Bush-"US has no intention to strike inside Pakistan"

Yes B16 as a Ron Paul supporter who is Anti Bush wants the President to stay out of other countries affairs, unless that's what they actually plan to do. Then he's against non interference as well

while this may sound odd to the average person, to the Ron Paul supporter the truth is quite obvious. Just like the obvious truth the Ron Paul pointed out in the GOP debate. Iraq had no ties to 911, but, America brought 911 on itself by bombing Iraq for ten years. [/sarcasm]

sometimes when you're strongly against someone you sometimes forget what you're actually for and focus on just being agaisnt a person. This as policy is completely unhealthy and counterproductive.

"We will make no distinction between those who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Sept. 11, 2001

Yes B16 as a Ron Paul supporter who is Anti Bush wants the President to stay out of other countries affairs, unless that's what they actually plan to do. Then he's against non interference as well

while this may sound odd to the average person, to the Ron Paul supporter the truth is quite obvious. Just like the obvious truth the Ron Paul pointed out in the GOP debate. Iraq had no ties to 911, but, America brought 911 on itself by bombing Iraq for ten years. [/sarcasm]

sometimes when you're strongly against someone you sometimes forget what you're actually for and focus on just being agaisnt a person. This as policy is completely unhealthy and counterproductive.

Yeah....liberal logic these days is totally convoluted. It's not sure if it should be Communist, Muslim, secular-progressive or Pentecostal, 'Clinton-When-Pandering-to-Blacks' Christian. It's neurotic, to say the very least.

I am as much a liberal as you are a fanatical, fundi, genocidal, nazi.

You're somewhere in that crowd. Look at your posts. You've sided with Liberals here on everything except guns. To the best of my knowledge, you've vouched for everything Aaron has yelled in our faces, although you did refer to him as a 'her', for which I salute you.

You sarcasm is wasted. Too bad you can't comprehend my stance on the "war on terrorism" and critisism of BushCo, and use it effectively.

The fact remains that Ron Paul wants to criticize the Iraq War by saying Iraq had no connection to 911, and then blame 911 on Americans for bombing Iraq. You simply can't have it both ways.

Just as you can't say we shouldn't attack Iran on the premise of non intervention and then criticize Bush when he won't attack Pakistan.

and before you claim I'm not educated on BushCo (or as I refer to it Exoniburton) you might want to read up on some of my posts. But there's a huge difference in supporting their get rich(er) scheme, and supporting the eradication of radical terrorists so that a democracy of a people we freed with our own blood won't be in vain.

You sarcasm is wasted. Too bad you can't comprehend my stance on the "war on terrorism" and critisism of BushCo, and use it effectively.



We are no actively avoiding going after known terrorist camps, and as much as giving money to those that are enabling these terrorist to function in their country. If you are going to start a mini WWIII than have the conviction to stick to your own rhetoric and follow through. BushCo didn't care about the complications of going into Iraq, we were going to do that anyway, but he has not only stopped cold in his tracks, and NOT going after the terrorist in Pakistan, is giving billions to nations such as Pakistan, Saudi, Afghanistan where opium production is up, foreign fighters are pouring out of, and rouge elements of taliban and AQ are freely reorganizing, but somehow the the "politics" are too complicated now.

If you weren't so wrapped in the blinders the MSM has you in, and you could even begin to comprehend what Ron Paul said, you might have an excuse for your ignorance. He voted FOR going after AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan, so your strawman that he is an isolationist, and doesn't want to protect America is BS.



Do I want to invade Pakistan? If that's where the enemy is, than yes. If not invade, than put boots down with the local military to remove the threat. What we shouldn't be doing is selling 20 billion in weapons to the ******* House of Saud, or letting the Taliban opium farmers prosper because it's "too political" to stop them.

Hell, if all we did was secure the borders, I might be inclined to buy that Bush was a little serious about keeping America safe. But since he didn't, as a matter of fact, he tried to do exactly the opposite, and has since we went into Iraq, stopped pushing back against terrorist "where they hide", it is easy to assess that the war in Iraq is just an opportunity for BushCo, not a serious campaign to keep America safe.

If that's where the enemy is, than yes.

I've tried to explain our dilemma with Pakistan before. It's old news, and discussed constantly in the media. Mushareff is hanging on by a thread, in the tradition of the Sha of Iran. If we invade Pakistan, he'll fall to Islamic rebellion, and then we'll really be screwed. The bad guys will possess yet more territory in the Middle East, and will also have access to nukes. WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS IN THE CASE OF PAKISTAN. This is some complicated chit. I know you can fathom that. I'm sure you executed some compicated missions over there, right?

I am more of a centerist, I believe in the Constitution, and do not think religion and other peoples morals should play any part in determining other peoples liberties. I support peoples rights to be with whoever they want, and I do not want the government telling me how me and my wife are permitted to have sex. As far as foreign policy, I think we should be a lot more like the founding fathers invisioned, limit our entanglements with foreign nations, and have free open trade. We should NOT use our military to further political agendas, and this is very evident in our current situations around the world. Our government NEEDS checks and balances, and it hasn't had any. Bush is pushing government expansion at an alarming rate in the name of the "war on terrorism" and it needs to stop. We are financially, and militarily spreading ourselves way too thin, and living over our heads in debt, this is NOT sustainable for an extended period of time. Someone needs to reel us back in because the two party system of **** we have right now certainly isn't going to do it. As far as this thread, it is another perfect example of why the War on Terror is a sham. We do not want to go into Pakistan, even though it is known that our enemy is alive and well in there, but we are giving them lots of cash because they are supposedly "working with us" in the war on terror, yet Musharraf makes no effort to rid the area, as a matter of fact just the opposite, makes deals with tribal leaders. It is a scam to get US money.


My point is, if you are going to drag your country into a war, do it for the right reasons, and follow though with the intent. We elected teh fool, we are paying for it, stop lying about it, and do it right.

We elected teh fool, we are paying for it, stop lying about it, and do it right

We are not talking about invading and toppling Pakistan, and while I know we can not just go in, with causing some kind of backlash from the people, he needs to get with the picture. Either he needs to get with it, or we need to with draw funding. If not, than we are continuing to aid a government that harbors terrorist. THAT is more in line with our troops dying in vain than with drawing from Iraq.

So in essence you would be willing to commit another Iraq? You think Musharraf would be able to maintain power while you committed this heinous act against a sovereign nation? If Musharraf folded would you feel compelled to stay and fix it? It is your baby, remember?

LOL, yeah "do it right" attack pakistan!

Do you like being duped by Bush?

We invaded a sovergien, secular country and everybody was all for it,

and we KNOW that 40+% of foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from Saudi, but what are we doing about it?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

How about fight terrorism where terrorism hides? How about making no distinction between the terrorist, and those that harbor/support them? Nope, you're happy with Iraq. You don't actually want to do it right.

You don't actually want to do it right

Your dancing around the fact that you have to invade a sovereign nation to do it. How you gonna get the UN on board? Or are you gonna do it without them? Would that piss off the rest of the world, aren't you worried about our worldly image? You must have a plan otherwise you'd be doing the same thing you claim of Bush, fools rush in right?Your assuming you are right, i happen to think you are not.