Is Ron Paul anti-war???

[THEBIRD]

Lets look at his argument.


Question: Does anyone on this website believe that our policies or the policies of our president is going to bring peace and stability to the middle east?

Its never going to happen....trust me, I've read the book.

So why try?

Ron Paul is against having our troops in an area of the world building bases that will exist for the next 30+ years, when that area of the world will never NEVER see peace and stability. Our troops will always have a target on their back simply because they are the troops from the great satan.

So bring them home and the next time someone attacks us, push the button and ruin their day.

FACTS FROM THE DOD WEBSITE: (look it up)

Over 500,000 American troops overseas
Over 800 bases/installations (not including embassies)
Troops deployed to over 130 countries (not including embassies)

We have over 75,000 troops in Germany alone. What the hell for? That war ended a half century ago. Are they just going to be deployed their forever?!?!?

Ron Paul's message is not one where he has a flower in his bonnet. He is not a peace loving hippy. His message is bring the troops home and when someone f*cks with us, turn them to glass.

Meanwhile put the troops on our border to protect the American citizen.

He's not anti-war....he anti-keeping our troops in a sh*thole that will never be at peace till Christ comes back.

[mkafrica]

The #1 reason why I will not vote for RP, ever, is because he wants to pull all of our troops back to the States. IMO, he is anti-war.

[Suzie]

He voted for this war. I don't think he's anti war, I think he's anti troops, he must be, because his betrayal got some of them killed.

He voted for the war ... he voted against the troops.

[DoctorDoom]

He is by his actions pro-terrorism, although his blind groupies can't see that, given that their outlook is severely limited by the expanse of his lip-moistened buttcheeks.

[THEBIRD]

fine....I guess the sooner we have troops in every country in the world....the sooner we will have peace. Anyone who is against that is anti-war huh?

[Rhino]

There are 1,375,441 personnel on active duty (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/ms0.pdf). 1,082,627 of them are stationed in the US and US territories (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0706.pdf). Now, my math skills are not perfect, but according to my calculator, that only leaves 292,814 that could be overseas, not 500,000.

[Suzie]

fine....I guess the sooner we have troops in every country in the world....the sooner we will have peace. Anyone who is against that is anti-war huh?

RON PAUL VOTED FOR THE WAR!!!!!!!!!! HE VOTED A TO SEND THEM "OVERSEAS"!!!!

If what you are saying is true he's either a liar or an idiot. Both maybe.

[The_Elucidator]

fine....I guess the sooner we have troops in every country in the world....the sooner we will have peace. Anyone who is against that is anti-war huh?

Again, since you don't have a clue as to why he is considered anti-war.

It's because he said the war in Iraq was illegal (which it isn't). And thusly, by not keeping his trap shut until the campaign was over, he helped cause many unnecessary military casualties by emboldening the Islamofascist terrorists.

He's not considered anti-war because he doesn't want troops stationed overseas. INFORMED opinions vary as to which countries, how many troops, number of bases, etc.

Again, parsing words, making no sense and compromising your integrity. Typical MO for Rupaul and his minions!

[bannerman]

hes a DISHONEST IDIOT

that covers it

[satcom]

I can't find anything about him voting FOR the war. Can someone find a link or something?

*EDIT* Here's something but I can't find any links to back it up.

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

[The_Elucidator]

I can't find anything about him voting FOR the war. Can someone find a link or something?

Actually he is even more proud of his vote of no confidence for the troops!

[satcom]

Actually he is even more proud of his vote of no confidence for the troops!

Doesn't he get more troop donations than anyone else?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542&page=1

[The_Elucidator]

Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)


This is one of the biggest reasons as to why I and millions of others will never vote for this POS!!!

[mkafrica]

LINK (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml) to vote concerning response to 9/11 attacks.

LINK (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) to vote concerning war in Iraq.

According to this, RP voted for the bill passed on 09/14/01 and against the war in Iraq. (IMO, it's the same war, but hey)

That makes him duplicitous in my book.

[satcom]

LINK (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml) to vote concerning response to 9/11 attacks.

LINK (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) to vote concerning war in Iraq.

According to this, RP voted for the bill passed on 09/14/01 and against the war in Iraq. (IMO, it's the same war, but hey)

That makes him duplicitous in my book.

So he voted against "To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" and for "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." That's consistent with what he's always been saying. How is this anti-war?

[The_Elucidator]

Doesn't he get more troop donations than anyone else?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542&page=1



The center tallied money from donors who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer. Overall, these donations are miniscule: Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.



Altschuler cautioned against reading too much into the early contributions, particularly in such small amounts. "These figures could look very different in a few months."

Do you even read the dribble you link to? You just prove my point about you idiots parsing words and lacking integrity.

When the GOP settles on a candidate, the conservatives that are holding on to their money (to include the Armed Forces) will open the checkbooks for the General Election.

When you Rupauletts come to debate, please quit coming unarmed!!!

[satcom]

I think the proportion of donations is a pretty good barometer of what the troops support. Those numbers are increadibly tiny but still, why aren't any of the other pro-iraq war candidates getting more donations?

[Rhino]

Those who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer are not allowed to donate to campaigns, as per federal law. Contractors are not allowed either, which is why I can't donate to Fred's campaign. The numbers you see for those candidates might better be an indicator for more dumb people ignorant of the law, rather than an indicator of support from the military.

[Suzie]

Those who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer are not allowed to donate to campaigns, as per federal law. Contractors are not allowed either, which is why I can't donate to Fred's campaign. The numbers you see for those candidates might better be an indicator for dumb people ignorant of the law, rather than an indicator of support from the military.

Not to worry, I am giving him your server fee.

[Rhino]

:lol: Thanks!

[satcom]

Apparently they're using out of country addresses to donate money to his website.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=55386

[Rhino]

Address makes no difference. It goes by the same employer listings that the ABC article cites. They aren't supposed to send it, and the candidates are required to return the donations.

[The_Elucidator]

Those who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer are not allowed to donate to campaigns, as per federal law. Contractors are not allowed either, which is why I can't donate to Fred's campaign. The numbers you see for those candidates might better be an indicator for more dumb people ignorant of the law, rather than an indicator of support from the military.

I can't speak for all branches as I am not familiar with their AFI's, but as I recall, one CAN donate to a political committee or organization that favors a particular candidate in the race, which is what I and many others did. Unless AFI 51-902 has changed since I retired, it still holds true. And we are in complete agreement on people being ignorant of the law.

[satcom]

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You're allowed to make donations to a party (4.1.1.2) but not an employee of the Federal Government (4.1.2.4)

[Suzie]

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf

You're allowed to make donations to a party (4.1.1.2) but not an employee of the Federal Government (4.1.2.4)

Ron Paul isn't a "party" but he is an employee of the federal government. Senators are Federal Civil service employees and they get the Federal Employees pension.

[satcom]

Yes that's right, Suzie.

[Naturalized-Texan]

So he voted against "To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" and for "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." That's consistent with what he's always been saying. How is this anti-war?
False.

On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. That declaration of war stated, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." (Note the plural of the word "nations")

That declaration of war clearly included Iraq, since Iraq under Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda. And that declaration also included Iran, Syria, and any other nation that sponsors terrorism.

[satcom]

False.

On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. That declaration of war that stated, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." (Note the plural of the word "nations")

That declaration of war clearly included Iraq, since Iraq under Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda. And that declaration also included Iran, Syria, and any other nation that sponsored terrorism.

Iraq, as a nation, had nothing to do with 9/11.

So he voted against "To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" and for "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." That's consistent with what he's always been saying. How is this anti-war?

That is not false.

[mkafrica]

False.

On September 14, 2001, Ron Paul voted for a declaration of war against terrorism. That declaration of war stated, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." (Note the plural of the word "nations")

That declaration of war clearly included Iraq, since Iraq under Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda. And that declaration also included Iran, Syria, and any other nation that sponsors terrorism.

That's my read on it as well. He voted for that resolution, and then voted against the resolution for going into Iraq... That's the duplicity. How can you vote for the declaration of war against those involved in 9/11, and then against a country harboring said involved?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Not only is Ron Paul anti-war, but he is also anti-American and pro-terrorist. Even worse, he is a traitor since he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies during a war in which the very survival of our nation is at stake.

[satcom]

lol wut

[mkafrica]

Iraq, as a nation, had nothing to do with 9/11.

As best I can recall, didn't they harbor terrorist organizations friendly to Al-Quaeda? (sp?) And that harboring came from the leadership of that country... IMO, they fall under the category delimited by the original declaration of war.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Iraq, as a nation, had nothing to do with 9/11.
Nothing in that declaration of war specified that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Please put on your reading comprehension hat go back and read the quote from that declaration of war and particularly note the word nations and if you have even a 4th grade education you should be able to comprehend that Iraq is included in that declaration of war.

That is not false.
Of course it is. Ron Paul is a pathological liar and in your ignorance, you are easily being brainwashed by his Big Lie Propaganda.

[Naturalized-Texan]

That's my read on it as well. He voted for that resolution, and then voted against the resolution for going into Iraq... That's the duplicity. How can you vote for the declaration of war against those involved in 9/11, and then against a country harboring said involved?
Ron Paul is a John-Kerry-type flip-flopper: He voted for the War on Terror before he voted against it.

[Rhino]

Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:


Corporations;
Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

I can't find the listing for military members, but I know I had contributions returned to me while I was in the military, because I was not allowed to contribute to candidates. I could contribute to parties and PACs though.

[mkafrica]

Ron Paul is a John-Kerry-type flip-flopper: He voted for the War on Terror before he voted against it.

That explains it! :evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

As best I can recall, didn't they harbor terrorist organizations friendly to Al-Quaeda? (sp?) And that harboring came from the leadership of that country... IMO, they fall under the category delimited by the original declaration of war.
Yes, they did harbor al Qaeda terrorists and terrorists associated with al Qaeda.

In addition, there is powerful circumstantial evidence that at least some of the 9/11 terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, about 25 miles south of Baghdad.

satcom needs to read The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered AMERICA by Stephen F. Hayes. It started me thinking about some history of the past 6 or 7 years.

First a little history lesson:

In 1998, when Bill Clinton requested and received authorization from Congress to invade Iraq, Richard Clarke built the case for the invasion on two main points:

1) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States.

2) There was evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to before the first WTC bombing. (Note: Richard Clarke must have forgotten about that evidence when he wrote in his book, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.")

Unfortunately, Clinton never acted, thanks to Monica, hence the 9/11 attacks.

The Iraq operation of the War on Terrorism:

As Stephen Hayes points out, President Bush made a three-part case for the Iraq operation:

1) Saddam Hussein's brutality against his fellow Iraqis;

2) Saddam's failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction;

3) Iraq's connections with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

There was no controversy about the first two parts. Everyone in the world agreed that Saddam had been slaughtering the Iraqi people and everyone in the world, including virtually every intelligence agency in the world, knew that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Which brings me to an aside: Hans Blix declared in his final report to the UN that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN Resolution 1441 because Saddam had not declared his weapons of mass destruction and that he had not provided proof that he had destroyed them.

Here is an interesting fact that I had forgotten about until Stephen Hayes reminded me: Until the very last minute before the Iraq operation actually began, Saddam could have stopped the invasion by merely complying with UN Resolution 1441. Why didn't he? I'm sure that Saddam thought about that a lot as he sat in his tiny cell awaiting execution.

More about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection:

However, there was controversy about the third part above - whether there were connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda despite the fact that Clinton had built the case for those connections in 1998. It's important to note that prior to the Iraq operation NO ONE ever claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda collaborated on the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

However we are now seeing evidence, documented by Stephen Hayes, that there may very well have been collaboration between the Iraq Intelligence Service (IIS) and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11.

Lt. Col. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir of IIS was assigned by the Iraq Embassy as a greeter at the Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia, airport. In January 2000, Shakir escorted Khalid al Mihdhar, one of the 9/11 "pilots" (American Airlines Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon), through Customs and then accompanied him to a three-day 9/11 planning meeting at a condominium owned by Yazid Sufaat, an American educated al Qaeda terrorist. After the meeting, Mihdhar flew to Bangkok and eventually to Los Angeles. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(For more details, see The Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp))

Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report both confirmed that there were Iraq-al Qaeda connections dating back to before the first WTC bombing.

Case Closed Part 2 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2)

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the [DOD] memo [dated October 27, 2003] reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.


FYI, here are some additional links to articles by Stephen Hayes and others:

Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

The Missing Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp)

More Connections (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp)

The 9/11 Commission and the Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/327igxby.asp)

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)

Saddam's Files: New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133)

[TeenageRepublican]

Lets look at his argument.


Question: Does anyone on this website believe that our policies or the policies of our president is going to bring peace and stability to the middle east?

Its never going to happen....trust me, I've read the book.

So why try?

Ron Paul is against having our troops in an area of the world building bases that will exist for the next 30+ years, when that area of the world will never NEVER see peace and stability. Our troops will always have a target on their back simply because they are the troops from the great satan.

So bring them home and the next time someone attacks us, push the button and ruin their day.

FACTS FROM THE DOD WEBSITE: (look it up)

Over 500,000 American troops overseas
Over 800 bases/installations (not including embassies)
Troops deployed to over 130 countries (not including embassies)

We have over 75,000 troops in Germany alone. What the hell for? That war ended a half century ago. Are they just going to be deployed their forever?!?!?

Ron Paul's message is not one where he has a flower in his bonnet. He is not a peace loving hippy. His message is bring the troops home and when someone f*cks with us, turn them to glass.

Meanwhile put the troops on our border to protect the American citizen.

He's not anti-war....he anti-keeping our troops in a sh*thole that will never be at peace till Christ comes back.

Ron Paul wants to get our troops out because he's an Isolationist. Not because he wants to get our troops out of the war.
Sorry, but surrender is not an option for me. Ron Paul would probably be a good governor at best. I agree with him on everything but the Iraq war.

[The_Elucidator]

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

I can't find the listing for military members, but I know I had contributions returned to me while I was in the military, because I was not allowed to contribute to candidates. I could contribute to parties and PACs though.

That's cause they don't take the AAFES Star card... :biggrin:

[Timberwolf]

Tex, you've gotta stop that...using facts will make their widdle brains 'splode.

[Justaguy]

Tex, you've gotta stop that...using facts will make their widdle brains 'splode.
C'mon Wolf... if Tex ever saw a fact, he'd stomp it before it multiplied!

[The_Elucidator]

C'mon Wolf... if Tex ever saw a fact, he'd stomp it before it multiplied!

Tex just swatted Satcom's best shot into the 17th freakin' row and that's the best you got!!! :rolleyes: But of course you guys will completely gloss over his post as if it never existed and bring up the same old tired crap over and over again.

[Timberwolf]

C'mon Wolf... if Tex ever saw a fact, he'd stomp it before it multiplied!
Not from where I'm sittin'...YOU are the one twisting things to suit YOUR agenda.

Not goin' there.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It seems to me that Justaguy is treading on thin ice with his ad hominem attacks on Administrators and Moderators.

[DesertFox]

Seems to me it's been going both ways. We'll take this to Flame Wars if we have to.

[Justaguy]

Seems to me it's been going both ways. We'll take this to Flame Wars if we have to.

No need. I've decided to only talk to those that merit talking to. I've grown weary of piss fighting.

[The_Elucidator]

No need. I've decided to only talk to those that merit talking to. I've grown weary of piss fighting.

That's great; now if you would stop posting "turds" on this forum you will do us all a great favor!

[DesertFox]

Now, now, we're all doing our best to pick them up by the clean end.

[The_Elucidator]

Now, now, we're all doing our best to pick them up by the clean end.

There is a clean end???? Fox, you eatin' organic again?