the enemy. Not a great move.

Quote:

1. We went in under false pretences. The Logic goes thus. We have X reason for going into Iraq, X is no longer an issue, So now we leave.

So how many reasons do you think there were for going into Iraq again? If i remember correct there for at least 17 UN resolutions.
In any case, you did not show where any of this is illegal, false pretence you would have to prove intent? If you had that he would already be impeached.

Quote:

2. The new reason we are in is to Stablize Iraq. So we are not at war with any one person. We are at war with anyone we want to deam a terror threat.

And how is this illegal?

Quote:

3. Preemtive war is not allowed by the just war theory unless all other options have been used. We are just being trigger happy. The muslims do hae us. They hate us because it is a fundimental part of the Koran. However, we aren't making anything safer by being over there. Infact I would argue that we are making things worse. As Ron Paul has brought up, Blowback is real.

Again, what does this have to do with illegality of the war?

Quote:

Congress never declared war. I know it doesn't really HAVE to anymore but it still isn't a war.

Again, not illegal. We didn't declare war on Germany, didn't change the outcome.

Quote:

NOw to the practicall aspect of it. Terrorists don't mind us over there. Us being over there weakens our homeland defenses. Remember that we aren't fighing a nation. We are fighting with muslims. There are a lot of potential terrorists in other parts of the world and we aren't fighting them. WHY?

So using your post what your saying is you have no proof of this war being illegal, that's what i thought. If you read a historical account of the events leading up to our reinvasion of Iraq, you will find it stems from way before 9/11. While 9/11 was one of the reasons, it's surely was not the only reason.

Quote:

We killed Sadam Hussen who was our enemies enemy. Now we have just the enemy. Not a great move.

Not being a great move makes it no where near being illegal.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Carryabigstick, arguing with Dranaline is pointless. He ignores facts, you can't debate a point with someone that ignores facts. It's funny, I have seen all the same points made, and all he does is ask questions, that have been answered already.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Did anyone catch the debate last night?

Ron Paul came off as a total woosey, Duncan Hunter on the other hand was dynamic and forceful with solid hawk-ish answers and a real strategy to WIN the war.

1 Reply

@socalgolfguy,

socalgolfguy;35361 wrote:

Did anyone catch the debate last night?

Ron Paul came off as a total woosey, Duncan Hunter on the other hand was dynamic and forceful with solid hawk-ish answers and a real strategy to WIN the war.

Hunters only problem is his complete lack of comprehension of foreign policy. He gets big points from me for debating Paul from the heart, but he simply doesn't get it. Like Paul said, all we are trying to do is save face now. The decider has told us we are cowards, and surrender monkeys if we do what is right for our country. We have leveraged our childrens future on credit we didn't have to begin with, and we ARE going to pay the price for it.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;35369 wrote:

Hunters only problem is his complete lack of comprehension of foreign policy. He gets big points from me for debating Paul from the heart, but he simply doesn't get it. Like Paul said, all we are trying to do is save face now. The decider has told us we are cowards, and surrender monkeys if we do what is right for our country. We have leveraged our childrens future on credit we didn't have to begin with, and we ARE going to pay the price for it.

Good points. Having spent all my adult years in San Diego, I followed Hunter throughout his long career. He was elected by 65% of the voters in San Diego and is very popular there. Perhaps I am a little blinded since I have met him on a few occasions and believe in him completely. True, that I never thought he really had a chance to win, however.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Paul Had a good boost from the 2nd ammenment comment. HE did well with the really pre gun crowd. People don't like to pay attention to just how pro gu he is.

1 Reply

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;35441 wrote:

Paul Had a good boost from the 2nd ammenment comment. HE did well with the really pre gun crowd. People don't like to pay attention to just how pro gu he is.

What's getting really funny is all the "Fredheads" blathering on about how Fred is so Pro-2A, yet his Pro-2A voting record (which speaks louder than any rhetoric) is at best 50/50 pro/anti. Hel Ron Paul, along with actually having a real Pro-A2 voting record, auctions of rifles at fundraisers.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Damn, i'd better start spamming poles for ronny.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;35459 wrote:

Damn, i'd better start spamming poles for ronny.

Can you prove anything regarding poll spamming? Or are you just making more outlandish statements based on your own opinion?

We'll be waiting on your proof.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

ron paul spamming - Google Search
Two million for ron paul spamming, hmmm?

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;35465 wrote:

ron paul spamming - Google Search
Two million for ron paul spamming, hmmm?

Since Silver will get mad if I say the first thing that comes to my mind, I'll say this....

post some proof that Ron Paul supporters are simply spamming internet polls to get him good results. What you linked to a monkey could do "Ron Paul"+spam in Google is not proof, post proof.

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Even Hannity had the comment that the "Paulites" Were sitting at home voting over and over on the text message poll. If anyone could send more than one vote, then why is everyone only accusing Ron Paul fans. I don't think you can even vote twice(I didn't check). The fact is that Ron Paul has the biggest fallowing of activists. They all watch the debate. While the other candidates get the fallowers by name recognition. Now I'm speaking generally here. Ron Paul doesn't get votes because people just know who he is. All of his supporters like him cause the issues. Which means they are more likely to vote in polls. Paul does not really have 33% if the republican vote(yet), he just has 33% if republican activists.

0 Replies

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

1. We went in under false pretences. The Logic goes thus. We have X reason for going into Iraq, X is no longer an issue, So now we leave.

If you mean WMD we actually found over 500 of them, and WMD Intel on Iraq goes well back into the Clinton era, it isn't a Bush-ism

MORE THAN 500 WMD FOUND IN IRAQ SINCE 2003

Even if we didn't we broke Iraq and we have to fix it, you can't just bail out on 25million people, we learned that in 1991 when we left the Kurds to be slaughtered by Saddam

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

2. The new reason we are in is to Stablize Iraq. So we are not at war with any one person. We are at war with anyone we want to deam a terror threat.

We are at war with terrorism itself, Iraq is a battle in a war, not the war itself. And I can safely say the next time we're attacked you'll be naming them as terrorists too. It's a shame you've already forgotten

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

3. Preemtive war is not allowed by the just war theory unless all other options have been used. We are just being trigger happy. The muslims do hae us. They hate us because it is a fundimental part of the Koran. However, we aren't making anything safer by being over there. Infact I would argue that we are making things worse. As Ron Paul has brought up, Blowback is real.

Blowback is real, America's COA has always been blowback. We were the blowback to the Iraqi Kuwait invasion of 1991, we were also the blowback for Saddam agreeing to comply with weapons inspectors and obey the no fly zone and then not honoring it. Our invasion wasn't "preemptive" it was blowback for Saddam's rouge actions, and military action was the punishment by UN resolution if he didn't comply

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

4. Congress never declared war. I know it doesn't really HAVE to anymore but it still isn't a war.

umm okay, so this never happened?

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

NOw to the practicall aspect of it. Terrorists don't mind us over there. Us being over there weakens our homeland defenses. Remember that we aren't fighing a nation. We are fighting with muslims. There are a lot of potential terrorists in other parts of the world and we aren't fighting them. WHY?

No it doesn't the USMC, and bombers don't secure our boarders, and the last time I checked the FBI, Homeland security, and America's police force aren't in Baghdad. And I don't mind us over there either, if we're gonna fight them I'd personally prefer a road game. We have also fought in the Philippines against Al Qaeda, and America and her allies have disrupted terror plots in the USA, the UK, Germany, Japan, should I go on?

carryabigstick;35140 wrote:

We killed Sadam Hussen who was our enemies enemy. Now we have just the enemy. Not a great move.

Sadam was captured by the coaliition. He was then tried and his punishment carried out by the Iraqi justice system, we stayed out of it. The judges were appointed, btw, by the freely elected government of Iraq.

your post would appear plainly to be more opinion then fact and is selective reason at best

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

There's actually a lot of fact ot his post, but only to someone that has actually read our Constitution.

1 Reply

Ron Paul vs Duncan Hunter

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know