Ron Paul needs to wake up and stop dreaming

The thing I don't get is Ron Paul's logic

I've heard him say 911 was the result of us bombing Iraq for 10 years and I've heard him say Iraq has no connection to 911. Well, which is it?

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and we have been meddling in the middle east, to include bombing Iraq during the ninties, that doesn't seem so hard to understand.

As far as leaving Iraq, we are not making any headway. The leaders of that country are no closer to being able to run it themselves than they were three years ago. AQ has grown because we have refused to actually attack them, concentrating our efforts in Iraq instead of expanding our "war on terrorism" to where it needs to be taken. Whether we leave now, or in fifty years, it's going to be the same story unless we quil the entire middle east, and crush muslim extremism completely, which we are not going to do.

And for the record, Ron Paul is not an "isolationist" before anyone tries that, nor does he give a pass to those that attack us, he voted to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and would indeed go after an real enemy that rose it's head against the US.

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and we have been meddling in the middle east,

to include bombing Iraq during the ninties, that doesn't seem so hard to understand.

As far as leaving Iraq, we are not making any headway. The leaders of that country are no closer to being able to run it themselves than they were three years ago.

AQ has grown because we have refused to actually attack them,

concentrating our efforts in Iraq instead of expanding our "war on terrorism" to where it needs to be taken.

Whether we leave now, or in fifty years, it's going to be the same story unless we quil the entire middle east, and crush muslim extremism completely, which we are not going to do.

And for the record, Ron Paul is not an "isolationist" before anyone tries that,

nor does he give a pass to those that attack us, he voted to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan, and would indeed go after an real enemy that rose it's head against the US.

Did Saddam pay suicide bombers? Was he active in terror.

Care to state why we were bombing them? Do you understand the reason or are you in denial of it?

Just like we didn't make any headway when you were there right?

How many Xmus do you think have been killed in this past weekend in Iraq? Didn't we just capture the number one in Iraq? Oh, he must of fallen in our lap huh?

Where are the majority of XMus that want to kill Americans?

So what's your plan?

Your too late, where have you been?

So Ronny is gonna invade sovereign nations to attack an ideology? Nope, he is gonna withdraw and appease.

Not against America. And technically, no, he didn't pay suicide bombers anything, nor did he finance their operations, he paid money to the suviving families of suicide bombers, which to be an antagonist wasn't funding suicide bombings. So do you believe we should fight Israels war for them? Would you sign up to go fight Israels war for them? Or just call up more US troops and chickenhawk the war?




As a matter of fact yes, I do know. Part of Clintons failed Iraqi Liberation Act because Saddam was hendering inspectors during the Iraq disarmarment. It was part of a plan to destabilize Saddams control.



In the grand scheme of things, no. Just like now, we cleared out many areas, installed a government that was scared to do anything, and the extremist flooded back into areas we cleared once we left. I am reserving my views on teh "Surge" to see if it yields actual long term results, or just a bandaid on an arterial puncture.



We killed plenty of insurgent forces, you want me to post some pictures? And leaders of a fluid organization are easily and quickly replaced. While capturing the high ups, might help dissolve the main groups, it is speculated that they will actual fracture into smaller harder to trace groups, that can do more damage.



According to the NIE it seems just outside our range of effect, Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, Syria.



Either broad sweeping action across ALL states that sponsor terrorism, or redeploy to AMerica, and dump all that manpower and money into securing our country, and it's borders. We spend billions per month in Iraq, but they claim it is too expensive to secure our ports, which approximately only 2% of cargo is checked, and thousands weekly stream across our borders undetected.



Sorry, I don't pay much attention to your ignorance, and lack of understaning for Ron Pauls policies.



Nope, he sure wouldn't, unless those countries attacked the US. The only people doing any appeasing are BushCo. They have given billions to Pro-Taliban government types, and the Paks while terrorist are festering in their borders, without much effort to stop it. Opium production is at it's HIGHEST level ever, in the country we are supposedly occupying and fighting it in. Appeasement? LOL, We sure are appeasing those Saudis, making them billions while they send over 40% of the foreign fighters into Iraq to fight our boys. It's a very bad joke being played on the American people, and people like you sitting around trumpeting your little internet horn chickenhawking the war are a disgrace.

Not against America.

And technically, no, he didn't pay suicide bombers anything, nor did he finance their operations, he paid money to the suviving families of suicide bombers, which to be an antagonist wasn't funding suicide bombings.

So do you believe we should fight Israels war for them?

Would you sign up to go fight Israels war for them?

Or just call up more US troops and chickenhawk the war?

Part of Clintons failed Iraqi Liberation Act because Saddam was hendering inspectors during the Iraq disarmarment.

In the grand scheme of things, no.

We killed plenty of insurgent forces, you want me to post some pictures? And leaders of a fluid organization are easily and quickly replaced. While capturing the high ups, might help dissolve the main groups, it is speculated that they will actual fracture into smaller harder to trace groups, that can do more damage.

According to the NIE it seems just outside our range of effect, Pakistan, Saudi, Iran, Syria.

Either broad sweeping action across ALL states that sponsor terrorism, or redeploy to AMerica, and dump all that manpower and money into securing our country, and it's borders.

Sorry, I don't pay much attention to your ignorance, and lack of understaning for Ron Pauls policies.

Nope, he sure wouldn't, unless those countries attacked the US.

So he's all about letting idealogys attack us all they want but if it's a country he's willing to step up to the plate?

You can't fight an idealogy, hence why the "War on Terror" is a farce. I like how you don't comment on the BushCo appeasement efforts, at least your almost trying to stick to topic.

You can't fight an idealogy,