Ted Cruz: Hey, let's invade Syria to destroy its chemical weapons

[Warlord]

In this clip Cruz wants to stop chemical weapons from "getting into the wrong hands" he wants a plan to invade the county, secure the weapons and leave. And the Syrians are really going to let Cruz and the US Army do this right? with no resistance?

What Cruz is arguing for is a massive ground invasion like the one Bush called for in Iraq look at how that turned out.

Neocons never learn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0

[Warlord]

A massive ground invasion is the only way to do what he claims to want to do. No county will sit around idly by while they're invaded and forced out by an imperial army. What he wants sets up 20 years of civil war.

[Brett85]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

[Warlord]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

Which is not enough to secure weapons of course which does require a full scale ground invasion unless you want to see the special ops forces wiped out when they come under enemy fire. His comments shows he doesn't know what he's talking about

[Nobexliberty]

No wonder America is the worlds number 1 hated nation on earth, can not let a fight go for 5 minutes without messing a country up. There are exeptions but most Americans love to sit by as a child on the other side on the planet has his head blown off to protect "freedom" as long as they can have their iPhones and other luxury items. Makes me sick!

[Warlord]

EXPAND the empire! more bases needed!

http://www.mindwafers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Iran-encircled21.gif

[Warlord]

Exposed
!

[Warlord]

Cruz probably supports the PATRIOT act as well and people think he's part of the liberty movement. Laughable.

[ctiger2]

What do you expect from a former Bush attorney? Cruz is not to be trusted. Sure, he'll say some good things now and then but he's a snake, a deceiver.

All IMHO.

[Brian4Liberty]

Deja vu.

Same thread, last month:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

[JCDenton0451]

This needs to be brought up every time conservatives here start praising Ted Cruz. And to think that many want him to be the VP?.. Seriously, how stupid people can get?

[Warlord]

Deja vu.

Same thread, last month:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

Sorry Brian but it has to be drilled into people here who think this charlatan is part of the liberty movement when he calls for a massive new Iraq war!

[Warlord]

What do you expect from a former Bush attorney? Cruz is not to be trusted. Sure, he'll say some good things now and then but he's a snake, a deceiver.

All IMHO.

I know but I wish some people would learn this. There are members who believe it or not would support Cruz in a GOP presidential primary. Simply amazing. If Rand doesn't run I hope Amash or someone else does. Certainly would never back this dude for anything.

[Contumacious]

In this clip Cruz wants to stop chemical weapons from "getting into the wrong hands" he wants a plan to invade the county, secure the weapons and leave. And the Syrians are really going to let Cruz and the US Army do this right? with no resistance?

What Cruz is arguing for is a massive ground invasion like the one Bush called for in Iraq look at how that turned out.

Neocons never learn.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0

No, sadly , they never do and we fucking pay the consequences.

Syrian Opposition’s Amazing CIA Credentials
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/syrian-oppositions-amazing-cia-credentials/)
Daniel McAdams on July 12, 2012

Thanks once again to the indispensable Moon of Alabama blog for highlighting, among other interesting facts, the amazingly open ties of the Syrian opposition to their Western paymasters. As the astonishing Guardian story linked in the MoA piece outlines, down to the person these Syrian engines of regime change are products of the US empire and its interventionist, Trotskyite foreign policy of “global democratic revolution.” I urge interested readers to click on the original piece for the full story. I am paraphrasing and quoting the Guardian story below by way of summary:"

.

[kahless]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

That is what I got out of that video unless there is more to that video we have not seen.

[surf]

i'm always a bit disappointed whenever Cruz opens his mouth. he received RPs endorsement, and Cruz tarnishes the value/image/brand of the gift he received.

and what kind of man would even allow neocons to continue to speculate about his federal election potential when he has (thankfully) hit his ceiling?

Canada should take him back.

[asurfaholic]

I do not trust Cruz, at all.

[Warlord]

This needs to be brought up every time conservatives here start praising Ted Cruz. And to think that many want him to be the VP?.. Seriously, how stupid people can get?

His flippant remarks on foreign policy should cause a few people to take notice here.. i'd hope so anyway.

[Keith and stuff]

That is what I got out of that video unless there is more to that video we have not seen.

Yeah. To me it seems that he wants to do what the Marines were trying to do in Somalia.

[Snew]

This needs to be brought up every time conservatives here start praising Ted Cruz. And to think that many want him to be the VP?.. Seriously, how stupid people can get?

including people on this very forum :|

[Warlord]

always a bit disappointed whenever Cruz opens his mouth.

Canada should take him back.

Good point. He's been around a few months lets wait until we see how he performs over the next few years and the positions he is forced to take when voting. I think his own strategy is just to mirror Rand as much as possible and slip on by but not something he can keep up forever as shown here.

[LatinsforPaul]

The quickest way President Paul can risk his life as President is to have a Vice-President Cruz.

[Warlord]

The quickest way President Paul can risk his life as President is to have a Vice-President Cruz.

I dont think it'll happen. Cruz is pretty polarizing figure and I trust Rand's judgement.

Vice President Labrador though? Maybe has a ring to it

[AuH20]

I think too many wild conclusions are being perpetrated here. Cruz is hated by the likes of Bill Kristol. John McCain and Peter King. So he's doing something right. You can tell a lot of someone by their enemies. He's not some savior of liberty, but some of the characterizations are way over the top.

[JCDenton0451]

"Hated" is a strong word. When Weekly Standard starts publishing articles alleging Ted Cruz is racist, then you will have a point.

[TER]

oh well, there goes my support for Cruz...

[TaftFan]

How quickly this turned into speculation that he was talking about a ground invasion and supporting the patriot act...

[AuH20]

"Hated" is a strong word. When Weekly Standard starts publishing articles alleging Ted Cruz is racist, then you will have a point.

But he isn't actively running for president. And if he did, he wouldn't be allowed near the White House either. Rand and Cruz are persona non gratas in the political world. They would both need a miracle to win.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

You may be right, but even that is enough for me to totally reject him as a candidate.

I knew Ted Cruz sucked, and I was correct.



The quickest way President Paul can risk his life as President is to have a Vice-President Cruz.

Indeed. Rand needs someone more radical than himself in the #2 slot.


How quickly this turned into speculation that he was talking about a ground invasion and supporting the patriot act...

While true, he certainly supported intervention, which is a no-no.

[AuH20]

I'm going to foretell what's going to happen if Cruz or Paul ever won a presidential primary cycle. The Northeastern RINOs republicans will pull their support after a hotly contested primary just like they did to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Many of these people ended up voting for Lyndon Baines Johnson. These phonies will pull the lever for Hillary since they have no moral compass. Destroyed from within. Watch. The party loyalists and northeastern scum cannot be trusted. Peter King has admitted as much. There is no honor among thieves and liars.

[alucard13mm]

Has Cruz been bought off and will be used against Rand =P?

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm going to foretell what's going to happen if Cruz or Paul ever won a presidential primary cycle. The Northeastern RINOs republicans will pull their support after a hotly contested primary just like they did to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Many of these people ended up voting for Lyndon Baines Johnson. These phonies will pull the lever for Hillary since they have no moral compass. Destroyed from within. Watch. The party loyalists and northeastern scum cannot be trusted. Peter King has admitted as much. There is no honor among thieves and liars.
In this day and age, that's fine by me as it would toxify the democrats even more than they will be at that point. Then the real liberals and progressives will come our way and for sure the average guy will see where all the elites are hanging. This vacuum allows us to reorganize and mobilize this newer looking party in our vision. I do agree with you about Cruz and him having similar enemies as Rand does.

[FSP-Rebel]

However, I see Warlord is muddying the waters and fanning the flames today. Must be bored.

[AuH20]

In this day and age, that's fine by me as it would toxify the democrats even more than they will be at that point. Then the real liberals and progressives will come our way and for sure the average guy will see where all the elites are hanging. This vacuum allows us to reorganize and mobilize this newer looking party in our vision. I do agree with you about Cruz and him having similar enemies as Rand does.

Well, the GOP will end up splitting, awaking many in process. Then this fight will go from political, to the arena where it was always destined to go. No one is voting themselves out of this mess. I've always maintained that a Rand Paul presidential campaign wouldn't need to claim the presidency to be successful. His campaign will be about revealing the futility of the political system.

[eduardo89]

What Cruz is arguing for is a massive ground invasion like the one Bush called for in Iraq look at how that turned out.

He never said that. In fact he said pretty much the opposite. A precision strike is nothing like the invasion of Iraq.


Neocons never learn.

He's not a neoconservative. Not even close.

[AuH20]

However, I see Warlord is muddying the waters and fanning the flames today. Must be bored.

Probably. Bash Cruz today when he's been Rand's loyal wingman from the start.

[Warlord]

However, I see Warlord is muddying the waters and fanning the flames today. Must be bored.

No i'm not. some people actually Cruz - who has never attended or shared a stage with Ron or anyone of note yet - is part of the liberty movement. He's more of a neocon than anything else. You'll see it soon enough

[Warlord]

Probably. Bash Cruz today when he's been Rand's loyal wingman from the start.

You dont take a wingman to Iowa for gods sake. Only politician who run for president go there

[eduardo89]

I'm going to re-post this from the other thread:



I agree with him. If there are chemical weapons the US should destroy them if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda and used against America. He also says that if they do go in to take those weapons out if they are going to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda that that should be the sole mission and once that is achieved that the US should leave immediately. Eliminate the threat (or potential threat) and get out. That was Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan and it is the correct position.

Notice also how he says we should not be arming the rebels? I've seen Cruz also say we should not take sides in the civil war.

Ted Cruz is a solid constitutional conservative with an America-first mentality. He, Rand and Mike Lee are the three best senators the US has seen in decades.


I'm not an isolationist. I don't agree 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I honestly think he's a bit naïve on that front. I much prefer Rand and Cruz's foreign policy.

The federal governments top responsibility is national defense and I think a case in which weapons of mass destructions could fall into the hands of our enemy (al-Qaeda) and be used against us warrants destruction of those weapons. I think it makes sense for the military to have a plan in case that happens.

It wouldn't necessitate the invasion and occupation of Syria, I am completely against that, just I'm against the war/occupation of Iraq and the continued occupation of Afghanistan. It might not even necessitate troops on the ground, but air strikes might be sufficient.

I think this should be a last resort and the decision should not be taken lightly, but if the syrian government falls and the country is in anarchy and the weapons unsecured with a big chance of them falling into the hands of al-Qaeda or al-Nusrah then I think the US should destroy them.

[eduardo89]

How quickly this turned into speculation that he was talking about a ground invasion and supporting the patriot act...

He didn't talk another either of those.

He never said ground invasion. An invasion would not be necessary for what he's talking about.

And I don't think Cruz supports all the provisions of the Patriot Act (guess what! not the entire bill is unconstitutional!)

[Warlord]

He never said that. In fact he said pretty much the opposite. A precision strike is nothing like the invasion of Iraq.



He's not a neoconservative. Not even close.

oh dear god. you just think they're going to let special ops waltz into their country and let them commandeer weapons sites without the need of a massive ground invasion to protect this massively dangerous operation ?

what the hell happened to you

[Warlord]

Eduardo you're not that thick. Cruz's flippant remarks on foreign policy are dangerous. You dont just send in special ops to secure a weapons site as they will all be murdered. You have to typically invade with tanks, air raids, troops.. like in Iraq in 2003. Then you're stuck there for 10 years. Please use some common sense

[AuH20]

You dont take a wingman to Iowa for gods sake. Only politician who run for president go there

Cruz has been in Senate less than a year. He's not running. The same reasons that excluded Rand's possible bid in 2012.

[Warlord]

Cruz has been in Senate less than a year. He's not running. The same reasons that excluded Rand's possible bid in 2012.

He is running otherwise he would not be wasting his weekend in Iowa. I know this is hard to understand for some people.

[AuH20]

He is running otherwise he would not be wasting his weekend in Iowa. I know this is hard to understand for some people.


He has no tangible organization set up as opposed to Rand. He's been in the senate for just 7 months. You are creating some elaborate theory that doesn't hold up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/21/ted-cruz-president_n_3631413.html

[Warlord]

He has no tangible organization set up as opposed to Rand. He's been in the senate for just 7 months. You are creating some elaborate theory that doesn't hold up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/21/ted-cruz-president_n_3631413.html


This doesn't mean he won't put one together over the next 12 months or whatever. ABC gave him a big 10 minute profile this morning with interviews and everything. They would not be doing all this if he's not running.

Since when has HuffPo been right about anything?

Ted Cruz is running mark my words.

[enhanced_deficit]

I don't agree with Cruz's position on Syria, but I don't think he was actually calling for a "ground invasion" of that country. It sounded to me like he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

Exactly 20 years bedore 9/11, this smart bomb air raid against Iraq's chemical weapons took place. Is Ted Cruz finished politically or there is still chance of him receovering?





Recalling the Slaughter of Innocents
By Ray McGovern
February 14, 2011





Twenty years ago, as Americans were celebrating Valentine’s Day, Iraqi husbands and fathers in the Amiriyah section of Baghdad were peeling the remains of their wives and children off the walls and floor of a large neighborhood bomb shelter.







The men had left the shelter the evening before, so their wives would have some measure of privacy as they sought refuge from the U.S.-led coalition bombing campaign, which was at its most intense pre-ground war stage.

All of the more than 400 women and children were incinerated or boiled to death at 4:30 a.m. on Feb. 13, 1991, when two F-117 stealth fighter-bombers each dropped a 2,000-pound laser-guided “smart bomb” on the civilian shelter at Amiriyah.

It was one of those highly accurate “surgical strikes.” The first bomb sliced through 10 feet of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuse exploded, destroying propane and water tanks for heating water and food.

Minutes later the second bomb flew precisely through the opening that had been cut by the first and exploded deeper in the shelter creating an inferno.
Fire rose from the lower level to the area where the women and children were seeking shelter – and so did the boiling water. Those who did not burn to death immediately or die from the bombs’ impact were boiled or steamed to death in the intense heat.

The bombs hit toward the end of the month-long bombing campaign to “soften up” Iraq before the U.S.-led ground invasion to drive Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
The aerial bombing had begun on Jan. 17, 1991; the coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. U.S. government documents show that the bombs were targeted on civilian as well as military infrastructure. They were very accurate.

This is not to suggest that the targeters knew that some 400 women and children would be killed at Amiriyah. No, it was just one of those unfortunate mistakes to which many Americans have become accustomed, even inured – whether the unintended-but-nevertheless-dead victims be in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, wherever.

Indeed, the stealth aircraft and the ordnance were a proud paragon of precision performing their mission. How was the Air Force to know that the targeting information was based on spurious “intelligence” reports that the shelter had become a military command site?
Actually, Brigadier General Buster Glosson, who had overall responsibility for targeting, later commented that the “intelligence” pointing to military use was not “worth a sh_t.”

Human Rights Watch noted later in 1991:
“It is now well established, through interviews with neighborhood residents, that the Amiriyah structure was plainly marked as a public shelter and was used throughout the air war by large numbers of civilians.”
A BBC correspondent, Jeremy Bowen, was among the first TV reporters to arrive on the scene. He was given access to the site and found no evidence of military use. The Pentagon later admitted that it had known that “the Amiriyah facility had been used as a civil-defense shelter during the Iraq-Iran war” from 1980 to 1988.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021411c.html




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInHphR4zBg&feature=player_embedded

I suspect will not get reelected as a Republican. Neocons funding him are playing with his political life.

[enhanced_deficit]

He never said that. In fact he said pretty much the opposite. A precision strike is nothing like the invasion of Iraq.



He's not a neoconservative. Not even close.


You are right, he is not a neocon...he is a neocon's tool. Any good place to check how much money he got from neocon-teocon lobbies?

"Precision strike" as done using drones by another neocon tool Obama or like Iraq precision strike on Iraq civilian shelter that boiled over 400 civilians including 50 children to death 20 years before 9/11 while taking out fake Iraqi chemical weapons?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021411c.html


On a different not in case Cruz reads this forum,what threat Syria poses to America? What defense would you suggest against future precision blowbacks they may launch against our chem WMDs? Or of our closest allies?


Iran Will Destroy Israeli Nuke Facilities If Attacked



TEHRAN (AFP) -- Iran will strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel launches an attack on Iran's own burgeoning nuclear facilities, a commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying Wednesday. "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear centre, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr was quoted as saying in the press.




http://rense.com/general56/kjune.htm



This guy seems as sham and tool of neocons as Rubio who is also politically done.

[Warlord]

the "precision" strike would not be enough to take out chemical weapons. In fact if carried out could cause a major incident with mass people vomiting to death including Christians. Is this what you want to see Eduardo?

The only way to secure those alleged weapons is with overwhelming force during a ground invasion.

The fact that the famed douche lawyer Cruz can't even bring himself to say "alleged" when accusing Syria of harbouring banned substances shows you his agenda; Cruz is the judge, jury and executioner. Kill more brown people please

[jtstellar]

1. this is from jun 20th.. in today's political pace, that's a long time ago

2. as long as he resonates with rand in opposition to invasion of syria, we need it to avoid rand getting singled out. Having peter king attacking rand and cruz at the same time and calling them isolationist is much better than rand being attacked alone and labeled as being out there. This is the same argument people used to say it was good for gary johnson being on stage during debate to divert attacks but 1. Johnson was a nobody so it didn't have the effect cruz has and 2. Ron was a lightning rod and he just isn't the type that would utilize these types of opportunity well, but rand is. Look at rand inviting ted cruz and reince priebus everywhere he goes, now every neocon thinks they are on our side, pretty soon they will have to be even if they didn't start that way, it's called pressure by word of mouth.. sometimes what starts as an illusion or mirage can become real once you repeat it enough. We just need to keep doing what we're doing and win the war on rhetorics, not grandstanding. You keep repeating someone as our sworn enemy, pretty soon he will be, just the same.

i don't know why some people who otherwise are good on other issues keep pushing this drivel as if they wish if they repeated it enough, ted cruz originally in the middle would join dick cheney and attack us. I don't see cruz converting any of our side, being with him has been nothing but benefit for us, as we use him as a bridge to siphon support from his side. I don't know the intent by some keep trying to push cruz away

[TaftFan]

the "precision" strike would not be enough to take out chemical weapons. In fact if carried out could cause a major incident with mass people vomiting to death including Christians. Is this what you want to see Eduardo?

The only way to secure those alleged weapons is with overwhelming force during a ground invasion.

The fact that the famed douche lawyer Cruz can't even bring himself to say "alleged" when accusing Syria of harbouring banned substances shows you his agenda; Cruz is the judge, jury and executioner. Kill more brown people please

Do we even know what these chemical weapons stores look like?

[Warlord]

Do we even know what these chemical weapons stores look like?

I'm sure there are guesses that can be made with Google Maps but you need rather more than that don't you now. In fact it's really none of Cruz's business or yours and mine. Stay out of it.

[TaftFan]

I'm sure there are guesses that can be made with Google Maps but you need rather more than that don't you now. In fact it's really none of Cruz's business or yours and mine. Stay out of it.

National security is our business. The idea that we shouldn't even investigate and monitor world activities is what brought on the "head in the sand" comments during the campaign.

[TaftFan]

Syria: Al-Qaeda's battle for control of Assad's chemical weapons plant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10022753/Syria-Al-Qaedas-battle-for-control-of-Assads-chemical-weapons-plant.html

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02548/syria-weapons_2548340b.jpg

[FSP-Rebel]

1. this is from jun 20th.. in today's political pace, that's a long time ago

2. as long as he resonates with rand in opposition to invasion of syria, we need it to avoid rand getting singled out. Having peter king attacking rand and cruz at the same time and calling them isolationist is much better than rand being attacked alone and labeled as being out there. This is the same argument people used to say it was good for gary johnson being on stage during debate to divert attacks but 1. Johnson was a nobody so it didn't have the effect cruz has and 2. Ron was a lightning rod and he just isn't the type that would utilize these types of opportunity well, but rand is. Look at rand inviting ted cruz and reince priebus everywhere he goes, now every neocon thinks they are on our side, pretty soon they will have to be even if they didn't start that way, it's called pressure by word of mouth.. sometimes what starts as an illusion or mirage can become real once you repeat it enough. We just need to keep doing what we're doing and win the war on rhetorics, not grandstanding. You keep repeating someone as our sworn enemy, pretty soon he will be, just the same.

i don't know why some people who otherwise are good on other issues keep pushing this drivel as if they wish if they repeated it enough, ted cruz originally in the middle would join dick cheney and attack us. I don't see cruz converting any of our side, being with him has been nothing but benefit for us, as we use him as a bridge to siphon support from his side. I don't know the intent by some keep trying to push cruz away
Word. Me thinks Warlord is trolling GP trying to drum up support for perpetuating his conspiracy theory.;)

[Antischism]

This is why I laughed when Peter King called Cruz an "isolationist." Even the word "isolationist" is too good for where Cruz really stands on foreign policy.

[surf]

HE WAS BORN IN CANADA

he can't be President or Veep

[angelatc]

He never said that. In fact he said pretty much the opposite. A precision strike is nothing like the invasion of Iraq.



He's not a neoconservative. Not even close.

Ron Paul has concerns with him: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ron-paul-rebukes-ted-cruz-we-ought-to-be-cheering-someone-whos-more-cautious-about-going-to-war/

[angelatc]

HE WAS BORN IN CANADA

he can't be President or Veep

He was born a citizen, so he can indeed be President.

[Peace Piper]

he was talking about something closer to a covert operation with special operation forces with the goal of securing the WMD's in Syria, and then getting out right away.

WMD BS AGAIN? Astounding.

Syria is in the crosshairs because it is Independent. I can't believe the WMD excuse is regurgitated even here. And after the WMD lie, what follows is "He's killing his own people"- if "rebels" infested Texas and planned to overthrow DC do you think there might be some problems?
Clinton "Killed his own people" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege). And they weren't planning a coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état).

Syrian Girl: Why the nwo hates syria


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP3mXVRd89Y

You may think Syrian Girl is lying. It's the WMD that is an enabling lie to crush yet another country.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o4jexVvCL8)
Remember who Cruz is married to.

Cruz's wife is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co. and previously worked in the White House for Condoleezza Rice and in New York as an investment banker

Goldman Sachs is NWO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_sachs#Controversies), which is the REAL WMD

Cruz is a Snake in the Grass.

[69360]

Cruz probably supports the PATRIOT act as well and people think he's part of the liberty movement. Laughable.

This is getting tiring. It doesn't matter if he is "part of the movement" or doesn't pass your purity test. He does much, much more good than bad. You all will be looking forever to pass your personal purity tests and no progress will be made. Everytime a generally good politician does something you don't like we get 20 pages about how they are sellouts and the devil incarnate.

[eduardo89]

Ron Paul has concerns with him: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ron-paul-rebukes-ted-cruz-we-ought-to-be-cheering-someone-whos-more-cautious-about-going-to-war/

Everyone should have concerns about going to war, but I stand with Cruz on this one.

I don't agree with Ron Paul 100% and I don't worship him as some infallible political-god like some on this forum do. I like Ron Paul's anti-war stance, but I don't agree with his extreme non-interventionism which borders on isolationism.

I do think that if chemical weapons are going to fall into the hands of Al-Nusrah and al-Qaeda then the US should have a plan to destroy them before it can happen. If they get their hands on those weapons they will either use them on the US, US interests, US allies, or on Christian Syrians and other civilians. I don't think it's extreme for the military to have a plan to secure and destroy them in the event that the Assad regime collapses and isn't able to keep them out of the hands of the jihadist rebels.

[angelatc]

This is getting tiring. It doesn't matter if he is "part of the movement" or doesn't pass your purity test. He does much, much more good than bad. You all will be looking forever to pass your personal purity tests and no progress will be made. Everytime a generally good politician does something you don't like we get 20 pages about how they are sellouts and the devil incarnate.

If some of us are now willing to support a quick little ground invasion in Syria, it isn't our side of the party that's making progress.

[angelatc]

I do think that if chemical weapons are going to fall into the hands of Al-Nusrah and al-Qaeda then the US should have a plan to destroy them before it can happen. If they get their hands on those weapons they will either use them on the US, US interests, US allies, or on Christian Syrians and other civilians. I don't think it's extreme for the military to have a plan to secure and destroy them in the event that the Assad regime collapses and isn't able to keep them out of the hands of the jihadist rebels.

The chemical weapons that were snatched in another country were headed to the rebels. Reuters and RT reported that it was the rebels using chemical weapons in Syria when we were told that it was the regime.

This is a civil war - we have absolutely no legitimate business in it. They do not pose any immediate threat to the US.

[eduardo89]

If some of us are willing to support a quick little ground invasion in Syria, it isn't our side of the party that's making progress.

Ron Paul supported a "quick ground invasion" of Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda which posed a threat to us. Ron Paul's position has always been that he supports a "quick ground invasion" to neutralize a threat and that once that threat is destroyed we should get out immediately. That is exactly what Ted Cruz said as well.

[eduardo89]

The chemical weapons that were snatched in another country were headed to the rebels. This is a civil war - we have absolutely no legitimate business in it.

And destroying Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons before al-Qaeda takes possession of them is not getting involved in the civil war. It is not taking sides or supporting one side over the other. If Assad cannot safeguard the weapons it means his regime has fallen as that would be the last thing he would let the rebels capture.

Cruz has said he does not want to arm the rebels, nor does he want the US to be involved in the civil war. What he proposed is not intervention into the civil war, but neutralizing a potential threat to America.

[TaftFan]

The chemical weapons that were snatched in another country were headed to the rebels. Reuters and RT reported that it was the rebels using chemical weapons in Syria.

This is a civil war - we have absolutely no legitimate business in it. They do not pose any immediate threat to the US.

Al Qaeda has no business being in Syria.

[angelatc]

Ron Paul supported a "quick ground invasion" of Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda which posed a threat to us. Ron Paul's position has always been that he supports a "quick ground invasion" to neutralize a threat and that once that threat is destroyed we should get out immediately. That is exactly what Ted Cruz said as well.

No, Ron Paul supported a ground invasion to capture or kill the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Syria has not attacked us.

And are you really going to use Afghanistan as an example of a quick little ground invasion?

[angelatc]

Al Qaeda has no business being in Syria.

They have more business there than we do.

[TaftFan]

They have more business there than we do.

No they don't. They aren't based in Syria.

We are currently at war with Al Qaeda. What harm does it do to stop them from stealing chemical weapons?

I am fully and totally against getting involved in civil wars, big ground invasions (unless in self defense) , nation building, etc. I'm not against going after enemies.

I support using special operations to fight terrorists when necessary, as well as letters of marque and reprisal, either or both could be used to make sure we remain safe from chemical weapons while ensuring we keep our profile and cost down.

This is common sense stuff that would keep us secure while allowing us to dramatically scale back our presence in the world and cut military spending.

[69360]

If some of us are now willing to support a quick little ground invasion in Syria, it isn't our side of the party that's making progress.


The chemical weapons that were snatched in another country were headed to the rebels. Reuters and RT reported that it was the rebels using chemical weapons in Syria when we were told that it was the regime.

This is a civil war - we have absolutely no legitimate business in it. They do not pose any immediate threat to the US.

I don't want a single US troop in Syria. That doesn't change the fact that Cruz has done a lot of good. You don't condemn somebody like him for one bad policy decision.

[eduardo89]

No, Ron Paul supported a ground invasion to capture or kill the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Syria has not attacked us.

And the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are fighting in Syria and will get their hands on chemical weapons if the Assad regime falls.


And are you really going to use Afghanistan as an example of a quick little ground invasion?

No, I'm using it as an example of when Ron Paul has said he supports invading another country. In the case of Syria, it would be to destroy weapons before they fall into the hands of the same people Ron Paul supported invading Afghanistan to kill.

[eduardo89]

No they don't. They aren't based in Syria.

We are currently at war with Al Qaeda. What harm does it do to stop them from stealing chemical weapons?

I am fully and totally against getting involved in civil wars, big ground invasions (unless in self defense) , nation building, etc. I'm not against going after enemies.

I support using special operations to fight terrorists when necessary, as well as letters of marque and reprisal, either or both could be used to make sure we remain safe from chemical weapons while ensuring we keep our profile and cost down.

This is common sense stuff that would keep us secure while allowing us to dramatically scale back our presence in the world and cut military spending.

I completely agree with this.

[Smart3]

No i'm not. some people actually Cruz - who has never attended or shared a stage with Ron or anyone of note yet - is part of the liberty movement. He's more of a neocon than anything else. You'll see it soon enough

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but I'm fairly sure I recall Ron and Rand being on stage with Cruz during the campaign.

[Nomzta]

I'm okay with America invading Syria to kill Assad and his Allawite, Druze and Christian and Shiite allies, but why would we attack the Sunni/Salafi/Wahabi rebels who are funded by our trustworthy allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar?. The Sunni rebels may be Islamic extremists but they can easily be controlled since they are funded by our allies and they will never dare attack Israel.

[Nomzta]

We are currently at war with Al Qaeda.

LOL, you are grossly ignorant if you think that. Our allies, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the Kingdom of Qatar, along with the Emirates, who are all trustworthy, fund al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda is a tool that the US must use to kill the filthy anti-Semitic Muslims and Christians of the middle east and destabilize that region. the more the region is under control of al-Qaeda affiliates, the more Iran loses. when Iran loses, America and Israel win!

Israel & Saudi Arabia — Alliance of necessity (http://www.kcjc.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=354:israel-a-saudi-arabia--alliance-of-necessity&Itemid=2)

‘Containing Iran’: Israel ‘in talks’ to join alliance with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey (http://rt.com/news/israeil-iran-security-alliance-us-832/)

[Peace Piper]

I'm okay with America invading Syria to kill Assad and his Allawite, Druze and Christian and Shiite allies,

Really.

It's Bizarro world.

Any other countries you'd like to invade while we're all at it? Oh, and you'll be on the front lines of which wars?

[Nomzta]

Oh, and you'll be on the front lines of which wars?

The chosen don't fight when the gentiles can!

[eduardo89]

Really.

It's Bizarro world.

Any other countries you'd like to invade while we're all at it? Oh, and you'll be on the front lines of which wars?

Don't feed the troll.

[Nomzta]

Don't feed the troll.

Real Americans defend Israel eduardo! Don't forget that. Instead of insulting like a coward, why don't you refute my points if you disagree?

[Peace Piper]

And this thread shows how Gaddafi was able to be sodomized and murdered on the side of the road and people laughed about it and everyone woke up the next day like "What's the big deal"?

the moral decay is almost complete. It's a new nation now, one that I personally want nothing whatsoever to do with, Disgusting. Totally and completely gone 'round the bend into the 4th century. Anyone want to have a "Dress like a Visigoth" contest?

At one time people would have at least protested this perversion.

Now it's funny.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o4jexVvCL8

[angelatc]

No they don't. They aren't based in Syria.

We are currently at war with Al Qaeda. What harm does it do to stop them from stealing chemical weapons?

I am fully and totally against getting involved in civil wars, big ground invasions (unless in self defense) , nation building, etc. I'm not against going after enemies.

I support using special operations to fight terrorists when necessary, as well as letters of marque and reprisal, either or both could be used to make sure we remain safe from chemical weapons while ensuring we keep our profile and cost down.

This is common sense stuff that would keep us secure while allowing us to dramatically scale back our presence in the world and cut military spending.

At least Al Qaeda members are actually from the Middle East. We are not. We have no legitimate business interfering in a civil war.

As I said before, the fact that some of us are now justifying a ground invasion, using essentially the same logic that sent us into Iraq means that it isn't our side that's making progress.

The chemical weapons in Syria are not our problem until they are used against us. The war in the Middle East should be done and over. The people that attacked the Twin Towers are all dead and buried. It is time for us to come home, and let the Middle East get back to the business of killing each other.

Mike Scheuer predicted this back in May:
As scandals deepen, Obama, his party, and Republicans will militarily intervene in Syria (http://non-intervention.com/1111/as-scandals-deepen-obama-his-party-and-republicans-will-militarily-intervene-in-syria/)



The saddest part of the foregoing scenario is that it probably will work. Obama artfully masks his casual willingness to get Americans killed — seen in his zeal for abortion; keeping troops in Afghanistan to die (6 more on 16 May 2013) long after conceding defeat there; and refusing to try to save soon-to-be-dead Americans in Benghazi — with a maudlin “deep concern” for people suffering abroad, in this case in Syria. Obama’s faux concern for those suffering overseas is just another indelible sign of his and his party’s absolute disdain for the needs of everyday Americans. Under Obama’s two secretaries of state — Clinton and Kerry — the United States have dispersed more than $500 million to strengthen the “Syrian Resistance”; which is to say, to strengthen al-Qaeda and its allies. Both secretaries and their master have deceitfully described the aid as “humanitarian,” but as always this funding is military in every way because it frees up the Islamists’ other funds to be spent for weapons.

Fuck all of you war mongers.

[TER]

I don't want a single US troop in Syria. That doesn't change the fact that Cruz has done a lot of good. You don't condemn somebody like him for one bad policy decision.


You make good points. I am still holding out hope for Cruz as I really feel he might be a great running mate with Rand. No one is perfect and the vast majority of his rhetoric aligns with the Constitution.

[twomp]

LOL I can't believe this. People here right on RPF justifying going into a sovereign country to keep WMD's away from terrorists. Were you guys the same speech writers for George W. Bush? This is a page right from the Bush playbook. If I didn't know better, I would say that Ted Cruz worked with George W. Bush's team or something.

LOL that's pretty funny. "I'm against war but if it's a special elite team going in to retrieve WMD's, then it's okay. I saw Tom Cruise do it on Mission Impossible."

[Nomzta]

LOL I can't believe this. People here right on RPF justifying going into a sovereign country to keep WMD's away from terrorists.

Why would you even want to keep WMDs away from them? The Sunni terrorists are not gonna attack us, we are their benefactors through our allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, they will attack Shiite Iran!

[angelatc]

LOL I can't believe this. People here right on RPF justifying going into a sovereign country to keep WMD's away from terrorists. Were you guys the same speech writers for George W. Bush? This is a page right from the Bush playbook. If I didn't know better, I would say that Ted Cruz worked with George W. Bush's team or something.

LOL that's pretty funny. "I'm against war but if it's a special elite team going in to retrieve WMD's, then it's okay. I saw Tom Cruise do it on Mission Impossible."

Iraq was going to be over in less than 6 months.

[angelatc]

I don't want a single US troop in Syria. That doesn't change the fact that Cruz has done a lot of good. You don't condemn somebody like him for one bad policy decision.

Foreign policy is the one area that I refuse to concede on, because it's the most dangerous to liberty.

[eduardo89]

The chemical weapons in Syria are not our problem until they are used against us.

So you think that the US should never act until it has been attacked?

Al-Qaeda having chemical weapons is a clear threat to the US, but you think we shouldn't destroy those weapons until hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are killed by them first?

[eduardo89]

LOL I can't believe this. People here right on RPF justifying going into a sovereign country to keep WMD's away from terrorists.

I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.

[69360]

Foreign policy is the one area that I refuse to concede on, because it's the most dangerous to liberty.

Certainly your right. I'm most concerned about government directly restricting my personal freedom.

[twomp]

I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.

Yes, George Bush, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would agree with you as well. Can't let those terrorists gets their hands on those weapons! Gotta take the fight to them before they take it to us right?

[eduardo89]

Yes, George Bush, John McCain and Lindsey Graham would agree with you as well. Can't let those terrorists gets their hands on those weapons! Gotta take the fight to them before they take it to us right?

The people you listen want to get American soldiers directly involved in combat giants Assad and provide heavy weaponry to the people we are supposedly at war with. So don't twist my stance or try and and tie me to those murderers.

[Brett85]

WMD BS AGAIN? Astounding.

Syria is in the crosshairs because it is Independent. I can't believe the WMD excuse is regurgitated even here.

I simply posted Cruz's own words on the subject. I'm not defending Cruz's position on Syria, just explaining it.

[kcchiefs6465]

I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.
If the government of Syria falls it will be at our doing.

Considering that when reading your statement, are the American peoples' interests being served with current policy?

We are trying to overthrow yet another country, funding and arming rebels. You are speaking of attacking the people the US has been funding and arming because they would be a threat when in power or with certain weapons. If that is the case, why are we arming them in the first place?

To be clear, that is the case. We are arming and funding a group that undoubtedly divvies monies to organizations who despise us. Makes it all the more ludicrous that you would suggest supporting us destroying these weapons.

[Brett85]

So you think that the US should never act until it has been attacked?

Al-Qaeda having chemical weapons is a clear threat to the US, but you think we shouldn't destroy those weapons until hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are killed by them first?

How would a terrorist organization actually have the capability of using WMD's against the United States? They aren't that advanced that they could somehow get into the United States and set off a weapon of mass destruction in America. I'm a big fan of the TV show "24," but that isn't real life. In real life, terrorists aren't able to pull something like that off. They would never get such a weapon into the U.S.

[presence]

There is no way, under any circumstances, Ron Paul could have made that speech.


/thread

[kcchiefs6465]

A little relevant.


By 1949, U.S. officials were not only concerned about Syria's stance on Israel, border disputes with Turkey, and oil pipelines, but had begun to worry that the left was growing in power and that the government was growing friendlier to the Soviet Union. When demonstrations led to the resignation of the prime minister, the U.S. assistant military attaché, who was in reality a CIA officer, began to meet with the Syrian chief of staff, Husni Zaim, to plan a coup. Soon after, Zaim “requested U.S. agents provoke and abet internal disturbances which ‘essential for coup d'etat' or that U.S. funds be given him this purpose.” We do not know the U.S. response to this specific request, but the CIA officer did promise rapid recognition after a coup with, presumably, a handsome aid package to follow. This is exactly how events began to unfold, although, as we pointed out in chapter three, the process was interrupted after less than five months when Zaim was himself overthrown in another coup. Government then followed government in rapid succession, with civilian cabinets rising and falling, interspersed with additional coups. From time to time, right-wing officers approached the U.S. for help or guidance on possible coups, one of which in fact involved the assassination of the country's left-leaning leader (the extent of prior U.S. knowledge about this murder is unclear). 1



1) Zaim, quoted in Meade to G-2, 18 March 1949 (Little 1990: 56); Little (2004: 670-7).
© US Foreign Policy in Perspective, 2009
Web: www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org

[eduardo89]

How would a terrorist organization actually have the capability of using WMD's against the United States? They aren't that advanced that they could somehow get into the United States and set off a weapon of mass destruction in America. I'm a big fan of the TV show "24," but that isn't real life. In real life, terrorists aren't able to pull something like that off. They would never get such a weapon into the U.S.

They wouldn't have to get the weapons into the US. They could attack embassies and other diplomatic facilities, like al-Qaeda did in 1998 killing 223 and injuring over 4000 (or the 20 other attacks on US diplomatic facilities since 1993). They could also attack one of the countless military bases the US has. They could also attack vital economic interests, such as the Suez Canal.

[Brett85]

They wouldn't have to get the weapons into the US. They could attack embassies and other diplomatic facilities, like al-Qaeda did in 1998 killing 223 and injuring over 4000 (or the 20 other attacks on US diplomatic facilities since 1993). They could also attack one of the countless military bases the US has. They could also attack vital economic interests, such as the Suez Canal.

Do you think that the President would have the authority to authorize an operation in Syria to retrieve the WMD's and destroy them? Doesn't the Constitution make it clear that Congress is supposed to authorize all military interventions overseas?

[eduardo89]

Do you think that the President would have the authority to authorize an operation in Syria to retrieve the WMD's and destroy them? Doesn't the Constitution make it clear that Congress is supposed to authorize all military interventions overseas?

The president does not have the authority unless it has been given to him by Congress. Unfortunately, under the AUMF (which Ron Paul voted for) the president has been given the authority to use military force to disrupt al-qaeda's operations and capabilities worldwide.


That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Brett85]

The president does not have the authority unless it has been given to him by Congress. Unfortunately, under the AUMF (which Ron Paul voted for) the president has been given the authority to use military force to disrupt al-qaeda's operations and capabilities worldwide.

I disagree with your interpretation of the AUMF. The exact wording of the AUMF only gives the President the authority to take out the terrorists who were actually involved in planning the 9-11 attacks. It doesn't give the President blanket authority to kill any terrorist he wants to around the world, even if it can't be proven that the terrorist being targeted had some connection to the 9-11 attacks. The AUMF certainly doesn't give the President the authority to send troops into Syria without getting authorization from Congress.

[Warlord]

Eduardo is ignoring once again the fact that 98% of terror related incident in the US over the last decade according to court documents came from the FBI itself who also backs Al Qeda in Syria and set the thing up in the first place. They run all these groups on record.

Don't make me shower you in news sources to prove it please?

[eduardo89]

I disagree with your interpretation of the AUMF. The exact wording of the AUMF only gives the President the authority to take out the terrorists who were actually involved in planning the 9-11 attacks. It doesn't give the President blanket authority to kill any terrorist he wants to around the world, even if it can't be proven that the terrorist being targeted had some connection to the 9-11 attacks. The AUMF certainly doesn't give the President the authority to send troops into Syria without getting authorization from Congress.

The AUMF gives the president the authority to take out al-Qaeda anywhere around the world.

It certainly does not give him authority to invade Syria and fight against Syrian troops, which is not what Cruz was talking about.

[Warlord]

The president does not have the authority unless it has been given to him by Congress. Unfortunately, under the AUMF (which Ron Paul voted for) the president has been given the authority to use military force to disrupt al-qaeda's operations and capabilities worldwide.

So can we drone strike the White House? They're after all AQ's biggest benefactor of weapons and cash in the middle east .

[Warlord]

The AUMF gives the president the authority to take out al-Qaeda anywhere around the world.

It certainly does not give him authority to invade Syria and fight against Syrian troops, which is not what Cruz was talking about.

So you support arresting Obama, Brennan and co for war crimes and assisting associated terror forces ?

[eduardo89]

So you support arresting Obama, Brennan and co for war crimes and assisting associated terror forces ?

I definitely think they should be arrested for war crimes.

[Warlord]

I definitely think they should be arrested for war crimes.

Well that's something. Maybe add Cruz to your list for cheering on the bloodlust and involvement in another decade long war because eduardo Syria isn't going to let you or him near those weapons unless you mount a massive ground invasion to throw out Assad and take over the country condemning it to 20 years of civil war. Good luck with that, ok?

[eduardo89]

Well that's something. Maybe add Cruz to your list for cheering on the bloodlust and involvement in another decade long war because eduardo Syria isn't going to let you or him near those weapons unless you mount a massive ground invasion to throw out Assad and take over the country condemning it to 20 years of civil war. Good luck with that, ok?

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.


I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.

Cruz basically said the same thing. He is not calling for the US to overthrow Assad, nor is he calling do the US to occupy Syria, nor is he calling to a massive ground invasion.

[Brett85]

The AUMF gives the president the authority to take out al-Qaeda anywhere around the world.

No, the AUMF states that they have to have a direct connection to the 9-11 attacks, such as planning them or funding them.

[Warlord]

The other thing is Eduardo is either seriously trolling which could get him banned again or he's got some secret system to work out who TERRORISTS are. Most of those killed with drone strikes( try 80%) are not terrorists. Nearly all the ones starving to death in Gitmo have been charged with nothing.

We're all terrorists now Eduardo.

[eduardo89]

No, the AUMF states that they have to have a direct connection to the 9-11 attacks, such as planning them or funding them.

Which al-Qaeda did...

[eduardo89]

The other thing is Eduardo is either seriously trolling which could get him banned again or he's got some secret system to work out who TERRORISTS are. Most of those killed with drone strikes( try 80%) are not terrorists. Nearly all the ones starving to death in Gitmo have been charged with nothing.

We're all terrorists now Eduardo.

Wtf does any of that have anything to do with what I said?

Again, read what I've been saying.



I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.

[Warlord]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.



Cruz basically said the same thing. He is not calling for the US to overthrow Assad, nor is he calling do the US to occupy Syria, nor is he calling to a massive ground invasion.

Wrong Eduardo. He is calling for an occupation. What happens when you amass your ground forces at the border? You go in right and do your job ? To carry out a mission of this size and complexity requires a massive ground invasion backed up by bombing the country to bits in order to oust the government and occupy it like an imperial army (see iraq) you can't just pop in with a few hundred troops and say 'alright mate, we're here for your chem weapons, just show us the way please... thanks a lot dude. we owe ya!'

[Warlord]

Wtf does any of that have anything to do with what I said?

Again, read what I've been saying.

Why though? the Al Qeda have been fully vetted by the cia AND funded/armed. If they win this war they're just us puppets and the US will want them there to watch on the stockpiles should they have any( i seriously doubt they do have).

And AQ will not want to share power with a US admin or anything. If they gain control (unlikely at this point) they will want to consolidate power and win popular approval. That means denouncing the US and not letting them anywhere near the weapons

PS you said the US government has the ability to targer terrorists all over the world which it doesn't but you ignore who is a terrorist and who isn't. Mandela was still a terrorist until 08 on the State Dept'w own list.

[TaftFan]

At least Al Qaeda members are actually from the Middle East. We are not. We have no legitimate business interfering in a civil war.

Doesn't matter if they are from the Middle East, or Muslim, or whatever.

I don't want to get involved in the civil war. The only people who should be directly engaged are Al Qaeda, the people the neocons want to arm.


As I said before, the fact that some of us are now justifying a ground invasion, using essentially the same logic that sent us into Iraq means that it isn't our side that's making progress.

I'm not supporting a ground invasion, and this is different from Iraq.


The chemical weapons in Syria are not our problem until they are used against us.
Right. Let's make sure they aren't used against us.

[TaftFan]

Can somebody give me a good answer on how specifically destroying chemical weapon stores that are on the brink of being captured by Al Qaeda is a bad thing?

Saying that it will not be done that way and instead done like Iraq is not a legitimate answer. Neither is citing dead children, occupation, war mongering, etc.

[Peace Piper]

Can somebody give me a good answer on how specifically destroying chemical weapon stores that are on the brink of being captured by Al Qaeda is a bad thing?

Saying that it will not be done that way and instead done like Iraq is not a legitimate answer. Neither is citing dead children, occupation, war mongering, etc.

What makes you think there's "chemical weapon stores"?

Quotes from the same group of lying scoundrels that said that Iraq had WMD's? Or bombing Libya was to "Free" the citizens?

How many lies do a group of people have to tell before you don't believe them?

This thread has caused a blood pressure problem. Must Not Click! Must Stay Calm!

[TaftFan]

What makes you think there's "chemical weapon stores"?

Quotes from the same group of lying scoundrels that said that Iraq had WMD's? Or bombing Libya was to "Free" the citizens?

How many lies do a group of people tell before you don't believe them?

This thread has caused a blood pressure problem. Must Not Click! Must Stay Calm!

I meant to add this to the list of non-legitimate answers: Rejection of proposition.

Which, by the way, renders the question useless, because if there are no chemical stores to bomb then there is no mission.

[Contumacious]

No, sadly , they never do and we fucking pay the consequences.

Syrian Opposition’s Amazing CIA Credentials
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/syrian-oppositions-amazing-cia-credentials/)
Daniel McAdams on July 12, 2012

Thanks once again to the indispensable Moon of Alabama blog for highlighting, among other interesting facts, the amazingly open ties of the Syrian opposition to their Western paymasters. As the astonishing Guardian story linked in the MoA piece outlines, down to the person these Syrian engines of regime change are products of the US empire and its interventionist, Trotskyite foreign policy of “global democratic revolution.” I urge interested readers to click on the original piece for the full story. I am paraphrasing and quoting the Guardian story below by way of summary:"

.

:eek::rolleyes:

[eduardo89]

What makes you think there's "chemical weapon stores"?

Because Assad has publicly acknowledged that he possesses chemical weapons.

[Brett85]

Which al-Qaeda did...

The specific members of Al-Quaeda that we're killing have to have some connection to 9-11 according to the AUMF. Almost all of the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen violate the AUMF and are illegal.

[Danan]

So you think that the US should never act until it has been attacked?

Al-Qaeda having chemical weapons is a clear threat to the US, but you think we shouldn't destroy those weapons until hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are killed by them first?

The US having nuclear and chemical weapons is a clear threat to the rest of the world. Should the rest of the world invade the US militarily?

Or is a tactical special forces operation by a few elite fighters enough in your opinion?

[eduardo89]

The US having nuclear and chemical weapons is a clear threat to the rest of the world. Should the rest of the world invade the US militarily?

Or is a tactical special forces operation by a few elite fighters enough in your opinion?

I never said we should invade Syria or destroy their weapons if they remain in the hands of Assad. Assad does not pose a threat to the US, al-Qaeda does. I don't think that another state's mere possession of WMDs warrants an invasion and destruction of those weapons.

[enhanced_deficit]

Why some people on this Libertarian , anti foreign interventions view point forum support this tool, is he a past mistake?



Political Leaders Stand with Israel - Aipac (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?q=http://www.aipac.org/statementsofsupport&sa=U&ei=B5rsUbKmLY_09gSrl4CIDw&ved=0CB8QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEDo6iCYvixfv5fqAKr5Dlm00w2XA)

www.aipac.org/statementsofsupport - Cached (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?q=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:Gs2NhXMMD30J:http://www.aipac.org/statementsofsupport%252Bted%2Bcruz%2Baipac%26outpu t%3Dsearch%26sclient%3Dpsy-ab%26gbv%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk&sa=U&ei=B5rsUbKmLY_09gSrl4CIDw&ved=0CCAQIDAA&usg=AFQjCNGgIOzPCWSDMUeQARGstq1XEE0c9w)
AIPAC - AMERICA'S PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY .... Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL). Rep.
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL). Rep. Dennis Ross ..... Senator-elect Ted Cruz (R-TX) ...
Confirmed Speakers - Aipac (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?q=http://www.aipac.org/pc/confirmed-speakers&sa=U&ei=B5rsUbKmLY_09gSrl4CIDw&ved=0CCIQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFYFKn00TkdgAfY8cusdDc0mnsQUQ)

www.aipac.org/pc/confirmed-speakers - Cached (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?q=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:8i3ugXrvMaYJ:http://www.aipac.org/pc/confirmed-speakers%252Bted%2Bcruz%2Baipac%26output%3Dsearch% 26sclient%3Dpsy-ab%26gbv%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk&sa=U&ei=B5rsUbKmLY_09gSrl4CIDw&ved=0CCMQIDAB&usg=AFQjCNEGZgTJcnypCuqLDh0gMQjnOBVUMA)
Also appearing at AIPAC Policy Conference 2013 ... States House of
Representatives; The Honorable Ted Cruz (R-TX), Member, Committee on
Armed Services, ...
List of U.S. senators bought out by AIPAC.. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/url?q=http://www.cameldog.net/war-peace/103697-list-u-s-senators-bought-out-aipac-jewish-lobby-neocons-israelis-mad.html&sa=U&ei=B5rsUbKmLY_09gSrl4CIDw&ved=0CCUQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNEAMKJtu7Zmfc-pl7zdnBbTHxH8LA)

[Danan]

I never said we should invade Syria or destroy their weapons if they remain in the hands of Assad. Assad does not pose a threat to the US, al-Qaeda does. I don't think that another state's mere possession of WMDs warrants an invasion and destruction of those weapons.

Yeah, but the US clearly poses a threat to every other nation on the face of the earth, as being shown by its military advantures in the last decades. So weapons of mass desctructions in the hands of the US are not like those in the hands of Assad, but more like those in the hands of Al Qaeda. If anything it's even way more dangerous.

So you would support it if - theoretically - the Europeans or the Chinese would launch special forces operations that try to destroy the US' nukes, am I correct?

[eduardo89]

Yeah, but the US clearly poses a threat to every other nation on the face of the earth, as being shown by its military advantures in the last decades. So weapons of mass desctructions in the hands of the US are not like those in the hands of Assad, but more like those in the hands of Al Qaeda. If anything it's even way more dangerous.

So you would support it if - theoretically - the Europeans or the Chinese would launch special forces operations that try to destroy the US' nukes, am I correct?

So when has the US used or threatened to use chemical or biological or nuclear weapons against the civilians of China which would warrant China attacking the US to neutralize that threat?

[bolil]

So when has the US used or threatened to use chemical or biological or nuclear weapons against the civilians of China which would warrant China attacking the US to neutralize that threat?

Well, the US has demonstrated its willingness to nuke people with funny eyes in the past...

[angelatc]

So you think that the US should never act until it has been attacked?

Al-Qaeda having chemical weapons is a clear threat to the US, but you think we shouldn't destroy those weapons until hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans are killed by them first?

I seriously can't believe I'm having this conversation on RPF.

I think it's ridiculous to believe that the people in Syria are plotting to attack us in the first place. Nobody advocating for our intervention in Syria believes that. We will be fighting with, not against, Al Qaeda if we intervene in Syria.

But to answer your question, yes. I think that we should absolutely wait until we are attacked before we retaliate. The concept of pre-emptive warfare is something that the government made up to justify doing anything they want around the world.

[Danan]

So when has the US used or threatened to use chemical or biological or nuclear weapons against the civilians of China which would warrant China attacking the US to neutralize that threat?

Well, then Japan. Does that make a difference?

Also, why does it matter if it's a chemical/nuclear weapon. Clearly the US manages to kill a whole many civilians with conventional weapons too. Probably more during its most "successful" years than al-Qaeda in its entire existence. You're clearly having a double standard there that is completely illogical. The US military is a higher threat to the security of most individuals' lifes than al-Qaeda, yet you advocate using military force to prevent the latter from possibly obtaining weapons that the former should be allowed to wield.

Not only that, but you also want the way more aggressive organization to lead the attack. And to top all of this you acknowledge that al-Qaeda is inherently incapable of attacking the US mainland and mention as a reason why you still fear them having chemical weapons that they might use them on US bases that are all over the place, when that is exactly the very reason for al-Qaeda's mere existence.

[angelatc]

The specific members of Al-Quaeda that we're killing have to have some connection to 9-11 according to the AUMF. Almost all of the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen violate the AUMF and are illegal.

I do not believe that the Al Qaeda of today as a damned thing to do with the attack on 9/11. I absolutely believe that the drones strikes are very much illegal.

[PaulConventionWV]

How quickly this turned into speculation that he was talking about a ground invasion and supporting the patriot act...

Is there any other way to get the weapons out of Syria by force? Heck, just the fact that he even thinks WMDs are a threat is evidence that he's a neocon.

[bolil]

Is there any other way to get the weapons out of Syria by force? Heck, just the fact that he even thinks WMDs are a threat is evidence that he's a neocon.

Nope, force is the only way to 'get' from 'anyone'. The last argument of kings, it has been said, are cannons.

[angelatc]

I am only in favor of destroying them if the government of Syria falls and Assad's forces are unable to secure them from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and their syrian ally al-Nusrah. Assad poses no threat to the US, but the jihadist rebels do.

We are funding Al-Qaeda in Syria. Our intervention there will not be on the side of Assad.

This whole thread is exactly why Cruz is a problem. Everybody talks about being tired of the endless war, but all the government has to do is screech "terrorist! chemical weapons!" and they dutifully line up behind the candidate that supports the troopz.

[TER]

So I finally watched the video. Where is the proof that Assad used chemical weapons? He sounds like he is reading off McCain's talking points. Not good...

[TaftFan]

Is there any other way to get the weapons out of Syria by force? Heck, just the fact that he even thinks WMDs are a threat is evidence that he's a neocon.

There would be literal feet on the ground but there is no need for what is commonly thought of as an invasion.

He has the opposite view on Syri as the neocons.

[eduardo89]

We are funding Al-Qaeda in Syria. Our intervention there will not be on the side of Assad.

This whole thread is exactly why Cruz is a problem. Everybody talks about being tired of the endless war, but all the government has to do is screech "terrorist! chemical weapons!" and they dutifully line up behind the candidate that supports the troopz.

I disagree vehemently with arming the Syrian rebels, and so does Cruz.

I only believe the US should destroy the chemical weapons if the Assad regime falls and the weapons are going to fall into the hands of al-Nusra's and al-Qaeda's hands.

I would rather them be destroyed pre-emptively than after they have been used to kill hundreds if not thousands of civilians, Syrian or American. If they do fall into the hands of al-Qaeda, they will be used against civilians.

[eduardo89]

So I finally watched the video. Where is the proof that Assad used chemical weapons? He sounds like he is reading off McCain's talking points. Not good...

There is clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used, however it does remain unclear who has used them. My bet is on the rebels.

[angelatc]

There would be literal feet on the ground but there is no need for what is commonly thought of as an invasion.

He has the opposite view on Syri as the neocons.

So it's not an invasion if we don't call it an invasion. Seriously - that's your point?

[angelatc]

There is clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used, however it does remain unclear who has used them. My bet is on the rebels.

But that's who we're funding and supporting. What scenario would send US troops into Syria to fight on Assad's side when we're supporting the rebels?

[TaftFan]

So it's not an invasion if we don't call it an invasion. Seriously - that's your point?

Most people wouldn't call the killing of Bin Laden an invasion.

[TaftFan]

But that's who we're funding and supporting. What scenario would send US troops into Syria to fight on Assad's side when we're supporting the rebels?
Nobody said to fight on Assad's side, and it is possible to change policy or argue against it.

[eduardo89]

But that's who we're funding and supporting. What scenario would send US troops into Syria to fight on Assad's side when we're supporting the rebels?

We should cut off all funding and support for the rebels. That's my position as well as Ted Cruz's. We shouldn't fight on anyone's side.

But if the Assad regime falls and al-Qaeda is about to get its hands on Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, I think the US should destroy the weapons.

[TER]

There is clear evidence that chemical weapons have been used, however it does remain unclear who has used them. My bet is on the rebels.

Your bet? Mine bet too. Apparently, not to Ted Cruz.

[eduardo89]

So it's not an invasion if we don't call it an invasion. Seriously - that's your point?

Did you consider the raid to kill bin Laden an invasion of Pakistan?

[eduardo89]

You're bet? Mine bet too. Apparently, not to Ted Cruz.

TER, have you been drinking? I've never seen your English get so poor! lol

[TER]

The people suffering most there are Christians, and they rather Assad because he at least kept out the Islamic Wasabi fundamentalists who don't care how many Christians die in their thirst for Jewish blood.

[TER]

TER, have you been drinking? I've never seen your English get so poor! lol

That thread about wine made quite an impact... <burp>

[eduardo89]

The people suffering most there are Christians, and they rather Assad because he at least kept out the Islamic Wasabi fundamentalists who don't care how many Christians die in their thirst for Jewish blood.

The Wahhabi jihadists probably hate Shias more than Jews. Regardless, it is all Syrians who will suffer if Assad's government falls.

[TER]

Actually, just got home from a long shift and opened a bottle of red to celebrate Christ's resurrection since I missed church today!

[TER]

The Wahhabi jihadists probably hate Shias more than Jews. Regardless, it is all Syrians who will suffer if Assad's government falls.

But sending an American ground force is not the way to prevent more Syrian deaths. In fact, it will lead to even greater bloodshed, all so that certain very wealthy men can get more wealthy while the poor send their sons and daughters to pay for it in blood.

[angelatc]

Most people wouldn't call the killing of Bin Laden an invasion.

Pakistan certainly did. I guess you don't, because it didn't come with an occupation?

[angelatc]

The people suffering most there are Christians, and they rather Assad because he at least kept out the Islamic Wasabi fundamentalists who don't care how many Christians die in their thirst for Jewish blood.

Saddam Hussein kept the peace in Iraq, too.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Can somebody give me a good answer on how specifically destroying chemical weapon stores that are on the brink of being captured by Al Qaeda is a bad thing?

Saying that it will not be done that way and instead done like Iraq is not a legitimate answer. Neither is citing dead children, occupation, war mongering, etc.

If people want liberty they can come here (assuming we had liberty). It is not up to us, to go abroad to relieve the tyrannical burdens of others, but their obligation to either fight for it themselves, or make the journey to where there is liberty. This is why America was to be the exemplar to the World, and to have no immigration policy to allow others if they so wished, the enjoyment of their liberties. Any other way, as you suggest (A standing army, capable of projecting power and arms throughout the world) is anathema to free-society and free-peoples as it crushes and renders asunder the liberties at home (and abroad I might add!).

Imagine if we had no Standing Army, and defense was left to the communities via Militia's and Market-defense agencies. I bet the Trotskyite Neo-Cons would have far less power than they do given our current institutions of power.

In other words, Standing Armies are a paradox. You presume they aren't a hindrance to, and destruction of our liberties in order to make an argument that they're in aid and defense of them, when history and psychology tell us otherwise. Acton, is always right - power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts, and goddamnit if the ability to cause total mayhem and destruction around the world with an air of legitimacy and justification is not absolute power.

[TER]

Saddam Hussein kept the peace in Iraq, too.

Assad is the new generation's Milosovich. A proxy sectarian war being being funded and aided by the US government to enlargen a military-industrial complex and strengthen it's military might at the expense of the blood of foreigners, especially if they are followers of Christ.

[angelatc]

Assad is the new generation's Milosovich. A proxy sectarian war being being funded and aided by the US government to enlargen a military-industrial complex and strengthen it's military might at the expense of the blood of foreigners, especially if they are followers of Christ.

But but but terrorism! Al Qaeda! WMDs!

Gee, where have we heard all that before?

[Warlord]

Angela is kicking some serious butt

Like a human wrecking ball

[Warlord]

Assad is the new generation's Milosovich. A proxy sectarian war being being funded and aided by the US government to enlargen a military-industrial complex and strengthen it's military might at the expense of the blood of foreigners, especially if they are followers of Christ.

Assad is a mild mannered eye doctor from London who studied and practised there before getting called back sfter his father died. He is nothing but a figurehead for the powerful generals that have run Syria since the 1920's and they're not going anywhere.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If the movement can't even hold the line on opposing murdering innocent people across the globe because the people in government there are reputed to have done bad things, it's time to pack it in and move on. Seriously, how are we going to throw grandma on the street (end Medicare/SS), starve blacks and other minorities (end food stamps/welfare state), and force the poor into slave labor sweat shop factories (end minimum wage/workplace safety laws) if we can't even oppose wholesale slaughter consistently?

[AuH20]

If the movement can't even hold the line on opposing murdering innocent people across the globe because the people in government there are reputed to have done bad things, it's time to pack it in and move on. Seriously, how are we going to throw grandma on the street (end Medicare/SS), starve blacks and other minorities (end food stamps/welfare state), and force the poor into slave labor sweat shop factories (end minimum wage/workplace safety laws) if we can't even oppose wholesale slaughter consistently?

When the dollar finally dies, those "goals" shall be accomplished. This movement won't be able to stop anything but rather prepare those for the aftermath. People need to stop freaking about innocent people abroad quite frankly, when we're next in line. Americans clearly are next on the menu. Imperialism is coming home for the final strip-mining exercise.

At this late critical stage, domestic policies (federal reserve, 2nd amendment battles, NSA) >>>>> Foreign Adventures. Not even close. Battlefield USA is far more important than West Bumfuckistan. We can still control our fate here on U.S. soil as opposed to the maneuvers of a carrier group or a fire base in Afghanistan.

[Feeding the Abscess]

When the dollar finally dies, those "goals" shall be accomplished. This movement won't be able to stop anything but rather prepare those for the aftermath. People need to stop freaking about innocent people abroad quite frankly, when we're next in line. Americans clearly are next on the menu. Imperialism is coming home for the final strip-mining exercise. At this late critical stage, domestic policies >>>>> Foreign Adventures. Not even close. Battlefield USA is far more important West Bumfuckistan.

The people who can't even oppose wholesale slaughter paid for by theft of poor people domestically can't be relied upon to stand on principle anywhere else.

The movement doesn't have to actually stop the empire in order to be successful. What it does need to do is consistently oppose it and provide a moral basis for doing so. If we can't hit homeruns on slam dunk issues like this, the ones that are easy to demagogue are hopeless.

[AuH20]

The people who can't even oppose wholesale slaughter paid for by theft of poor people domestically can't be relied upon to stand on principle anywhere else.

The movement doesn't have to actually stop the empire in order to be successful. What it does need to do is consistently oppose it and provide a moral basis for doing so.

And nothing will change. The president signs death sentences every morning with his coffee. No one in this movement can stop Predator strikes last I checked. We're at the "Cover Your Own Ass" Stage. Those unfortunate folks in that particular theater of operations are the walking dead and many Americans are but haven't really figured it out just yet. Global imperialism will eventually extinguish itself out due to lack of resources. But it will never be politically stopped.

[Feeding the Abscess]

And nothing will change. The president signs death sentences every morning with his coffee. No one in this movement can stop Predator strikes last I checked. We're at the "Cover Your Own Ass" Stage. Those unfortunate folks in that particular theater of operations are the walking dead and many Americans are but haven't really figured it out just yet. Global imperialism will eventually extinguish itself out due to lack of resources. But it will never be politically stopped.

I'm not arguing that it has to be stopped in order for success to be achieved. Consistent opposition and provision of the moral basis for that opposition is what is necessary, which will better serve everyone once the shit hits the fan. Otherwise, what resistance will there be to the next attempted empire if nobody has any philosophical grounds on which to object to such a thing?

[enhanced_deficit]

Came across nother vid where senator elect Cruz is getting briefed on Syrian chemeical weapons threat by Israeli PM:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9u1sLQRZuQ

[AuH20]

I'm not arguing that it has to be stopped in order for success to be achieved. Consistent opposition and provision of the moral basis for that opposition is what is necessary, which will better serve everyone once the shit hits the fan. Otherwise, what resistance will there be to the next attempted empire if nobody has any philosophical grounds on which to object to such a thing?

The problem is that much of the population does not care, due to not being directly affected by these policies. It's not a big issue aside from Jewish Americans and some peaceniks. That's why it's largely an ancillary issue.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The problem is that much of the population does not care, due to not being directly affected by these policies. It's not a big issue aside from Jewish Americans and some peaceniks. That's why it's largely an ancillary issue.

Right, and it's our job to make it an issue.

This is why education is the most important aspect of the movement. Once education and peaceful parenting has undergone another generation or two of incubation and expansion, political reality will change. We aren't close to critical mass yet.

[AuH20]

Right, and it's our job to make it an issue.

This is why education is the most important aspect of the movement. Once education and peaceful parenting has undergone another generation or two of incubation and expansion, political reality will change. We aren't close to critical mass yet.

Well, when it finally comes home, they will care.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well, when it finally comes home, they will care.

Judging on past history, they're more likely to cheer it on and praise it for 150 years, and calling anyone who opposes it heretics and slavery supporters.

[Dogsoldier]

"An invasion would not be necessary for what he's talking about. "

So we send in the drone bombs? Yes that worked out great in the past...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Let's play a game Ted. What country DOESN'T have chemical weapons? Let's invade Russia next! Oh wait, Russia can defend themselves? They have thousands of nuclear warheads? Oh maybe we should just invade North Korea for having 1 single nuclear weapon that can barely destroy a tiny village.

[Nobexliberty]

Let's play a game Ted. What country DOESN'T have chemical weapons? Let's invade Russia next! Oh wait, Russia can defend themselves? They have thousands of nuclear warheads? Oh maybe we should just invade North Korea for having 1 single nuclear weapon that can barely destroy a tiny village. My countries biggest mistake in the cold war was not getting nuclear weapons. It would have made being the northern buffer zone between Nato and the Warsaw pact a little easier. Nations with nuclear weapons do not get invaded very easliy indeed.

[twomp]

The control of Syria's chemical stocks would require "thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites", Dempsey wrote

That is from General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. How does Ted Cruz and the rest of you feel about sending "thousands of special operations forces" into a sovereign country to "secure the WMD's". First it starts off as a few thousand and next thing you know its 10 - 15k at max right? Gotta get those weapons you know!!

Source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/22/us-military-intervention-syria

PS... I promise this time is different from Iraq. This time it's about America's safety!