Ron Paul Clueless about Foreign Policy...

Unraveling this is a lot like trying to unravel the who started the war between the Hatfields and McCoys.

The bottom line is the Rothchilds have funded, and continue to fund both sides of war. They like war. It makes lots of money AND controls the population. The problem is, we have such a hard time believing that they really don't give a shit about us. Listen to George Carlin, he figured it out, or Michael Jackson's last song They Don't Care About Us. RP is the ONLY one who wants to do something about this slave race mentality

Ron Paul's Idea of switching our aggression from military tactics to economic tactics is brilliant.

Foreign Policy?

lol. U.S. Foreign Policy:




Bill me later

lifegoesonbrah said:

lol. U.S. Foreign Policy:

Bill me later

Click to expand...

nailed it.

The Marines do have a decisive advantage.

abandonconflict said:

View attachment 2037647

The Marines do have a decisive advantage.

Click to expand...

What they picture isn't conveying is that the particular young Devil Dog in the picture was under attack by 24 hajis and had used up all of his ammo. With only one enemy left and that one with a RPG aimed at this young Lance Corporals grape, he makes a brilliant move by fashioning a impromptu arrow from a couple of spent ammo magazines, some paracord and his M9 Bayonet and had just eliminated the threat when this picture was taken.

Adapt and overcome.

NoDrama said:

What they picture isn't conveying is that the particular young Devil Dog in the picture was under attack by 24 hajis and had used up all of his ammo. With only one enemy left and that one with a RPG aimed at this young Lance Corporals grape, he makes a brilliant move by fashioning a impromptu arrow from a couple of spent ammo magazines, some paracord and his M9 Bayonet and had just eliminated the threat when this picture was taken.

Adapt and overcome.

Click to expand...

I know a better strategy.

abandonconflict said:

I know a better strategy.

View attachment 2037709

Click to expand...

Looks familiar...

NLXSK1 said:

Which part is crazy? The taliban did not exist in 1994 and Ron Paul thinks it did.

Me being a douche doesnt have any bearing on the debate.

Click to expand...

Most politicians don't even have the slightest clue as to what the Taliban is, and you're going to sit here and attempt to criticize Ron Paul for discussing the vague creation date of the Taliban? He has more knowledge regarding the Taliban than any of the other of the GOP candidates combined, and no, none of the other candidates know the creation date of the Taliban either, so how can you possible criticize a GOP for that without criticizing all of them for the very same subject?

No, he doesn't not want to take apart the red button on day one.That would essentially jeopardize the security of our boarders, which you should well understand RP is against. You're interpreting his intentions incorrectly.

He has mentioned the dismantling of nuclear warheads within the US and other countries. That is not the same as dismantling the red button. The government would never allow it even if he wanted to.

catinthehat78 said:

No disrespect but his policies are great, and frankly I find it quite disturbing that you would want to kill a ton of people with no morral imperative going into it. Lets just keep killing innocent people is what you are saying? If I broke in your home and you shot me dead it is ok, but if our country invades and occupies a part of another country for no reason but to push its muscle, thats just sad. As for saying the "what if were attacked?".....recall 9-11? Apparently if a few guys with box cutters can take over and so forth than do you seriously think he could do any worse? No! And again, we invaded them centuries ago first, so we started this mess, and thats why Ron Paul says what he does, because its the truth. You can keep hating on him for no real reason, could care less, because if anyone took their time and checked things out it would appear we have a better shot with his methods. The killing on both sides is just sad and the ones with that kind of mentailty need to go over there and betting you wouldnt even make. Its easy to talk trash, but harder to change and know theres more to life than this garbage.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

People who talk from the viewpoint that war is some type of game and display a general sense of ignorance regarding war, have no idea what life really is, and they especially don't have any concept of war. These people have never faced near death experiences. Once you do, you realize how bullshit this world is and that war is just a facade and that of a playground for many adult men.

People who have always had life good and don't know from a first person experience what death may be like, always speak about war with such ignorance, it's unbelievable.

There truly are some brainwashed ingrates out there. I would love to drop them off in the heart of Africa among the rebels with no food or clothes on their backs, then see how much shit they talk.


To be pro-war with no justifiable cause of actual defense is ignorance.

If you had a choice between jobs or war, which would you choose?

InCognition said:

People who talk from the viewpoint that war is some type of game and display a general sense of ignorance regarding war, have no idea what life really is, and they especially don't have any concept of war. These people have never faced near death experiences. Once you do, you realize how bullshit this world is and that war is just a facade and that of a playground for many adult men.

Click to expand...

you have some pretty nasty things to say about people like me and people who have actually fought in combat or even served without fighting in or near a combat zone.

to say that i have no concept of war is insulting. i have thought about it, i have heard stories about it here and from personal long time friends, and i have some concept of it, without ever having actually been there.

and to say that those who have been there were just using it as an 'adult playground' is insulting to those that have served.

InCognition said:

People who have always had life good and don't know from a first person experience what death may be like, always speak about war with such ignorance, it's unbelievable.

There truly are some brainwashed ingrates out there. I would love to drop them off in the heart of Africa among the rebels with no food or clothes on their backs, then see how much shit they talk.

Click to expand...

more insults AND innuendos, as you call them.

and as highlighted, a near death wish on people just for having beliefs differing from yours.

i'm glad your on paul's side, not my side.

NoDrama said:

If you had a choice between jobs or war, which would you choose?

Click to expand...

if i had to choose from a false bifurcation, i would choose jobs.

although i disagree with ben franklin on this one, he had it at least somewhat right when he said something about 'never a bad peace or good war'.

but we are not faced with a false bifurcation here, so i reject the question.

InCognition said:

Exactly.

People who talk from the viewpoint that war is some type of game and display a general sense of ignorance regarding war, have no idea what life really is, and they especially don't have any concept of war. These people have never faced near death experiences. Once you do, you realize how bullshit this world is and that war is just a facade and that of a playground for many adult men.

People who have always had life good and don't know from a first person experience what death may be like, always speak about war with such ignorance, it's unbelievable.

There truly are some brainwashed ingrates out there. I would love to drop them off in the heart of Africa among the rebels with no food or clothes on their backs, then see how much shit they talk.


To be pro-war with no justifiable cause of actual defense is ignorance.

Click to expand...

I think that a lot of the Ron Paul support passion comes from anti-war sentiment. Don't be fooled, he is human, be cynical, not hateful.

What is Ron Paul's foreign policy?

1. Be a good neighbor. Don't stick your nose over your neighbor's fence and then call code enforcement if his roses are planted three inches too close to the property line. Don't shoot your neighbor's dog unless the dog attacks you. Buy your neighbor's tomatos and sell him some of your corn, all at mutually agreed upon prices.
2. Mind your own business. Don't be a bully. Recognize that your ways are not necessarily your neighbor's ways.
3. Help your neighbor out if he asks for your help and you can afford to help, but don't adopt your neighbor and support him for life. Expect quid pro quo.
4. If you have a crazy neighbor, do your best to avoid conflict with him, but defend yourself if you must.
5. If your neighbor paints his house bright pink, chuckle and be glad it is not your house.
6. Don't loot your children's college savings to support your neighbor in the hope that your neighbor will like you more.
7. Follow the golden rule.

This foreign policy makes a lot more sense to me than America's foreign policy of the last 50 years.

UncleBuck said:

you have some pretty nasty things to say about people like me and people who have actually fought in combat or even served without fighting in or near a combat zone.

to say that i have no concept of war is insulting. i have thought about it, i have heard stories about it here and from personal long time friends, and i have some concept of it, without ever having actually been there.

and to say that those who have been there were just using it as an 'adult playground' is insulting to those that have served.



more insults AND innuendos, as you call them.

and as highlighted, a near death wish on people just for having beliefs differing from yours.

i'm glad your on paul's side, not my side.

Click to expand...

Just because one may perceive my claim that "war is just a facade and that of a playground for many adult men", does not make it an insult. Reality and truth are not insults, thus they shouldn't be taken as one. If it's not the soldiers playing, it's the politicians. Either way, someone is always facilitating war from the mindset of "this is a game".

I know a few soldiers and not one of them are in the military for the principle of protecting this country. They are either in the military as a job in order to collect a paycheck, or to "play war". Of course this doesn't mean that a lot of soldiers haven't fought out of the principle of protecting this country, because many have.

Almost all wars are the consequence of a lack of diplomacy and in the grand scheme of things, caused over petty disagreements.

Me stating that "I would love to drop them off in the heart of Africa among the rebels with no food or clothes on their backs, then see how much shit they talk" is not an insult or an innuendo. It's simply a wish I have upon those who either seek war, or do not have any regard for the repercussions of war. If most sane men were to realize such a situation, it would change their minds if they had such disregard for what life really is, and in return they may realize how useless most war really is.

I'll never wish near death experiences upon those who do not share my beliefs, but I will always wish near death experiences on those who have no regard for life and war, in the hopes that such an experience would wash away their ignorance. One who has no regard for life, is not worth their own life.

abandonconflict said:

I think that a lot of the Ron Paul support passion comes from anti-war sentiment. Don't be fooled, he is human, be cynical, not hateful.

Click to expand...

I would say more of the support comes from a very general realist sentiment. War is almost never an ideal solution to any answer, and so it's not the first approach of most realists.

Given time permits other non-war solutions, people who are for war without exploring other non-war alternatives have a warped logic, and that's hardly debatable.

Then again, the larger the government the more inefficient it becomes, especially in regards to decision making. So it's of no surprise that usually the most inefficient decision (war) is the first decision made for solving a problem.

InCognition said:

I would say more of the support comes from a very general realist sentiment. War is almost never an ideal solution to any answer, and so it's not the first approach of most realists.

Given time permits other non-war solutions, people who are for war without exploring other non-war alternatives have a warped logic, and that's hardly debatable.

Click to expand...

Well said. This is why preemptive war is wrong. The assumption that war is the only answer to preventing war.