• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: 'Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars'

Graffias

Rogue
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
924
Reaction score
309
Location
Midwest U.S
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
paul1.jpg
 
He still doesn't really know what a neoconservative is, so he's right with the rest of the Twitterverse in its ignorance.
 

Generalizations like that are the essence of propaganda the world over and politicians that resort to them are always a danger..

As to the matter. Where boots on the ground might become necessary, it would be the right thing to do. The challenge is knowing why, when and how.
 
Excellent--first Cruz still hasn't given his blessing to McConnell.

Now Ron Paul calls out the new GOP Senate for being for expanded neocon wars--ghost-speaking for Rand.

Hope Mitch has a strong heart .
 
Generalizations like that are the essence of propaganda the world over and politicians that resort to them are always a danger..

As to the matter. Where boots on the ground might become necessary, it would be the right thing to do. The challenge is knowing why, when and how.

With respect to the Republicans, they've been calling for boots on the ground all over the planet, just as they always do. War makes people lots of money who hire people to lobby Congress to make them money by giving them a donation for their upcoming campaign - Politician wins his election and the War Industry people get their War which = $.

They will find a reason to go headlong into places we shouldn't and will ****in' lie about if they have to.
 
With respect to the Republicans, they've been calling for boots on the ground all over the planet, just as they always do. War makes people lots of money who hire people to lobby Congress to make them money by giving them a donation for their upcoming campaign - Politician wins his election and the War Industry people get their War which = $.

They will find a reason to go headlong into places we shouldn't and will ****in' lie about if they have to.

I am not sure that the Republicans have put boots on the ground more often than Democrats. I think you might want to revise that allegation. You see, invasions can make sense and be the right decision. It is very similar to the SWAT teams.

Historically international security has had to be organized like Wild West Peace Making. It has been and is to this day a deadly environment without any real rules. This was for many reasons the only way it could be done. Societies that prayed for peace instead of maintaining large armies were swept away. As bad as it was, there were no WMD as potent as today's that make it probable that society as we know it will halt, when one of the imbroglios gets out of hand. It is no longer the viable long term. We must restructure the way we make order.
As a matter of fact, it was a Republican President under whose watch a very important modern initiative was started to reform the way global security should be defined and structured, by prodding the UN to modify its norms in a way that could put security and other global public goods in the public domain in which they belong.
 
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR

The chant that never ends.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure that the Republicans have put boots on the ground more often than Democrats. I think you might want to revise that allegation. You see, invasions can make sense and be the right decision. It is very similar to the SWAT teams.

Historically international security has had to be organized like Wild West Peace Making. It has been and is to this day a deadly environment without any real rules. This was for many reasons the only way it could be done. Societies that prayed for peace instead of maintaining large armies were swept away. As bad as it was, there were no WMD as potent as today's that make it probable that society as we know it will halt, when one of the imbroglios gets out of hand. It is no longer the viable long term. We must restructure the way we make order.
As a matter of fact, it was a Republican President under whose watch a very important modern initiative was started to reform the way global security should be defined and structured, by prodding the UN to modify its norms in a way that could put security and other global public goods in the public domain in which they belong.

Actually many societies that were peaceful lasted for thousands of years.
 
Actually many societies that were peaceful lasted thousands of years.

Which? I know only of a few located largely inaccessibly or where nobody wanted to go.
 
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR

The chant that never ends.

There are idiots that would chant like that. But it is the ones that often are at fault for wars beginning are those that think that wanting peace and security can make it so.
 
There are idiots that would chant like that. But it is the ones that often are at fault for wars beginning are those that think that wanting peace and security can make it so.

If there wasn't people chanting war the chances we would have spent almost all our time as a country in some sort of armed conflict is damn near non-existent.
 
If there wasn't people chanting war the chances we would have spent almost all our time as a country in some sort of armed conflict is damn near non-existent.

The fact that there are criminals does not mean crime will leave you alone, if you are peaceful.
 
I am not sure that the Republicans have put boots on the ground more often than Democrats. I think you might want to revise that allegation. You see, invasions can make sense and be the right decision. It is very similar to the SWAT teams.

Historically international security has had to be organized like Wild West Peace Making. It has been and is to this day a deadly environment without any real rules. This was for many reasons the only way it could be done. Societies that prayed for peace instead of maintaining large armies were swept away. As bad as it was, there were no WMD as potent as today's that make it probable that society as we know it will halt, when one of the imbroglios gets out of hand. It is no longer the viable long term. We must restructure the way we make order.
As a matter of fact, it was a Republican President under whose watch a very important modern initiative was started to reform the way global security should be defined and structured, by prodding the UN to modify its norms in a way that could put security and other global public goods in the public domain in which they belong.

Perhaps you should revise giving me a strawman. I didn't frame it in a partisanship way, just what current realities dictate. Hell, McCain was talking about boots in North Korea! Obama uses drones, planes and federal SWAT teams (SEALS, Delta etc). But many that now control both houses of Congress want Marine infantry in just about every conflict going on today including Iraq, Syria and they would undoubtedly push for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities alongside Israel, who happens to be the right's favorite ally.
 

Ron Paul was irrelevant when he was in congress and he's even less relevant now. It's sad to see dotty old men, former politicians, who can't let it go - Jimmy Carter, are you listening? It's one reason I love GWB even more. The man served his country to the best of his abilities - did some good things and some not so good things - and then rode off into the sunset to let the next wave of leaders take the country into the future. If only more politicians could do the same.
 
Ron Paul is right. The Democratic Party isn't perfect by any means, but I was strongly hoping that Republicans would not gain the senate and retain the house. For the exact reasons Ron Paul is tweeting about and more.
 
He still doesn't really know what a neoconservative is, so he's right with the rest of the Twitterverse in its ignorance.

'neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means'

Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

No, by definition, he knows EXACTLY what a Neocon is.
 
Ron Paul is right. The Democratic Party isn't perfect by any means, but I was strongly hoping that Republicans would not gain the senate and retain the house. For the exact reasons Ron Paul is tweeting about and more.

I actually wanted either party to control both houses as a split just means nothing ever gets done.

But, I agree with you that Ron Paul is right about the 'boots-on-the-ground' part.
 
Perhaps you should revise giving me a strawman. I didn't frame it in a partisanship way, just what current realities dictate. Hell, McCain was talking about boots in North Korea! Obama uses drones, planes and federal SWAT teams (SEALS, Delta etc). But many that now control both houses of Congress want Marine infantry in just about every conflict going on today including Iraq, Syria and they would undoubtedly push for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities alongside Israel, who happens to be the right's favorite ally.

Let us hope, that we never regret not having destroyed Iran's nuclear threat.
 
Ron Paul is right. The Democratic Party isn't perfect by any means, but I was strongly hoping that Republicans would not gain the senate and retain the house. For the exact reasons Ron Paul is tweeting about and more.

Well you know who the commander and chief is right? So please explain how the senate and house are going to go to war, without the president?

This is soooo typical. Anytime a Republican gets elected for president or controls one or both houses we get the "oh no it's war" crowed.
 
'neo·con·ser·va·tive noun \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2: a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means'

Neoconservative - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

No, by definition, he knows EXACTLY what a Neocon is.

No, he's really bad at it. If you watched his speech on it, it was absolutely terrible. Much of it was conspiracy theory-laden junk laced with the ideas of Shadia Drury. Paul's understanding of it is pretty poor. Besides that he's presuming that the Jackson wing is your main body of candidates here (which isn't the case), and furthermore, they're going to control the dialogue here (which they won't).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom