Ted Cruz: We ought to bomb ISIS back to the stone age [Archive]

tsai3904

08-30-2014, 10:15 PM

Cruz Invites Obama to Border, Calls for Bombing ISIS ‘Back to the Stone Age’

Sen. Ted Cruz today invited President Obama to accompany him to a golf course on the Texas-Mexico border, telling conservatives at an Americans for Prosperity summit in Dallas he thought that was “the only way there is a chance in heaven that he might come” to the region.

The Texas Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender also heavily criticized the president’s foreign policies and suggested that the U.S. should bomb ISIS “back to the stone age.”

...

“America has always been reluctant to use military force, but we have never shied away from defending the United States of America,” Cruz said. “ISIS says they want to go back and reject modernity, well I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the stone age.”

...

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/cruz-invites-obama-to-border-calls-for-bombing-isis-back-to-the-stone-age/

devil21

08-31-2014, 03:13 AM

Hard to believe Ron endorsed this guy once upon a time.

This is what happens when you sleep with Goldman Sachs and the CFR every night.

extortion17

08-31-2014, 06:07 AM

The Texas Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender also heavily criticized the president’s foreign policies
and suggested that the U.S. should bomb ISIS “back to the stone age.”

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/cruz-invites-obama-to-border-calls-for-bombing-isis-back-to-the-stone-age/

really . . .
The Canadian-born Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sounds alot like Muck Hickabee
on the stage in 2008 in South Carolina - to a roaring applaud and standing ovation . . . no less
(I'll dig up the part of the transcript I refer to where Cruz = Huckabee on Monday )

Here's a good exchange on foreign policy at the same debate.
Huckster :

HUCKABEE: Well, we've spent $12 billion, and it was supposed to be to fight terrorism. We really don't know how much of that money was used to fight terrorism. In fact, we know a lot of it was used to build up their own military.

So there is a problem with accountability and the money. And I think we now are in a position more than ever that we should ask the Musharraf government for a better accounting. And it also ought to buy us some leverage with the Musharraf government.
I want to agree with my colleagues. Several of them have mentioned that it's not the best idea just to try to push Musharraf out, because we don't know who might come into that vacuum.
And that's why it is important to make sure that we communicate with him, that our displeasure with his inability to go after Osama bin Laden, and part of the problem is he tells us that that part of the area he doesn't control. On the other hand, he says, "I don't want you going in. Let me do it, and give me the money."
He can't have it both ways. And that has to be communicated to him in the strongest way.
But my final seconds, I'd like to just, with all due respect, Congressman Paul, the issue of whether the president should be in the Middle East comes to something that I think we've got to recognize.
We've got one true ally in the Middle East, and that's Israel. It's a tiny nation. I've been there nine time. I've literally traveled from Dan to Beersheba, and I understand something of that nation and the vulnerability of it.
And for us to give the world the impression that we would stand by if it were under attack and simply say, "It's not our problem," would be recklessly irresponsible on our part.
And if I were president, you can rest assured that we would not let an ally be annihilated by those enemies which is surround it, who have openly stated it is their direct intention to destroy that nation. It would not happen under my presidency.
HUME: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don't let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.
I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.
(APPLAUSE)
And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they'd be a lot better off.
I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.
But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.
PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don't have any money to do this.
(APPLAUSE)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/FatfamilyXmas001haha_zps38014b9b.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/FatfamilyXmas001haha_zps38014b9b.jpg.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58QOBqAWNzE

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg.html)

thoughtomator

08-31-2014, 06:26 AM

becaue that worked SOOO well last time!!!

tod evans

08-31-2014, 06:34 AM

Ask Ted Cruz to point to "ISIS" on a map..

Nuff said.

cajuncocoa

08-31-2014, 06:48 AM

Hard to believe Ron endorsed this guy once upon a time.

This is what happens when you sleep with Goldman Sachs and the CFR every night.
I think Ron got terrible advice on whom to endorse many times. A lot of his endorsements make me smh.

RJB

08-31-2014, 06:55 AM

I'd like to give him a rifle, put a parachute on his back and kick his ass out of an airplane over Iraq. You wanna fight? Go fight!

Brett85

08-31-2014, 07:10 AM

I'd like to give him a rifle, put a parachute on his back and kick his ass out of an airplane over Iraq. You wanna fight? Go fight!

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 07:12 AM

presence

08-31-2014, 07:25 AM

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

There's a solution for that rhetoric too:

http://dillonallen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dr-Strangelove-Riding-Bomb-Apocalypse.jpg

Brett85

08-31-2014, 07:26 AM

There's a solution for that rhetoric too:

And you would say the same thing to Rand too?

presence

08-31-2014, 07:29 AM

And you would say the same thing to Rand too?

Yep. You want to drop bombs. Ride 'em Mr. Despot. Any bombing campaign against ISIS is preemptive war. The future of Iraq is NONE of our business. The billion dollar embassy should never have been built and should be abandoned until there is peace and security provided by Iraq or IS.

Bring the troops home.
End foreign aggression.
Stop building empires.

Drones in the air creates just as much blowback as boots on the ground.

https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

RJB

08-31-2014, 07:33 AM

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

That doesn't change my opinion of him one bit. If he wants to a fighting leader, then lead.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 07:43 AM

Yep. You want to drop bombs. Ride 'em Mr. Despot. Any bombing campaign against ISIS is preemptive war.

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans? I understand that U.S intervention overseas is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS, like Rand said, but I don't necessarily see how this would be "preemptive war" like when we invaded Iraq in 2003. We have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes. The air strikes would be launched against a group that murdered a U.S citizen and have stated that they're at war with the United States. I'm undecided at this point whether air strikes would be a good idea or not, but I just don't really see it as "preemptive war" like the war in Iraq or war in Vietnam was.

presence

08-31-2014, 07:51 AM

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans?

How many times have some of our politicians stated that we plan to bomb their people to glass? How many women and children have we ghosted along the way? Its preemptive war because

WE ALREADY STARTED IT

Nobody did shit to the United States. Then 2 August 1990: economic sanctions against Iraq.

24 years later we're still bombing them.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 07:55 AM

How many times have some of our politicians stated that we plan to bomb their people to glass? How many women and children have we ghosted along the way? Its preemptive war because

WE ALREADY STARTED IT

Nobody did shit to the United States. Then 2 August 1990: economic sanctions against Iraq.

24 years later we're still bombing them.

I understand that our interventionist foreign policy is largely to blame for the terrorist threat that we face today, and for a lot of other problems in the world. The rise of ISIS never would've happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq originally in 2003. But an argument can still be made that we have to deal with the blowback that's been caused by past U.S foreign policy decisions, and that we have to protect the American people from these threats.

William Tell

08-31-2014, 07:57 AM

Chicken Hawk.

presence

08-31-2014, 08:04 AM

we have to protect the American people from these threats.

Watch how fast this can happen:

As of today the embassy in Baghdad is closed as Iraq was unable to provide embassy security. We advise all US residents to not travel to Iraq as they are engaged in a civil war. Broadening our new found non intervention policy, all US ships are now on orders to patrol within 6 miles of the US mainland. All troops stationed abroad are being picked up by C-130's and will be back on the mainland within 72 hours. All airforce resources are being called home and shall not leave our territorial airspace.

Everyone is protected, mission accomplished.

...maybe we throw in some privateer marque and reprisal for Somali pirates.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 08:22 AM

Watch how fast this can happen:

As of today the embassy in Baghdad is closed as Iraq was unable to provide embassy security. We advise all US residents to not travel to Iraq as they are engaged in a civil war. Broadening our new found non intervention policy, all US ships are now on orders to patrol within 6 miles of the US mainland. All troops stationed abroad are being picked up by C-130's and will be back on the mainland within 72 hours. All airforce resources are being called home and shall not leave our territorial airspace.

Everyone is protected, mission accomplished.

...maybe we throw in some privateer marque and reprisal for Somali pirates.

That sounds like a decent plan. At the same time, the passport issue has to be dealt with. We have a situation where people from the U.S are going to Iraq to fight ISIS, and they could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and launch an attack against the United States.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 08:26 AM

That sounds like a decent plan. At the same time, the passport issue has to be dealt with. We have a situation where people from the U.S are going to Iraq to fight ISIS, and they could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and launch an attack against the United States.

Anything could happen at anytime to anyone...

Government is not a preventative tool.

Military was intended to be defensive in nature, perversion of the term "defense" is costing this country dearly.

Who profits from fear? (Government employees and their contractors)

Brett85

08-31-2014, 08:32 AM

Anything could happen at anytime to anyone...

Government is not a preventative tool.

Military was intended to be defensive in nature, perversion of the term "defense" is costing this country dearly.

Who profits from fear? (Government employees and their contractors)

I generally agree with that. I've argued to a lot to people that defense doesn't mean offense and constant intervention. At the same time, there seems to be a difference between invading a country like Iraq in 2003 that never even made any threats against us and posed absolutely no threat to our national security at all, and taking military action against a group of people who have killed a U.S citizen and have threatened to launch attacks on the United States. I'm still not exactly sure what we should do, if anything, but I just don't consider it to be the same as prior interventions like Iraq and Vietnam. I've even run across a lot of people who are Ron Paul supporters and are generally very anti war who support air strikes against ISIS.

Working Poor

08-31-2014, 08:34 AM

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans?

At very least it is good tv drama.

Origanalist

08-31-2014, 08:42 AM

“America has always been reluctant to use military force, but we have never shied away from defending the United States of America,” Cruz said.

Yeah.......right.

brushfire

08-31-2014, 09:04 AM

Where's all the hate for Chicago? Thugs kill innocent women, children, and men, all the time. Sometimes its for gang initiation/promotion. So, Ted, why not bomb chicago?

Ever notice how someone new is always popping up? How this war on terror started against 100 people, and has now spanned over multiple nations? Its always "over there" that we have to fight, and the only option over here is militarized police and martial law.

You and your kind are really making an impact, Cruz. Fk off why dontcha? Not every incident or tragedy needs to have an all out war/invasion following it.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 09:34 AM

I've even run across a lot of people who are Ron Paul supporters and are generally very anti war who support air strikes against ISIS.

"Air strikes" are WAR, plain and simple!

No matter how the newz twists it bombing anyone abroad is WAR.

That Americans actually fall for this BS spewed over the Tee-Vee is shameful!

This nation deserves to be dethroned..:mad:

The sitting government has put the nation at risk with their actions abroad, now they're using the same techniques and weapons here on our shores and we're letting them.

PaleoPaul

08-31-2014, 11:09 AM

Ted Cruz was talking about airstrikes. He wasn't talking about putting boots on the ground, or "spreading freedom," or giving them "democracy," or whatever.

So, while what Cruz has said is definitely hawkish, he isn't a full-blown Cheney neo-con.

Working Poor

08-31-2014, 12:10 PM

I thought non Americans could not run for POTUS

TaftFan

08-31-2014, 12:20 PM

I think ISIS should be annihilated, but I think the U.S. should mobilize the regional powers and internal Iraqi militias into a coalition. Either we or the Saudis could take out ISIS's supply lines, and the ground troops of the regional powers and militias could converge on and destroy ISIS in short order.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 12:22 PM

Dr.3D

08-31-2014, 12:25 PM

As far as I'm concerned, arming any regional powers in the area is the same as giving arms to ISIS.

TaftFan

08-31-2014, 12:28 PM

Are you advocating for the BS that's been going on or a declaration of war?
Declaration of war, or letters of marque and reprisal depending on how you classify ISIS.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 12:35 PM

Declaration of war, or letters of marque and reprisal depending on how you classify ISIS.

What has this group of people with no country actually done that warrants a declaration of war?

I don't watch the Tee-Vee so my newz is pretty limited, I've read that they chopped the head off some dude they considered a spy and made threats...

Have they actually done anything else to the US?

Christian Liberty

08-31-2014, 12:43 PM

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans? I understand that U.S intervention overseas is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS, like Rand said, but I don't necessarily see how this would be "preemptive war" like when we invaded Iraq in 2003. We have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes. The air strikes would be launched against a group that murdered a U.S citizen and have stated that they're at war with the United States. I'm undecided at this point whether air strikes would be a good idea or not, but I just don't really see it as "preemptive war" like the war in Iraq or war in Vietnam was.

*facepalm*

You said you weren't losing your anti-war positions, but it seems like you are. Don't fall for the propaganda. Don't support any involvement.

TaftFan

08-31-2014, 12:52 PM

What has this group of people with no country actually done that warrants a declaration of war?

I don't watch the Tee-Vee so my newz is pretty limited, I've read that they chopped the head off some dude they considered a spy and made threats...

Have they actually done anything else to the US?

They have threatened the U.S. and are committing genocide.

I don't know that they have done anything else to the U.S. I have no interest to wait and see what they have in store, especially with out porous border.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 12:53 PM

TaftFan

08-31-2014, 12:55 PM

Sorry man.

Not enough for me to jump on the war wagon...

War comes in all shapes and sizes. I wouldn't put troops on the ground, or even engage ISIS via airstrikes in urban areas. But I have no problem with organizing opposition and taking out supply lines.

tod evans

08-31-2014, 12:58 PM

War comes in all shapes and sizes. I wouldn't put troops on the ground, or even engage ISIS via airstrikes in urban areas. But I have no problem with organizing opposition and taking out supply lines.

I can't go for this "We're not really at war, our soldiers and equipment are just helping other folks." BS

Either declare war and an objective or GTFO...

But nobody consults with me.......:o

RJB

08-31-2014, 01:22 PM

As far as I'm concerned, arming any regional powers in the area is the same as giving arms to ISIS.

No kidding. The chemical and Bio weapons we went to war against Saddam over were GIVEN to him by US. ISIS were the rebels we were supposed to be backing in Syria against Assad. Now we are debating about going into Syria and attacking these rebels were we supposed to be arming.

Instinctively, I want to help the Christians in Iraq, but I don't trust these #@$^! murderers running our government. Even if it's just dropping bombs and no troops on the ground. Google: "Children casualties of US drones."

What is going on over there is due to the U.S. government following policy dictated by the Military Industrial Congressional Complex of which Cruz is a member.

Anti-Neocon

08-31-2014, 01:49 PM

They have threatened the U.S. and are committing genocide.

I don't know that they have done anything else to the U.S. I have no interest to wait and see what they have in store, especially with out porous border.
When was the last time we were able to take out an amorphous terror group like this through military action?

I actually share a bit of a different view towards them than your average libertarian because I think there are many things we probably can do to help the situation but all through peaceful means. Given that we created the mess, we are in a special situation where our actions can influence the region in a very positive sense. Hint: bombing family members generally does not win people over to the anti-terror side.

devil21

08-31-2014, 01:54 PM

This is basically the same position that Rand has taken, so it seems like if people are going to criticize Cruz for taking this position, then they should criticize Rand as well. The only difference is that Rand wouldn't use that type of rhetoric.

That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

Anti-Neocon

08-31-2014, 01:58 PM

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.
I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

Christian Liberty

08-31-2014, 02:04 PM

That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

Rand is still implying that airstrikes are justified, but he is being a little more subtle about it.

I do think it matters.

If one guy very reluctantly advocates a bombing that will inevitably lead to "collateral damage" because he doesn't see another option, and another guy seems almost itching to go in guns blazing, I'd say the second guy is worse than the first guy.

The problem is that they're still both bad. Rand Paul is continuing to play with fire... I just hope he doesn't burn himself (or anyone else.)

Ted Cruz, well, he basically already lit himself AND the rest of us on fire.

devil21

08-31-2014, 02:06 PM

I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

All of it.

Anti-Neocon

08-31-2014, 02:16 PM

All of it.
Can you name specific attributes of it which make it look fishy/conspiratorial? You're the first person I've heard say that and I'm just genuinely interested.

devil21

08-31-2014, 02:19 PM

Can you name specific attributes of it which make it look fishy/conspiratorial? You're the first person I've heard say that and I'm just genuinely interested.

Easier to direct you to the plethora of vids already examining it.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=foley+beheading+fake
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=foley+beheading+hoax

presence

08-31-2014, 05:38 PM

I lack knowledge about this incident. What leads you to believe it is fake?

Watch it. There is no beheading.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 05:51 PM

*facepalm*

You said you weren't losing your anti-war positions, but it seems like you are. Don't fall for the propaganda. Don't support any involvement.

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 05:56 PM

This thread makes me smh. People still believe the beheading video is real? Sorry but if you honestly think that video is legit then you are a sheep and a moron.

The video itself was fake, but I read that it was still confirmed that Foley was killed off camera.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 06:01 PM

That's a mighty bold claim. Please cite your source where Rand has advocated anything remotely similar to "bombing ISIS back to the stone age". This I gotta see.

He didn't use the kind of rhetoric that Cruz used, but he said that he supports the air strikes against ISIS.

Regarding ISIS, the Islamic State terrorist organization that has grown a foothold in Syria and Iraq, Paul said he supports airstrikes. But if he were the president in this situation, unlike Obama, he would have called Congress back from recess to sell both chambers on action—and seek authorization before using America’s armed forces there.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Exclusive-Rand-Paul-Hillary-Clinton-s-War-Hawk-Style-Policies-Destabilized-Libya-Syria-Leading-To-Benghazi-Terrorist-Attack-Rise-Of-ISIS

Christian Liberty

08-31-2014, 06:09 PM

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

I didn't call you a "warmongering neocon." I think you're falling for some of the hype and starting to compromise to some degree. You're still more anti-war than the average American, not even close. But I don't think you're a strict noninterventionist anymore (if you ever were.)

Brett85

08-31-2014, 06:22 PM

I didn't call you a "warmongering neocon." I think you're falling for some of the hype and starting to compromise to some degree. You're still more anti-war than the average American, not even close. But I don't think you're a strict noninterventionist anymore (if you ever were.)

I've come to the conclusion that it may be best to have a foreign policy where we start from the stand point of non intervention, where we start from the perspective that we shouldn't intervene overseas, and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, when we really have no other options. I'm just not convinced at this point that a strict non interventionist foreign policy is realistic. For instance, what if Iran were to close down the straight of Hormuz? If that happened, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. That would directly affect U.S national security. No one could afford to travel. It would destroy our economy. I think that non intervention is the way to go 98% of the time, but we still have to examine each individual situation and see whether or not it's realistic to do nothing. The vast majority of the time it's realistic to do nothing, and the vast majority of the time doing nothing is the best option. But it may not always be. But in the rare situations where we have to intervene overseas, I think Congress should have to approve it, there should be a clear objective and goals, we should go all out and complete the objective, and then get out and bring all of our troops back home. We should never indefinitely occupy a country and use our military for the purpose of nation building.

twomp

08-31-2014, 08:20 PM

I've come to the conclusion that it may be best to have a foreign policy where we start from the stand point of non intervention, where we start from the perspective that we shouldn't intervene overseas, and then only support intervention in rare circumstances, when we really have no other options. I'm just not convinced at this point that a strict non interventionist foreign policy is realistic. For instance, what if Iran were to close down the straight of Hormuz? If that happened, the price of gas would probably go to $20 a gallon. That would directly affect U.S national security. No one could afford to travel. It would destroy our economy. I think that non intervention is the way to go 98% of the time, but we still have to examine each individual situation and see whether or not it's realistic to do nothing. The vast majority of the time it's realistic to do nothing, and the vast majority of the time doing nothing is the best option. But it may not always be. But in the rare situations where we have to intervene overseas, I think Congress should have to approve it, there should be a clear objective and goals, we should go all out and complete the objective, and then get out and bring all of our troops back home. We should never indefinitely occupy a country and use our military for the purpose of nation building.

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

Christian Liberty

08-31-2014, 08:27 PM

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

Yes, but when that happens, the whole argument of "well, we shouldn't have intervened but we don't have a choice now because they're attacking us" is going to be thrown out. And people will fall for it. Traditional Conservative will fall for it... heck, I bet every minarchist falls for it. Why wouldn't they? After all, they think the State is legitimate, and the State was attacked, the fact that they provoked the attack be damned. Its Pearl Harbor and 9/11 all over again.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 08:49 PM

Do you really think that all we need is airstrikes to take out ISIS? Do you really think there won't be "boots on the ground?" We shall revisit this in a month and see how well this whole "take out ISIS before they take us out" strategy works.

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

presence

08-31-2014, 08:55 PM

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

Yes... we'll just conveniently keep 1500 or so "non boots on the ground that are actually on the ground" in harms way so we have a perpetual reason to bomb to "protect them"

Brett85

08-31-2014, 08:57 PM

Yes... we'll just conveniently keep 1500 or so "non boots on the ground that are actually on the ground" in harms way so we have a perpetual reason to bomb to "protect them"

That's a good point. I don't really understand why we need troops on the ground for the purpose of gathering intelligence regarding where to bomb. I would think that our CIA could do that.

Vanguard101

08-31-2014, 09:02 PM

Meh.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 09:14 PM

twomp

08-31-2014, 09:24 PM

I don't think that Obama will send combat troops back into Iraq. What he's done his entire Presidency is launch air strikes but not send in ground troops like Bush and Cheney did. I don't see any evidence that combat troops are going to be sent back into Iraq, and I don't see how airstrikes are going to make it any more likely that combat troops will be sent there. Any AUMF that is passed, if there is one, will specifically exclude combat troops. Otherwise it won't pass.

Because air strikes alone won't do anything to ISIS. For every member of ISIS killed by an airstrike more are recruited because we will inevitably kill innocent civilians. So without troops on the ground, air strikes will only achieve one thing and that is make more money for the bomb makers.

Brett85

08-31-2014, 09:33 PM

Because air strikes alone won't do anything to ISIS. For every member of ISIS killed by an airstrike more are recruited because we will inevitably kill innocent civilians. So without troops on the ground, air strikes will only achieve one thing and that is make more money for the bomb makers.

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

twomp

08-31-2014, 10:42 PM

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

Do you work for the MSM? Because you sound just like them. All these scenarios sounds like the boogey man propaganda. IF oil becomes too expensive, people will stop buying it which would cause supply to increase which then causes prices to drop again. This not even considering alternative fuel sources. You went from ISIS being a terrorist group to "controlling the entire middle east" as if the people that actually live there can't handle the problem. This problem can only be solved by America and America only? Oh please. Taking talking points from Lindsey Graham and John Mccain then spewing it here and using it as an excuse to go to war. IF what you are saying is real, then you should be advocating ground troops and the whole nine yards because air strikes alone will not stop ISIS from becoming the big bad boogey man that you are so scared of.

tangent4ronpaul

09-01-2014, 12:07 AM

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

Syria has one of the largest reserves of crude oil in the region. Guess how much we import from them? NONE!
Iran also has tons and we don't import any from them either. Iran does export a lot of crude but here is the important part, they import a lot of petrol. They lack refinery capacity.

1/3 of the oil we import comes from Canada.
1/6th comes from Saudi Arabia
1/30th of it comes from Iraq
In fact there are a bunch of countries that we import 1/30th from...

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

We produce, rather than import about 50% of the oil we use.
We export a lot too. Oil produced in Alaska is very likely to end up in Russia. This has lots to do with:

The location of ports
The location of pipelines
Refinery capability (we are limited here and haven't built a new one since the 1950's or so. Prices spike when one goes down, though a believe construction of one in New Jersey recently got approved)
Who is willing to pay the most and what it costs to get it there (That's Asia currently)

There are other reasons than oil for the US to be involved in the Middle East, including:

strategic materials
preventing a strategic block from forming and a 4th world power emerging
keeping the dollar as the worlds default currency (tied to oil)
WMD development and control of same.

Boogity boogity!

-t

Brett85

09-01-2014, 06:37 AM

This problem can only be solved by America and America only?

Not necessarily. I think it would be better to try to form a world coalition to try to stop the rise of ISIS. Of course that's always easier said than done.

Brett85

09-01-2014, 07:03 AM

RJB

09-01-2014, 07:07 AM

WMD development and control of same.

Boogity boogity!

-t
INVADE THE WORLD! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

Lightweis

09-01-2014, 07:09 AM

Brett85

09-01-2014, 07:54 AM

I knew Sean Hannity was on this site! smh

I ask again, are the only options to be a 100% pure non interventionist or else be a hardcore Sean Hannity neocon? Is there nothing in between? Or is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger? I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

presence

09-01-2014, 07:57 AM

I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else" -Smedley Butler

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/SmedleyButler.jpeg

tod evans

09-01-2014, 07:59 AM

Brett85

09-01-2014, 08:06 AM

The specifics for waging war are very clearly laid out.

Using terms like "intervention" or "limited strike" or whatever, are just attempts to skirt the constitution........Again!

Do yourself a favor and unplug from the MSM........

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

presence

09-01-2014, 08:10 AM

is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger?

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/on-non-harming/

Devotion to being harmless is a core principle of Buddhist religious life.

[]

One has not escaped danger if one has strengthened the habitual and karmic forces of one’s own anger in the process of escaping an external threat.

[]

For the Buddha, even under the threat of death, a monastic must not succumb to hate.

[however,]

one must not give up one’s own welfare for the sake of other people’s welfare, however great.

[]

the Buddha used the analogy of the people stuck in quicksand. As long as they were all stuck they could not help each other. But if one person could get out on solid land, he or she could reach back to pull out the others.

The only enlightened path in a state of war is to get yourself back on dry ground; then help the world attain the same.

Christian Liberty

09-01-2014, 08:26 AM

I think we should even work with Assad in Syria to root out ISIS. Assad was never any threat to our national security whatsoever. ISIS is. But the neocons still hate Assad, apparently because he killed a bunch of the Syrian rebels, which were composed primarily of ISIS members. I defended Assad last year when the U.S government was demonizing him and was claiming that he murdered his own people. In reality he was killing members of ISIS who were trying to overthrow his government and take over the country.

And why would Assad trust us now?

I'd love to see Assad stop ISIS. Unfortunately, its probably too late for that now.

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

Rand said that that was the constitutional requirement and that he'd support it.

Thomas Massie said that that was the constitutional requirement and that he'd vote NO.

Massie >>>> Rand.

tod evans

09-01-2014, 08:57 AM

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

No it wouldn't be unconstitutional if congress approved a war...

Our sitting government and their masters do not want a declaration of war because then an objective would have to be named...

There's minimal money to be made from a clearly defined war...

Why do you think government has been pushing wars on behaviors, religions and ideas?

twomp

09-01-2014, 10:50 AM

I ask again, are the only options to be a 100% pure non interventionist or else be a hardcore Sean Hannity neocon? Is there nothing in between? Or is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger? I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

We give billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, helicopters and military equipment to Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia yet only our airplanes are capable of performing air strikes? Why is it TC you are more worried about ISIS than Israel? Those countries are literally in the middle of this but they aren't using their airplanes to stop ISIS but we have to do it?

You are on here spewing propaganda about how ISIS will stop everyone in the world from driving their cars and no one will be able to fly or drive if they are left unchecked? Everyone in the world will have to walk now because ISIS will stop the world from traveling. The world as we know it WILL NEVER BE THE SAME! WE MUST BOMB THEM NOW!!! Yet the countries and people who live there are doing nothing about this threat. It makes no sense unless you are a neocon who wants to see more bombs blow up and more bloodshed. Then you would be all for air strikes now wouldn't you? So please answer me this. If ISIS is as scary as you say they are, why are the people in the area not taking care of the problem because they have much more to lose than we do. IF they don't care? Why should we?

georgiaboy

09-01-2014, 11:31 AM

I'm happy to say that due to the efforts of Dr. Ron Paul and so many on this forum, that I am comfortably on the side of non-intervention with regard to all these so-called crises.

My eyes have truly been opened; thanks, y'all.

The propaganda is just so blatantly obvious this time around.

TC, I'm frankly surprised that you're on the slippery slope of this one. Rand's playing politics; we don't have to.

Brett85

09-01-2014, 12:25 PM

TC, I'm frankly surprised that you're on the slippery slope of this one. Rand's playing politics; we don't have to.

I don't see any evidence that Rand is playing politics. I think Rand is just someone who supports a generally non interventionist foreign policy, but supports exceptions in rare situations.

georgiaboy

09-01-2014, 12:29 PM

I don't see any evidence that Rand is playing politics. I think Rand is just someone who supports a generally non interventionist foreign policy, but supports exceptions in rare situations.

fair enough.

Brett85

09-01-2014, 12:30 PM

We give billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, helicopters and military equipment to Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia yet only our airplanes are capable of performing air strikes? Why is it TC you are more worried about ISIS than Israel? Those countries are literally in the middle of this but they aren't using their airplanes to stop ISIS but we have to do it?

You are on here spewing propaganda about how ISIS will stop everyone in the world from driving their cars and no one will be able to fly or drive if they are left unchecked? Everyone in the world will have to walk now because ISIS will stop the world from traveling. The world as we know it WILL NEVER BE THE SAME! WE MUST BOMB THEM NOW!!! Yet the countries and people who live there are doing nothing about this threat. It makes no sense unless you are a neocon who wants to see more bombs blow up and more bloodshed. Then you would be all for air strikes now wouldn't you? So please answer me this. If ISIS is as scary as you say they are, why are the people in the area not taking care of the problem because they have much more to lose than we do. IF they don't care? Why should we?

Assad has actually said that he would be willing to help us eradicate ISIS in Syria, but our government refuses to work with him because we were opposed to him last year. I'm not a neocon. A neocon is not someone who doesn't agree 100% of the time with libertarian foreign policy. I'm someone who supports non intervention as a general principle but believe that we have to be flexible enough to consider exceptions in rare situations.

mac_hine

09-01-2014, 12:35 PM

I generally agree with that. I've argued to a lot to people that defense doesn't mean offense and constant intervention. At the same time, there seems to be a difference between invading a country like Iraq in 2003 that never even made any threats against us and posed absolutely no threat to our national security at all, and taking military action against a group of people who have killed a U.S citizen and have threatened to launch attacks on the United States. I'm still not exactly sure what we should do, if anything, but I just don't consider it to be the same as prior interventions like Iraq and Vietnam. I've even run across a lot of people who are Ron Paul supporters and are generally very anti war who support air strikes against ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqqZENrjoig&list=UU3w4j2aVBnG3D98epDfssDA

McAdams and Woods discuss latest US bombing of Iraq. Why are even some non-interventionists cheering on the bombs as they fall? Are they really still so gullible?

twomp

09-01-2014, 01:37 PM

Assad has actually said that he would be willing to help us eradicate ISIS in Syria, but our government refuses to work with him because we were opposed to him last year. I'm not a neocon. A neocon is not someone who doesn't agree 100% of the time with libertarian foreign policy. I'm someone who supports non intervention as a general principle but believe that we have to be flexible enough to consider exceptions in rare situations.

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?

tangent4ronpaul

09-01-2014, 02:14 PM

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?

Just to throw something out there... a F16 costs 3 million dollars. The payload of smart munitions hanging under it's wings generally costs more than the aircraft...

-t

Brett85

09-01-2014, 03:40 PM

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?

A lot of the countries you mentioned actually financially support ISIS, like Saudia Arabia. They certainly aren't going to bomb ISIS. We need to cut off all foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. It's insane to give money to a country that's then going to turn around and give that money to ISIS.

RDM

09-01-2014, 03:50 PM

Not necessarily. I think it would be better to try to form a world coalition to try to stop the rise of ISIS. Of course that's always easier said than done.

How do you suggest we do that? Have you seen who's behind ISIS?

The former NSA and CIA agent Edward Snowden revealed that the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was trained in Israel, various Iranien sources reported.
Snowden added that the American CIA and the British Intelligence collaborated with the Israeli Mossad to create a terrorist organization that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.
The “Hornet’s nest’’ strategy aims to bring all the major threats to one place in order to track them, and mostly to shake the stability of the Arab countries. The NSA agent revealed that the ISIS “Calif”, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi went trough intense military training in the Israeli intelligence “Mossad”.
Besides military training, Al Baghdadi studied communication and public speaking skills in order to attract “terrorists” from all the corners of the world.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada, which focuses on research and media, relayed a story about this as well, adding that “three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place,” using the aforementioned “the hornet’s nest” strategy.
“The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state is to create an enemy near its borders,” Snowden was reported to say. http://moroccantimes.com/2014/07/nsa-documents-reveal-isis-leaderabu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-israeli-mossad/

The Pro-Zionists will fight you on this:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, so-called ”Caliph,” the head of ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is, according to sources reputed to originate from Edward Snowden, an actor named Elliot Shimon, a Mossad trained operative.
-
Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi was born of two Jewish parents and is a Mossad agent. We offer below three translations that want to assert that the Caliph Al-Baghdadi is a full Mossad agent and that he was born Jewish father and mother:
-
The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.” The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies.
-
This information was attributed to Edward Snowden and published by newspapers and other Web sites: the head of the “Islamic State” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has cooperated with the U.S. Secret Service, British and Israel to create an organization capable of attracting terrorist extremists from around the world. http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/french-report-isilisis-leader-al-baghdadi-jewish-mossad-agent/

Brett85

09-01-2014, 04:05 PM

@RDM-That's insane if true. Maybe we should just do what Tod Evans suggested and send all of our politicians over to Iraq to fight ISIS. They're the ones who created ISIS with their ridiculous policies.

mac_hine

09-01-2014, 04:21 PM

I've often wondered, Why hasn't Israel ever been attacked by al Qaeda or ISIS? Why haven't either of these groups come to the aid of the Palestinians? Could it be because they are run by the CIA / British Intelligence / Mossad?

RDM

09-01-2014, 04:39 PM

Brett85

09-01-2014, 09:00 PM

georgiaboy

09-01-2014, 09:53 PM

TC, sorry, but all the rationales you've stated thus far just ring hollow and tired. I feel like I've read all of them before over the years from others. It's broken record syndrome, but it's strange coming from you.

There is just nothing about this current situation that is any different from what we've seen in recent history, and all of those situations do nothing but continue to cost all sides lives and money over and over again.

Enough is enough already.

I'm simply at a loss for why you can't see this this time as well.

Or even worse, maybe you can? That would be even more concerning.

Brett85

09-01-2014, 09:58 PM

There is just nothing about this current situation that is any different from what we've seen in recent history, and all of those situations do nothing but continue to cost all sides lives and money over and over again.

So you really don't see any difference between targeted air strikes in this situation, and say the all out invasion and subsequent occupation of both Vietnam and Iraq? I can see how you can oppose the air strikes, but I don't see how you don't see the difference between this and those previous interventions.

Brett85

09-01-2014, 10:07 PM

MaxHen

09-01-2014, 10:50 PM

And I have to say that I really don't even consider it to be intervention when we kill people who are trying to kill us. It's nothing more than an act of self defense. If someone walks up to you and holds a gun to your head, you have the right to defend yourself and kill that person before he kills you.

A better comparison would be a member of the mafia in a country millions of miles away threatening your life, and you responding by bombing his house, with no concern for those who live near him or retaliation against you from the mafia he works for.

bolil

09-01-2014, 11:12 PM

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

But you would take measures that would harm and not kill the organization. Kick a hornets nest because they pose a threat to the garage. See how it works.

twomp

09-01-2014, 11:14 PM

The main reason why I'm taking this position is because I want to stop ISIS from launching a terrorist attack against us, because I think that if they're able to launch a successful attack against us, you'll see a dramatic expansion of the police state that we've never seen before. The American people will willingly give up all of their liberty if we get attacked, and the liberties that we still have left will be gone. We won't have any amount of freedom, liberty, or privacy left. I think that we're less likely to get attacked if we can take out their infrastructure, specifically their command and control infrastructure in Syria. It would make it harder to launch an attack against us if their infrastructure was destroyed. So I'm in favor of stopping future terrorist attacks coming from this group, because if they succeed in attacking us, every single ounce of liberty that we have now will be gone. I don't want to see that happen, so in this one instance I'm willing to say that targeted air strikes now are a better option than a much wider war later and the dramatic expansion of the police state in America. The American people will demand a massive police state if this group attacks us.

Again, if you what you were saying had any ounce of truth and didn't reek of pure propaganda then Israel would have delivered their own air strikes already. They have the biggest stick in that neighborhood and they don't seem to have much concern over ISIS. Yet, here you are TC all the way over here, thousands of miles away freaking out that ISIS will become so powerful that they can stop the world from traveling. Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

extortion17

09-02-2014, 01:02 AM

I would still point out that any military action taken against ISIS needs to be approved by Congress. The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just bomb whoever he wants to whenever he wants to.

Exactly . . .

we should keep in mind that the enemy is in more than just Iraq and Syria . . . ISIS is NOT how they should be referred to
(and avoid the biblical neocon evangelical fanaticism of the word isis - that is horsesheeet)

A formal declaration of war would have to specify them as ISIL (per the enemies preferred name for themselves - (داعش) (ISIL / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)aɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English))), btw - imho

US Senators vote . . . if Rand votes Yea or Nay it is up to him and the people of the great state
of Kentucky as his constituents as to how he votes for that formal declaration.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/levant001s_zps970eeba3.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/levant001s_zps970eeba3.jpg.html)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/isismap0014s_zps1955707c.jpg.html)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzQ3eBerHfM

.

extortion17

09-02-2014, 01:34 AM

I thought non Americans could not run for POTUS

Canadian-born US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can not take the Oath of Office as President (or Vice-President either -actually)

sometin' about that letter from John Jay to delegate George Washington in the summer of 1787 (it was July 1787 btw)
that will haunt Cruz . . . Cruz can "run" and be part of the circus on the stage at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley for the debates.

Interestingly, the Constitutional Convention was going to implement that same rule for the Senators . . . it got voted down in 1787 -
there was a certain delegate from Scotland on the Pennsylvania delegation - they thought he'd be a good Senator.

But as the Commander-In- Chief . . . you can not be born in foreign waters (or airspace) or even at a hospital in Panama, whether on base or off base.

So the joker could never have been POTUS btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/johnmccainisisjoker001a_zps266b92d3.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/johnmccainisisjoker001a_zps266b92d3.jpg.html)

.

tangent4ronpaul

09-02-2014, 02:16 AM

But you would take measures that would harm and not kill the organization. Kick a hornets nest because they pose a threat to the garage. See how it works.

http://blogs.thetimes-tribune.com/johncole/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/082913coletoon.jpg

Again, if you what you were saying had any ounce of truth and didn't reek of pure propaganda then Israel would have delivered their own air strikes already. They have the biggest stick in that neighborhood and they don't seem to have much concern over ISIS. Yet, here you are TC all the way over here, thousands of miles away freaking out that ISIS will become so powerful that they can stop the world from traveling. Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

They are concentrated in a limited number of areas. We could nuke them but the collateral damage and blowback would be devastating. It would stop them in their tracks, though. Or, like I sarcastically said before - we should send the next ebola pt back home via the more scenic eastern route and hope we get lucky. Plausible deniability doesn't get better than this, and epidemic spread is going to be limited in that kind of an environment... So is effectiveness. I'm more worried about some of them deliberately infecting themselves and hopping on planes for here before they show symptoms.

Canadian-born US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can not take the Oath of Office as President (or Vice-President either -actually)

sometin' about that letter from John Jay to delegate George Washington in the summer of 1787 (it was July 1787 btw)
that will haunt Cruz . . . Cruz can "run" and be part of the circus on the stage at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley for the debates.

Interestingly, the Constitutional Convention was going to implement that same rule for the Senators . . . it got voted down in 1787 -
there was a certain delegate from Scotland on the Pennsylvania delegation - they thought he'd be a good Senator.

But as the Commander-In- Chief . . . you can not be born in foreign waters (or airspace) or even at a hospital in Panama, whether on base or off base.

So the joker could never have been POTUS btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/johnmccainisisjoker001a_zps266b92d3.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/johnmccainisisjoker001a_zps266b92d3.jpg.html)

.

Actually, foreign embassies and military bases including ships flying under a particular flag are considered soil of that country. So McCain was born on US soil unless he was delivered off base.

-t

extortion17

09-02-2014, 04:32 AM

. . .

Actually, foreign embassies and military bases including ships flying under a particular flag are considered soil of that country. So McCain was born on US soil unless he was delivered off base.

-t

Not true . . . read State Department ruling on US citizens persons born on ship, in the air, and on military bases -
i.e if the wife gives birth on Lufthansa is the child-brat a natural born German citizen ?

The United States Supreme Court is quite clear on what is "native" born - McCain was a U.S.citizen of course,
and of course trashed five planes as a shithole pilot, but Johnny McCain was not native born and there was nothing he could do about it - never ever.

He was born off-base anyway, although a Navy doctor signed the birth certificate - the actual site of McCain's birth (?) you ask. . .
Well, the hospital was replaced by condos . . . very lovely actually.

The reasons for the native requirement established by John Jay and George Washington was in regards to foreign allegiance . . .
it is the same problem indirectly that Catholics like JFK might have -
the MIC thinks of some allegiance to the Vatican as a foreign allegiance.

Cruz as a constitutional lawyer knows he goes no further than the United States Senate . . . and he needs to learn to shut up !!

(داعش) (ISIL / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)aɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)) is already in Washington DC fwiw

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/isil_dc0121v_zpseeae24ca.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/isil_dc0121v_zpseeae24ca.jpg.html)

Brett85

09-02-2014, 08:55 AM

Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

I'm not in favor of sending in ground troops to fight because of all the damage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done to our military. I've seen too many pictures of soldiers with their arms and legs blown off to want to get involved in another full fledged war with ground troops. I don't want to get thousands more of our troops maimed and killed. If we aren't able to stop ISIS with are strikes, and they come through our porous border and invade us, then I guess we'll just have to fight them here at home. They'll face tough resistance going up against tens of millions of Americans with semi automatic weapons. This is why defending the 2nd Amendment is so important.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 01:26 PM

I'm not in favor of sending in ground troops to fight because of all the damage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done to our military. I've seen too many pictures of soldiers with their arms and legs blown off to want to get involved in another full fledged war with ground troops. I don't want to get thousands more of our troops maimed and killed. If we aren't able to stop ISIS with are strikes, and they come through our porous border and invade us, then I guess we'll just have to fight them here at home. They'll face tough resistance going up against tens of millions of Americans with semi automatic weapons. This is why defending the 2nd Amendment is so important.

Much as I agree with the principle here WRT the 2nd amendment, ISIS is not going to invade the US.

twomp

09-02-2014, 02:08 PM

Much as I agree with the principle here WRT the 2nd amendment, ISIS is not going to invade the US.

Agreed. Nor will they "take over the Middle East." They are just a propaganda tool used by the media and MIC to scaring the American people into supporting more war and bloodshed. Those countries in the Middle East have been armed to the teeth by the tax payers over here, they are more than capable of defending themselves against ISIS despite the fear mongering TC and the media have been trying to tell everyone.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 04:09 PM

Agreed. Nor will they "take over the Middle East." They are just a propaganda tool used by the media and MIC to scaring the American people into supporting more war and bloodshed. Those countries in the Middle East have been armed to the teeth by the tax payers over here, they are more than capable of defending themselves against ISIS despite the fear mongering TC and the media have been trying to tell everyone.

All the reports are that they're taking over city after city in Iraq. I'm still not willing to send troops into harms way and get them killed in Iraq, and I don't want to start another trillion dollar war with hundreds of thousands of troops. But at this point I think that air strikes are kind of an in between solution, short of all out war but hopefully something that will help stop ISIS from taking over the country. I'm not in favor of getting involved in wars in which there's no threat to U.S national security but simply a bad dictator that we don't like, such as when we invaded Iraq, or when we got rid of Gaddafi. But I support military action in rare situations when there's actually a threat to America, and I don't think that we can just completely ignore a group that's beheaded two U.S citizens and has threatened to attack the United States. I think we have the right to defend ourselves, and at this point I believe that military action against this group is simply self defense and not at all similar to our past interventions in Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 04:38 PM

All the reports are that they're taking over city after city in Iraq.

Link? Sure they have some territory in Northern Iraq but I'm curious how many populated urban areas they actually control.

I'm still not willing to send troops into harms way and get them killed in Iraq, and I don't want to start another trillion dollar war with hundreds of thousands of troops. But at this point I think that air strikes are kind of an in between solution, short of all out war but hopefully something that will help stop ISIS from taking over the country. I'm not in favor of getting involved in wars in which there's no threat to U.S national security but simply a bad dictator that we don't like, such as when we invaded Iraq, or when we got rid of Gaddafi. But I support military action in rare situations when there's actually a threat to America, and I don't think that we can just completely ignore a group that's beheaded two U.S citizens and has threatened to attack the United States. I think we have the right to defend ourselves, and at this point I believe that military action against this group is simply self defense and not at all similar to our past interventions in Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc.

So, the fact that people from a certain group from a certain region threaten us gives us the right to bomb that region? You would never apply this reasoning to individuals (unless you believe I have the right to bomb the house of someone who threatens my life), why do you do so for the government?

Just from a utilitarian perspective, which do you think is more likely to harm our national security: ISIS as it is now, or the blowback that will result from the US directly bombing and provoking ISIS? These people hate the US with a fiery passion, and there's probably nothing they desire more than a direct confrontation in their own territory (whether on the ground or in the air). Plus, the fact that they're taking on the US will undoubtedly be a boon for their recruiting.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 04:54 PM

Just from a utilitarian perspective, which do you think is more likely to harm our national security: ISIS as it is now, or the blowback that will result from the US directly bombing and provoking ISIS? These people hate the US with a fiery passion, and there's probably nothing they desire more than a direct confrontation in their own territory (whether on the ground or in the air). Plus, the fact that they're taking on the US will undoubtedly be a boon for their recruiting.

The blowback has already occurred due to 60-70 years of interventionist U.S policies as well as the initial air strikes in Iraq, so I think we have to finish what we started with the air strikes. They aren't going to just leave us alone and forgive us if we decide to leave them alone. The damage and the blowback has already occurred due to past U.S foreign interventions. Now we've reached a point where we have to deal with the blowback and defend ourselves.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 04:55 PM

So, the fact that people from a certain group from a certain region threaten us gives us the right to bomb that region? You would never apply this reasoning to individuals (unless you believe I have the right to bomb the house of someone who threatens my life), why do you do so for the government?

I'm not advocating "bombing the region." I'm just advocating targeted air strikes to degrade ISIS and keep them from taking over Iraq.

green73

09-02-2014, 05:04 PM

Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on ISIS

Rand Paul wants the U.S. to go to war with ISIS (SEE: Rand Paul Calls for War Against ISIS (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/rand-paul-calls-for-war-against-isis.html))

Ron Paul writes at the Ron Paul Institute for Freedom & Prosperity (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/august/31/obama-has-no-middle-east-strategy-good%21.aspx):

Last week President Obama admitted that his administration has not worked out a strategy on how to deal with the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a dominant force in the Middle East. However, as ISIS continues its march through Syria and Iraq, many in the US administration believe it is, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a threat “beyond anything we have ever seen.”

Predictably, the neocons attacked the president’s speech. They believe the solution to any problem is more bombs and troops on the ground, so they cannot understand the president’s hesitation...

A new US military incursion will not end ISIS; it will provide them with the recruiting tool they most crave, while draining the US treasury. Just what Osama bin Laden wanted!...Perhaps the president will finally stop listening to the neocons and interventionists whose recommendations have gotten us into this mess in the first place! Here’s a strategy: just come home.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/ron-paul-vs-rand-paul-on-isis.html

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 07:24 PM

The blowback has already occurred due to 60-70 years of interventionist U.S policies as well as the initial air strikes in Iraq, so I think we have to finish what we started with the air strikes. They aren't going to just leave us alone and forgive us if we decide to leave them alone. The damage and the blowback has already occurred due to past U.S foreign interventions. Now we've reached a point where we have to deal with the blowback and defend ourselves.

So, you believe that past airstrikes have resulted in blowback, but you think that these just won't and will make all of it go away? Repeating the same mistakes over and over again is what got us into this mess in the first place. Bombing them won't do a thing other than help with their recruiting and make them even MORE likely to attack us. This is a decentralized terrorist group spread across miles of desert and being constantly fed by the conflict in Syria as well as funded by Saudi and Qatari donors with deep pockets. The idea that bombing will just make it all go away is the exact same lie they sell us every time. Every time, we buy it and end up playing right into our enemies' hands.

Also, if bombing a country that threatens to attack us qualifies as "defending ourselves" would you also support bombing North Korea and Iran?

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 07:39 PM

I'm not advocating "bombing the region." I'm just advocating targeted air strikes to degrade ISIS and keep them from taking over Iraq.

Airstrikes = bombing. As I'm sure you'll agree, ISIS controls a large amount of territory. Airstrikes, even "targeted" ones, will mean killing plenty of innocent people under ISIS occupation.

What does "degrade" mean? You're assuming that ISIS has a fixed supply of weapons and fighters and can just be whittled down if we keep bombing long enough. As I said in my previous post, they are being fueled by fighters flowing into Iraq from the civil war in Syria (in addition to foreign volunteers enticed in part by the idea of fighting the US) and they have a funding stream from wealthy donors in the Gulf states. We're playing right into their hands by putting American blood and treasure at risk and thinking we can just destroy them quickly and easily. Same mistake we've made countless times before. Either we will give up after wasting tons of lives and taxpayer dollars or we will be there for a LONG time.

As for "taking over Iraq" I'd like to see a cite. Has ISIS made any major advance lately? They already have Russia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting them. No need for us to get involved and increase the risk of even more blowback.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 08:10 PM

So, you believe that past airstrikes have resulted in blowback, but you think that these just won't and will make all of it go away?

I think the blowback has already occurred, and now we're at a point where we have to defend ourselves from the blowback that has already taken place. Bombing them at this point isn't going to make them more likely to attack us, because they already want to attack us and kill all of us. Do you believe that they'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone?

Brett85

09-02-2014, 08:15 PM

Also, if bombing a country that threatens to attack us qualifies as "defending ourselves" would you also support bombing North Korea and Iran?

No. I don't think that either Iran or North Korea are a threat to our national security. They're both third world countries that are both contained where they are and aren't expanding. Iran doesn't hardly have a military to speak of. They couldn't attack us if they wanted to, and they've never made any indication that they wish to attack the United States. On the other hand, ISIS is a group that's rapidly expanding, is trying to take over the entire Middle East, has millions of dollars to work with, have already beheaded two U.S citizens, have stated that they want to launch attacks against us, and have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily use a passport to get back to the United States and start launching attacks. The two situations aren't even similar. As I've said, I'm generally very anti war and very anti interventionist. I just think this situation is an exception. It's essentially an example of us defending ourselves, rather than intervention.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 08:39 PM

I think the blowback has already occurred,

Interventions cause blowback. The blowback from our previous interventions has already occurred. The blowback from this one is a different story and will be worse the more we meddle in this conflict.

and now we're at a point where we have to defend ourselves from the blowback that has already taken place.

You're assuming that we can destroy ISIS if we just bomb enough. I've already pointed out why that simply isn't possible without massive expense of blood and treasure and that any attempt to do so would be exactly what our enemies would like us to do. This goes back to the mafia example I gave earlier. If your life is threatened by the mafia (leave police out of it for the sake of argument since there's no higher police force the US can appeal to in the case of ISIS), would you try to kill every member of the mafia, or try to take precautionary measures to prevent the mafia from getting to you? Our focus should be on the homeland (I agree with your previous statement regarding the 2nd Amendment) not vain attempts to win a fight we can't win against an enemy in his own turf.

Bombing them at this point isn't going to make them more likely to attack us, because they already want to attack us and kill all of us.

It will certainly help with their recruiting and make us even more likely to be the prime target of their attacks. They're fighting a bunch of other enemies at the moment, so if we aren't one of them they're going to devote less resources toward trying to attack us.

Do you believe that they'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone?

Who knows? Obviously if they could have everything their way, they would destroy the US. But, I think the threat would be lessened if we weren't bombing them and giving them more reason to attack us and increasing their support among the local population. Regardless, bombing isn't going to make ISIS go away, so it's a futile waste of lives and resources.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 08:54 PM

Airstrikes = bombing. As I'm sure you'll agree, ISIS controls a large amount of territory. Airstrikes, even "targeted" ones, will mean killing plenty of innocent people under ISIS occupation.

What does "degrade" mean? You're assuming that ISIS has a fixed supply of weapons and fighters and can just be whittled down if we keep bombing long enough. As I said in my previous post, they are being fueled by fighters flowing into Iraq from the civil war in Syria (in addition to foreign volunteers enticed in part by the idea of fighting the US) and they have a funding stream from wealthy donors in the Gulf states. We're playing right into their hands by putting American blood and treasure at risk and thinking we can just destroy them quickly and easily. Same mistake we've made countless times before. Either we will give up after wasting tons of lives and taxpayer dollars or we will be there for a LONG time.

As for "taking over Iraq" I'd like to see a cite. Has ISIS made any major advance lately? They already have Russia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighting them. No need for us to get involved and increase the risk of even more blowback.

There are no good options. Past mistakes by our government have led to the rise of ISIS and a complete mess. But I think that launching targeted airstrikes against them is a less bad option at this point. Doing nothing and allowing them to take over Iraq is not a good idea. It's not in our national security interests to allow a hardcore terrorist organization that wants to kill us to take over a country and set up their own government. There's absolutely nothing immoral about air strikes in this situation. It's an act of self defense and is consistent with libertarian principles.

I can't find the article I was reading. There are articles talking about ISIS taking over Iraqi cities, but they are from August 7th.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 09:08 PM

No. I don't think that either Iran or North Korea are a threat to our national security.

Agreed.

They're both third world countries

The IS is hardly first world...

that are both contained where they are and aren't expanding.

They both control more territory than ISIS. You still haven't provided evidence that ISIS is continuing to make advances and expand its territory.

Iran doesn't hardly have a military to speak of. They couldn't attack us if they wanted to, and they've never made any indication that they wish to attack the United States.

Why does the size of their military matter? You think ISIS is going to launch a ground invasion of the US or something? If they do attack us, it will be through an individual or small group of individuals attempting to conduct a terrorist attack. No amount of bombing will be able to prevent that. The solution to prevent that is simply to uphold the 2nd Amendment (the 9/11 hijackers could've been stopped if the FAA hadn't banned pilots from being armed).

On the other hand, ISIS is a group that's rapidly expanding,

Citation needed.

is trying to take over the entire Middle East,

There are plenty groups that would like to do that. None of them have any chance of succeeding, and ISIS is no exception.

has millions of dollars to work with,

Exactly why bombing is futile. Their cash flows from rich donors in the Persian Gulf aren't just going to stop because we bomb them. If anything, they will increase because those donors will be overjoyed at the chance to kill Americans and once again mire us down in Iraq.

have already beheaded two U.S citizens,

You don't think those journalists understood the risk when they entered a literal war-zone? Should we wage war every time an American reporter is killed in a foreign combat zone?

have stated that they want to launch attacks against us,

That's not an argument in itself. North Korea has also said that. Besides, as I stated previously, bombing them won't destroy them or prevent them from launching an attack.

and have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily use a passport to get back to the United States and start launching attacks.

Cite? From what I've read it's mostly UK citizens. Regardless, how is bombing them going to prevent those citizens from conducting an attack?

The two situations aren't even similar.

Why not? Assuming you're referring to my mafia analogy, it demonstrates the futility of trying to protect yourself against an individual attack by attempting to wipe out a well-funded and well-supplied organization that is NOT just going to disappear.

As I've said, I'm generally very anti war and very anti interventionist. I just think this situation is an exception. It's essentially an example of us defending ourselves, rather than intervention.
Hate to keep repeating this but...if a member of a gang threatens your life and you respond by bombing his house, with no concern for those who live near him or what his gang will do in retaliation, that isn't justified self-defense and it will likely end up getting you killed.

devil21

09-02-2014, 09:08 PM

I'm only going to do this once.

There are no good options.

Minding our business is a good option.

Past mistakes by our government have led to the rise of ISIS and a complete mess.

Letting foreigners control US foreign policy is not a mistake. It is intentional. ISIS is proven to be a CIA/Mossad controlled front, that is, if it even really exists outside of our Zionist and CIA controlled media. Can you prove ISIS even exists without citing a news source controlled by Zionists?

But I think that launching targeted airstrikes against them is a less bad option at this point. Doing nothing and allowing them to take over Iraq is not a good idea.

Why? It's not our problem and it's not our responsibility to police the world. Syria and Iran have enough military might to destroy ISIS if allowed to. Why is it our problem? Why do we need to spend money we don't have when their neighbors are more than capable of handling it on their own. At what point do we stop trying to "fix" everything, when our "fixes" only ever makes things WORSE? I can't believe this is even a topic! IT'S ABSURD AND THIS FOREIGN POLICY IS INSANE!

It's not in our national security interests to allow a hardcore terrorist organization that wants to kill us to take over a country and set up their own government.

Why is it ok in Saudi Arabia then? Btw, who is "us"? People like you post a lot of shit using words like "us" and "our" yet I notice you don't ever say "Americans".

There's absolutely nothing immoral about air strikes in this situation.

Are you talking about Iraq or Syria? Like I correctly predicted months ago, this whole thing would start with pretext building in Iraq but somehow morph into a Syria campaign. So where are you talking about launching air strikes? We both know any "air strikes" would end up being on Assad's military, not ISIS. It's all bullshit propaganda to justify another offensive overthrow of an elected government!

It's an act of self defense and is consistent with libertarian principles. I can't find the article I was reading. There are articles talking about ISIS taking over Iraqi cities, but they are from August 7th.

That is not self defense! BOMBING A FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US IS NOT SELF DEFENSE! It is the same insane and failed foreign policy that has left Americans trillions in debt and hundreds of thousands of people DEAD.

Im fucking sick of you lying propaganda spewing Israel-firsters on this forum trying to get Americans to pay for and die over and draw blowback to protect countries Americans don't even have fucking TREATIES with! SICK OF IT AND SICK OF ALL OF YOU! (Mod edit)

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:14 PM

Im fucking sick of you lying propaganda spewing Israel-firsters on this forum trying to get Americans to pay for and die over and draw blowback to protect countries Americans don't even have fucking TREATIES with! SICK OF IT AND SICK OF ALL OF YOU! (mod edit).

Does this apply to every war supporter, or just TC? And, just for curiosity, are you a Christian? Do you actually believe in Hell? Or is this just a rhetorical comment?

I condone the rest of this post, but not this. I don't wish anyone goes to Hell, no matter how stupid they are (And yes, TC, I think you're being downright stupid here. And really, considering how bad what you are supporting is, that's the nicest thing I can say that I can reconcile with my conscience. I hope you'll forgive me later.)

devil21

09-02-2014, 09:26 PM

Does this apply to every war supporter, or just TC? And, just for curiosity, are you a Christian? Do you actually believe in Hell? Or is this just a rhetorical comment?

I condone the rest of this post, but not this. I don't wish anyone goes to Hell, no matter how stupid they are (And yes, TC, I think you're being downright stupid here. And really, considering how bad what you are supporting is, that's the nicest thing I can say that I can reconcile with my conscience. I hope you'll forgive me later.)

I know exactly who they are and they know who they are. Political rhetorical debate goes out the window when real lives are on the line and the shills are pushing the exact same propaganda playbook that lead to the biggest foreign policy failures for America in the last 35 years (they are grand successes for Israel and bankers though, of course). Yes, I hope they burn in hell and I hope their children get hit by cars on the way to school tomorrow as karmic payback. I'm sick of watching it happen, sick of seeing vets with PTSD commit suicide when they get home because they're ashamed of what they did over there once they realized they were lied to and used, sick of watching the dollar die a slow painful death while elderly American's standard of living declines. Just plain sick of it. The success of the American people is the last thing on anyone's minds these days and it's disgusting, while the cause of it all is OBVIOUS to anyone paying attention.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 09:27 PM

There are no good options. Past mistakes by our government have led to the rise of ISIS and a complete mess. But I think that launching targeted airstrikes against them is a less bad option at this point. Doing nothing and allowing them to take over Iraq is not a good idea. It's not in our national security interests to allow a hardcore terrorist organization that wants to kill us to take over a country and set up their own government. There's absolutely nothing immoral about air strikes in this situation. It's an act of self defense and is consistent with libertarian principles.

I can't find the article I was reading. There are articles talking about ISIS taking over Iraqi cities, but they are from August 7th.

Sorry dude but you seriously sound like a neocon. I don't think you're trying to but you do. You keep repeating the same MSM war/fearmonger talking points ("ISIS is going to take over Iraq") with zero evidence. If the only evidence you can find of ISIS advancing is from a month ago, most likely they've stopped advancing.

I've already explained why bombing ISIS isn't ethically justified self-defense and why it won't make us safer.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:28 PM

Im fucking sick of you lying propaganda spewing Israel-firsters on this forum trying to get Americans to pay for and die over and draw blowback to protect countries Americans don't even have fucking TREATIES with! SICK OF IT AND SICK OF ALL OF YOU! (mod edit).

(Mod edit). I'm advocating nothing more than self defense, and I'm not advocating any ground troops either. You're user name fits you very well.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:28 PM

Sorry dude but you seriously sound like a neocon.

So I guess Rand Paul is a neocon?

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:31 PM

I know exactly who they are and they know who they are. Political rhetorical debate goes out the window when real lives are on the line and the shills are pushing the exact same propaganda playbook that lead to the biggest foreign policy failures for America in the last 35 years (they are grand successes for Israel and bankers though, of course). Yes, I hope they burn in hell and I hope their children get hit by cars on the way to school tomorrow as karmic payback. I'm sick of watching it happen, sick of seeing vets with PTSD commit suicide when they get home because they're ashamed of what they did over there once they realized they were lied to and used, sick of watching the dollar die a slow painful death while elderly American's standard of living declines. Just plain sick of it. The success of the American people is the last thing on anyone's minds these days and it's disgusting, while the cause of it all is OBVIOUS to anyone paying attention.

I'm mad to. I actually advocated banning TC and the other warmongers from RPFs because I don't think Bryan should be giving the neocon puppets (I don't care that TC isn't actually a neocon, he's PLAYING IN THEIR HANDS) a free platform to support the idea that warmongering and Ron Paul/libertarianism are in any way comparable. But... I don't wish for anyone to burn in Hell. Even if not a single gullible person who wants to engage ISIS is actually a Christian, I'd still want them to repent. And their children CERTAINLY aren't responsible for their stupidity.

I think TC is being stupid here. Same thing with my dad. They don't understand what they are doing. They've been brainwashed. Or at least, that's what I'd like to think. I'd like to think that they are actually dumb enough to believe "this time will be different." The alternative would be even worse.

I'm depressed at this right now. I go here as one place to ESCAPE the statism I see every day... its really the only reason I post here anymore after the ridiculousness of the religion forum and how its been run, and now this place is overrun with it. I'm SERIOUSLY considering just giving this place the middle finger, I have other things I can be doing with my time than debate statists HERE. I'd rather debate them in person and on forums that aren't dedicated to a man that I consider a hero...

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:33 PM

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:34 PM

(mod edit) I'm advocating nothing more than self defense, and I'm not advocating any ground troops either. You're user name fits you very well.

The wishing you burn in Hell was over the top, but in all seriousness I think everyone who confuses defense with offense like this should be called on to repent by whatever church they are in. Unfortunately, most pastors don't know the difference either.

American churches and American Christians sicken me more and more the more I read about this stuff.

I'm trying to keep my emotions in check, but I'm really ticked right now as well. I don't want you to burn in Hell, but I'd like to see you eventually become a libertarian again. Right now there's no way you're in the same movement as me.

So I guess Rand Paul is a neocon?

I have, very reluctantly, accepted the fact that Rand is going to have to play politics to win an election. But yes, he does sound like a neocon here. Peroidically he does. Do I actually think he's a neocon? No. Do I think he's playing into their hands? Yes. And the same is true for you. Rand has a good reason, at least. You don't. And, I will point out that Thomas Massie IS better than you on this issue, so its not like its JUST ancaps...

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:35 PM

It would be nice if we could actually have an intelligent, civil conversation over these issues, but that obviously isn't possible. I'm done debating this issue here if we can't even have a civil and constructive debate over foreign policy issues.
We shouldn't have to debate foreign policy here. And I think its downright depressing that there isn't a consensus on this. I'm willing to be somewhat nice about it in real life and on other forums, but really, its honestly just depressing me that I have to deal with neocon talking points (And yes, I know you aren't a neocon) on this forum. Everywhere else I EXPECT people to be moronic statists and I pretend to respect them some of the time, but I don't feel like I should have to do that here.

I'm acting in emotion and what I think is righteous anger. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:35 PM

The wishing you burn in Hell was over the top, but in all seriousness I think everyone who confuses defense with offense like this should be called on to repent by whatever church they are in.

It's not in any way "offense" when they've murdered two U.S citizens and have clearly stated their intention is to attack us.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:42 PM

It's not in any way "offense" when they've murdered two U.S citizens and have clearly stated their intention is to attack us.

No, words are not offense and killing civilians that happen to be in their country is not "offense."

DO you seriously think we should intervene any time a US citizen is killed in another country? Do you realize how interventionist of a position that that would lead to?

Were you ever one of us, TC? As you'll recall, I defended you when the other hardcore libertarians were attacking you, and now I'm beginning to wonder why.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:48 PM

DO you seriously think we should intervene any time a US citizen is killed in another country? Do you realize how interventionist of a position that that would lead to?

No, of course not. It's just that when you combine that with everything else, ISIS is a group that poses a threat to our national security. I think it's an act of self defense to use military action when another country or group of people has declared war against you. That hasn't happened before, and I've opposed all of these previous interventions like Iraq in 2003, Vietnam, etc. I'm very much a non interventionist, regardless of what you or anyone else says. But I believe that we have the right to use military action to defend the lives and liberties of the American people, and this is one of those times.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 09:49 PM

It would be nice if we could actually have an intelligent, civil conversation over these issues, but that obviously isn't possible. I'm done debating this issue here if we can't even have a civil and constructive debate over foreign policy issues.

You're repeating the exact same points over and over again.

"ISIS is going to take over Iraq!"

"It's just self-defense!"

"It's necessary protect our national security!"

All of them have been refuted again and again yet you keep parroting them. I agree saying you should burn in Hell was clearly over the top but it gets frustrating when you keep repeating the exact same BS talking points over and over.

devil21

09-02-2014, 09:51 PM

That's right, edit MY posts when I call out the shill. This forum is going to shit.

Cosmic karma is racking up against you shills. Enjoy it when it hits.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:51 PM

No, of course not. It's just that when you combine that with everything else, ISIS is a group that poses a threat to our national security. I think it's an act of self defense to use military action when another country or group of people has declared war against you.

Except that ISIS hasn't done ANYTHING to the US.

That hasn't happened before, and I've opposed all of these previous interventions like Iraq in 2003, Vietnam, etc.

Well, all the post-WWII interventions, at any rate. You did support intervention to stop Hitler.

I'm very much a non interventionist, regardless of what you or anyone else says. But I believe that we have the right to use military action to defend the lives and liberties of the American people, and this is one of those times.

What you are espousing here is not non-interventionism. I'll just leave it at that.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:51 PM

That's right, edit MY posts when I call out the shill. This forum is going to shit.

First they came for the religion forum, and I didn't care because I wasn't religious.

Then this;)

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:52 PM

That's right, edit MY posts when I call out the shill. This forum is going to shit.

You should've been banned, not simply had your insane, hateful comment edited.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 09:54 PM

Except that ISIS hasn't done ANYTHING to the US.

So you're of the belief that the beheadings of two Americans didn't actually happen? Or what exactly?

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 09:55 PM

You should've been banned, not simply had your insane, hateful comment edited.

And you guys should be banned for advocating war on a Ron Paul site. or at the least you should be ashamed. Have you ever even considered why Ron Paul opposed it?

So you're of the belief that the beheadings of two Americans didn't actually happen? Or what exactly?

They may have happened, but that doesn't qualify as "doing something to the US." Even you agreed that killing citizens isn't a justification for intervention.

devil21

09-02-2014, 09:59 PM

You should've been banned, not simply had your insane, hateful comment edited.

People like me actually contribute positively to this forum and movement by upholding the principles that this forum, and this MOVEMENT, was founded upon. Non-interventionism. The golden rule. Blowback avoidance and not kissing banker's asses. I have EARNED a long leash. You have not.

If anyone needs to be banned it's you and the rest of your predev shill puppet buddies here clogging up this forum with lies and fakery.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 10:02 PM

People like me actually contribute positively to this forum and movement by upholding the principles that this forum, and this MOVEMENT, was founded upon. Non-interventionism. The golden rule. Blowback avoidance and not kissing banker's asses. I have EARNED a long leash. You have not.

If anyone needs to be banned it's you and the rest of your predev shill puppet buddies here clogging up this forum with lies and fakery.

I wish you hadn't posted the "hell" comment as it makes us look bad, but I think you had the right to say it. And you're right that the kind of things that are being advocated here are disgusting. I'm ticked off to.

Makes me feel stupid for starting a thread here awhile ago about tolerance of interventionists, when we can't even agree that interventionism is wrong. Some of the people I've ranted against here are turning out to be people that are actually here.

Unfortunate.

presence

09-02-2014, 10:02 PM

So you're of the belief that the beheadings of two Americans didn't actually happen? Or what exactly?

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/wag+the+dog.html

(http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/wag+the+dog.html)
To 'wag the dog' means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.

Bringing the troops home
Cease and Desist Empire Building
Defend our Borders
18 Trillion in Debt

vs

CIA-Hollywoodesqe supposed "beheading" of 2 journalists and twitter threats made by lightly armed goat herders in the desert on the back side of the planet.

TheTexan

09-02-2014, 10:08 PM

It's not in any way "offense" when they've murdered two U.S citizens and have clearly stated their intention is to attack us.

The terrorist in the most recent video might disagree. He said something more along the lines of "cease attacking us, or we will continue to attack you".

Whatever the case, we can't be seen as giving in to the terrorists. That would make us look bad. They should really have made a video that said "keep bombing our children, or we will continue to attack you." That at least would have allowed us to stop attacking them, and still save face.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 10:08 PM

And you guys should be banned for advocating war on a Ron Paul site. or at the least you should be ashamed. Have you ever even considered why Ron Paul opposed it?

Then I guess Ron Paul would be banned from his own site for supporting the war in Afghanistan.

devil21

09-02-2014, 10:10 PM

Then I guess Ron Paul would be banned from his own site for supporting the war in Afghanistan.

You can't stop lying, can you?

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 10:12 PM

Then I guess Ron Paul would be banned from his own site for supporting the war in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul stupidly VOTED for the war in Afghanistan, but what he actually SUPPORTED was letters of marque and reprisal which was the constitutionally correct way to deal with terrorists.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 10:13 PM

Ron Paul stupidly VOTED for the war in Afghanistan.

Ok, so Ron Paul should be kicked off of Ron Paul forums if he ever decides to post here.

MaxHen

09-02-2014, 10:15 PM

Then I guess Ron Paul would be banned from his own site for supporting the war in Afghanistan.
We were attacked on our own soil and Dr. Paul later stated that he regretted his vote, as you will regret your support for these airstrikes when the blowback (from THIS intervention, not previous ones) hits us. Bombing ISIS in Iraq isn't going to prevent us from being attacked here if terrorists do attempt to do so.

devil21

09-02-2014, 10:16 PM

Ok, so Ron Paul should be kicked off of Ron Paul forums if he ever decides to post here.

Ron Paul voted to go after Al Qaeda leadership responsible for 9/11. He did not vote for a war in Afghanistan. He's said this many, many times.

Will you melt if you post anything resembling the truth? Is the truth like light to a vampire for you?

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 10:18 PM

Ok, so Ron Paul should be kicked off of Ron Paul forums if he ever decides to post here.

Ron Paul regretted this vote. You think I advocate banning myself because of stupid stuff I posted on CFC back in 2010?

Ask Tywysog, he can tell you how stupid I was;)

Ron Paul voted to go after Al Qaeda leadership responsible for 9/11. He did not vote for a war in Afghanistan. He's said this many, many times.

Will you melt if you post anything resembling the truth? Is the truth like light to a vampire for you?

Good point. He voted for the AUMF, which ended up being used as a war, but it wasn't actually a war. I made a mistake.

Brett85

09-02-2014, 10:25 PM

Well, I knew I would get slammed for taking this position, but I just felt like I needed to be honest and admit that I changed my mind on this and why. I'm not going to go on an internet forum and claim that I hold a position that I no longer hold.

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 10:36 PM

Vanguard101

09-02-2014, 10:39 PM

People are defending Paul's vote on Afghanistan? Lol smh

Christian Liberty

09-02-2014, 10:40 PM

People are defending Paul's vote on Afghanistan? Lol smh

To be clear, I'm not. Like Ron Paul himself has admitted, I think it was a mistake.

twomp

09-02-2014, 11:44 PM

We are in trouble because the warmongers have succeeded in their propaganda. We will not take out ISIS but even if we did, there will be a new group that pops up somewhere and the part time non-interventionists will once again claim that we will need to bomb for peace. If its not ISIS, it's Al-Shabab or Al-Nusra or the Sinola cartel, it doesn't matter because they will always find a bad guy "trying to destroy America", repeat it 10 million times on FOX news and BAM we are back at war.

We won't have to wait long to see how this foolish intervention into the Middle East will turn out. We've been there the last 10+ years. Yet, TC somehow claims "this time, it's different." Sure it is.... It's ALWAYS different this time around...

Anti-Neocon

09-03-2014, 12:28 AM

extortion17

09-03-2014, 01:18 AM

Not necessarily. I think it would be better to try to form a world coalition to try to stop the rise of ISIS. Of course that's always easier said than done.

The United Nations has accused the ISIL of committing "mass atrocities" and war crime.

"Executions in public spaces have become a common spectacle on Fridays in al Raqqa and
the ISIL-controlled areas of Aleppo province / governorate in Syria.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/un-accuses-islamic-state-group-war-crimes-2014827153541710630.html

.

extortion17

09-03-2014, 01:24 AM

People are defending Paul's vote on Afghanistan? Lol smh

As you have read in his book . . .

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/fpfronpaul.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/fpfronpaul.jpg.html)

RP had a perfect way to handle the terrorists in late September 2001.

Bush At War by Bob Woodward gives the account of the Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Rumsfeld group assembled by Bush43
while RP was on the floor of Congress - as you of course know already -
offering the ideas of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal for air piracy - what a genius of an idea ridiculed by the shithead talking head pundits, eh ?

So he voted ' GO!' like a Vietnam-era flight surgeon would - for Afghanistan.

By November 2002, when the Iraqi War Resolution Act came up for vote, RP and Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and four other GOP US Congressmen
voted NO to the eventual March 2003 storm blitzkrieg to Baghdad with Ollie North reporting - hahaha LOL

Now, you have a Canadian-born lard ass ready to shoot his pie hole off - go back to Canada US Senator Cruz.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/sencruz012a_zps38aa4c2b.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/sencruz012a_zps38aa4c2b.jpg.html)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/sencruz011f_zpscf2b1668.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/sencruz011f_zpscf2b1668.jpg.html)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/sencruz010c_zps61bad3f2.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/sencruz010c_zps61bad3f2.jpg.html)

Let Cruz vote, let Rand vote, let Lee vote yadayadayada

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/reid003a_zpsd2e3e561.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/reid003a_zpsd2e3e561.jpg.html)

So this is where we are . . .

Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) outspoken push for a vote to approve military strikes in Iraq and Syria
has cranked up tensions with fellow Democrats who worry it could hurt them on Election Day.
Vulnerable Democrats fighting for their political lives are frustrated that Kaine is pressing for a debate
on giving President Obama new war powers at a time when the commander in chief has become a political liability for them.
“Asking anybody to take that vote within two months of an election is just stupid.
Why would you put people in that position?” said a Senate Democratic aide.

Why ?

Yes, why ?

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/isil_dc0121v_zpseeae24ca.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/isil_dc0121v_zpseeae24ca.jpg.html)

.

Why ?

.
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/levant001s_zps970eeba3.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/levant001s_zps970eeba3.jpg.html)

A vote to authorize Obama to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria beyond the 60-day window set out by the War Powers Resolution
would be a de facto referendum on the president, according to another aide.

“I think it’s dumb,” said a second Democratic aide. “The less the president is in the news with anything right now, the better.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/216026-senate-dems-frustrated-by-colleagues-push-for-isis-vote#ixzz3CEkynxee

Cruz ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-4FQAov2xI

Cruz just doesn't stand - with Rand, or with anybuddy - very intelligently on anything, does he ?

Cruz is just a Canadian-born retard of a constitutional lawyer, eh ?

Vanguard101

09-03-2014, 08:12 AM

I didn't read any of that tbh^

extortion17

09-04-2014, 03:15 AM

I didn't read any of that tbh^

So you basically understand next to nothing . . . I get it.

Vanguard101

09-04-2014, 12:32 PM

So you basically understand next to nothing . . . I get it.

No. I just chose not to read your wall of chat at 9 in the morning

phill4paul

09-04-2014, 02:00 PM

I didn't read any of that tbh^

Then why comment? Your response to the post is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

twomp

09-04-2014, 02:17 PM

Then why comment? Your response to the post is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

Sometimes people like to speak to hear the sound of their own voice.

tangent4ronpaul

09-04-2014, 06:27 PM

speaking of walls of text, has anyone read post 20?

-t

extortion17

09-04-2014, 10:30 PM

No. I just chose not to read your wall of chat at 9 in the morning
Read it whenever . . .
I was wondering if you read any of RP's book before you claim no one could defend Ron Paul's military strategy in Afghanistan or anywhere LOL

Reading more than one sentence could be required before you'll see how cogent RP's foreign relations ideas are -
" freedom is popular " if you can think only in soundbites, which is by far the majority of voters -

Canadian -born Cruz sure makes an arse of himself in the youtube posted above - we can ignore any of the foreign policy "following like a sheep" that the Texas Senator does - no leadership on any ideas really.

enhanced_deficit

01-13-2015, 12:18 PM

“America has always been reluctant to use military force, but we have never shied away from defending the United States of America,” Cruz said. “ISIS says they want to go back and reject modernity, well I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the stone age.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/cruz-invites-obama-to-border-calls-for-bombing-isis-back-to-the-stone-age/

Is this a good time to invade Syria to defend US freedoms and values?

In recent MSM news, alleged jihadist woman behind Paris attack is now "most wanted" and has fled to Syria to join ISIS:

Paris shootings: Live updates as hunt for Hayat Boumeddiene continues

The 26-year-old wife of gunman Amedy Coulibaly, who died yesterday in a hail of bullets, is on the run..

Jan 11, 2015

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4956407.ece/alternates/s510b/MAIN-coulibaly-and-Hayat-Boumeddiene.jpg

Hayat Boumeddiene, fugitive partner of gunman Amedy Coulibal is believed to have fled to join ISIS fighters in Syria

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-shootings-live-updates-hunt-4952303