Ron Paul’s Misunderstanding of Modern Warfare


Pages: 1 2

Will former Senator Rick Santorum step in to fill the sensible foreign policy vacuum left by Tim Pawlenty’s early departure from the GOP presidential race? One lively exchange in a debate before the Ames Straw Poll should give believers in advancing freedom and democracy some measure of hope.

It came when FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Congressman Ron Paul why he supports repealing sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran and if he supported its quest for nuclear weapons. Paul began his response by recalling the Cold War and insisted that the Soviets were a “much greater danger” because they possessed more ballistic missiles. “Why should we write people off?” Paul asked, referring to the notorious regime.

Santorum seemed baffled at Paul’s response. He touted his own authorship of the Iran Freedom Support Act. Paul could be seen in the corner of the screen scoffing before he suggested that the United States “mind its own business.” Santorum countered that Paul was “obviously not seeing the world very clearly.” Indeed, this retort from “Dr. No,” as Paul’s colleagues in Congress know him, suggests he sees the world as it was on September 10, 2001. Santorum was also right to play up his authorship of the act. It sets him apart from Congressman Paul, as well as the Bishops of his own Church.

The moment American Airlines flight 11 plunged into the North Tower, Ron Paul’s understanding of warfare became just as outdated as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’. Despite the attacks on September 11, not much has changed since their 1983 Challenge of Peace letter which held that nuclear weapons were the greatest threat to mankind — not addressing the ideas of those who posses the weapons. A cursory review of recent statements from the USCCB on war and peace would indicate the Bishops’ central concern is still nuclear disarmament.

Yet, as with the Bishops, Congressman Paul’s mentioning at Ames that the Islamic Republic of Iran “doesn’t even have an Air Force” crystalizes this misunderstanding of modern warfare. As the non-state actors of September 11 showed, the Islamic Republic need not have an air force when we have commercial jetliners at their disposal, which makes Santorum’s Iran Freedom Support Act all the more important.

The act appropriated up to $10 million for the State Department to help finance democratic organizations in the Islamic Republic. The Confederation of Iranian Students is one such organization deserving of United States support. This year, in cooperation with the Institute of World Politics, the students held a three-day Iran Democratic Transition Conference discussing the principles of the American form of government as “preparation” for the fall of the Islamic Republic regime. The conference was especially aimed at laying the groundwork for democracy in Iran.

The students’ leader, Amir Fakhravar, was imprisoned and tortured for five years for his leadership in the July 1999 demonstrations. Fakhravar has shown an increased effort in making the Washington rounds and educating policy makers. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee in 2006, Fakhravar encouraged the United States to help the student movement: “We need means of communication within Iran and with the free world. We need cell phones, cameras, printers to print our books, fliers, and magazines, we need web pages.”

Following the purported elections of 2009, with the help of Facebook and Twitter, Fakhravar’s friends outside and inside Iran were able to organize a widespread, sustained demonstration throughout the country. Back in 2006, Fakhravar remembers the subcommittee’s skepticism of a revolution armed with “cameras, cell phones, and the Internet,” but as the demonstrations showed, it is quite an effective strategy. In June 2009 remarks to the Center for Security Policy, Fakhravar stressed the importance of not losing this moment: “this demonstration is much bigger,” than 1999 because, “we couldn’t talk to the world…we didn’t have any media coverage and we felt alone.”

Pages: 1 2

  • TheAmericanPeople

    I'm going to assume this is satire. No 9/11 did not change 10,000 years of previous warfare. Building up said war propaganda will amount to sanctions and then invasion where countless innocent civilian lives will be sacrificed. These civilians would not even have gotten a chance through self-determination to change the regime. Christians should adhere to the "Just War" theory if anything. And if not that, we should relearn how to wage war. This nation-building and preemptive war is not how you go about it as several prominent military spokesmen and general have come out to say. Let's remember and learn history before we go and force another war on the American people.

    • WakeUpAmerica

      Thank you! Its funny how the author tries to pretend to know about modern warfare and foreign policy. Id love him to answer this question. How come the US has not invaded Saudi Arabia? After all the majority of the hijackers from the day he believes changed mondern warfare forever were Saudi. He mentions Santorum but failed to mention how Ron Paul embarrased and re-educated him about how long we have actually been at war with Iran. Staging coup's around the world in the name of democracy makes the world no more safe and no more democratic.

      • alan g

        Wrong on all accounts. Those Saudi’s on 9/11 were bin laden supporters. Bin laden was kicked out of Saudi Arabia because of his views and actions. We can’t condemn Saudi Arabia any more than we can condemn the us for the imo bomber, mcvey or nasan. With your logic, we should attack ourselves.So please don’t go there. It doesn’t mean the Saudi’s get a pass, but let’s keep it real.

      • Rifleman

        It worked for Jefferson in Tripoli, our first regime change.

        • Santorum!

          Hm, I think you are referring to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

          Actually, if you took the time to study history rather than regurgitate some sound bite from fox news you would read that, in fact, there was no regime change: "Furthermore, Eaton believed the honor of the United States had been compromised when it abandoned Hamet Karamanli after promising to restore him as leader of Tripoli."
          Jefferson actually used diplomatic means to resolve the issue until war was declared by Tripoli.

          • Rifleman

            Actually it was an old article in Military History Magazine, and Wikipedia is a lead, not a source. Maybe you should study rather than regurgitate.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      This nation-building and preemptive war is not how you go about it as several prominent military spokesmen and general have come out to say.

      I am and have always been against altruisitic nation-building missions under any and all circumstances and especially when it is fantasy based and in Islamic countries, but with respect to preemptive war, it would be more than just a little insane to wait until our enemies are stronger than us to act when we could have easily acted beforehand to eliminate them. Indeed, that preemptive war nonsense you are spewing sounds a lot like the garbage Ron Paul spews.

      • milksteak

        Do you have a gun?

        If you have a gun I think we should just lock you up now, just in case you decide to murder someone.

        Dont have a gun?

        Since you might buy one in the future, and then could potentially murder someone, were just gonna go ahead and lock you up anyways.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Wow…all of this just because you are so mentally handicapped that you believe we should not act to stop an enemy we know beforehand is developing WMD for the express purpose of going to war with us. I don't know what world you live in, but it is not the same one I live in. Thankfully!

          • Ado

            What proof do you have that Iran will directly declare war on the United States of America? What countries has Iran invaded, occupied, and rebuilt before? How many people have Irans armies displaced and killed? I dont know how us Americans can keep this up. Sitting on our high horses telling others they are wrong and dangerous after our AC130 destroys an entire village with 3 cannons blasts. We have unmanned aircraft that can kill dozens in single strikes. Some of you people are sick.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            What proof do you have that Iran will directly declare war on the United States of America?

            Uhm…what hard drugs are you consuming? Iran declared war on the USA in 1979 as soon as the ruling Mullahs ruthlessly seized power and when they held American diplomats with diplomatic immunity hostage for 444 days. They are responsible for blowing up our embassy in Beirut and when they blew up the marine barracks in the same place, they murdered 241 of our servicemen in cold blood. They kidnapped numerous Americans in the Middle East, held them hostage for ransom, tortured them, and then murdered them. They blew up the Kobar Towers and murdered 19 innocent American service men. They've also assassinated hundreds of other Americans in the Middle East. In addition, they have been murdering our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity for the past few years while they have been arming our enemies, and you want to keep on encouraging and emboldening them? What's your problem”

            What countries has Iran invaded, occupied, and rebuilt before?

            Zero, but Nazi Germany had also invaded and occupied zero countries while the Ron Paul appeasers of that era, Neville Chamberlain and his ilk, failed to act until after it was too late to stop him and then all of a sudden Hitler occupied most of Europe and North Africa, when he could have easily been stopped beforehand with very little cost. All it takes is cowardly loons addicted to burying their heads in the sand like you unhinged anarcho-kook Ron Paul acolytes for evil to prevail.

            Meanwhile, why do all you Ron Paul anarcho-kooks bury your respective heads in the sand at the same time you moonbats ask readily apparent questions that you don't want to know the answer to anyway?

            How many people have Irans armies displaced and killed?

            I don't know the total number, but thousands. Hell, they murdered literally thousands of people since seizing power. In fact, anyone and everyone that opposes them is executed.

            Indeed, are you not paying attention, they are holding an entire country hostage? Pull your head out of the sand and pay attention!

            I dont know how us Americans can keep this up.

            Keep what up…defending freedom? Saving our own lives and the lives of our allies at the same time and preserving our freedom? Just how delusional are you?

            Sitting on our high horses telling others they are wrong and dangerous after our AC130 destroys an entire village with 3 cannons blasts.

            Uhm…you are seriously delusional. Take your meds. When have we destroyed an entire village with 3 cannon blast?

            We have unmanned aircraft that can kill dozens in single strikes. Some of you people are sick.

            We have a lot of weapons that we employ to destroy our enemies before they destroy us in self-defense. Big deal. Again, take your meds. You are severely impaired and extremely delusional.

          • Santorum!

            I agree with you. It's just like Iraq, right? All of those WMDs that Saddam was stockpiling. Thank goodness we went in there, started a full fledged preemptive war, and found all of the WMDs that Santorum et al 'knew beforehand were being developed for the express purpose of going to war with us." The world you live in is great, isn't it?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Only unhinged self-hating Ron Paul anarcho-kooks could be dumb enough to believe that all wars are automatically going to be a replay of the Iraq war! I hate to rain on your parade you moonbat, but we already know where all the nuclear sites are, so go bury your head in the sand and pretend that freedom happens by osmosis.

          • Santorum!

            I agree with you. It's just like Iraq, right? All of those WMDs that Saddam was stockpiling. Thank goodness we went in there, started a full fledged preemptive war, and found all of the WMDs that Santorum et al 'knew beforehand were being developed for the express purpose of going to war with us." The world you live in is great, isn't it?

          • GoogleSantorum

            @ObamaYoMoma (sic), (unless you are referring to the Modern Art Museum in NY of course)
            You said, "Wow…all of this just because you are so mentally handicapped that you believe we should not act to stop an enemy we know beforehand is developing WMD for the express purpose of going to war with us. I don't know what world you live in, but it is not the same one I live in. Thankfully!"

            I couldn't agree more. It's just like Iraq, right? All of those WMDs that Saddam was stockpiling. Thank goodness we went in there, started a full fledged preemptive war, and found all of the WMDs that Santorum et al 'knew beforehand were being developed for the express purpose of going to war with us." The world you live in is great, isn't it?

      • AustinDave

        You’re worried Iran will be stronger than us? Camels don’t fly or swim this far. Isreal is much more capable of contending with Iran if we would let them. The Mousad is already assasinating nuclear scientists within Iran (and those with the same name it appears). They bomb nuclear plants before the go online even amid public outcry. Just don’t insult my intellegence by saying “we are spreading democracy” around the world because we oust and kill elected leaders as well as dictators unless they conform to the world corporate takeover. What a bunch of war mongering, brainwashed whimps. If Iran didn’t have oil, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Not every country wants Snookie to be a role model for their young. Our federal government is responsible for defense, which they suck at because they are too busy starting multiple wars around the world because it is big money for the banks that loan to us and the corporations that build the weapons(probably the same people). Ron paul would make this country stronger. The only honest man in Washington that can’t be bought off. He has my vote!

        • ObamaYoMoma

          You're worried Iran will be stronger than us? Camels don't fly or swim this far. Isreal is much more capable of contending with Iran if we would let them. The Mousad is already assasinating nuclear scientists within Iran (and those with the same name it appears). They bomb nuclear plants before the go online even amid public outcry.

          Israel is very capable but they are not capable of preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. They can slow them down and postpone that eventuality from happening, but they can't stop them. Indeed, there is only one country in the world that can do that and that is the USA.

          Moreover, Iran doesn't just represents an existential threat to Israel, beyond Israel it represents an existential threat to the USA and indeed all non-Muslim countries around the world. In fact, Iran has also openly said that once it wipes out Israel it will focus on wiping out the USA. Indeed, it constantly harps that it looks forward to a world without the USA

          Not only that, but if Iran gets nukes, Pandora's box will have been opened as it would render the NPT not worth the paper it is signed on. Hence, the Islamic world, which is obligated to wage jihad in the cause of Allah against unbelievers until Islam is made supreme, would soon become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

          Maybe you aren't intelligent enough to think things all the way through and to understand that freedom must always be closely guarded and defended, but please forgive the rest of us who aren't nearly as mentally handicapped as you are.

          Just don't insult my intellegence by saying "we are spreading democracy" around the world because we oust and kill elected leaders as well as dictators unless they conform to the world corporate takeover.

          Wow “corporate takeover” I like that. Good one! And what intelligence? Give me a break…I'm not a neo-con. Thus, I know that establishing democracies in the Islamic world is a pipe dream. Instead, I'm a mainstream orthodox conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Thus, I believe in peace through strength and not peace through altruism, or peace through love, or peace through winning hearts and minds! Believe it or not, not everyone that considers Ron Paul to be off his rocker is a neo-con loser Indeed, some of us are mainstream orthodox conservatives.

          What a bunch of war mongering, brainwashed whimps. If Iran didn't have oil, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

          Actually people that are wimps are people like you, Ron Paul, and Neville Chamberlain who are too wimpish to act beforehand to stop their enemies first until after it is too late. Yeah…it's you guys that are not only wimps, but also severely mentally deficient as well.

          Not every country wants Snookie to be a role model for their young.

          Who is trying to impose Snookie? What are you smoking?

          Our federal government is responsible for defense, which they suck at because they are too busy starting multiple wars around the world because it is big money for the banks that loan to us and the corporations that build the weapons(probably the same people). Ron paul would make this country stronger. The only honest man in Washington that can't be bought off. He has my vote!

          Damn you swallow that old regurgitated Soviet era anti-capitalist agitprop that Paul spews like you are in the KGB comrade. Indeed, there is a reason why people consider you Paul acolytes kooks!

          • Google Santorum

            "Instead, I'm a mainstream orthodox conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Thus, I believe in peace through strength…"

            Great point you bring up. Reagan did exactly what you are advocating with the USSR (which wasn't just 'maybe going to get a nuke some day' but actually had a plethora of nukes): he went in there and bombed the hell out of them! Oh, wait…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Yeah you said it, the USSR already had nukes. The Iranians don't. Hence, it would be ludicrous not to stop them before they acquire nukes. Why should we let them get the capability to severely harm us when we can easily stop them with a hell of a lot less cost now rather than what it will cost after they gets nukes? Not only that, but several Sunni Islamic countries have already said they will also acquire nukes in response to Shi'a Iran's acquisition of nukes.

            See what I mean, you Ron Paul anarcho-kooks are not only severely unhinged, but you are also totally oblivious to the threat of Islam as well. Indeed, the Soviets weren't Muslims. Hence, they weren't inculcated to love death more than they love life. In fact, there wasn't any Communists strapping on suicide vest and perpetrating suicide/homicide bombings. Only Muslims do that.

    • Rifleman

      I guess You forgot that when Iran invaded the US embassy in Tehran, they invaded US soil, an act of war under your just war theory.

      • Ado

        They invaded the Embassy because we installed a leader in their country. Meddling in a countries internal affairs can also be considered an act of war. How would you feel if you found out Obama was actually funded and installed by the Chinese government? Would you just sit around or join the local Militia to oust the fake leader? THINK,

        • Rifleman

          That doesn't change the fact that they invaded sovereign US soil, and we're justified in going to war against them under just war theory. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are legal procedures for expelling an embassy, and they chose an act of war instead. Besides, the commie was the mad mullahs' enemy, and they couldn't have deposed the Shah without carter's foolish withdrawal of support for his government, and his tacit support of khomeini and his revolution.

          Hussein and clinton were funded by the chicoms, but I'm fighting with the word and the ballot, rather than violence. Nor am I invading the chicom embassy.

  • Mr Joseph Schmoe

    Thank you for the insight Nick. I would however like to point out that you have listened to too many modern warfare "experts." Sometimes 2+2 does in fact equal 4. Vote for common sense not popular senseless.

    • Rifleman

      I guess that eliminates ronpaul, he didn't even know aq's military presence in Yemen predated ours, and thought they were there because of us.

  • http://www.zerohedge.com josh

    Ron Paul schooled Santorum on the basics of interventionism, blowback, and the history of US sponsored terrorism that killed Irans first democracy for the benefit of a British oil company who lied along with MI6 to convince ike that those socialists in Mossadeghs government were part of some communist conspiracy. Ron Paul pointed out the hypocrisy and the way we lose credibility to criticize democracy when we killed it in the first place, just like the US did supporting saddam in Iraq. He is the ONLY sensible Republican running and his ideas of peace and economic prosperity are modern. It is YOUR IDEAS OF MILITANT IMPERIALISM THAT ARE OUT DATED!!!!

    • Frankwye

      Idiots. It doesn't matter where someone is from. A lot of the American Revolutionaries were from Europe. So.

      A nation is not necessary defined by borders. It can be religion. It can be culture. It can be several things.

    • Rifleman

      Yea right, and toppling mosaddegh had nothing to do with his being a marxist. Ron Paul's senile, and that's why he gets creamed in the primaries and can't break 5% in a Presidential election.

  • jester2069

    Nick, you tried – but failed – to skip over one *major* caveat: the attackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Its not like Ackwhatsamajig was President at that time, even.

    Nevermind the intentional mistranslations of Achmeninajad’s sayings (which are highlighed by Juan Cole, who was attacked by the Bush admin for saying so); you’re just totally ignoring our past interferences with that country.

    Please, learn about the subject. Take a good college course if you have to…history is paramount.

  • Egads

    LoL it never changed anything, what part of the nation building was required for seal team 6 to fly into and take laden out? Paul was for putting him 6 feet under, not the rest of the foolishness that only made Americans look bad. Because we got suckered into bad policy and politicians who spew baseless rhetoric but cannot back it up with a history of actions. Israel has dozens of nukes and can shoot rpgs out of the air- believe me they can take care of themselves and can still make a bundle developing military tech and participating in actual trade.

  • LifeB4911

    Nick,

    Just so you know you are actually called one of the sheeple by those of us who read instead of relying on the US Govt and national media telling us what is true and false. I understand for you and many others some programming occurred to get you on board with the Neo Cons agenda. This programming occurred on 9/11 and has resulted in unquestioning allegiance to authority. The agenda you are supporting is clearly stated in PNAC's (Cheney, Rumsfeld etc..) charter, which is released in 2000 and includes the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" to accomplish their goals. What a lucky break they got their new Pearl Harbor and it all happened while they were in charge.

    I understand that people like you write things like this and discount the things you should be paying close attention to, for example,

    1. More money was spent investigating Lewinski than 9/11
    2. You don't get to actually ever see a plane strike the most secure building on planet earth (the Pentagon). Have you ever looked into the automatic defenses of the Pentagon that were available on 9/11. This is the building that for decades built up its defenses to see ballistic missiles and bombers coming into DC. It has multiple independent radar systems and its own missile batteries that respond to the transponder of aircraft entering its airspace. If you have no transponder or a civilian transponder the craft is destroyed if you have a military transponder you safe.
    3. You may have issues with basic math as you are unable to count to 3. In the case of the World Trade Center, 3 buildings collapsed while only 2 of them were hit by jetliners. The 3rd building to collapse at around 5:20PM on September 11, 2001 is the first steel, fire proofed high-rise before or after 9/11 to collapse from fire, which was not hit, by a plane. NIST (the govt) states fire is the primary cause despite the fact they admit the initial descent of the roofline occurred at freefall acceleration. Go watch the video by typing Building 7 or WTC7 into a search engine of your choice. This report released in 2008 includes a “Faith Based” model where the parameter data for the models is withheld as secret by our govt. This should be adequate for you as you are a true believer.

    There are also the actions of the leadership before during and after 9/11. It is clear now after a decade of investigation that our leaders have withheld vital information from the public. George Bush stated he saw the first plane hit the first tower, but that is not possible given no one did until days or weeks later. Bush said no one could have imagined planes being hijacked and flow into buildings but years later we know the Pentagon was practicing this exact scenario with targets that included the Pentagon and WTC Towers. Hey I know it’s disappointing… I voted for the guy…. TWICE!

    I understand that none of this will mean anything to you because your cognitive dissonance “secret” like you all like to say… Funny thing is that I just don’t know how many whistle blowers it takes to wake up a nation?

    Louis Freeh (Director of the FBI 1993-2000)
    Richard Clark (GWs Counter Terrorism Czar)
    Lt Col Shaffer (supported by 2 military officers and a civilian contractor)
    Susan Lindauer (CIA back channels operative)
    Alan Sabroski (Former Director US Army War College)
    1500+ Architects and Engineers @ AE911Truth

    In conclusion sir, it is you that do not understand modern warfare. You cannot even see that you have been tricked into becoming a militaristic empire. The fact is that the US has never demonstrated its strength through military force but instead has led through peace. Mr. Paul is not falling for the fear mongering that allowed the creation of the DHS and TSA. He is not going to follow the Patriot Act, which goes against the constitution of the US. Mr. Paul has it right… don’t be afraid… keep your freedoms and face the danger.

    Wake Up!

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      It is one thing to realize that the US government during Clinton, Bush and now goes out of its skin to deny that Islam is at war against America (and the rest of the world). Such a denial is suicidal and criminal indeed, because it involved suppression of the precious intelligence which could prevent the 9/11, and it cultivated dhimmitude at all levels. It was criminal as well to hide islamic traces in the Oklahoma bombing and few other suspicious plane crashes. And more generally, it was criminal indeed to open America for islamic immigration decades ago and to keep it now.

      Yet it is quite different (and ugly) thing to blame the US government in orchestration of the 9/11 ! See more on it here:
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/IndirectYetSolid.htm

      • Dave

        The "hidden Islamic traces" with Oklahoma City?! You're as batsh*t crazy as the 9/11 conspiracy losers.

        Yes, some followers of Islam reject a lot of modern day social views, but so do some Christians and members of other religions. Then there are those who hate people who practice religion altogether. With your logic, we could stretch that into "Christians/Atheists/Democrats are at war against the US".

        Your gross generalizations, historical revisionism, and factual cherry-picking will only further humiliate you. Stop while you're ahead…

        • Frankwye

          So Islamic extremists are not trying to conquer, terrorize or defeat the US, in the name of Islam/Allah?

          What christian is doing that? Oklahoma was not about christianity at all.
          Hitler was in the name of socialism.

          Democrates are also for socialism but go about changing the laws to allow them to do so.

          Who is making leaps in logic?

          • GWB&WMD

            Bin Laden's Jihad was not enacted because of some lofty abstract religious idea based on Allah; it is a direct response to the US military presence in the Middle East (Don't take my word for it – you can hear/read it from the man himself – watch CNN's 1997 interview of OBL).

            The CIA states this as well (read about blowback).

            Do you also believe, Frank, that because George Bush and others used Christian religious language and rhetoric in their promotion for the attack on Iraq that we attacked that country solely for some abstract religious reason?

            What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…

      • LifeB4911

        Oh. Thanks I did not know that.

        I voted for Bush twice and his father. I supported (past tense) the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but never the DHS, TSA or Patriot Act.

        What happened? I watched the video called WTC7 and then read the report by NIST called "Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" Aug 2008 and Oct 2008 (NCSTAR1A). After seeing the video and reading our US governments report I came to the obvious conclusion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any reasonable person looking at the video and reading the governments own report can come to that conclusion. Let me suggest Pages 44,45,46 (section 3.6). Specifically look at what NIST calls STAGE2 of the collapse.

        I do not see why I have to educate you… go look up the info yourself and then come back here and post why you believe differently.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        Dave wrote:

        "The "hidden Islamic traces" with Oklahoma City?! You're as batsh*t crazy as the 9/11 conspiracy losers."

        See Jayna Davis' book "The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing "
        http://www.amazon.com/Third-Terrorist-Connection-

        Your understanding of islam has nothign to do with reality.

        Anyway, my comment concerned only that "the 9/11 internal job" "case" falls apart.

      • Google "Santorum"

        Yes Alexander, that is the true spirit of America and the vision of the founders: allowing immigrants is 'criminal' – i.e. against the law, which law last I checked is the US Constitution. Article Q section Alpha states: 'Immigrants of varying or differing religious and ethnic backgrounds should be punished for emigrating.' Oh wait, that's not in there, is it?

        Yes, the US was founded on religious and cultural intolerance and conformity, you know, with a state religion, state church, etc. (Oops, must have forgotten about the Seperatists, Shakers, Quakers, Puritans, etc. who fled from Europe for religious FREEDOM – not to mention all the other wacky home grown religions like Mormonism).

        Keep up the good work standing up for American values!

        • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

          After progressive brainwashing since 1920s (see the Skausen's textbook "The naked communist") now liberast are shocked to learn that nations (including) America WERE in fact founded on conformity to one particular faith – the ultimate source of law:
          http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_fo

          They forgot that it was a traitor Ted Kennedy in the 1960s whose bill annulled the previously existing law that the newcomers ought to match the then existing makeup of America in all respects. That until then no nation had received immigrants who DID NOT MATCH its national makeup, because such an idea sounded as a suicide and craziness.

          Incredibly, the rhetoric of Ron Paul adherents became undistinguishable from that of crazy lefts – up to the point that they deny the 1400 years war of islam and care about islam's "grievances" instead…
          http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

      • GWB&WMD

        Does anyone else here find the common confusion over cause and effect regarding Islamic terrorism disconcerting?

        If people only took a moment of their time to listen and read what Bin Laden actually stated as the reason for his call to jihad (instead of the 'reasons' fed to us by our government propaganda machine) they would see that this jihad is a direct response to foreign (ie. US) military occupation in their holy land – Saudi Arabia (and the WTC hijackers were from Saudi Arabia).

        I suggest watching the 1997 CNN interview of Bin Laden, in which he states that he will call off the jihad when the US military troops go home.

        Just look to the Chirstian Norwegian terrorist for an example of the sheer folly of this misunderstanding: blowback inspired blowback. He creates terrorism in response to Islamic terrorism, which was caused by Western intervention (military terrorism).

    • Rifleman

      "don’t be afraid… keep your freedoms and face the danger."
      …So says Sir Robin as he bravely runs away.

      Oh my, a truther. Van Jones, is that you?

      • LifeB4911

        Why would you have a cool user name that conjures visions of the old west but be such a drone. Unwrap yourself from your flag and think about what the founding fathers of this great nation said.

        For example, Ben Franklin said something to the effect of …
        "People who would give up their liberty for security, deserve neither"

        What do you think he meant Rifleman? I think he was talking to you.
        So you can think about how safe you are the next time your at the airport with your family and the TSA agent feels them up before the flight. OR you can let him go ahead a radiate your family…

        Before you start spouting off with your brand names why not first try to coherently address any of the points I made in my post. I believe every person I listed to be much more credible then you.

        • Rifleman

          I don't fly, mostly in protest to such absurdities LifeB4911, and if enough people do the same, things might change in that regard. My liberty was fatally compromised back in the 30's, decades before I was born, and the measures they're taking to catch terrorists affect my privacy, not my remaining liberties. The real threat to my liberty and the prosperity it creates is government encroachment in the market.

          I have my own judgment, and my own knowledge of the Twin Towers, physics, metallurgy, demolition, covert ops, terrorism, and military contingency planning, so the people you listed are irrelevant to me. Since they don't fill the gaping holes and improbabilities I see in the truther theories, their credibility is irrelevant as well.

          • LifeB4911

            Rifleman,
            The "Truthers" as you call them want to have a new investigation into the events of 9/11. This would fall directly in line with the founding fathers expectations for the generations that followed. The patriot act directly weakens the constitution which is the source of your liberties and splitting hairs to gain some validation for our lack of action is cowardly.

            You go ahead and have your own judgment regarding Building 7 which you did not reference above (taking the easy way out). You just keep going with the flow and as in the case of flying you can just doing the next things the gov takes from you too.

        • Rifleman

          Cont'd…

          I don't doubt info has been withheld and/or covered up, some of it for legitimate security reasons, some to cover mistakes, incompetence, neglect, stupidity, and to avoid responsibility and liability. There's a lot I think shouldn't be known to our enemies, and lessons learned and corrective measures being taken are more important to me than seeing the latter group exposed and punished.

          As for terrorists and their sponsors, I've been for going after them in their sanctuaries covertly and/or overtly all along. The islamic variety have been killing my friends since the 80s, and I don't care what is done to them as long as they end up dead.

          • LifeB4911

            Yeah I hear ya… to find the answer would require investigating and possibly learning the truth which may uncover who are the real people we should be fighting. Not investigating so our enemies do not learn our secrets is obviously ridiculous in the light of these same terrorist bypassing every system we had for defense on 9/11…. or did they? did they do it alone?

            If you have been going after terrorists and their sponsors for a long time you are not very good at it. The wars (which are likely unjustified) are only creating more of them.

            You should consider standing up and defending our country instead of just settling for what ever crumbs the gov wants to throw your way.

          • Rifleman

            Now you’re off in lala land. AQ attacked us on 9/11, like they attacked us in Yemen in ’92, Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania embassies, WTC ’93, The USS Cole, and attempted attacks in the PI. Your ‘real’ enemy excuse is just that, a lame excuse.

            The GWOT is one multi theater multi front war against an axis of enemies, not a bunch of different wars. By your illogic, WW2 was three or four dozen different wars, and the North Africa Campaign was just naked aggression on our part. What nonsense.

            In my day the soviet union was our biggest threat and top priority, and they trained most of the commie and Islamic terrorists’ cadre and specialists. The different groups traded (and still do) them back and forth, even while they were killing each other, shia, sunni, and commie, one big unhappy inbred family. We were rarely allowed to go after terrorists then, and when we did, the democrats and people like you would scream bloody murder and kneecap the efforts, like when the dp congressional majority told Reagan to pull out or be defunded in Beruit.

          • LifeB4911

            Oh thanks I needed you to tell me that there are actual terrorists in the world. Look Rifleman I do not have the time or care to have to explain to you the things that make 9/11 need more investigation. Obviously terrorist's attacked the trade centers and people flew jets into them. However, the specific around all of those involved have not been determined or investigated.

            I have no idea what WWII info you are blathering about. My point was that a very real threat existed and we did not have a patriot act. WWII was an actual example of America responding to a real threat, Iraq is not and Iran is not. If you believe they are then you need to change that user name to sissyman.

            Your final paragraph just shows you know nothing…
            Reagan was my first vote and don't worry I got in GW Bush and W. Bush twice. I served in the Army, pay my taxes, raised my family and am as patriotic as the next guy. I supported the attack on Afghanistan as well as Iraq, but as a true American did not support bloating the gov (DHS and TSA), and certainly did not support stomping all over the constitution with the Patriot Act. Stop peddling your excuses to me. The oath that was sworn was to defend against enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Try living up to it.

          • Rifleman

            Obviously, you know little of WW2, because the Patriot Act is peanuts compared to the security measures implemented then. The amount of info we give the enemy and the restraint we now show (though some of it I agree with) is absurd by WW2 standards. The NSA goes far beyond it anyway, has since it was founded, and I thank God that it does. However, I was pointing out that you're confusing wars with the fronts and campaigns of one war.

            My final paragraph shows I do know what I'm talking about regarding terrorists, and your response shows you didn't know what was going on then, despite your service (Thank you for that, btw, regardless of your politics then or now). There's no shame in that, I was merely lucky enough to have access to a lot of experience and information and not too dumb to know what it meant. That you do sound like them now, however, should give you pause.

          • Rifleman

            Cont'd…

            If fighting back is just creating more of them, and making them stronger, why are they having to use retarded people and hostages to get suicide bombers, and why are their leaders fleeing their tribal area compounds to hide in paki cities? I’m almost two decades out of the Army, but I’ve got enough family and friends that are still in to know we’re hurting ‘em bad from West Africa to the PI. The jihadis rightly fear the open sky, and they know they can die at any time without warning. That hurts their morale and recruiting, not us running away and hiding behind our porous borders. You’re as ignorant of their mentality as ronpaul. Yall just encourage them.

          • LifeB4911

            If you think the current US role in that region is somehow making us friends you are dreaming. If you need people with actual experience from the past more pro Military you should try Smedley Butler who retired as a Maj Gen from the Marine Corp and won two Medals of Honor during his service. He could have been a powerful politician but instead wrote the book "Wars a Racket". That's a real soldier.

            Nothings changed and the corporations rule everything including the national media. Our friends in the military are being sent into a no win situation with IED all over the damn place. The Russian's had a crack Army and went broke and lost their nation after 10 years in Afghanistan. Let me make it clear, you are never going to kill all the people you think you need to kill. Your entire plan on handling this issue is to make too many people your enemy at the cost of your nations freedoms and wealth.

            As Ron Paul said we need to get them home and work on those porous boarders. I have not always been a supporter of his, but now I see him as literally the only candidate not owned. I mean literally owned by the machine. Haven't you wondered why Obama and Bush are the same? Did Obama end the wars (no he made them bigger)? Did he close guantanimo (no)?

            We are not in charge of our govt anymore which is why so many things (like immigration) are run the way they are.

            The only thing that encourages the US is peace and diplomacy while the other know we could kick their ass but we don't. This is what drives respect not bombing the crap out of everyone.

            Wake Up!

          • Rifleman

            Now who's blathering? If you think leaving the battlefield to the enemy, cutting and running, will make us any friends or stop the jihadis from coming after us you're fantasizing. It just encourages them and gives them more to use against us and anybody else that doesn't want to live and die under them. The Iraqis don't like us either, but they rightly consider the jihadis much worse.

            If we go broke it sure won't be because of the measily 4% of GDP we're spending on defense, it will be because of our welfare state spending and hostility to profit.

            "As Ron Paul said we need to get them home and work on those porous boarders." Ever hear of Posse Comitatus? I guess legality isn't as important to you as you claim after all. Besides, running and trying to hide behind our border doesn't work against people who object to our existence and are determined to end us. That he mindlessly parrots jihadi and socialist propaganda tells me all I need to know about him.

          • LifeB4911

            Rifleman I you are blinded by something (anger, sadness… not sure), but our country is going broke and we are losing our individual liberties to a government that grows more powerful each day.

            I believe the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean will do most of the protecting as always.

            It just encourages them…? Live and die under them? You sound paranoid!

            We are going broke because we allowed the change to a global economy which worked out great for the banks and corporations, but not for the middle class and regular citizentry of this country. Yes the social programs are a huge problem but to somehow minimize military spending and our engagements throughout the world is tunnel vision.

            You and I are not going to agree and American society is over as we know it. The corporations are now coordinating with the military complex and the goal is globalization and money. Any person who really wanted to end the wars would vote for Ron Paul.

          • ennis

            "I believe the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean will do most of the protecting as always. "

            Yes because they worked so well with Pearl harbour and 9/11

          • Rifleman

            It's not paranoia to watch what self-proclaimed mortal enemies do and believe what they say when it conforms to what they do.

            Ronpaul won't end anything, he'll only put it off for a much bloodier and dicier war later.

  • jerry

    This article is an absolute joke. Rick Santorum has no business being running for presidency let alone being in politics at all. Look at Operation Ajax and read Osama's Fatwa against America that he released in 1996. They hate us because we are over there meddling in their affairs. We do not need another war. If the author feels so strongly about it then he and Rick Santorum can go down to the local recruiters office and enlist in the Marine Corps.

    • Frankwye

      If you talk to African or Indonesian immigrants they often will tell you that if you are not Muslim in those countries you will be killed or persecuted. Nothing about what the US has done.

  • Mahdi

    I bet the guy that wrote the article feels stupid now :)

    • zsqpwxxeh

      Not as stupid as you're going to feel when Paul's perennial campaign "peters" out as usual. :)

      When are you going to understand that Ron Paul is a walking foreign policy disaster area, O Expected One? Stop wasting your (and our) time with this man's absurd ravings. If he showed a basic understanding of international politics we conservatives could take him seriously as a libertarian alternative, but unfortunately he continues to embarrass himself just about every time he opens his mouth on the subject. The article is right on the money.

      • jtwilliams

        US foreign policy is absolutely unrelated to the safety of the average American, and most of us now recognize it! It's a debt black hole for intl financial interests, and if you believe so strongly in this fight, enlist personally, or at least donate your own money. YOU WISH he were embarrassing himself, but independent thinkers around the country know that he is the only one who speaks honestly to the American people. Plus, the peace candidate virtually always wins!

  • RP2012

    I support the troops.
    The troops support Ron Paul.
    Overwhelmingly.
    Since he received double what all other Republican candidates combined,
    that tells me they agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

    I will be voting Ron Paul even if it means writing him in.

    • zsqpwxxeh

      Which troops are you referring to? Those of the Army of Allah?

      • milksteak

        The americal military, idiot.

        • zsqpwxxeh

          That's "American," professor. And what, perchance, is the evidence for the statement that "the troops support Ron Paul"? Don't wait for the translation.

          • DreamReliquary

            A. Good job looking smart by pointing out a typo.

            B. He has been know to receive more donations from military personnel than any other candidate.

          • DreamReliquary

            Oops! Known*

            Just figured I'd correct that before you try to say I dropped out of grade school or something.

      • milksteak

        I think he is referring to the american military.

        You know that one – its the one you want to fight all these wars, but would never actually join to contribute.

        • zsqpwxxeh

          Still waiting for evidence that the troops support Ron Paul. I didn't notice any when I was serving in the 101st Airborne as a combat engineer (but not actually "joining," apparently).

          • milksteak

            Well, he has almost as much military contributions the rest of the canidates put together for one thing:
            http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/j

          • milksteak

            From the politifact article:

            After we conducted this rough check, Paul’s campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, said by email that their numbers showed that Paul garnered $34,480 from members of the military; other GOP candidates fielded $13,848 and Obama took in $19,849.

          • zsqpwxxeh

            Oh, dear. Well, I guess you were right. The U.S. military does support Ron Paul after all. $35k was raised over 3 months, according to the Paul campaign, more than for other candidates. That could be 3500 Ronulans @ $10 each, right? Or 35,000 at a whopping $1 each? Impressive, until you consider that Obama hosted two $35k a plate Hollywood fundraisers this month.

            Please. Show me a respectable poll or two, for crying out loud, or just shut up.

          • milksteak

            Ill take 3500 10 dollar donations from the military over 10 $35,000 donations from banksters any day of the week. The fact that you give any credence to 35,000 dollar donations from people who are obviously in the elite class over donations from regular americans is quite telling.

          • milksteak

            I also like how you request evidence to show that ron paul is popular in the military, then get presented with it and promptly dismiss it with a strawman comparison to an obama fundraiser that has nothing to do with the military (obviously, we do not pay our servicemembers enough to sit at a 35,000 dollar seat)

            Can you show any evidence to contradict the fact that ron paul is most popular with the military? Or do you only operate using straw man logic?

          • zsqpwxxeh

            Milksteak, you are wasting my time. You stated that Paul had overwhelming military support. You can't back that up by saying he got more in small dollar contributions this summer than anyone else. The only way to show this is by polling data. To do otherwise makes no sense. 17 fanatics could have cut him $2000 checks apiece.

            Obama raised much, much more money than any GOP candidate last month. Does that mean he has much more support? Or that he would win reelection in a landslide? Come on. There are some 3 million service members, active and reserve.

            Ron Paul just won, or came close to winning, a pay-to-vote Iowa straw poll. It is meaningless. Just like CPAC polls, or Paulbot swarms on this blog. Utterly meaningless fodder for fools. Sort of like your comments.

          • milksteak

            Actually the most that you can make in an individual donation is 200 dollars (unless you are a corporation), so no they could not have. The highest corporate donor for ron paul is the National Assn of Realtors who donated a WHOPPING 10k. Compare this to Romney/Bachman et al. who recieve MASSIVE quantities of corporate money. Even the slightest investigation into the Paul campaign will reveal that MOST of the funds do indeed come from individual donations (which max out at 200 dollars, making your proposition that a few kook military members could have donated 2 grand a peice patently false).

          • milksteak

            To have a proper comparison to Obama's funraisers, something you COULD use as an example would be the 1.8 million dollars Paul raised over the weekend. This was done without the benifit of corporate sponsers, $35,000 a seat dining engagements, or any cash from goldman sachs/haliburton. That is 1.8 million dollars from individuals, in sums no larger than $200 a piece.

            To compare military funds raised to all other fundraisers put together is deceptive and dishonest.

          • DreamReliquary

            You do realize that just a few days ago on Paul's birthday he raised $1.8 million, right?

          • DreamReliquary

            Directed at the smart ass trying to make Ron Paul seem like he only receives peanuts.

          • zsqpwxxeh

            You do realize that Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee for President, right? Like last election cycle, and the one before that, and so on?

            You do realize that $1.8 m, or ten times that much money, is not going to alter Paul's disappearance from the scene by early next year, don't you? His base is fanatic and obnoxious, but they are strictly limited in size. It's a hard ceiling, bro. Paul rises early, hits his ceiling, makes his ridiculous statements at debates, and then recedes back into obscurity with the reliability of a Swiss watch.

          • Ryan

            As far as I have been able to tell from this thread of comments, the Ron Paul supporters can actually follow a logical thought process without non-sequitors (as you keep doing).

          • DreamReliquary

            I hope you know that Ron Paul only ran for president in 2008 and before that was in 1988, right? You also realize that he's one of the top 3 contenders right now, right? This based off of surveys done by Rasmussen and Gallup.

            Just being dismissive won't make him go away, no matter how much you don't want to deal with him. The "Tea Party" movement STARTED with him, and they became a force to be reckoned with (not that I particularly like them.) Public opinion has swayed since last time. He has much more name recognition than ever before.

          • Jason
  • rod

    I guess we'll wind up "supporting" the democracy movement in Iran the same way we "supported" the Shia freedom fighters in Iraq in the early '90's when our own CIA pledged to help them only to stand by and watch 10,000 of them be gunned down by Sadam. Paul's had it at least partly right all along. We need to stop creating Frankenstines around the world and acting surprised when they turn on us. Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt are just a few of the latest examples. What kills me about the Neocons is that none of them have an end game for any of this. It took us less than 4 years to defeat millions of Japanese and Nazi troops, yet we've spent the last ten years hunting down Bin Laden and roughly 100 of his closest friends. The whole thing is a racket.

    • milksteak

      And spent over 3 trillion dollars. To try to hunt down ~100 people…. If this does not outrage you, then you do not have a brain. So for each of the, lets be generous and say 200, main leaders that we are after we have spent at least 1,500,000,000 (thats 1.5 billion dollars apeice). Do you think that the government attaches that kind of value to american citizens? theres no way in hell. The government would bury 10 times the number of citizens that died on 9/11 in a shallow grave in a heartbeat for that kind of money, yet somehow its worth that much to pursue some jihadists in caves and sacrifice our soldier's lives for?

  • Kan-Wil-Sal

    I loved it when the Santorum said, Iran is responsible for most troops killed in Afganistan and Irak, and I just thought what the hell, since when are those provinces of America. On another forum in a discussion about the TSA someone said how about not meddling in other countries and I responded that you can’t have an ideology that reads something like “we will kill them until they believe in democracy” What if I stated that I don’t believe in democracy and will have to kill every American or meddle in there internal affairs until they don’t believe in democracy? Stupid? – Yes, but no less stupid then the reverse thereof.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Here are a few hints how Mr. Ron Paul understands the basics of war and peace in the present world.

    In 2010 Mr. Paul appeared in San Francisco to endorse a local party hack, making the following statements.

    1) Mr. Paul then in fact supported the construction of the "victory mosque" on the bodies of 3000 New York victims of 9/11.

    2) Dhimmy Paul does not see any problem at all with proselytizing islam and islamization of our exclusively Judeo-Christian nation. It looks like there is no moslem whom Mr. Paul does not love.

    3) In fact Ron Dhimmy Paul does not believe that America is exclusively Judeo-Christian nation! For him it is OK if America becomes islamic nation: this is his understanding of the 1st Amendment.

    As it appears now, Mr. Ron Dhimmy Paul is in cahoots with impostor Obama/Soetoro, because even now, when Obama/Soetoro has officially produced a coarse electronic forgery of his full birth certificate, and has been using a fraudulent SS number for decades, Mr. Paul has nothing to say.

    Or rather he says as though now it is the right time to de-fund the US Military because all wars have already ended with the execution of OBL! No war on islam, mind you!…

    The only aggressor in the world (and a sucker of the US funds) is Israel you know – in the educated opinion of Mr. Paul…

    So much on his understanding of war and peace…

    To be just, I am 100% for his plan of returning to the gold money and balancing the budget.

    • DreamReliquary

      You are so far gone it’s scary. America ISN’t an exclusively christian nation. To say it was would be to spit in the face of the people who came here for religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson himself said the US is by no means a christian nation. Religion has just become highly politicized to hypnotize people like you.

      Yes, a majority of Americans are christian, but to claim that America is an exclusively christian nation would be claiming that it is a theocracy. At that is entirely untrue.

      To claim that all muslims are bad/evil because of people like Osama would be like me claiming all christians are evil because of the psycho who shot a bunch of kids and blew up a building in Oslo. Utter ignorance.

    • milksteak

      You are clearly a retarded person so I won't make fun of you.

    • http://ronpaultoday.com/ Steve

      Point by point…

      1) Ron Paul does NOT and did NOT as you said: "support construction of the victory mosque on the bodies of 3000 New York victims of 9/11." What Ron Paul supported was private property rights. The problem most american sheeple have is that they don't understand that the Constitution was written to protect us from government. If you allow this one un-Constitutional thing to happen (like telling someone they can't build something that falls within zoning on their own property) then what happens the next time they (the government) do something un-Constitutional, and then the next time? And on it goes until we end up with the mess we have now because we have a populace that was never taught the meaning of the Constitution in the State run schools. You might learn something if you were to read the Constitution some time.

      2) I don't know what you're talking about.

      3) We are NOT "exclusively" a Judeo Christian nation.

      4) Wasn't Trump the only other "candidate" that has said anything about BO's fake birth certificate?

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        1) Ron Paul did speak about that damn mosque several minutes in the sense that it is OK and he sees no problems with it – and with any mosque in the US!

        A problem with the victory mosque on the grave yard of the 9/11 (or with an 11 story Hammer and sickle, or Swastika) should be judged not from the property rights at all. It is an enemy propaganda instruments, and there exist Constitutional means to deal with them properly. The problem with Ron Paul is that he does not see the problem, while any decent person does.

        2) You did read what I was talking about: it was proselytizing of islam and islamization of America, which seems to be OK with you and Ron Paul.

        3) You wrote: We are NOT "exclusively" a Judeo Christian nation.

        I and other people are sure that your are wrong. The foundling fathers would turn in the grave if they heard as though now America is "Anything-in-the-World nation"
        http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_fo

        4) Wasn't Trump the only other "candidate" that has said anything about BO's fake birth certificate?

        You are correct: so far only Trump (among the contenders) had raised this issue which is an indelible shame of this nation:
        http://www.resonoelusono.com/Infamy.htm

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      DreamReliquary,

      The "progressive" corruption of minds alas has gone so far – it's scary.

      Every nation (until the last decades) had been and ought to be exclusively what was its national identity! Then they had not yet invented "multi-culti" utopias.

      The foundling fathers would turn in the grave if they heard as though now America is "Anything-in-the-World nation"
      http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_fo

      It was exclusively Christian (and some Jews) who sought religiose freedom and founded our nation with exactly this identity. The Judeo-Christian identity of America had been generally known and acknowledged fact no less than Catholicism of say Italy, France or Spain.

      No nation is supposed to be a world refuge for "religious freedom" seekers of anything in the world.

      And islam is not just "some of religions" whose worshippers somehow seek religious freedom somewhere in … non-islamic countries :
      http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

      • DreamReliquary

        You can't just keep saying it is and that's the end of your argument. Of course there are obvious signs of Christian influence. That's a given. But they created this country on the grounds of liberty. You can't say that it's liberty and then say "but only for Christians." That's just not how it works.

        Let me just quote you something here.

        "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

        • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

          For the Founders the word "Religion" meant nothing else but THEIR RELIGION, nor could it ever mean anything else because ALL NATIONS THEN HAD THEIR UNIQUE NATIONAL IDENTITY. It is an invention (subversion) of progressives of the 20th century to make you believe otherwise.

          It is true, that a US citizens may wish to convert to islam or whichever, and it is legal. Yet if it becomes massive, the nation must take care TO PRESERVE ITS OWN NATIONAL IDENTITY. And indeed it must never let in even one moslem, just like it controls entrance of commies.

          • DreamReliquary

            That's a whole lot of speculation you're dropping there. You think they wouldn't say "respecting the establishment of Christianity" or "impeding the free exercise of Christianity" if that's what they meant?

            You have absolutely zero ground to stand on. You make it seem like the only religion they ever KNEW was Christianity, like they didn't think other ones would ever step foot in the country. Stop clinging to the silly belief that they only had 1 religion in mind when it's clearly in reference to religions in general. i mean really, who looks like they're brainwashed at this point?

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            That's a whole lot of speculation you're dropping there.

            See for more knowledgeable authors in

            Whistleblower 2003, n. 7, 11

            "You think they wouldn't say "respecting the establishment of Christianity" or "impeding the free exercise of Christianity" if that's what they meant?"

            Their intent was just that the legislators did never favor for one particular branch of Christianity (or Judaism). No nation ever then (and until recently) minded to be multi-religious!

            "You have absolutely zero ground to stand on. You make it seem like the only religion they ever KNEW was Christianity, like they didn't think other ones would ever step foot in the country."

            They did know about other religions, yet they had never ever assumed that other religions would dare to ever step foot in this country. Until the 1960s the immigrant stream into America ought to match exactly the then existing profile of the country! It is a work of progressives which made you think otherwise (as Skousen brilliantly predicted in the 1950s).

          • DreamReliquary

            They say "religion," not "christianity." You can try to convince others and myself that it means something else, but that's what it says. You can also try to blame "liberals" if it so suits you, but that's just how it is.

            I'd also like to note that Christianity is fine, so is Judaism… but Islamism is also derived of the same story. It's like a trilogy and Islamism is the last sequel. Why do you assume Christianity and Judaism is fine, but not Islamism?

            Either way, bottom line is that the nation was started for religious freedom, and the first amendment says there'll be no establishment of an American religion. Therefore there is no exclusive religion.

            Another quote:

            "In his January 1, 1802 reply to the Danbury Baptist Association Jefferson summed up the First Amendment's original intent, and used for the first time anywhere a now-familiar phrase in today's political and judicial circles: the amendment established a 'wall of separation between church and state.'"

            Meaning that the population's beliefs can fluctuate as much as they will it, the government is simply there to serve the people. There is no exclusivity in religions.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            The entire issue Whistleblower 2003, n. 11 is about THE MYTH OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION. Your quote of 1802 is grossly misused. It meant only that no branch of Christianity must be singled out by the Federal authority, but may be singled out by the state authority. Just that.

            THE MYTH OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION was the main slogan of Bolsheviks, and it is also an item of the progressive agenda (see Skausen).

            I repeat, until the 1960s it was a common understanding and the LAW that newcomers into the Nation must match the nation's make up including (but not limited) to Religion (Christianity or Judaism indeed), ideology, race, and so on. Indeed, no commies, no moslems. A person with views like yours would be considered a commie or a crazy.

            You do not even acknowledge superiority and exclusivity of your own national identity. You do not recognize the absolute superiority and uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian civilization in general and of our nation in particular. You lack a common sense at least to realize that the numbers of moslems (and other non-Christian worshippers in the world) exceed American Christians more than 10 folds – and you don't mind that all of them have their foot here. You and your cohorts are simply islamic stooges, dhimmis, from whom moslems would rid of as soon as their numbers here reach the well studied quantities…

          • DreamReliquary

            If you want to live in a country where the country runs your life, move to Russia. Here in America we believe in the freedom of choice.

            Hell, when people first settled here less than half the population was even religious.

            We're going to have to agree to disagree I guess.

    • Rendin Brun

      Hate to burst your bubble about who supports militant Islam but it seems the president is doing all he can to disrupt the power of many middle eastern countries and allow militant Islam groups to gain power of them afterwards.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        Let me see. I guessed Mr. Paul (as his supporters) is strongly against any "nation building" (and so am I). Yet you somehow welcome these latest costly and senseless US interventions which destabilize a fragile coexistence in the Middle East, and empower the most virulent islamic organizations.

        Also mind, that (disregarding tribal differences) there is only one islam, which has been always militant in its very nature.

        • DreamReliquary

          Ron Paul doesn't support any interventionism.

          Wow, you sure know a lot about Islam… Are you…? TERRORIST!

          GUYS, THERE'S A TERRORIST IN THE THREAD!!!!

    • LifeB4911

      Here are a few hints how Mr. Ron Paul understands the basics of war and peace in the present world.

      In 2010 Mr. Paul appeared in San Francisco to endorse a local party hack, making the following statements.

      1) He believes in Freedom so of course he does.

      2) Yes there is no religion he would oppress

      3) A total distortion…. Ron Paul believes in the constitution.

      I think your reaching pretty far on the birth certificate thing… want something concrete to focus on you should really go with the fact that 9/11 was never fully investigated. I suggest looking at writings from Dr. Sabrosky (former director of the United States Army War College, 5 years).

      You are obviously strongly in favor of militarism and want to have a bunch of war with a bunch of nations based on religion. You are not representing the ideals of America but a personal agenda. Your taint on history is revisionist just like senator Santorum tried by starting on Iran in 1979 completely ignoring the United States role in the early 1950s.

      I think your post makes your bias clear and demonstrates why Mr. Paul is a better choice then continuing with one of the others who will surely fulfill your world domination fantasies’

      Good call on the final point about currency thou…. ☺

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        1) He believes in Freedom so of course he does support the building of an 11 story mosque, or the Hammer and Sickle, or Swastika just for trimph of Freedom.

        2) Yes there is no religion he would oppress – especially if it represents an enemy propaganda.

        3)" A total distortion…. Ron Paul believes in the constitution" as he understands it, that is as though America has no national identity based on one particular religion. The founding Father disagree:
        http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/flyer_fo

        "I think your reaching pretty far on the birth certificate thing…"

        Really? You have just said as though Ron Paul believes in the constitution. Isn't it the most egregious violation of the Constitution to tolerate an ineligible impostor and felon having foreign allegiances?

        "want something concrete to focus on you should really go with the fact that 9/11 was never fully investigated."

        I do not pretend to know all aspects of the 9/11 tragedy (just as I do not know much about other great disasters). I just tried to prove, that "the internal job case" falls apart.

        "You are obviously strongly in favor of militarism and want to have a bunch of war with a bunch of nations based on religion."

        You do not know what I want, and it does not matter. What matters is that the enemy wants and wages a war, but you refuse to see it. Not even in our own home (never mind a bunch of foreign nations).

        "You are not representing the ideals of America but a personal agenda."

        And the ideal of America are what: to become an islamic nation, I guess…

        "Your taint on history is revisionist just like senator Santorum tried by starting on Iran in 1979 completely ignoring the United States role in the early 1950s."

        My favorite history textbook is "The naked communist" by Skousen issued in the 1950s but visibly having no avail for this country.

    • jcalton

      Poe's law

  • Dayne

    I agree with the author.

    There is little doubt that the regime has WMD's & intends to use them.
    That's a "slam dunk."
    I am sure that they were connected to 9/11 in some way…

    Furthermore, there is a groundswell of popular support for Americans there.
    In Fact, if we were to invade them we would be "greeted as liberators," & likely "paid for our efforts with oil money."

    What?

    We are talking about Iran, not Iraq???

    So what!

    They hate us for our freedoms!!! Full speed ahead!
    Someone call China & ask for more money….

    • Karl Wurz

      They hate us for our lies. They hate us for our imperialism, as much we (the US) hated the British imperialism (the reason why there is a United States of America and not the British colonies of America). Suggest you familiarize yourself with Dr. Paul's arguments.

      I always ask myself how many of these warmongers did actually serve their country in the military. Dr. Paul did. Did you?

      • christopherl

        They hate us because their scriptures tell them to. Here are some examples.

        Koran verse 005.051
        YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

        Koran verse 049.007
        YUSUFALI: And know that among you is Allah’s Messenger: were he, in many matters, to follow your (wishes), ye would certainly fall into misfortune: But Allah has endeared the Faith to you, and has made it beautiful in your hearts, and He has made hateful to you Unbelief, wickedness, and rebellion: such indeed are those who walk in righteousness;-

        Islam has been a threat to non-Muslims for 1400 years.

        Muslim Hadith Book 019, Number 4366:
        It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

        I suggest you familiarize yourself with Islam.

        • Dave

          I'm running for the hills right now. Everybody get your guns. It's killing time! Just what Jesus would have wanted… Right?! Who's with me?

          I mean F*** this religious tolerance crap that protestant Christianity invented several hundred years ago. Sure it worked for a couple of years, back when Muslims didn't hate Christians, I say we reverse stupid stuff like that. We need to kill everyone who's "at war" with us before the Rapture comes in October and none of this matters.

          And another thing… I'm tired of all of these Calvinist Christians thinking I have zero control of my life. Time to load up and take 'em out. New American Northwest Freewill Pentecostal Presbyterianism (Ames, Iowa chapter) is the only true religion. Vote Sarah Palin!

          • Chris

            Love the sarcasm!

          • zsqpwxxeh

            Hate the bigotry!

      • Frankwye

        I think it is you that hates us for perceived imperialism. (Read the definition)

  • christopherl

    Democracy with Muslims has been a huge failure, and has not made us safer from Islam. Nation building is a waste of money and lives. Santorum does not get it.

    • RobertPinkerton

      1. "Nation building is a waste of money and lives." Money the United States no longer has. Uncle Sam is broke.

      2. Several years ago, an homo-erotic male blogger named Dan Savage (his column is in our local alternative paper) appropriated Sen. Satorum's name for a repugnant application. OTOH, when I first heard Sen. Santorum's name a few years ago, I began thinking of him as Senator Sanitarium, because he sounded to me as if he belongs in one.

  • http://jewishdefense.org AJ Weberman

    The first time I heard of Ron Paul was in the Nazi newspaper Spotlight at that time run by former members of the Abwer and other Nazi spy networks active in the US during WWII. He knows what he is doing by saying cut off all foreign aid it looks like he does not want to see Israel destroyed which in fact is his hidden agenda. Let Iran do the job. Ignore the bomb making program, lift sanctions. This moron can bring the world to an end by raising radiation levels cause it is a new day for the Jews and if Israel goes so does the world's oil supply and so does the Kaaba. What the Nazi did to the Jews will never happen without thousands of Jew haters dying for each Jewish life.

    • Chris

      By ending foreign aid you break the shackles that ties them to the U.S. They can then do what they need to without our tacit approval. This whole "Ron Paul is a Jew Hater" is not only completely false, but is used as a straw man argument to side step debating the history of the Middle East.

      • Frankwye

        I thought it was interesting that he RP could often be found giving speeches at white supremacist functions that sold anti-Isreal literature.

    • milksteak

      No don't come out and say it AJ, the brownshirts will come and take you away. And remember they are listening to you through the trasmitter the implanted in your teeth when you were born!

    • Steve

      What part of WE ARE BROKE and that our current foreign policy is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL that you do not understand?

      Ron Paul has stated numerous times that Israel needs to defend itself, and he has the exact same position for every other nation on earth that we defend. Shouldn't we actually defend our own country for once instead of having a porous border? So for you to make this all about Israel is ludicrous. Ron Paul has stated clearly that he supported Israel bombing the nuke plant in Iraq years ago and would support Israel doing the same to Iran. Are you aware that we give billions to Israel but then also give billions to two of Israels neighbors that hate Israel and want them destroyed? Are you for that too?

      Please show me two things…

      1) Where in the Constitution does it state that we should be involved in protecting another country, let alone being involved in the affairs of 160 countries on this planet?

      2) How can we afford to spend 1.5 TRILLION per year on so-called "defense" when the vast majority of it is being spend offshore?

      • Frankwye

        Isreal is on the front lines and defense is one of the few things the Feds should be doing, Constitutionally speaking.

        • LPM

          sorry, Israel's 'front lines' are not America's – and when our government decides to endorse Israel vs others in the area, it makes Israels enemies our own. Let other peoples and nations choose their own destiny and stop antagonizing others and putting US lives at stake.

  • Chris

    Nick, ask yourself, if you were an Iranian politician and you knew these facts:
    1) U.S. deposes democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953
    2) U.S. supports Shah (dictator) and secret police force for 26 years
    3) After 1979 uprising, U.S. supports Saddam Hussein's war against Iran starting in 1980
    4) After eight years of Iraq-Iran war, 250,000 Iranians are dead
    5) U.S. then attacks and defeats Hussein in 1991 Gulf War (rather easily)
    6) U.S. imposes sanction on Iran in 1997 trying to destabilize country
    7) Not a single Iranian is responsible for 9/11, but U.S. President declares Iran is part of an axis of evil.
    8) U.S. imposes MORE sanctions in 2007.

    Seriously, whose the aggressor in this relationship? Wouldn't you, as an Iranian politician look at how the U.S. completely stopped threatening North Korea once they got a nuclear weapon? Of course you would.

    • Joe Mama

      But, but, but… You're talking bad about the government! That must mean you hate America! Because, you know, the government IS America, right? Not the people themselves. Just the government. Right? Right?

      • Frankwye

        Depends on if the alternative was a bigger threat to us or not.

    • Ennis

      "After 1979 uprising, U.S. supports Saddam Hussein's war against Iran starting in 1980"

      Just so ya know, Saddam Hussein’s weapons mostly came from countries that would later go on to oppose the later Iraq war. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 57% came from
      Russia, 13% from France and 12% from China. Out of all the countries that backed Saddam only 1% of that aid came from united States
      The main opponents of the Iraq war supplied over 80 times as
      many weapons as the main advocates of the war.

      "After eight years of Iraq-Iran war, 250,000 Iranians are dead"

      And whats that got to do with the Us? I mean you can blame the ayatollahs for that amount due to to the tactics they used what with their human wave attacks and all.

      "U.S. then attacks and defeats Hussein in 1991 Gulf War (rather easily)"

      You mean after Said Dictator invades and annexes Kuwait? By the way why would an Iranian politician care about the fate of a country that invaded his country not too long before that?"

      "U.S. imposes sanction on Iran in 1997 trying to destabilize country"
      You mean like how Iran has been trying to destabilise Iraq?

      "Not a single Iranian is responsible for 9/11, but U.S. President declares Iran is part of an axis of evil." Don't really see how that's any different from the name calling Iran does, I mean wouldn't you agree that "great Satan" itself is a little childish?

      "U.S. imposes MORE sanctions in 2007" uh yes, after their non-compliance with the npt".

      "if you were an Iranian politician" Ok this is good right here, tell me what sort of Iranian politician would Nick be? He would he be the sort who the thinks the current leadership in Iran is fa too moderate?, who believes that all homosexuals in Iran should be hunted down and killed, that Women should be even more opressed and that War should be declared on Israel right away and all its inhabitants exterminated?

  • Chris

    You do realize that previous to 9/11 Ron Paul suggested that our interference in the Middle East made us more vulnerable and more of a target for terrorist attacks.

  • Darryl Schmitz

    Our nation was founded on the tenets of the Constitution. To sidestep any of the principles of it is to weaken the entire document. And that is precisely what we are doing.

  • Mark

    Lets just says Nick Hahn III drank all the Kool-Aid… that is he ate the propaganda pie right up and lacks knowledge of the history of war propaganda.

  • Dangler

    The author is correct….One of Christ's most important lessons was that we should always kill those that we disagree with…..Ron Paul, ya right….always talking about peace and compassion…… what crazy cult is he following?

    • Frankwye

      So we should lay down and be killed?

      • LPM

        no… just you.

        How about we defend our borders? Is that so hard? Do you really think that folks in the middle east would seek to kill us if we hadn't been meddling in their affairs for over 50 years? Do you really think that people 'hate us' for our freedoms? How would you feel towards a nation that deposed our elected leadership, that laid siege to us in the form of 'sanctions' (an act of war, BTW)?

        • Ennis

          @LPM

          Maybe I Should give you a little history lesson, Back in 1788 When America was a new nation , When American sailors were taken as slaves by the Barbary states of the ottoman empire and North Africa. They had their ships stopped and their crews carried off into slavery
          About 1 and half million Americans and Europeans slaves were estimated to have been taken between 1750 And 1850.
          Jefferson and Adams went to their ambassador in London and said “Why do you do this to us, The United States has never had a quarrel with the Muslim world, We weren’t in the crusades, we weren’t in the war in Spain. Why do you plunder and enslave our people?”
          And the Ambassador’s response was “The Koran gives us permission to do so because you are Infidels and that’s our answer.”
          And so Thomas Jefferson said “In that case I will send our navy to crush your State and that he did.

    • Rifleman

      The Neville Chamberlain cult, obviously.

      • Frankwye

        Chamberlain wanted to work with the Nazis.

  • ivykid

    Iranians do not all live within the borders of Iran. Ron Paul has pointed out a higher knowledge of modern war than anyone else. If we push the people of these countries enough they will attack us. They are smart enough not to attack us with bombs, missiles, and troops. They will do unexpected things to us from within our own country. This creates a united states that becomes paranoid of its own citizens (AKA) the patriot act. They start to take away the rights and freedoms in order to root out any wrong doers. This adds to the rising debt by funding the homeland security groups like Fusion centers. Ron Paul has made the point that if we do not provoke these people they are more likely to leave us alone. Bringing our military back into our own back yard will keep us safer than half a world away.

  • I miss Georgia.

    I am stationed in Afghanistan as I type this. After deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq there are a few truths that are shared between both of these people. 1— they dont want us over here…. 2.. they hate us but love the fact we are dumb enough to build new roads and supply their armies with weapons and uniforms and become the #1 employer in the country. ….Ron Paul really has the right views and courage to stand up to do what we need to do to repair this broken system and foreign policy. If more members of the military provided more money to his last campaign then even to President Obama I believe the soldiers on the front lines (seeping, eating, living day to day waiting to get home). have a little more insight over civilians who sit at a desk and read articles( who more than likely have never set foot in a middle eastern country much less lived on a day to day basis around the locals) and make biased opinionated "news" articles on the internet. Enjoy your day.

    • milksteak

      You are clearly unamerican! Real americans sit on their couches and watch fox news and advocate for war. Going to afganistan as part of the military and getting your own first person perspective is clearly an unfair tactic to use actual facts to push your liberal socialist agenda of having america not be the policemen of the world. Remember, real patriots dont fight in wars they just advocate for them and expect others to fight for them. You know, just like the author of this article /sarcasm

      • Ennis

        Milksteak let me ask ya something, What have you done to support your anti-war position?

  • IO_Storm

    Santorum will jump out of the race just as Pawlenty did. He doesn't have a prayer of winning the nomination no matter what trash the media is trying to feed us.

    I firmly believe that Ron Paul was 100% correct to say that Iran is not a serious threat. I'd like to point out that N. Korea has been developing it's Nuclear capabilities for years, and also building it's ICBM program. They are a far greater threat then Iran, yet you don't hear any politicians saying we should take them out. Perhaps it is because we know they would at least put up a fight, or perhaps it is because they are friends with China, and we fear China retaliation. Either way, it shows that our foreign policy is to go in and kick the crap out of countries that can not defend themselves, while ignoring larger threats that we fear. To my knowledge, to this date, there has been no proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. They have claimed they are building fuel for Nuclear reactors. I think a little proof is needed before we condemn so many people to die, as would be the outcome of our invading Iran. Remember the WMD stories before Iraq?

    Ron Paul 2012.

    • Fragile Habitat

      How many deaths has he caused in the name of National Security?

    • Joe Mama

      Does North Korea have oil?

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I firmly believe that Ron Paul was 100% correct to say that Iran is not a serious threat.

      If you are dumb enough to believe that nonsense, then you are as unhinged and suicidal as that anarcho-kook Ron Paul.

      • GWB&WMD

        You are the guy (I'm assuming your gender is male) who was advocating treating immigrants as criminals right?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Man…I like that name, “GWB&WMD.” If a name personifies Ron Paul anarcho-kookism that name most certainly does, and, of course, if you are not a Ron Paul anarcho-kook and don't believe in gutting the military, implementing a suicidal isolationist foreign policy, that 9/11 was America's “interventionist” chickens coming home to roost, and that freedom happens by osmosis, then that must mean you are a “Neo-Con.”

          Nevertheless, I'm not a GWB fan or a Neo-Con either. GWB didn't believe in “peace through strength” like Ronald Reagan. Instead, he believed in peace through fantasy based nation-building missions trying to win the hearts and minds of Muslims who are obligated to hate our guts per the text and tenets of Islam no matter what.

          He was also a stealth leftists on steroids, which is why he used 9/11 as a crisis he couldn't let go to waste to needlessly doubled the size, scope, and power of the federal government and at the same time to usurp our heretofore constitutionally protected right to privacy and our freedoms of speech and expression in order to create the false sense of security necessary to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage.

          In any event, had GWB been a Reaganite true conservative instead of a self-hating leftwing loon masquerading as being a compassionate conservative, in response to 9/11 instead of doubling the size of the federal government and pursing two fantasy-based nation-building missions like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, he would have instead banned and reversed Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, sealed off the borders, prioritized our biggest and most immediate threats emanating from the Islamic world, then ruthlessly obliterated those threats while deliberately leaving behind all our death and destruction to fester as a deterrence and constant reminder to what happens when Muslims wage jihad against America and Americans.

          Finally, to answer your question, no I never advocated treating immigrants as criminals. However, I am against illegal immigration and all paths to amnesty for illegal immigrants. I also advocate banning and reversing Muslim immigration ASAP on the grounds that Muslims never migrate to the West or to any other non-Muslim countries to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate in order to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest.

          Indeed, if you look in country after country wherever mass Muslim immigration is taking place in the world today, the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants just like clockwork flat our refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside. Hence, since it is obvious that Muslims only immigrate to the West and other non-Muslim countries for stealth and deceptive jihad to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest, then it is as suicidal to allow mass Muslim immigration as it would have been to allow mass Communist immigration during the Cold War.

        • ennis

          let me ask ya something, how do Mexicans threat their illegal aliens from Guatemala? Do they give them food stamps, , legal care, welfare and medical care?

    • zsqpwxxeh

      First Question: If you see Tel Aviv devastated by a Hiroshima-sized explosion, would that give you the proof you need?

      Second Question: Which major political leader has repeatedly stated that "The Zionist entity must be wiped off the face of the Earth!"?

      • milksteak

        Yes, if Iran nuked israel at that point we whould have total justification to turn them into a glass parking lot.

        Just like if someone shoots another person we then have justification to put them in jail.

        Do you own a gun? If you do I guess we should just shoot you now because eventually you might use it to murder someone.

        If you dont own a gun – dont worry, we will still shoot you because you might have the intention to someday buy a guy, with which you could then shoot somone.

        So were just going to shoot you now if you dont mind.

        • zsqpwxxeh

          Let me try to put this in simple terms so you can understand better, as you're obviously having some problems with logic. The goal is to prevent the obliteration of Israel before it happens, not to provide Ron Paul with the justification he needs to reconsider his policy on Iran.

          If I tell you I am going to kill you, inform you that I am carrying a weapon, slowly withdraw a pistol from my jacket, take careful aim at your head…are you justified, legally and morally, in defending yourself? (Hint: the correct answer is Yes.)

          Does that clarify things a little? The same dynamic (and legal justification) operates in the world of international affairs. Read up on the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for some background on this principle.

          • milksteak

            If you tell me that your going to kill me, just as soon as you buy a gun, and I then shoot you on your way to the gun store does the logic still apply?

          • milksteak

            How far back does this logic strech? Clearly iran does not have weapons yet.

            If your dad told me that he was going to raise his children to come after me, am I justified in killing him to prevent this?

            Bottom line is, a just war and a premptive war are mutually exclusive. If the allied nations had declared war on germany as soon as hitler came to power, it could have prevented alot of suffering, BUT it would have made us just as evil in the process.

            There can be no victory when you win the war but loose your soul.

          • zsqpwxxeh

            No, but you are justified in calling the cops and filing charges of assault (threatening homicide is assault). Procuring a weapon with intent to commit murder is a felony and the store can't sell me the gun if they are aware of the charges.

            The analogy is not only about legality. It's about survival. Paul doesn't give a tinker's damn about Israel's survival or destruction. Conservatives do.

          • milksteak

            The world is not a safe place. Never has been, never will be. War happens. Trying to predict and prempt it is a fools errand, and has brought our country to the brink of destruction. You neocons want us to keep being the police of the world, we get it. We will not do it anymore – you will come to understand this as time goes on.

          • Frankwye

            No, only keeping the bullies at bay as long as we can.

            Sticking our heads in the sand will kill us too.

      • milksteak

        They might do something somewhere at sometime in the future!
        GET EM!

        cowards and chickenhawks crack me up

    • Beatrix

      If this were 1953, I'd agree with you.

  • AL__

    ron paul and his internet brown shirts

    • milksteak

      Yea damn those brown shirts arguing using facts and historical data, why cant they just name call like the rest of the patriotic americans on this board. After all, facts have no place in real america right?

      • AL__

        ron paul is the king of the potheads, arguing with him and his drones is just a waste of time.

        • milksteak

          And yet here you are

        • mlcblog

          their own particular set of exclusionary facts

    • Jason

      Those brownshirts talking all that liberty nonsense. Not me, I'm here waiting for the government to tell me what to do. I trust them.

      • mlcblog

        sick

        I know it's an attempt at humor.

    • LifeB4911

      The real facts are undeniable…..
      Actual Brown Shirts = TSA
      Actual Brown Shirts = DHS
      Rules for Brown Shirts = Patriot Act

      Creator of all these things = George W. Bush

      You have been duped… its hard to cope with but you should try

  • IO_Storm

    Perhaps, in more peaceful talks (not involving invasion plans) we could persuade Iran to allow us some sort of monitoring capability. A way of determining what they are actually planning to do with their nuclear program. This type of solution has been severely hampered by the war mongering Neocons who openly state that they want to shoot first and ask questions later.

    If Iran is being truthful, and we invade, we will have once again been the unprovoked aggressor to a country that is doing little more than trying to improve it's internal electrical distribution grid. Do we want that shame?

    If we can prove that they are planning to or are building weapons, then I say let the Isrealis handle them. They have the ability to carry out strategical strikes. Lord knows they have complete air superiority.

    • Joe Mama

      Or we do what Ron Paul wants and attempt to mend the wounds and establish a mutually beneficial economic relationship with them. They would not attack us if American trade was an important part of their national economy.

      • Frankwye

        I thought you guys believe they are impossible to deal with, that they are too irrational to want democracy.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Perhaps, in more peaceful talks (not involving invasion plans) we could persuade Iran to allow us some sort of monitoring capability.

      You are not only as unhinged and suicidal as that anarcho-kook Ron Paul, you are also as naïve and gullible.

      A way of determining what they are actually planning to do with their nuclear program.

      Actually, if you weren't completely oblivious and severely delusional at the same time, a lot like that anarcho-kook Ron Paul, you'd already know what Iran is up to with their nuclear weapons program. Lord knows they proclaim it all the time. Yet, apparently even though you don't know what they are up to, you support that unhinged anarcho-kook Ron Paul. Indeed, can you be anymore unhinged?

      This type of solution has been severely hampered by the war mongering Neocons who openly state that they want to shoot first and ask questions later.

      With all due respect, you don't have the first clue what a neo-con really is. To you fellow anarcho-kooks, anyone that disagrees with that self-hating blame America first loon, Ron Paul, is a neo-con.

      If Iran is being truthful, and we invade, we will have once again been the unprovoked aggressor to a country that is doing little more than trying to improve it's internal electrical distribution grid. Do we want that shame?

      Could he be anymore oblivious and self-hating?

      If we can prove that they are planning to or are building weapons, then I say let the Isrealis handle them. They have the ability to carry out strategical strikes. Lord knows they have complete air superiority.

      You sound just as naïve and gullible as Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is all the Israelis can do is slow the Iranians down. The truth is only the USA has the capabilities to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program. Indeed, if we let the Iranians get nukes when we could have easily have stopped them beforehand, then we will deserve everything that will inevitably happen in the not too distant future as a direct result. Indeed, you and Ron Paul are a chip off the ole block of Neville Chamberlain.

      • milksteak

        I read your post but there weren't any facts in it.

        Just cowardly hand wringing from a pathetic chickenhawk. If you really believe what you say, then why don't you go volunteer for the military so that you can actually help stop it.

        I wont hold my breath.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I read your post but there weren't any facts in it.

          Why should I post what most astute people already know? I mean if anyone doesn't know the score by now then I'm sorry but that indicates they are loons? Apparently, you must be a loon too!

          Just cowardly hand wringing from a pathetic chickenhawk. If you really believe what you say, then why don't you go volunteer for the military so that you can actually help stop it.

          I wont hold my breath.

          I would like to again but I'm afraid I already served.

          Indeed, that sounds exactly like what one of those American hating leftwing commie pinkos would say. Now you know why real conservatives consider that anarcho-kook Paul to be nothing but an unhinged self-hating and blame America first loon. Not to mention also that he doesn't have the first clue about Islam, but yet nevertheless like a loon he has the audacity to advocate gutting America's military, and all at the same time he talks about freedom and prosperity, like those things must happen by osmosis. With all due respect, Paul, your idol, is a moron!

          Indeed, that anarcho-kook Paul likes to brag about how good of a friend he was with “peace through strength” Ronald Reagan. He may fool you unhinged loons, but he doesn't fool us. The guy is a moonbat!

          As a matter of fact, like Rev. Wright, Obama's notorious pastor, Paul is so self-hating and ignorant that he believes the 9/11 jihad attacks were America's chickens coming home to roost. Indeed, he should be tarred and feathered and run out of the Republican Party for abject stupidity if for nothing else.

          • milksteak

            A) I do not believe that you served, or you would have some understanding of the concept of blowback

            B) You can say that America's policies overseas are not what causes other countries to hate us until you are blue in the face. You can say that they hate us because of their religion or because of our "freedumbs" until you are blue in the face. It wont chance the fact that you are wrong.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            A) I do not believe that you served, or you would have some understanding of the concept of blowback

            Only morons like you and Ron Paul believe in the off the wall ludicrous theory of blowback. I don't believe in the theory of blowback. Instead I believe in the theory of peace through strength and if there is any blowback, it means we didn't kick ass enough and leave behind enough death and destruction behind to fester and to serve as a constant reminder of what happens to America's enemies when they make the stupid and idiotic mistake of crossing us.

            Unlike that anarcho-kook Ron Paul and Obama's Pastor, Rev. Wright, I'm not mentally handicapped or self-hating enough to believe that the 9/11 jihad attacks were America's chickens coming home to roost, as Muslims are obligated to wage jihad against unbelievers in the cause of Allah until Islam is made supreme. Hence, we weren't attacked on 9/11 because of some insane self-hating and off the wall ludicrous theory of blowback, instead we were attacked because Muslims have been waging jihad perpetually against unbelievers for the past almost 1400 years because it is an obligatory duty.

            Moreover, in the last debate Paul just to demonstrate how incredibly unhinged he is cited the 1979 Iranian Revolution as an example of blowback caused by the CIA's ouster of Mossadegh in 1953 . Which only went to show everyone how incredibly mentally incompetent that loon actually is, because Mossadegh was secular and had he still been alive in 1979, he would have been one of the first of thousands of unbelievers the new Islamic regime in Iran put to death. Indeed, Paul and apparently you, couldn't be anymore oblivious.

            B) You can say that America's policies overseas are not what causes other countries to hate us until you are blue in the face. You can say that they hate us because of their religion or because of our "freedumbs" until you are blue in the face. It wont chance the fact that you are wrong.

            While I don't nearly agree with a lot of America's foreign policies especially over the past few years, mostly because the left has hijacked and co-opted our State Department, I nevertheless am not delusional, self-hating, and mentally incompetent enough to believe that we were attacked on 9/11 by jihadists because of our foreign policy. That's just you loons projecting your own paranoia's, neurosis's, and phobia's onto America.

            Moreover, I also know that because all Muslims are obligated per the texts and tenets of Islam to maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for all non-Muslim unbelievers, the constant incitement to hatred and violence that takes place constantly every day throughout the Islamic world isn't because of our foreign policy or even because of anything we do or do not do. Instead, it is a direct manifestation of that Islamic holy obligation to always maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for unbelievers.

            Nonetheless, you mentally deficient loons see that constant incitement to hatred and violence that is constantly taking place and instead of properly analyzing it since you moonbats are addicted to emoting, you instead project your own paranoia's and phobia's onto America like loons. Thus, we constantly hear unhinged stuff like American is exploitative, America is interventionist, America is imperialist, America is capitalist, America is corporatist, and other ridiculous and absurd sundry lame ass excuses only self-haters could be mentally handicapped enough to dream up.

          • Fragile Habitat

            You are what is wrong with the United States of America.
            Its not a Football game, its real people, real children, real lives that we are ruining with you and your rhetoric.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You are what is wrong with the United States of America.
            Its not a Football game, its real people, real children, real lives that we are ruining with you and your rhetoric.

            You moonbats are assuming I support the fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't because I'm not a neo-con. Hence, because I'm not a neo-con, I'm also not oblivious of Islam like you Ron Paul anarcho-kooks and the neo-cons. Also, unlike Ron Paul anarcho-kooks and altruistic Wilsonian neo-cons, like Ronald Reagan I believe in peace through strength.

            Furthermore, unlike Ron Paul, who is a self-hating and mentally incompetent blame America first moron, I advocate stopping Iran before it it acquires nukes because if Iran gets nukes, not only will nuclear weapons inevitably proliferate throughout the Islamic world, but a nuclear war will become a preordained certainty.

            Thus, you moonbats want less war, but because you are mentally handicapped cowards, you will get more and greater war. Meanwhile, I advocate action preemptively and courageously to eliminate the threat before it can matriculate into something major.

          • Kook

            Did you also advocate stopping Pakistan before it it acquired nukes because if Pakistan got nukes, not only would nuclear weapons inevitably proliferate throughout the Islamic world, but a nuclear war would become a preordained certainty…

            …oh yes the same Islamic Pakistan currently being supported with billions of dollars in US aid whilst US veterans starve, homeless on the street?

            You are a warmonger, profligate with the lives of others.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Did you also advocate stopping Pakistan before it it acquired nukes because if Pakistan got nukes, not only would nuclear weapons inevitably proliferate throughout the Islamic world, but a nuclear war would become a preordained certainty…

            Yeah…I vented when Pakistan got nukes and as for as I'm concerned, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal must to be either confiscated or destroyed ASAP. Indeed, people who claim it isn't in the hands of so-called radicals already simply don't understand Islam.

            On the issue of Pakistan proliferating nukes, they tried to proliferate them already but with the exception of Iran, luckily we caught them and stopped them. In any event, in the interim Pakistan has produced far more nukes than it needs to counter India as it can literally obliterate Indian many times over. Hence, the obvious reason it has stockpiled so many nukes is because Pakistan is anticipating becoming the nuclear supermarket for the Sunni Islamic world as soon as Iran renders the NPT not worth the paper it is printed on.

            Thus, if like idiots Obama or some other unhinged self-hating loon like that anarcho-kook Ron Paul makes the stupid strategic mistake of allowing Iran to acquire nukes with impunity, the Islamic world – with its holy obligation to wage jihad in the cause of Allah against unbelievers until Islam is supreme – will become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and when that happens a nuclear WWIII that will make WWII seem like a pleasant picnic in the park will become inevitable and preordained.

            …oh yes the same Islamic Pakistan currently being supported with billions of dollars in US aid whilst US veterans starve, homeless on the street?

            You sound more like a self-hating commie pinko than an unhinged Ron Paul anarcho-kook. While I wouldn't go so for as to claim that veterans are starving, homeless, and living on the streets, since I happen to be one myself and I'm doing perfectly fine, I would claim that the USA giving Pakistan or any other Islamic country for that matter aid is about as insane, counterproductive, and suicidal as it gets. In fact, the USA has not only helped to finance the jihad the Taliban has been waging against us, it has also helped to finance Pakistan's enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons.

            You are a warmonger, profligate with the lives of others.

            Yeah…I advocate preemptive wars to prevent a much greater war. If that makes me a warmonger in the minds of unhinged mentally incompetent loons like you, then I couldn't feel anymore honored or be anymore proud.

          • Jason

            I hate this name calling – claiming people are ignorant or stupid because they believe something different than you – intelligent people can have a logical dicsussion about foreign policy and come to different conclusions.

            I know we need a strong defense no one disagrees with that (except for maybe Code Pink and similar hippie groups), but there's a huge difference in what we're doing in the middle east right now and defense.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            I know we need a strong defense no one disagrees with that (except for maybe Code Pink and similar hippie groups), but there's a huge difference in what we're doing in the middle east right now and defense.

            Sure you do, that's why you proposed gutting the military in your previous post. In addition, I don't support our fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, because they are based on politically correct myths and thus doomed to fail. Nevertheless, I'm not so mentally incompetent that I would advocate gutting the military anymore than it has already been slashed to the bone or letting Iran get nukes with impunity like you unhinged kooks do.

          • Ennis

            "…oh yes the same Islamic Pakistan currently being supported with billions of dollars in US aid whilst US veterans starve, homeless on the street?"

            You mean there are skinny homeless veterans dying of starvation on the streets of America? Have you ever seen the size of people on welfare?

          • Jason

            You should read – Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul for that matter are some of the most well read and educated people you'll find supporting a candidate. I know many veterans and active duty military that support Ron Paul because of his logical reasoning regarding foreign policy. These antiwar sentiments are not based on some hippie peace and love emotional response, but on research and a love and understanding of history. We all love America and support defending this country against real threats.

            I served in the military too and as I'm sure you observed as well, there's a tremendous amount of fraud waste and abuse. Budgets are sumbitted each year for more than the previous year and at the end of the year all the money is spent so that your budget doesn't get cut next year. So the military can use a lot of cutting while still mantaining a strong "defense." Contracting costs are rediculous and could be eliminated by going away from contracts and back to uniformed soldiers.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You should read – Blowback by Chalmers Johnson.

            You should study Islam and stop reading ludicrous theories written by unhinged self-hating morons. Studying Ronald Reagan might help you also cope a little bit better with your chronic self-hatred and with your overwhelming compulsion to always blame America first.

            Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul for that matter are some of the most well read and educated people you'll find supporting a candidate.

            Yeah right…you really mean that they are some of the most mentally deficient moonbats on the planet. They are also addicted to emoting instead of rationalizing, which is why they also are incredibly loud and obnoxious in their fervent support of that moron.

            I know many veterans and active duty military that support Ron Paul because of his logical reasoning regarding foreign policy.

            Yeah right…I bet you do. And I know the man in the moon, and guess what? He hates that loon Ron Paul too!

            These antiwar sentiments are not based on some hippie peace and love emotional response, but on research and a love and understanding of history. We all love America and support defending this country against real threats.

            We know…we can tell.

            I served in the military too and as I'm sure you observed as well, there's a tremendous amount of fraud waste and abuse. Budgets are sumbitted each year for more than the previous year and at the end of the year all the money is spent so that your budget doesn't get cut next year. So the military can use a lot of cutting while still mantaining a strong "defense." Contracting costs are rediculous and could be eliminated by going away from contracts and back to uniformed soldiers.

            Look dude you are an unhinged loon and that is all there is to it. End of story!

      • milksteak

        It must be difficult to be such a coward. Not to mention expensive. Whats the going rate for rubber sheets these days obamayo?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Cowards are people like you, Ron Paul, and Neville Chamberlain who because they are cowards personified appease and coddle our enemies until our enemies become stronger than us, when they could have easily eliminated them beforehand with very little cost if they wouldn't have been so chicken, cowardly, and afraid to act. Indeed, you definitely don't understand what it takes to maintain and hold on to freedom.

          • milksteak

            You never told me how much you paid for your rubber sheets man, comon – Im curious.

          • Dan

            Cowards are you and your ilk, profligate with the lives of the best of America. You deserve your ignominy.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Cowards are you and your ilk, profligate with the lives of the best of America. You deserve your ignominy.

            Your extremely confused and more than just a little unhinged…cowards are people like you, Ron Paul, and Neville Chamberlain. People that know what their enemies are up to but nevertheless are so cowardly that they continue attempting to appease and placate them until is is too late, when they could have easily stopped them with very little cost beforehand. Indeed, moonbats like you cowards don't deserve the freedom you have.

      • Kate

        "The truth is only the USA has the capabilities to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program."

        No, the truth is that Iran is a sovereign nation and no one has the right to stick their nose in. Terrorists don't hate America because of the so-called freedom and democracy…..they hate America because America, with a multitude of excuses, can't keep it's nose out of other people's business.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          No, the truth is that Iran is a sovereign nation and no one has the right to stick their nose in.

          Sorry but we have the right to self-defense?

          Terrorists don't hate America because of the so-called freedom and democracy…..they hate America because America, with a multitude of excuses, can't keep it's nose out of other people's business.

          First of all, they are not terrorists, they are jihadists and the two things are mutually exclusive. So go buy a clue.

          Moreover, Muslims don't hate America as you claim, they hate all unbelievers because they are obligated per the dictates of Islam to maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for ALL unbelievers.

          Hence, it doesn't matter we do or do not do, Muslims are always constantly going to twist it around and use it to incite hatred and violence against us no matter what. Meanwhile, leftwing loons and Ron Paul anarcho-kooks, observe the Islamic world's behavior which is a direct manifestation of Islam, and then transfer their own paranoid delusions onto them and end up blaming America.

          Thus, if you a Marxist, it is because the USA is a capitalist and imperialist country, and if you are a Ron Paul anarcho-kook, it must be because the USA is an interventionist and corporatist country.

  • Robert

    In my view, you are trying so hard to justify the status quo here when it comes to foriegn policy that your argument becomes absurd. At least you aren't trying to argue that the traditional non-interventionist view is 'leftist' because anyone with knowledge of history knows that this kind of, on face value, a very 'liberal' usage of American military might. What blows my mind is that conservatives can see very clearly the faulty arrogance of centralized planning (socialism) when it comes to the economy–the marketplace, yet when it comes to foriegn policy, government planners (do-gooders around the world) suddenly transform into angels who can do no harm. Isn't that interesting? Read Buckley, Will, Russel Kirk, Buchannan, Novak, Jack Kemp and many others…All different in views, share Ron Paul's belief that status quo/establishment foriegn policy is not conservative.

  • http://Www.camdavismusic.com Cam

    Sadly, you are apparently the one with a baby’s grasp of history, military strategy, and a skewed view of reality. IF Iran built a bomb ( and Paul is right, no proof exists Iran has), how would they use it on a U.S. Target? You think a country of 80 million people is going to start a war with the biggest military in the world? You think you could put a Nuke on a passenger plane and just fly to NYC with it? You have no understanding of science if you honestly believe the drivel you wrote. Name one time Iran has attacked us in the lower 48, even tho as you correctly state, we have been supporting and funding sedition in their homeland for decades. Think before you blog.

    • zsqpwxxeh

      The target is Israel, kid.

      • milksteak

        Last time I checked, israel is not america.

        Let me check again.

        Nope, still not america.

        • zsqpwxxeh

          Uh, yes. Israel is not America.

          But Iran's target is Israel. That's why they are building nuclear weapons. To annihilate Israel. First priority. America will be destroyed later, in Allah's good time.

          • milksteak

            Yea I am sure that Iran would continue to exist and suffer absolutlely no repercussions if they nuked israel. You are the one in a dream world. If tomorrow Iran nuked israel, tomorrow evening they do not exist anymore – how exactly will they then proceed to destroy america?

          • Frankwye

            It took them about 65 years to destroy Isreal, one of the last democracies, it may take another 100 or more to get us, but we are the ultimate target. Europe is becoming Islamicized from immigration until they can force sharia on everyone.

          • milksteak

            Israel has been destroyed?

            Damn I must have missed the memo.

            Maybe I should set my caller ID to stop filtering out phonecalls from crazyland.

          • Frankwye

            Im going with the assumption, including yours that if Isreal was nuked. No wonder it is so hard for you to understand logic.

    • Paul67

      Yes Iran will start a War with the US, but they will hide who it was that did it. All we will know is that an EMP took out our power grid. So what does the US do, nuke everyone we don’t like just to make sure got those who did this to us?

      Regardless, we are dead either way. Ron Paul doesn’t understand ‘modern’ warfare and unfortunately neither does our military. Our nation is more venerable now to complete destruction than it has ever been, and all trillions we have spent on F-22, M-1 Tanks millions of troops and carrier battle groups will count for nothing.

      I suggest we give this EMP thing a whirl over Iran just to see if it works, either way we win. With any luck Israel will do us the favor.

      If it doesn’t work then our worst fears are false, good news. Heh Iran must have been a stray asteroid, never no mind. If it does work then that’s okay too.

  • Jon

    Specialist of the 3rd Infantry Division of US ARMY here. This guy who wrote the article HAS PROBABLY NEVER seen what goes on in the Middle East. You have NO IDEA what you speak of. I have seen 6 years of war and it is HOPELESS. Ron Paul will get my vote, regardless of what the MSM tries to say about him.

    • Paul67

      Jon, I agree with you that Ron Paul is 100% right when it comes to the futility of nation building in the Middle East. To you and your fellow soldiers credit you all gave it a good try with the courage of saints, but these guys are no Germans or Japanese whose cultures at least had inherent goodness and skills from which we could help them rebuild their nations after WW2. Muslims on the other hand are parasites who if it weren’t for the oil would be few and the most improvised culture on earth.

      Where Ron is critically wrong though is the ability of our enemies to take out our power grid with an EMP weapons. An attack they can easily do with no return address via a cargo ship in the Gulf. On that front Ron Paul is as blind as a bat. Then again so is everyone else running against Ron Paul, left and right. So at least Ron Paul is half right.

  • Fragile Habitat

    This year, Perry helped cut Public School funding by an unprecedented $4 billion. Facing a $23 billion shortfall for over the next two years, the governor was adamant that the state budget get balanced through cuts. He pressured the Legislature against tapping Texas' Rainy Day fund—around $9 billion the state saved up—to help soften the blows to services. When the House Appropriations chair offered his first draft of the budget, school districts were shocked at the proposed $10 billion cut. 100,000 public school employees could face layoffs.

    It's the first time since 1949, when Texas implemented its modern school finance system, that the state has decreased funding for education.

    Get a clue. If your article was paper, I would wrap fish in it.

    • Rifleman

      Lol, since when are paulers for government education?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Will former Senator Rick Santorum step in to fill the sensible foreign policy vacuum left by Tim Pawlenty’s early departure from the GOP presidential race?

    I hope not. Tim Pawlenty's foreign policy wasn't sensible. It was identical to John McCain's foreign policy. In other words, he doesn't have the first clue about Islam and as a result supports continuing the counterproductive and fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq that are doomed to fail because they are based on political correct myths, and like a loon Pawlenty supported our involvement in Libya, which was also totally ludicrous, by the way. Indeed, I hope no one is as mentally incompetent as Pawlenty and McCain are on Islam and consequently foreign policy. I mean those useful idiot dupes are addicted to propping up what are our eternal enemies, and nothing could be more counterproductive, insane, and idiotic than that.

    The conference was especially aimed at laying the groundwork for democracy in Iran.

    Sorry dude…but democracy in the Islamic world will always inevitably fail. If you haven't figured that out yet by now and after 10 years of failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, you probably never will.

    Nevertheless, if a secular non-Islamic democratic government that outlawed sharia were somehow ever successfully established in a Muslim country and in what was formerly the Dar al Islam (the realm of belief), if the local population of Muslims couldn't obliterate it, Muslims from throughout the Dar al Islam would ceaselessly wage jihad perpetually against it until it was eventually obliterated no matter how long it would take.

    Indeed, look at Turkey. It is in the process today of becoming an Islamic state again thanks to perpetual jihad waged against it ever since it was first established. The jihad was for the most part of the stealth and deceptive non-violent variety, which is beyond the level of understanding by the so-called MSM, and so it operated behind the scenes. It nevertheless was eventually successful.

    Apparently, the writer of this naive garbage is as oblivious of Islam as Ron Paul. While I agree the ruling Mullahs of Iran need to be obliterated and their nuclear weapons program destroyed, the last thing the USA needs to do is to become embroiled in another fantasy based nation-building mission propping up what is our eternal enemies. Instead, we need to leave our death and destruction behind to fester and to serve as deterrence and a reminder of what happens when you cross America. You altruistic nee-cons are destroying America and you are too dumb to learn from your stupid mistakes.

    As for as Fakhravar goes, I wish him all the luck in the world and because it is in our interest to oust the ruling Mullahs I would support providing him monetary and financial support, but if he and his acolytes ever managed to oust the ruling Mullahs, with the exception of monetary aid and moral support, they would be on their own afterward, as I would never support allowing any troops to set foot in Iran for nation-building unless it was to ensure that the nuclear weapons program had been destroyed. And as for as their dreams of establishing a secular western style democratic government goes in the Dar al Islam, good luck with that, because they will have to fend off a permanent and perpetual jihad waged against them forever.

    Believe that a secular democratic government in Iran will be the United States’ best ally and friend.”

    It's a lofty dream, but it is also an incredibly naive fantasy in the Islamic world. The writer of this article would do well to study Islam and find out why.

    • Joe Mama

      Oh yeah. That would be better too cause then we could, like, totally move on more quickly to the next country. Right now we're bogged down in long term occupations when we could be out kicking down more doors! That sucks!

      Ron Paul doesn't need to understand Islam because Islam is not special. It's very simply. If they want to try attacking the U.S. again then they will see what Ron Paul considers national defense. We'll see how many instances of "Big Stick" it takes before they decide they prefer "Speak Softly."

      It's up to them to decide how they want to fit into the modern World. It's not our place to tell them.

      • Frankwye

        Until they pull off a 9-11.

  • jacob

    Mr. PAUL's ignorance is supine when it comes to this kind of matters and is,
    logically the choice of morons and biased idiots of all kind…
    Our consolation is that he is not the only one limping of the same foot, as there
    are quite a few of those in Congress.

    To me, Mr. PAUL is just another market place soap box demagogue who knows
    who to cater to.
    Makes me laugh to read about this kind of morons ranting and raving about the
    help Israel gets from the USA, wishing I could ask every one of them when in
    the hell has an American soldier shed one drop of sweat, let alone of blood,
    for Israel… notwithstanding of course, General PETRAEUS statement that the
    Arab-Israeli conflict is the reason for Muslims to kill American soldiers…..

    • Jon

      What are you even talking about? Your grammar fails so hard that I cannot even begin to understand your point. Holy fail.

  • Eddie

    Nick, you take naivety to a new level. You trying to school someone like Paul on Military matters (or any other matters pertaining to government and the economy) is like happy Gilmore trying to School Tiger on golf. Your stereotypical conservative talking points are boorish and long played out, yawn.

    • Frankwye

      Try reading Victor Davis Hanson. It might be a little over your head but…

  • Haley

    "The moment American Airlines flight 11 plunged into the North Tower, Ron Paul’s understanding of warfare became just as outdated as…"

    Wow, keep drinking from the nipple of the government tit, drink it up, it's good for you and the rest of the minions.

  • http://www.infowars.com Nick

    9/11 was an inside job dumb dumb. Building 7, freefall, NIST lying, no black boxes, etc etc. Get a real job!

  • http://www.wcpro.com Rod

    The idea that America can or should "Pick winners and losers" in the international community is just as dangerous as having government pick winners and losers in the stock market… IT will always backfire and lead to unintended consequences. We have a moral obligation to obey our constitution AT ALL COSTS… by pretending to make us free under the context of war mongering and fear, you are in fact taking away the freedoms from the people by inflating their currency and making government more powerful.

    • Frankwye

      Yep, defending ourselves against Islamofascists "at all costs" is constitutional.

  • milksteak

    It always has been and always will be hypocritical and cowardly to advocate for a war that you would be unwilling to fight in. Of course, hypocritical and cowardly are the main distinctions of chickenhawks so perhaps they enjoy flaunting them with such pride and gusto as in this article.

  • Frankwye

    So Iran hates us because of all those things that we supposedly did, so much so that they are funding anti americanism and terrorism around the world. Saudi Arabia is also, and several of their citizens pulled off 9-11 because we did what to them?

    Paleo-conservatives don't understand that there will always be a world leader or a vaccuum that is constantly trying to be filled. If it is not us, then it will be someone that ultimately will take our freedom away, faster than the Democrats are.

  • J.T.

    I am so glad to see that most people are waking up. No one is believing this propaganda. We need to return to what made this country great and a world leader and not an empire. Heed the warnings of our founders as well as Iesenhower and JFK. THEY DON'T HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS OUR GOV'T DOES!!!

  • graves

    Another day another idiot. No Nicholas G. Hahn III modern warfare is not fought with nuclear weapons. Stop touting 9/11 as a reason to start wars with every middle eastern nation. Neocons like you had their day – and they destroyed what was left of America's reputation. Just die already.

    Thanks,
    America

    • Frankwye

      You must only be a couple of years old. They have been hating us since Reagan because we refuse to act like and coddle the socialist children of the world.

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Selective use of Catholicism as a foil. Why this converso, Nicholas Hahn and not Mel Gibson? Because Nicholas Hahn supports Rick Santorum. This is easy. Find a Catholic lunatic from a good Jewish family who supports the guy who has been courting the conservative/orthodox Jewish Rabbi fundamentalist dollars, and somehow this is not Jewish lobbying against Ron Paul who wants to reform the Fed and defund Israel. Israel gets more US sponsored war against Iran, and the US gets NOTHING but more monopoly for US oil companies. It's simple: Americans want Ron Paul and Zionists want Rick Santorum. AIPAC and hasbaras think they are better than the American voter. Here is an Anders Breivik quote from Rick Santorum: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical." Anyone who believes Rick Santorum has America's interests at hear need only read his Israeli bootlicking article "Israel in Peril" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267797/israe… In my opinion, Israel should stop telling Americans who to vote for.

    • AuditFed

      Well said. Of course the Israel-firsters that infest this website will be only to quick to call you an "anti-Semite" for saying such a thing.

    • mah29001

      I always wonder why you Paul bots are so quick to admit your anti-Semitism then deny it.

      • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

        I think it is because so many Jews have abused the term antisemitism that it is meaningless. Art Spiegelman made good light of this when he depicted his dad showing his Holocaust tattoos when he thought he was being gypped at the grocery store.

  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
    There's room at the top they are telling you still 
    But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
    If you want to be like the folks on the hill 
     
    A working class hero is something to be

  • UCSPanther

    Ron Paul cultists: A dime a dozen

    • mah29001

      They'll ruin America like the O-Bots did but worse.

      • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

        Right. Because America was ruined in just three years.

  • jdude

    Ya, what if the Chinese started installing its preferred government in our white house, and that person became an atrosity, just like what we did to Iran in 1953? Maybe we would have an American Revolution against them??

    American “reaps what is sows’ just like anyone or anything else…

    • Frankwye

      Of course we would but that is only because we have different ideology. Those that like China would be happy.

  • Paul67

    Actually it’s even worse than that. Even those who support a strong military and aggressive US posture in the world are attempting to win the last war.

    What good is spending more than all other nations combined on national defense when a cargo ship with an EMP tipped ballistic missile can take out the USA power grid (thereby killing +90% of US in less than six months).
    http://www.empcommission.org/

  • ackman

    We need a BIG military, because the world is a freaking mess filled with nut jobs who want to conquer everyone else. But we also need to deploy that BIG military with great caution, like the Spartans, only use your awesome military when you really need to. In general we should stay out of the business of other nations, and enter into NO long term defense agreements. If Israel can't defend itself, than that is their business not ours. If the Europeans can't stop fighting amongst themselves and their neighbors so be it. If any filthy m-f'ers sets foot in this hemisphere we exterminate them. They can f up their side of the world as much as they like, we can even make money selling to the sides we agree with. We should defend OUR country and OUR borders and keep the nonsense in this hemisphere to a minimum, be a beacon of freedom, not an enforcer.

  • Eric

    Secure Our Borders!!!!! Then we don't have to worry so much about Iraqis coming over here to hurt us. Also, stop molesting children and elderly AMERICANS in our airports and focus on international visitors! This random selection thing to "preventing profiling" is ridiculous. We are wasting our efforts on people who are very unlikely to be attackers.

  • Rifleman

    Ronpaul didn't even know AQ's presence in Yemen predated ours, thinks they wouldn’t be there if we weren’t, and doesn't have an answer to the jihadis choice of convert, submit, or die, but run and hide. I think he's going senile, and I don’t think it’s coincidence that his supposedly libertarian worshipers sound like warmed over Marxists. Their pack mentality is on vivid display here today

    • PlanetaryEulogy

      We've been dicking around in the Arabian peninsula for decades – including in Yemen. The impact of American influence on the Yemeni government significantly predates the formation of al Qaida, period.

  • PlanetaryEulogy

    Leaving aside the fact that FPM's "understanding" of modern warfare has proved decided imperfect over the last decade, the fact remains that we simply cannot AFFORD the sort of foreign policy that is advocated here. The days when the United States could solve its international problems through the application of unlimited resources are long gone. So are the days when American military and economic power were so overweening as to allow us to operate on the world stage with complete impunity. Military adventurism is in the process of bankrupting us. Left unchecked, it WILL bankrupt us. Economic collapse is real, existential threat to the United States and to the American way of life. Islamic terrorism is not.

    • Beatrix

      True.

  • Seamus

    I'm old enough to remember when the Red Chinese got the Bomb, in 1964. At that time, people were as hysterical about Mao and his gang and people like Santorum are about the mullahs in Iran. The received wisdom was that Mao was insane, that he was likely to launch a nuclear war because (1) he didn't care about the possible loss of hundreds of millions of his own people, since there were so many of them, and (2) he was on record as saying that, since World War I led to the Bolshevik Revolution, and World War II led to the spread of Communism to eastern Europe and to China, World War III might turn out to be good for the Communist cause. Fortunately, we didn't take the advice of the panicmongers (and, if some stories are to be believed, Leonid Brezhnev, who suggested to Richard Nixon that the US and USSR join in a preemptive first strike) and attack China's infant nuclear capability.

    • mah29001

      Here's the difference with the Chinese and the Iranians….no Chinese leader is going to be dumb enough to threaten to nuke someone just because of who they are….Ahmadinejad is dumb enough to say this about Israel that he wants Israel to be wiped off the map…oh wait…you'll likely deny he made such comments….my mistake.

      Of course I'm being sarcastic here.

  • AuditFed

    As I see it, the real reason the neo-cons dislike Ron Paul is because he doesn't kiss the ass of Israel like the rest of the congress. Paul puts AMERICA first, a revolutionary concept to some, I know.

    • UCSPanther

      Yep. Just like the pro-fascist America firsters of the 1920s.

      Except this time, you'll want us to bow before Iran or Russia.

      • mah29001

        Ron Paul reminds me of an American verzion of Oswald Mosley, including his supporters.

    • Foolster41

      It's called standing with our allies. We defend Israel because Israel helps us. We defend Israel because Israel stands for freedom in the ME, and protects the rights of all of its citizens (contrast to Muslim nations). That is not "kissing ass".
      Ron Paul wants to remove ALL support in the ME, INCLUDING our ally Isreal, throwing them to the wolves.

      • ken

        In no way does Israel need us for protection. They are already sitting on a butt-load of nukes along with all the other wonderful weapons we stocked them up with. They are quite capable of taking care of themselves. You must be an idiot to think otherwise. Why? There is no country that can stand up to Israel in the M.E. Besides, how can we help anybody else if we can’t even help ourselves? We’re broke over here, remember? Wake up already.

        • Foolster41

          It's funny because you call me an idiot for disagreeing with something I didn't disagree with!
          I never said Isreal was incapible of defender herself. I said it was worthwhile to defend Israel because Israel HELPS US.

          "There is no country that can stand up to Israel in the M.E"
          You're making the assumption that Israel hasn't been wiped off the map yet, that they will continue to be that way. That is a foolish assumption. Remember Isreal is SURROUNDED by foes who want to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. Are you REALLY willing to risk nearly 8 MILLION lives on that rather shaky assumption?? i'm certinaly not! niether are folks like David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, Glenn Beck, John Voit and many others!

    • mah29001

      And yet you people also claim you are for the Constitution? I guess that'd not include Jewish Americans….

    • Ennis

      You mean like how Ron Paul kisses the asses of America's enemies?