ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[Seshmeister]

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama really really wanted to shut Guantanamo. It goes against everything he believed in and failing made him look terrible. That was a policy without a huge amount of lobby groups involved and irrelevant costs.

The fact that a president can't do something as straightforward as that should make people who think that a president could radically change anything think again.

[Dr. Love]

Paul will win Maine.....



And it will matter fuck all......

I was wondering when you'd come in here to condescend again...

For the record, I agree with you. It's a beauty contest. Maine, like all the other caucus states (except Nevada), has not pledged any delegates to any candidate at a state level. But again, the Paul campaign believes from the precinct delegates that it has been in touch with that it should pick up many of the delegates from this state as well... probably more than it would have received if the straw poll had been binding ... again

[Dr. Love]

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama really really wanted to shut Guantanamo. It goes against everything he believed in and failing made him look terrible. That was a policy without a huge amount of lobby groups involved and irrelevant costs.

The fact that a president can't do something as straightforward as that should make people who think that a president could radically change anything think again.

I seem to recall people making the reverse argument when Bush was President... that someone could drag the country into multiple wars like he did spoke to the President having too much power. Just goes to show ... it's not the office, it's the man in the office that really sets the tone.

[Dr. Love]

That doesn't mean he has a magic wand up his ass that can circumvent strategic realities. How fast do you think Paul would have been able to withdraw Americans from Iraq? If you say an answer in anything less than inn terms of months, you'd have no idea what you were talking about...

Secondly, Obama never said anything about withdrawing from Afghanistan, I think he in fact ran on the mantra that that was the "real" war and where we were attacked from...

I'll let Obama answer that question. That would have been mid 2009 by the promises.

and I'll cite wikipedia to back up my original point.

With the collapse of the discussions about extending the stay of any U.S. troops, on 21 October 2011, President Obama announced the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq as scheduled before. The U.S. will retain an embassy in Baghdad and two consulates with around 4,000 to 5,000 State Department employees. President Obama and al-Maliki outlined a broad agenda for post-war cooperation without American troops in Iraq during a joint press conference on 12 December 2011 at the White House. This agenda includes cooperation on energy, trade and education as well as cooperation in security, counter-terrorism, economic development and strengthening Iraq's institutions. Both leaders said their countries will maintain strong security, diplomatic and economic ties after the last U.S. combat forces withdraw at the end of 2011.

Highlight done by me (not in wikipedia). Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdra...oops_from_Iraq

He made a request based on empty benchmarks agreements made years ago. In fact, Obama wanted U.S. troops out as fast as feably possible to reduce their vulnerability to Iranian operations...



They did. British, French, and Italian pilots flew the vast majority of combat missions while we provided logistics and ammo...


And FUCK Qadouchebag! I hope he's being ass-raped in hell! He murdered people on the Pan Am Fl 103 in addition to his own people he was using heavy weapons on...

to the tune of nearly a billion dollars... but ... what's another drop in the bucket

Because they were fucking hypocrite assholes?

We're not, not for much longer. But I think we went there having something to do with the former gov't sheltering wealthy terrorist murders. What was created after that was largely the fault of the previous regime that ignored Afghanistan in favor of their obsession for Iraq's oil....

we kicked that government out over 10 years ago ... there is no reason to stay over there. If that country wants to defend itself and its government, they should have started doing so a long time ago. The question should have been asked a long time ago: how long is too long?

[Nickdfresh]

I'll let Obama answer that question. That would have been mid 2009 by the promises.

and I'll cite wikipedia to back up my original point.



Highlight done by me (not in wikipedia). Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdra...oops_from_Iraq

Semantics...

Who cares? He gave an advanced time table, but he still withdrew troops. Secondly, by the time Obama became President, U.S. troops were no longer directly involved in combat operations instead focusing in supporting the Iraqis.

But then again, we'll never know how Ron Paul would have been bitch slapped by the Pentagon brass had he tried to enact his delusional insta-pullout, which never would have happened...

to the tune of nearly a billion dollars... but ... what's another drop in the bucket

Don't forget the savings in oil, though, and the possibilities of new markets and a democratic Libya...









Why don't you answer your own question? What would Paul do?

we kicked that government out over 10 years ago ... there is no reason to stay over there. If that country wants to defend itself and its government, they should have started doing so a long time ago. The question should have been asked a long time ago: how long is too long?

Those weren't the easy options Obama inherited...

[Dr. Love]

I do not agree with the idea that Obama brought the troops home (a year and a half after promised) only because he failed to get an extension "semantics" but I guess when he "promised me that", I "took it to the bank" ... but I don't think we're going to agree there anyway.

not sure which question you're asking me to specifically answer.

but, if it was the terrorism thing, well, I'll let a few other people give their views directly than answer for them.

And yeah, being President means you only get to make the toughest decisions. If anyone else could have answered them, they wouldn't reach the President's desk. That's what his job is...

[Seshmeister]

I seem to recall people making the reverse argument when Bush was President... that someone could drag the country into multiple wars like he did spoke to the President having too much power. Just goes to show ... it's not the office, it's the man in the office that really sets the tone.

History shows that it's very easy to start wars if you are president of the US, no one has started more.

It's everything else that they struggle to do.

[Dr. Love]

well, according to the Constitution, the President isn't supposed to be able to do that without Congress declaring war. But, no one has bothered with that since WW2.

But I dunno, Bush was pretty damn effective in getting almost everything he wanted, to the detriment of the rest of us.

[Nickdfresh]

I do not agree with the idea that Obama brought the troops home (a year and a half after promised) only because he failed to get an extension "semantics" but I guess when he "promised me that", I "took it to the bank" ... but I don't think we're going to agree there anyway.

It is "semantics," because you're severally confused. When troops withdrawals were talked about, they meant the bulk of U.S. forces. Even Obama hinted that a stay behind force of a few thousand (mostly special operations) were possible. Troop withdrawal actually means the pull-out of day-to-day operations such as patrolling and combat operations, something the U.S. forces in Iraq began soon after Obama took office as they mostly hunkered down in bases. I believe the numbers of casualties by month would clearly show that, and that operations were handed off to the Iraqis (mostly Shiite controlled army and security forces) and they've been doing it for quite sometime. And please provide more on this "extension" and what Obama was actually seeking to "extend." It certainly was not over 100,000 U.S. service personnel in Iraq...

not sure which question you're asking me to specifically answer.

The one you posted that snarky little pic from that gay bromance Hawaii five-Hole show...

but, if it was the terrorism thing, well, I'll let a few other people give their views directly than answer for them.

I'd rather have your view....

And yeah, being President means you only get to make the toughest decisions. If anyone else could have answered them, they wouldn't reach the President's desk. That's what his job is...

Really? Tough decisions does not mean unchecked absolute power with nil political considerations and a simpleton "black-and-white" view on everything. The world is far more complicated and nuanced for that...

[Dr. Love]

I've never been severally confused before! I disagree, and could easily call you an apologist. What's the point? We don't agree.

My view doesn't really differ. I've read/listened to what the guy had to say, and I take him at his word. And just because decisions are tough doesn't mean that a President isn't responsible for what happens on his watch. It comes with the job.

I took the President at his word on a long list of things. For the few where I feel like he did what he could reasonably be expected to do and failed, I don't fault him. For the many where I feel like he did not get involved enough and let things spiral out of control, or did not do what he could have/should have, I hold him accountable. If Ron Paul were president, it would be the same.

[Nickdfresh]

Aside from making some valid points on the U.S. policies (and the U.N. sanctioned Western policies in general), he comes across as arrogant dick that failed to mention the "illegal/unconstitutional" (both flatly wrong contentions, because if you believe in what Ron Paul is actually saying, they the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard are "unconstitutional" since they are not expressly spelled out in the Constitution!) bombing of a "medicine factory" and strikes on al Qaida leadership in Afghanistan were in retaliation for al Qaida attacks on embassies in Kenya (in which, coincidentally, many ostensibly Muslim Kenyan civilians were murdered) and an attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

Secondly, Clinton didn't kill half-a-million Iraqi children, Saddam Hussein did by not complying, although I don't agree with the way sanctions were carried out.

Thirdly, Ron Paul is full of shit with his fake moralist tripe, mainly because Ron Paul WOULD ACTUALLY BE WORSE since he supports unrestrained corporatism and oligarchy and the domination of Western oil companies of the Middle Eastern oil supply, which is the corp reason that Islamic terrorism exists to begin with! Bin Laden's complaints had really little to do with the deaths of Shiite Iraqi children (whom he considered infidels anyways) and was more about his belief that the West was milking the Arab world dry of oil and paying way too little for it. Ron Paul can spout his Noam Chomsky-esque self-righteous bullshit all he wants, but at the end of the day he supports the same corporatist, extremist right wing "laissez-faire" policies that ended up with us in Iraq to begin with in 1990 (and the Great Depression of 1929 I might add, because I always like to mention what an ineffectual jack-off Ron Paul would have been in 1929, and how much of a Hoover clone he is, because people like to forget that and base everything on a few of his conveniently edited ramblings)...

Cheers!

[Nickdfresh]

well, according to the Constitution, the President isn't supposed to be able to do that without Congress declaring war. But, no one has bothered with that since WW2.

But I dunno, Bush was pretty damn effective in getting almost everything he wanted, to the detriment of the rest of us.

There's a thing called the "War Powers Act," and according to the Constitution, the U.S.A.F. is illegal, because it only talks about an Army and a Navy. Not an Air Force or Coast Guard...

[Dr. Love]

There's a thing called the "War Powers Act," and according to the Constitution, the U.S.A.F. is illegal, because it only talks about an Army and a Navy. Not an Air Force or Coast Guard...

The War Powers Act is controversial with regard to constitutionality.

And I don't think anyone is bitching about the air force or coast guard? But there's a pretty easy answer ... either amend the constitution or put the air force back as a branch of the army, and the coast guard as a branch of the navy.

[Dr. Love]

Thirdly, Ron Paul is full of shit with his fake moralist tripe, mainly because Ron Paul WOULD ACTUALLY BE WORSE since he supports unrestrained corporatism and oligarchy and the domination of Western oil companies of the Middle Eastern oil supply, which is the corp reason that Islamic terrorism exists to begin with! Bin Laden's complaints had really little to do with the deaths of Shiite Iraqi children (whom he considered infidels anyways) and was more about his belief that the West was milking the Arab world dry of oil and paying way too little for it. Ron Paul can spout his Noam Chomsky-esque self-righteous bullshit all he wants, but at the end of the day he supports the same corporatist, extremist right wing "laissez-faire" policies that ended up with us in Iraq to begin with in 1990 (and the Great Depression of 1929 I might add, because I always like to mention what an ineffectual jack-off Ron Paul would have been in 1929, and how much of a Hoover clone he is, because people like to forget that and base everything on a few of his conveniently edited ramblings)...

Cheers!

you've went way off into conjecturism there...

[Nickdfresh]

Then Paul and I have something in common...