Concerning Bhutto...

[cska80]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.

[AdoubleR]

Look... The only reason 'they' hate America is because of American meddling... No more american meddling means they will no longer hate you... Those nukes will just sit there like they did with the Russians... Muslims are level minded people but American policy gets a tiny percentage of them to act and think stupidly... Take away their reason, and you take away the insanity... I know this being muslim myself...

[Joe3113]

You are falling into the trap. You CANNOT SPREAD DEMOCRACY BY FORCE. It doesn't work. Pakistan have to work this out for themselves. If people get into power who want to bomb the united states with a nuclear weapon, how are they going to achieve that anyway? It would be their suicide and they couldn't execute the attack anyway.

[ctb619]

What exactly do you suggest we do? It all sounds nice in theory, but when you get down to details it becomes very problematic.

[ItsTime]

We are not letting civil war break out Musharaf and his government is. Listen to Bhutto's interview with blitzer she basically says the same things Ron Paul does. Our policies have screwed up Pakistan.

The US government is not a god. We can not wave magic wands over things and make water out of wine. or however it goes.

[wgadget]

I heard today that the parts of the nukes are dissembled all over the place and that putting one together would take an awful lot of cooperation.

[Oliver]

Well, but that's Ron's whole point: Why getting involved
at all if it just raises more hatred towards the USA? It's
their business - meaning their People.

By supporting Musharraf with Billions of Dollars, is a hit
into the democracies and therefore - the PEOPLES face.
And unfortunately - another reason to join Al Qaida and
Co to oppose the Dictator.

For me, Ron is absolutely right about this. My only worry
is that Americans don't understand it out of irrationality
-aka- fear.

[Ernest]

Unless they attack another country or more importantly attack us. This is an internal affair and not really any of our business. What would you suggest we do? Who do we support and why? Part of this problem is indeed our own doing by supporting the dictator like we did. We really have no horse in this race.

[jonahtrainer]

What exactly do you suggest we do? It all sounds nice in theory, but when you get down to details it becomes very problematic.


I have to agree with both. We have created a really bad situation over the decades.

I think I heard an old analogy by Ron Paul like this "We are in the middle of a cave surrounded by vipers. We need to slowly back up towards the entrance to the cave and shoot any vipers that get too close."

I seriously doubt they are going to instantly forgive us for all our intervention. But we can make it undesirable to attack us.

Either way we live in interesting times!

[Question_Authority]

I agree with the responses so far. Most of those people are good, but there is passive support by the moderates for the radicals because even the moderates are pissed at the US. Once we are out of everything, the moderates will put the radicals in their place.

Just ask yourself: How many terrorists are attacking Switzerland? Even China is less interventionist than we are. They have all their troops on their homeland (correct me if I am wrong) or at least most. And they spend way less on military because they do not maintain a worldwide empire. But who in their right mind would consider attacking them?

The American people's brains are ready for the rinse cycle.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

If we were to intervene, we should have done it years ago and carpet bombed the tribal region of Pakistan and turned the mountains into pebbles.

Now, we fund Musharraf and he doesn't do ANYTHING. He lets the Al Qaeda roam freely in the mountains, yet won't let us go in ourselves.

So we either should go in unilaterally and wipe out the tribal region, or withdraw completely all funding. This in-between crap does not work.

[cska80]

I guess I agree in part. Don't get me wrong, I understand what caused this mess and what our intervention has done, and who it motivates, etc. etc. etc.

My only question is do we totally abandon this mess we created in Pakistan? I only wish we would leave Israel alone as I think they would have been handling these insane radicals themselves to begin with.

[boberino]

In conclusion, Charlie Wilson should be in prison.

[pickfair]

We're indeed in a terrible mess. We intervened and we very well can't be unconcerned about this whole issue. We have made this our problem. Knowing Bush, he will probably move towards even more intervention.

[Wyurm]

Bring the concept home for a second. Lets say that 5 blocks away from you, you see a neighborhood gang in turmoil. Lots of infighting and disputes along with a few killings. Should you, out of concern that the violence could spread to your neighborhood, run over there and get involved yourself? Or should you just make sure that you are well armed in the event of violence entering your neighborhood, and otherwise leave that gang alone? This is a good illustration, however, it lacks a critical element of this current problem. That element is that the US's meddling is a key factor in the problems going on over there.

Finally, I really have a huge problem with this whole situation. The old media is calling this a blow against the Bush administration while in truth it is a blessing for the Bush administration.

[cska80]

I heard comparisons today of this assassination to Ferdinand. If things plunge into even more chaos over there, I could see a military intervention by us and allies into Pakistan, causing a chain reaction of countries becoming more involved in the middle east.

This is the reason I'm apprehensive to agree with the pundits and others who have commented on our need to continue support of Musharaff.

[richk]

I guess I agree in part. Don't get me wrong, I understand what caused this mess and what our intervention has done, and who it motivates, etc. etc. etc.

My only question is do we totally abandon this mess we created in Pakistan? I only wish we would leave Israel alone as I think they would have been handling these insane radicals themselves to begin with.

IMHO this is just like any other "crisis" we get involved in. It's never going to stop (our intervening) until we actually do stop intervening. Always an excuse to fix this thing or that; like Ron said, we did this with Osama, Saddam , and Musharraf. We support them , subsidize them, and when they quit being our "puppet", we bomb them.

It's amazing why people in this country cannot understand why we are hated around the globe.

Let 'em figure it out.

[rbu]

Why don't these "terrorists" want to blow up someone like Canada, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand? They mind their own business and stay out of the way. Do they care that some crazy has a few nukes? Of course not and neither should we. We can defend ourselves against any foreign enemy. The real question is can we defend ourselves from ourselves?

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Bring the concept home for a second. Lets say that 5 blocks away from you, you see a neighborhood gang in turmoil. Lots of infighting and disputes along with a few killings. Should you out of concern that the violence could spread to your neighborhood, run over there and get involved yourself? Or should you just make sure that you are well armed in the event of violence entering your neighborhood, and otherwise leave that gang alone? This is a good illustration, however, it lacks a critical element of this current problem. That element is that the US's meddling is a key factor in the problems going on over there.



This 'gang' has already attacked our neighborhood 3 times.

We either need to go into Pakistan and destroy the gang, or bring everybody back to the castle to prevent another attack.

[Liberty4life]

First I am saddened about this assassination, a tragedy like this is always bad news.
I do still think we should adopt a non-interventionist policy, I don't think their hatred for us will fade as quick as some think, because Islam and Christianity have a very long history, but the first step is to get our troops out of their countries, and continue with some negotiations, those nukes they have are probably going to fall apart when they push the buttons, and if not we got so many anti-ballistic missiles and anti this and that, we could slice of their fingers with lasers if we wanted to, the policy of fear and aggression has to stop somewhere, the powers that be want us to hate each other and be divisive it serves them, they aren't divided, we are, they create situations where we want to rip each other apart, its all fabricated, besides isn't there something better and more interesting on tv to watch, I hear a tiger killed someone..
Remember, stay calm

[Trigonx]

i see no good coming from more intervention in more countries.

[Wyurm]

This 'gang' has already attacked our neighborhood 3 times.

We either need to go into Pakistan and destroy the gang, or bring everybody back to the castle to prevent another attack.

Really? Pakistan attacked the US 3 times?

[Daveforliberty]

People who react with fear and turn their attention to candidates with "foreign relations experience" like McCain need to take a deep breath and think things through.

On one hand we have Ron Paul: Mind our own business and let them sort it out. On the other hand we have the neo-cons: Impose our will with an iron fist if necessary.

Do we strong-arm another country into "democracy?" What is the investment we will have to make in another, or the same Musharaf? Or another war/occupation? How do we pay for that? How do we handle the blowback? What is the ripple effect through other countries, seeing that we have expanded our empire again? Where will we be in 5 years? In 10?

There are no good answers to any of these questions. It's a viper pit.

Ron Paul sounds more sane all the time.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Really? Pakistan attacked the US 3 times?

Going into L.A. to kill gang members isn't a declaration of war on the citizens of LA

[JanusFIN]

I have follow the Fox in this issue for 12 hours now. :(

They have rising the speech about intervention by 100% in last 5 hours. O reilly, who is the most crazy in their "news" line is speaking for it loudly. Intervention NOW!

Bhutto assasination, why now?

- Just after christmas
- 2 week before elections
- US informed 26.12. about sending soldiers to Pakistan after new year
- All other superpowers have been in alert for 2 week now

They can not attack Iran now, but this opens a new opportunity for Neo-Cons to attack somewhere. Your leader will say "We will help" Musharraf... F... He really is the one behind in this s... And U.S. has no right to go to others peoples countrys and invade them!

You Ron Paul People please, see behind this NOW!

Iran has no WMD:s, Pakistan has. By killing one brave woman, do not go to kill thousands of innosent people, you have no right, no need to do ANYTHING! Stop being world police, like Ron Paul has teach us...

Pakistan will not threat you anyway, PULL BACK from middle east now, fight bravely against your maniac leaders who want to drive us to next world war. And remember, India is still there with alliance with China and Russia. There has been not one question about their stance... Scary.

Really, this can launch world war III, PULL BACK, please!

[tmg19103]

We should cut off aid and step back and watch what happens, offering advice, suggestions and political discourse if asked.

What I'm concerned about - and I hope RP would agree, is what if the War Lords in the mountains who may be protecting bin Laden somehow come into power?

In that case I would say our national securtiy is threatened if those nuts get their hands on nukes as bin Laden has already attacked us and we should go in on limited basis, with the approval of congress, to destroy all nuclear facilities and then leave.

This is something I hope RP would agree with, and I actually think this concern is on the minds of many American's, and perhaps he should address it if further questioned. Sometines RP can be SO absolute that it can work against him, though I agree with his overall philosophy.

[cska80]

You know, it's sad. Today at work, I was talking to a patient of mine about the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues because she was listening to the conversation about it on the radio show I was listening to. She was in her 70's and was an child of immigrants from Italy. She went on to complain about how we need to tend to our own needs here and stop screwing around in other countries. She went on about 9/11 and what not.

I began explaining to her about some of the reasons 9/11 and other things that have come about. I explained about how we used to be allies with Bin Laden and basically created Al Queda. I told her about things like overthrowing Mossadeque, bombing Iraq for years, sanctions, puppet governments, allies with Saddam, yadda yadda yadda.

She was dumbfounded by what I was telling her and said she had never heard of any of this before. The point of this story is what she finally said. She asked how I knew about all of this and where I get my news from, and I told her I read on the internet, books, and listen to a lot of talk radio. She replied, "you know it's a real shame that you cannot even get the truth from the news, who is supposed to inform the public on these things." It's sad how people from our greatest generations are and have been decieved for years because they expect the media not to lie to them, and grandma isn't going to go web surfing.

[Oliver]

I guess I agree in part. Don't get me wrong, I understand what caused this mess and what our intervention has done, and who it motivates, etc. etc. etc.

My only question is do we totally abandon this mess we created in Pakistan? I only wish we would leave Israel alone as I think they would have been handling these insane radicals themselves to begin with.

Don't undermine the radicals in the Israeli Government
here. It's all a matter of POV. Basically everyone in the
Middle East who says that America are the Terrorists,
have a factual point as well - thanks to the interventions
in the first place.

Many Americans just cannot accept that because it
would mean they had to accept that US interventions
ARE NOT spreading peace and liberty.

[Brian4Liberty]

Lack of freedom, Dictators, semi-Royal Families, Oligarchy, Theocratic rebellion (the communism of today), secret police, corruption, murder and assassination...a bigger tar baby could hardly be found...

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Pakistan should line up their military on the edge of their controlled territory, we push in from Afghanistan, rout the Al Qaeda out.. none could flee into Pakistan controlled territory, game over.

This is the only way to win. If we're not going to do this, everybody come home because anything less is a waste of lives.

[Wyurm]

Going into L.A. to kill gang members isn't a declaration of war on the citizens of LA

I'm sorry, I don't even slightly get your reasoning. Look, falling into the trap presented by the politics of fear is just asking for it. The situation in Pakistan has been very bad for some time now, however, now we have an assasination that can be pointed to. I'm sure this even will result in civil unrest and constantly repeated warnings that we must get involved or else we will have suicide bombers over here. Truth is, the more we get involved the more chance there is that we will incur more violence on US soil. Enough is enough, we need to get out and stop acting like very violent children.

Fighting for defence is a worthy and honorable fight. Any other sort of fight is disgraceful and dishonorable. And, no, Pakistan itself has not attacked the United States yet and I'm not about to argue the validity of the whole "Islamofacsism" fear tactic.

[Ernest]

Ron Paul is no pacifist. He will defend this country.

The idea about nukes. Yes it is something that "could" happen. Anything is "possible". However the likelihood is incredibly small. Even though certain factions will "suicide bomb" or even do something like 911 do you really think the leaders of these faction would allow nukes to be launched knowing that we would completely annihilate them? The rank-n-file may be crazy but I assure you the leadership is not. The leaders want to live.

[cska80]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.


Well I had to quote myself so I could say all I had to do was listen to his comments on Tucker tonight. I guess none of us can articulate freedom better than the man himself.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

I'm sorry, I don't even slightly get your reasoning. Look, falling into the trap presented by the politics of fear is just asking for it. The situation in Pakistan has been very bad for some time now, however, now we have an assasination that can be pointed to. I'm sure this even will result in civil unrest and constantly repeated warnings that we must get involved or else we will have suicide bombers over here. Truth is, the more we get involved the more chance there is that we will incur more violence on US soil. Enough is enough, we need to get out and stop acting like very violent children.


Going into territory Pakistan DOESN'T EVEN CONTROL isn't an invasion or declaration of war on Pakistan. It's about defeating Al Qaeda, and that's the only way to do it.

[Thomas Paine]

In thinking about whether the U.S. should intervene in Pakistan's civil war, think about whether European intervention in the U.S. Civil War would have been positive.

[derdy]

This 'gang' has already attacked our neighborhood 3 times.

We either need to go into Pakistan and destroy the gang, or bring everybody back to the castle to prevent another attack.

When and where?

[Oliver]

In thinking about whether the U.S. should intervene in Pakistan's civil war, think about whether European intervention in the U.S. Civil War would have been positive.

Exactly. Americans probably would have been pretty
annoyed if Europe would've supported one side in
the civil war...

...which would have led to "terrorism" against Europe.

Getting involved means to be part of it and it draws
hate towards the ones interfering. (9/11, for example)

I fully agree with Ron's foresight about that.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

When and where?

AL Qaeda is the gang, and they happen to be in Pakistan. That's why anyone even cares about today's events.

What is so confusing?

[derdy]

AL Qaeda is the gang, and they happen to be in Pakistan. That's why anyone even cares about today's events.

What is so confusing?

No, I was asking when and where did they attack us.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

No, I was asking when and where did they attack us.

1993 - World Trade Center, New York City

2000 - USS Cole, Yemen

2001 - World Trace Center I and II, New York City

I can't believe I even wasted my time with this response

[Ronin]

I'm really confused now. Please someone help me out here.

In this instance the goal of Al Qaeda (assuming it was them) was to prevent the opposition majority from taking over the current militant government. Wouldn't that imply that Al Qaeda is interested in keeping Musharraf in power? Or is it Al Qaeda is COMPETING with the oposition?

[Oliver]

1993 - World Trade Center, New York City

2000 - USS Cole, Yemen

2001 - World Trace Center I and II, New York City

I can't believe I even wasted my time with this response

Basically you just opened up the paranoias Pandora's box. :(

[wfd40]

People who react with fear and turn their attention to candidates with "foreign relations experience" like McCain need to take a deep breath and think things through.

On one hand we have Ron Paul: Mind our own business and let them sort it out. On the other hand we have the neo-cons: Impose our will with an iron fist if necessary.

Do we strong-arm another country into "democracy?" What is the investment we will have to make in another, or the same Musharaf? Or another war/occupation? How do we pay for that? How do we handle the blowback? What is the ripple effect through other countries, seeing that we have expanded our empire again? Where will we be in 5 years? In 10?

There are no good answers to any of these questions. It's a viper pit.

Ron Paul sounds more sane all the time.

Why can't Paul just keep hammering on the exact points you bring up?? Sounds like a solid enough case for non-intervention to me..

This isn't rocket science.. 70% of the country is against the war in Iraq.. you think that same contingent will be for interventionisms elsewhere?? Paul needs to sell this HARD.

[Oliver]

I'm really confused now. Please someone help me out here.

In this instance the goal of Al Qaeda (assuming it was them) was to prevent the opposition majority from taking over the current militant government. Wouldn't that imply that Al Qaeda is interested in keeping Musharraf in power? Or is it Al Qaeda is COMPETING with the oposition?

We don't know if Al Qaida or the Taliban was involved.
And it doesn't make much sense to me either at this
point in time.

First of all: Taliban does NOT mean Al Qaida.
Secondly: Terrorism does NOT mean that Al Qaida
is or was behind it.

Maybe the investigations will be independent and
reveal the true perpetrators - but I doubt that in
a Musharraf dictatorship. :(

[tsetsefly]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.

If it got to this point, you can be sure India will bomb them before we do...

Besides we could bomb them probably on hours notice so I am not to concerned...


short of invading pakistan and taking the weapons what coudl we do?

[Oliver]

Oh, and Bolton is on FOX right now. Waiting for his
remark linking it to IRAN... :rolleyes:

[derdy]

1993 - World Trade Center, New York City

2000 - USS Cole, Yemen

2001 - World Trace Center I and II, New York City

I can't believe I even wasted my time with this response

Well, I'm glad you did, so I was sure I knew what you were talking about.

Unfortunately, all those operations had a helping hand from U.S. intelligence services.

Carpet-bombing the hell out of Pakistan won't do a bit of difference when state-sponsored, false-flag terrorism exists, unfortunately. :(

[pickfair]

I believe Ron Paul is the only candidate so far who has made a statement saying we should have gotten the hell out of the Middle East long since. A fine mess we're in right now...

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Well, I'm glad you did, so I was sure I knew what you were talking about.

Unfortunately, all those operations had a helping hand from U.S. intelligence services.

Carpet-bombing the hell out of Pakistan won't do a bit of difference when state-sponsored, false-flag terrorism, unfortunately. :(

OK, lol.. I realized you were a truther after Oliver's pandoras box post.
That's cool.. I listen to Alex Jones, seen all the videos etc.
But as I've said before, when your spouse is hiding something it doesn't necessarily mean he's a serial killer. Could be though.

[derdy]

OK, lol.. I realized you were a truther after Oliver's pandoras box post.
That's cool.. I listen to Alex Jones, seen all the videos etc.
But as I've said before, when your spouse is hiding something it doesn't necessarily mean he's a serial killer. Could be though.

Not a truther, just an individual who has done his homework on the matter ;)

Well, if a wife or husband is murdered and a large life-insurance policy or inheritance is in the mix, the first suspect is typically the spouse.

[tsetsefly]

This 'gang' has already attacked our neighborhood 3 times.

We either need to go into Pakistan and destroy the gang, or bring everybody back to the castle to prevent another attack.

exactly, I disagree to an extent with Paul's foreign policy, but short of mass bombings our best bet is to just say, you guys sort if out and if you attack us we will bomb you into the 5th century...

I also do believe there is islamofascist trying to convert people to their cause but that is an ideological war, one that no candidate has an answer for, so our best chance is to not give them more recruiting amo...

Its a very messy situation one we should wait to see what happens before doing anything, if anything is to be done...

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Not a truther, just an individual who has done his homework on the matter ;)

Well, if a wife or husband is murdered and a large life-insurance policy or inheritance is in the mix, the first suspect is typically the spouse.

Maybe Silverstein hired a psychic. I personally know a couple really insanely accurate ones.

[jointhefightforfreedom]

We invade IRAQ to overthrow a dictator that we previously put in power and 700,000 civilians die. At the same time we support a nuclear dictator.
Are they seriously asking what should we do? that is obsurd
Do you guys realize that iraq has always had a dictator even long before hussain?
THEY DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY!!! and when we finally get out
THEY WILL PUT A NEW DICTATOR BACK IN POWER.
We need to get the hell out period!
we have enough problems here!

MARK MY WORDS
People will listen when:
10 Us dollars = 1 canadian
The social security checks don't come in the mail anymore
The welfare checks bounce
The dollar finally is destroyed and replaced with the amero

Why don't people understand we went broke the second the deficit went 1 penny in the negative.
Here we are now $40 something TRILLION DOLLARS later and people just ignore it
IT IS ARROGANCE plain and simple!

[Ronin]

We don't know if Al Qaida or the Taliban was involved.
And it doesn't make much sense to me either at this
point in time.

First of all: Taliban does NOT mean Al Qaida.
Secondly: Terrorism does NOT mean that Al Qaida
is or was behind it.

Maybe the investigations will be independent and
reveal the true perpetrators - but I doubt that in
a Musharraf dictatorship. :(

I though Al Qaida claimed responsibility.

[Oliver]

I though Al Qaida claimed responsibility.

Source? :confused: Claiming responsibility is common for
Terrorists, but the last FOX claim about it is that
we don't know. (Quite remarkable for FOX, btw.)

[pickfair]

I though Al Qaida claimed responsibility.

Nobody has claimed any responsibility so far.

[derdy]

Maybe Silverstein hired a psychic. I personally know a couple really insanely accurate ones.

lol. I don't know about all that.

I do recommend these articles on how we could have killed Osama, circa 2001, and avoided the war in Afghanistan, however:


http://www.teamliberty.net/id301.html
http://teamliberty.net/id475.html

[tsetsefly]

1993 - World Trade Center, New York City

2000 - USS Cole, Yemen

2001 - World Trace Center I and II, New York City

I can't believe I even wasted my time with this response

You forgot the 2 African embassy bombings.

With all this infor Clinton had 2 chances to kill Bin Laden and chose nto to, Bush also had a chance and said no, this is documented stuf and Michael Schreur(sp?) has also commented on this saying the president(s) where not intersted in protecting Americans or killing terrorist instead they where more interested in their own interest...

I have 0 doubts that Dr. Paul if president at the time would of said yes when the chacne to kill Bin Laden presented itself...

[tsetsefly]

I'm really confused now. Please someone help me out here.

In this instance the goal of Al Qaeda (assuming it was them) was to prevent the opposition majority from taking over the current militant government. Wouldn't that imply that Al Qaeda is interested in keeping Musharraf in power? Or is it Al Qaeda is COMPETING with the oposition?

NO.
First we dont even know who did this, despite claims...

Two, Al queda just wants chaos, and they will probably get it if they are the one's who did this.

three, begging muscharraf for elections may end up bad for US, just like palestinians elected hamas pakistanis can also elect some islamic extremist to power...

[CMoore]

I heard comparisons today of this assassination to Ferdinand. If things plunge into even more chaos over there, I could see a military intervention by us and allies into Pakistan, causing a chain reaction of countries becoming more involved in the middle east.

This is the reason I'm apprehensive to agree with the pundits and others who have commented on our need to continue support of Musharaff.

OMG!! I did too. I thought I was the only one!!! It really sent a scare through me.

[Ronin]

Source? :confused: Claiming responsibility is common for
Terrorists, but the last FOX claim about it is that
we don't know. (Quite remarkable for FOX, btw.)

My bad, you're right. Now that I think about it was a speculator on NPR/BBC earlier today saying they were 99% sure it was Al Qaeda. I'll shutup now.

[Carole]

I tend to think of it like chaos theory.

In the cases of America intervening and attempting to impose its will around the world, we foster chaos. Whether or not it is intended I cannot reliably answer for certain. Yet, intended or not, it happens. The result is hatred, upheaval, suffering, and deaths (chaos) where we interfere and loss of respect and isolationism from other countries around the world.

Once we were not so despised. As our interventionism has increased the hatred and disrespect has increased. It boggles the mind that our leaders can possibly be ignorant of this. Thus, one has to wonder if at least some of it is not untentional.

[Oliver]

My bad, you're right. Now that I think about it was a speculator on NPR/BBC earlier today saying they were 99% sure it was Al Qaeda.

I'm a Skeptic. While 99,9% isn't evidence at all,
Conspiracy Theorists would say that "50% is all
evidence (/speculation) we need". ;) :p

(That's Alex Jones's lucrative success, BTW)

[Shellshock1918]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.

If radicals take over, INDIA will be the first to act as they are a threat to INDIA first.

[derdy]

I tend to think of it like chaos theory.

In the cases of America intervening and attempting to impose its will around the world, we foster chaos. Whether or not it is intended I cannot reliably answer for certain. Yet, intended or not, it happens. The result is hatred, upheaval, suffering, and deaths (chaos) where we interfere and loss of respect and isolationism from other countries around the world.

Once we were not so despised. As our interventionism has increased the hatred and disrespect has increased. It boggles the mind that our leaders can possibly be ignorant of this. Thus, one has to wonder if at least some of it is not untentional.

Divide and conquer is a very common strategy. It's used domestically in politics in the US as well.

[Liberty Star]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.


I disagree. We may never find out who's behind it but today's Bhutto assassination benefits Musharaf's military dictatorship if we look at motives. Huck has apparently expressed concern and an apology, odd reaction. Ron Paul should address role of interventionist Neoconservatives in South East Asia mess and how their foreign policies are making world a more dangerous place. Someone had said that when you have a big hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. For many neoconservatives in charge of things lately, military solutions is the fix for every problem, in the world. A horrible and a dangerous paradigm.

It is quite ironic that GOP is supporting Islamic radicals regime in Iraq right now, who knows what will come out of there decades from now. Few decades back in Afghanistan, we funded and armed Islamic militants. There may have not been any Talibans, Osama and big mess in that region had it not been for Afghanistan destabilization then and the long war between US/Saudi/Pakistan supported Mujahideens and Russians and millions of orphans that the war created. Those orphans later became a crop for Talibans and other radical militant groups and Afghanistan a fertile ground for radicalism and global terrorism.

We need to reevaluate our support of military dictators and autocrats if we are to meddle into other countries affairs, such puppet regimes breed radicalism in the world. Bush praised current military dictator back when he overthrew a democratically elected government there, hard to comprehend where our convictions about peace and freedom lie.





MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdVLYK4ZgoM
FOX News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etQDCrd584s
CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EidPmOpDJ08


Given the atmosphere that neocons fear marketers have created, his answers may appear shocking to some. But practically and philosophically, RP's views on interventions and our support for dictators are sound and right on.

[derdy]

I'm a Skeptic. While 99,9% isn't evidence at all,
Conspiracy Theorists would say that "50% is all
evidence (/speculation) we need". ;) :p

(That's Alex Jones's lucrative success, BTW)

There's plenty of circumnstancial evidence for so-called "conspiracy theorists (http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm)"

[Wyurm]

Divide and conquer is a very common strategy. It's used domestically in politics in the US as well.

Yep and it goes hand in hand with scaring the crap out of people. I think this is a good time to post this http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177

[Carole]

I do not think other countries will support us in yet another intervention.

They are well aware that Bush wanted to go into Iran until the "belated" NIE spoiled his immediate plans. ("They WERE a threat, they ARE a threat, and the WILL BE a threat--if they acquire nuclear (or for Bush-nucular) capabilites."-Bush)

Many will see this as yet another knee jerk reaction by Bush, regardless of how he spins it.

[Oliver]

There's plenty of circumnstancial evidence for so-called "conspiracy theorists (http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm)"

From the wilderness? Loose Change? Alex Jones?
Propagandamatrix? Abovetopsecret?

There isn't enough evidence. Relying on speculative
Media doesn't help you in any way here.

Remember "Osman"? :confused:

[Carole]

Yes it is Derdy.

Collectivism here has been rampant for nearly a century. Divide into groups and pander to the groups with lies. Set the groups against one another. Group think is evil in that sense.

I love how thinking of ourselves as individuals brings absolutely every diverse segment of our society together to act as one when we want and need to do so. :D

[rightobeleftalone]

Hands off Pakistan. Let them fight amongst themselves. If the Islamic crazies win then they must surface and assume the seats of gov't and will be very visible and exposed. How will they deliver thier nukes anyway? Fedex?

[paulitics]

Somehow, I don't think we are going to do anything in Pakistan. We may give Musharref more money. But, go after Al Quada, doubt it. We haven't done so yet, and Musharef has proven ineffective as well. Musharef is bad news, because at the very least it stirs up radicalism. ANd what ever happened to all those lawyers, and journalists? Were they released?

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

John Titor killed Bhutto. She wouldn't give him his IBM.

[ThinkAwake]

I have follow the Fox in this issue for 12 hours now. :(

They have rising the speech about intervention by 100% in last 5 hours. O reilly, who is the most crazy in their "news" line is speaking for it loudly. Intervention NOW!

Bhutto assasination, why now?

- Just after christmas
- 2 week before elections
- US informed 26.12. about sending soldiers to Pakistan after new year
- All other superpowers have been in alert for 2 week now

They can not attack Iran now, but this opens a new opportunity for Neo-Cons to attack somewhere. Your leader will say "We will help" Musharraf... F... He really is the one behind in this s... And U.S. has no right to go to others peoples countrys and invade them!

You Ron Paul People please, see behind this NOW!

Iran has no WMD:s, Pakistan has. By killing one brave woman, do not go to kill thousands of innosent people, you have no right, no need to do ANYTHING! Stop being world police, like Ron Paul has teach us...

Pakistan will not threat you anyway, PULL BACK from middle east now, fight bravely against your maniac leaders who want to drive us to next world war. And remember, India is still there with alliance with China and Russia. There has been not one question about their stance... Scary.

Really, this can launch world war III, PULL BACK, please!



Thank you for this message... you are a true patriot. :cool:

[derdy]

From the wilderness? Loose Change? Alex Jones?
Propagandamatrix? Abovetopsecret?

There isn't enough evidence. Relying on speculative
Media doesn't help you in any way here.

Remember "Osman"? :confused:

I'm not relying on speculative media. Alternative media has done a great job of taking evidence, corroborating evidence, and circumstancial evidence and putting it all together.

There's plenty of evidence.

No, I don't remember "Osman" and I've never heard of him/her/it.

[Godbag]

1993 - World Trade Center, New York City

2000 - USS Cole, Yemen

2001 - World Trace Center I and II, New York City

I can't believe I even wasted my time with this response

Just out of interest paul, why didnt the US Government make Osama Bin Laden its first priority after 9/11... they went into Afghanistan(only because they couldnt go into iraq first) got rid of the taliban, cornered Osama, and then let him escape into pakistan where they knew they would never find him.. what makes you think they will have more success this time?? And how many more extremists will you create if you send troops into another muslim country under the guise of terrorism? In both WTC ATTACKS THERE WAS ENOUGH AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE TO HAVE PREVENTED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! An administration that is competent(at protecting their country, not blowing others up) and that has a sense of morality would most likely prevent future attacks on that scale... no intervention.. havent you learnt anything from the past 50yrs...

[Carole]

Does it not make you wonder why Americans enmasse do not stand up and say NO to Bush. No more intervention.

Well, we did that during Vietnam, of course.

But now with the Patriot, FISA, loss of habeus corpus, and all these other new unconstitutional "acts", we would be ceclared enemy combatants, our property seized, and ourselves sent off to Guantanimo or elsewhere to rot, with no acces so attorneys, etc.

To speak out today is to be called traitorous.

[Oliver]

I'm not relying on speculative media. Alternative media has done a great job of taking evidence, corroborating evidence, and circumstancial evidence and putting it all together.

There's plenty of evidence.

No, I don't remember "Osman" and I've never heard of him/her/it.

The "Osman" file obviously proofs that Osman is Osama
Bin Laden. I'm surprised that you didn't hear this CT yet.

Where is the "Plenty of Evidence"?

Any official Documents confirming your speculation?

[pickfair]

Yes, that's the thing I'm most scared of at the moment. Ron Paul has expressed the same sentiment. We cannot go marching into Pakistan at this point. This reeks so badly of Iraq it's disgusting.

[angelatc]

I've been on board with basically everything Ron Paul stands for and speaks about for years now. I'm now becoming worried concerning foreign policy, particularly Pakistan.

I'm not sure that letting a civil war break out in Pakistan is the best solution. I think because of our intervention in the past, our dealings, supporting this dictatorship, etc. has lead to this chaos. I also think that allowing a civil war to occur where the result could very possibly be radical islamists taking control of a nuclear arsenal is not a good idea. I do believe intervention here is needed if things go this far.

Am I wrong? Is this overblown? Is there really no threat of radicals taking over the nukes? I mean, Musharafs life has been attempted on before. I don't think it'd be hard for them to take over.

Did you see Ron Paul on Tucker? He pointed out that 36 or so nuclear weapons are missing from the former Soviet Union, but we didn't frantically destroy that section of the world looking for them.

Truth be known, if anybody should be worried about radicals firing a nuclear weapon, it should be India.

No, no more wars for America unless we're attacked first.

[derdy]

The "Osman" file obviously proofs that Osman is Osama
Bin Laden. I'm surprised that you didn't hear this CT yet.

Where is the "Plenty of Evidence"?

Any official Documents confirming your speculation?

Out of respect for the OP and this topic and as to not hicjack this thread, I'll create something in General Topics/Other when I get home from work tonight (approx 12am CST 12/28) and I'll ping you to let you know it's there.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Just out of interest paul, why didnt the US Government make Osama Bin Laden its first priority after 9/11... they went into Afghanistan(only because they couldnt go into iraq first) got rid of the taliban, cornered Osama, and then let him escape into pakistan where they knew they would never find him.. what makes you think they will have more success this time?? And how many more extremists will you create if you send troops into another muslim country under the guise of terrorism? In both WTC ATTACKS THERE WAS ENOUGH AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE TO HAVE PREVENTED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! An administration that is competent(at protecting their country, not blowing others up) and that has a sense of morality would most likely prevent future attacks on that scale... no intervention.. havent you learnt anything from the past 50yrs...


Look... I'm not advocating invading Pakistan. Personally, I'd rather bring the knights back to the castle. Though if we are going to fight, then do it right. Pakistan wants the mountain regions under its control, too - so it's not like we wouldn't have help. Pakistan lines up 100,000 troops south of the mountains and shoot Al Qaeda that get pinched out while 100,000 of our guys move in from Afghanistan after we drop our entire bomb arsenal on them.
It's not like troops are going to march into Islamabad or Kirachi, this is all wilderness area

[freedominnumbers]

Imagine if during our own civil war France or England came in and held the north and south from each other with guns while installing a new French/English inspired government to prevent instability.

Didn't think you'd like that idea.

[Oliver]

Out of respect for the OP and this topic and as to not hicjack this thread, I'll create something in General Topics/Other when I get home from work tonight (approx 12am CST 12/28) and I'll ping you to let you know it's there.

Oki Doki. Just PM me the thread... :)

[pickfair]

Does it not make you wonder why Americans enmasse do not stand up and say NO to Bush. No more intervention.

Well, we did that during Vietnam, of course.

But now with the Patriot, FISA, loss of habeus corpus, and all these other new unconstitutional "acts", we would be ceclared enemy combatants, our property seized, and ourselves sent off to Guantanimo or elsewhere to rot, with no acces so attorneys, etc.

To speak out today is to be called traitorous.

This is exactly what Ron Paul was talking about when he said America is now heading towards a form of soft fascism. Our liberty is at stake and there are still people being manipulated by the fear factor that the administration is using to justify all its acts.


Joseph Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Imagine if during our own civil war France or England came in and held the north and south from each other with guns while installing a new French/English inspired government to prevent instability.

Didn't think you'd like that idea.

It's different.
There were no rogue elements living in the US that had previously attacked Paris, TWICE.

[Carole]

Exactly! We do NOT really KNOW who is responsible.

Yet several several of our valued candidates immediately began to take up the mantra for terrorists, global jihad, islamo-fascists, Al Quead, etc.

This whole thing could have several different scenarios.

Al Queda does not approve of female leaders and "allegedly" sent Bhutto a threatening note that they would get her.

Musharrif has much to lose or gain if Bhutto is/is not elected. His support is a t about 8% per Ron Paul.

US is always a possible suspect since we interfere everywhere.

And yet everyone is calling for the immediate elctions schedule within two weeks to go forth. Well, duh, one of the candidates is now dead! How do you replace the candidate that quickly?

So many scenarios.

[Carole]

Exactly! :)

[derdy]

It's different.
There were no rogue elements living in the US that had previously attacked Paris, TWICE.

Well, if there are any rogue elements living in the US at this time, the fault of their presence lies completely with the federal government and its failure to secure our country's points of ingress, especially our southern border.

I also find it really hard to believe there are Al-Qaeda operatives that have been here for a great length of time waiting to pull of some spectacular event. Larger events have a much smaller chance of success. (I'm not advocating this) If terrorists wanted to be the most effective all they would have to do is randomly attack malls, grocery stores, churches and what-not. The fact this hasn't happens tells me, if there are any 'Al-CIA-duh' present, there's not many of them.

[Castrensis]

Just some soundbytes from 360:

Anchor: "Difficult for the government in Pakistan to find & deal with terrorists."

Dubya: "Those who committed this crime must be brought to Justice."

Anchor: "US government is worried about the nucular (sic) weapons getting into the hands of the extremists."

Anchor: "They [the US] didn't want to 'meddle' in Middle Eastern Politics." (Referring to the election of Bhutto).

The progression of these comments suggest three things to me.

1) They will grandstand this assassination as the result when the US doesn't intercede in Middle Eastern Politics.

2) They will now intercede in Middle Eastern Politics for the good of the Pakistanis & the protection of the US because this assassination has caused so much turmoil in the country as to render the efforts of the reigning government (subsidized by US) insufficient in eliminating the 'terrorists'.

3) Welcome to hell.

[pickfair]

The implications are coming from the current administration that these religious fanatics are lurking in every corner. So they MUST impose surveillance on the majority of Americans who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists in order to catch the mere few, and do you see them succeeding?

Well, I agree with one thing. There ARE religious fanatics lurking in every corner and they are going to vote for Huckabee on January 3rd.

[Carole]

Well said.

[Carole]

Bush is already sending more troops to Pakistan.

[ThinkAwake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqcM5lVoteQ

[Carole]

Lol :D

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Well, if there are any rogue elements living in the US at this time, the fault of their presence lies completely with the federal government and its failure to secure our country's points of ingress, especially our southern border.

I also find it really hard to believe there are Al-Qaeda operatives that have been here for a great length of time waiting to pull of some spectacular event. Larger events have a much smaller chance of success. (I'm not advocating this) If terrorists wanted to be the most effective all they would have to do is randomly attack malls, grocery stores, churches and what-not. The fact this hasn't happens tells me, if there are any 'Al-CIA-duh' present, there's not many of them.

I agree, that's why I'm voting for Paul. The terrorist threat is blown way out of proportion. Two on-soil attacks in 15 years isn't worth bankrupting us.

[Carole]

NOt Meddle?

Sounds like someone is trying to make Dubya look like Ron Paul. They must be listening to him.
:eek:

[Mark Rushmore]

The terrorist threat is blown way out of proportion. Two on-soil attacks in 15 years isn't worth bankrupting us.

Terrorist sympathizer :mad:

[adwads]

Somehow, I don't think we are going to do anything in Pakistan. We may give Musharref more money. But, go after Al Quada, doubt it. We haven't done so yet, and Musharef has proven ineffective as well. Musharef is bad news, because at the very least it stirs up radicalism. ANd what ever happened to all those lawyers, and journalists? Were they released?

We are already planning on sending MORE special forces into Pakistan:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=66482

[Clutch]

Benazir Bhutto was a bitch!

1. She had her OWN brother murdered! (Her brother opposed her husband & her corrupt ways)
2. She supported and financed the Taliban
3. She was the most corrupt leader in Pakistan’s history.
4. She almost bankrupted Pakistan, twice!
5. She was elected twice & thrown out of power twice because of corruption!
6. She did NOTHING for women’s right!
7. Her husband is known as mister 10% (for all the bribes he took)
8. She had political opponents murdered... She was NO democrat!
9. Bhutto was nothing more than a power hungry hypocrite!... she deserved to be imprisoned for life!

Having said that... I would also like to condemn the extremist terrorist who killed her & 20
other innocent civilians!

*How would I know all this... cause I’m from there!*

What I dont understand is why is the MSM portraying Bhutto as the greatest Pakistani democrat ever??!!

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head on his responce to this on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83cVU24q12A

The Muslim world needs is education (secular) to combat extremism!!!... NOT phony (imposed) democracy!! Literacy level of pakistan: less than 20% (FACT)!

[ButchHowdy]

"Live by the sword. DIE . . . . "

[Nefertiti]

Bring the concept home for a second. Lets say that 5 blocks away from you, you see a neighborhood gang in turmoil. Lots of infighting and disputes along with a few killings. Should you, out of concern that the violence could spread to your neighborhood, run over there and get involved yourself? Or should you just make sure that you are well armed in the event of violence entering your neighborhood, and otherwise leave that gang alone? This is a good illustration, however, it lacks a critical element of this current problem. That element is that the US's meddling is a key factor in the problems going on over there.
.

Said like a true Chicagoan. :D However, the critical element isn't lacking. We wouldn't have the gang wars if the government hadn't made the businesses they dabble in illegal. If I could go over to my local supermarket and buy the goods they are dealing in, they would all be out of business tomorrow.

[Aballistar]

I am saddened by the "Paul Supporters" who let one assassination shake their faith in Paul's ideas to the core. You are being sucked in by the MSM and the Terrorist's Fear machine. It's what they want.

[Nefertiti]

What I dont understand is why is the MSM portraying Bhutto as the greatest Pakistani democrat ever??!!


The Muslim world needs is education (secular) to combat extremism!!!... NOT phony (imposed) democracy!! Literacy level of pakistan: less than 20% (FACT)!

Because she is a woman, and they find it incredible that a woman could rule a Muslim country...not that we ever had a woman rule this country before, but still.

Your argument makes no sense, if only 20 percent are literate, their problem is not a lack of secular education but a lack of book-based education of any kind.

As Muslims, of which I am one, we don't need secular education. What we need is literate intelligent people who truly understand the religion teaching about it. The illiterate and uneducated are not able to fully understand the religious texts themselves and rely on people like Osama bin Laden to misinterpret them for them. Even the average peaceful Muslim on the street who couldn't care less about foreign affairs who lacks an education may have what could be called folk ideas about the religion that are incorrect as well. It's just that their beliefs don't necessarily have any impact on anyone else but themselves and the west couldn't care about these mundane issues. I will take a single example-people who believe you can go to someone's grave and talk to them. That's un-Islamic, but millions of Muslims do it and many believe it is encouraged by their religion.

Secular public education in a Muslim country is dangerous as it will just lead to people getting their religious information from sources that twist it for nefarious purposes, just as those who are illiterate do.

What is your opinion of Ansar Burney?

[Nefertiti]

Bush is already sending more troops to Pakistan.

True, it was announced the day before the assassination. Curious timing, isn't it? Could it be the CIA behind the assassination? Using it as a pretext to justify sending in more troops? Just thinking out loud here but it is all very convenient.

[Nefertiti]

Going into L.A. to kill gang members isn't a declaration of war on the citizens of LA

Yes, but why are we going into LA to kill gang members at all? Because the government has decided they don't think people should have the freedom to use certain substances and sell them to one another?

What's the difference between that and the government decided they want to go into Pakistan and kill Pakistanis because they don't like the religion they practice?

And besides, if one gang banger killed another on the street of LA, would you then worry that what necessarily would follow would be killing on your own home turf of New York City or wherever you lived?

[SeanEdwards]

Our state department should follow Switzerland's lead in regards to Pakistan. The government of Switzerland has a much better track record of preserving their citizens safety and prosperity than the U.S. government does. Our government stooges should just start copying the guys with a successful record.

[werdd]

The fact of the matter is that bhutto was a terrible and curropt leader, and only a small percentage of the country wanted her back. Musharriff will quelll any resistance, and he is not going to let go of his nukes. The fox news scare tactic is to tell us that terrorist could get their hands on nukes, aint gonna happen. It's just an excuse to further meddle in the politics of middle eastern countries and increase their dependence on us.

[werdd]

Benazir Bhutto was a bitch!

1. She had her OWN brother murdered! (Her brother opposed her husband & her corrupt ways)
2. She supported and financed the Taliban
3. She was the most corrupt leader in Pakistan’s history.
4. She almost bankrupted Pakistan, twice!
5. She was elected twice & thrown out of power twice because of corruption!
6. She did NOTHING for women’s right!
7. Her husband is known as mister 10% (for all the bribes he took)
8. She had political opponents murdered... She was NO democrat!
9. Bhutto was nothing more than a power hungry hypocrite!... she deserved to be imprisoned for life!

Having said that... I would also like to condemn the extremist terrorist who killed her & 20
other innocent civilians!

*How would I know all this... cause I’m from there!*

What I dont understand is why is the MSM portraying Bhutto as the greatest Pakistani democrat ever??!!

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head on his responce to this on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83cVU24q12A

The Muslim world needs is education (secular) to combat extremism!!!... NOT phony (imposed) democracy!! Literacy level of pakistan: less than 20% (FACT)!

Be careful, people here are very emotional about this. Yesterday, i said she had it coming and the whole board just about cried. But yes sir, you are right.

[Proemio]

Be careful, people here are very emotional about this. Yesterday, i said she had it coming and the whole board just about cried. But yes sir, you are right.

Yep, the "dumb bitch" was a perfectly reasonable description for anyone paying attention beyond the "news-cycle", and employs "head over emotion".
Much, much better and deserving people die every minute without as much as a thought - somewhat creepy how that works.

You may be interested in a little backgrounder, including a key event most everyone missed - mainly because "it didn't happen on MSM".
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=730066&postcount=4
I put it directly in "Hot Topics" to avoid spooking the revolution...

[mosquitobite]

Yep, the "dumb bitch" was a perfectly reasonable description for anyone paying attention beyond the "news-cycle", and employs "head over emotion".
Much, much better and deserving people die every minute without as much as a thought - somewhat creepy how that works.

You may be interested in a little backgrounder, including a key event most everyone missed - mainly because "it didn't happen on MSM".
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=730066&postcount=4
I put it directly in "Hot Topics" to avoid spooking the revolution...

on talk radio this morning, listening to them talk about Pakistan, I just about wanted to puke! BB was talking like Pakistan was our PUPPET. "we need to make sure those nukes are secured! we need to "support" someone other than Musharref."

:rolleyes:

Seriously - do so many Americans think that Pakistan is just some other state that the federal government has control over? These are independent NATIONS FFS!