“The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There’s no way. This is just…this is — this is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It’s a road to our financial disaster if we don’t read the Constitution once in a while.” Ron Paul, GOP Debate Oct. 9, 2007
Ron Paul is an embarrassment and bordering on lunacy with his latest move-on.org anti-war rants that display not only his gross ignorance of what Iran’s President himself has said he is going to DO to the United States in order to fulfill Islamic Prophecy, but the Constitution itself.
For all the moaning he does about our need to open and read the Constitution, he apparently does not understand that the Constitution does not spell out how a declaration of war is to be worded, nor does he understand that the Congressional Resolutions authorizing the Use of Force in both Afghanistan and Iraq are as valid declarations of war as the one FDR asked for on December 8, 1941. Congress controls the purse strings. They funded the war. They authorized the war.
All they have to do to stop the “illegal War” that Ron Paul keeps raving about – is to simply defund it.
But they won’t – because they have no guts for their convictions because everything for the Democrats is politics and power.
But it would be educational to see if Ron Paul would have the guts to yank the dollars out from under the troops and their mission, and I’d bet he’s loony enough to do it.
The lunatics on the Soros-funded Moveon.org Left are fueling the support of the “grassroots” pushing for Ron Paul, and it is interesting as time goes by that Ron Paul sounds as unhinged and insane as any of the rabid Anti-American/Anti-war leftists that fester at cesspools like the Democrat Underground and the Daily Kos.
As such he is eroding any support I have for his domestic application of the Constitution and I’m ready to just count him among the Hate America Left at this point. Considering his constant demeaning of anyone suppoprting our troops and their mission as “neocons”, I have to state that turnabout is fair play – and well-deserved on Mr. Paul’s part.
Let’s take a look at what Ron Paul said today, while I go to town on it with a drawn sword here and cut it down.
Chris Matthews: Congressman Paul, would you — would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren’t so dependent on Middle East oil?
Ron Paul: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. That’s an old theory. It’s mercantilistic, it’s neo-colonialism, that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources.
First of all, the question and this answer Ron Paul gave are absurd. We have as yet to requisition ONE BARREL of oil from Iraq since liberating Kuwaait from Sadaam’s army in 1991 until this present day. So the notion of invading Iraq for oil is completely moot.
Second, the reason we invaded if Mr. Paul would put down his Soros Talking Points and recall history, is that Iraq was in violation of our 1991 Cease Fire, had opened up on American planes, was engaged in producing banned WMDs, and by Sadaam’s own lips – declared Jihad on America after Clinton bombed Baghdad for kicking out the UN weapons Inspectors while at the same time was funding Palestinian suicide bombers. Given our own death toll at the hands of Jihad suicide bombers, a head-of-state supporting and funding Jihadists was completely within the scope of “We will make no distinction between those who harbor and aid terrorists with the terrorists themselves”. Unfortunately for Ron Paul and most Americans, those reasons are not enough to warrant war in this pacifistic PC environment we exist in. WMDs became the main focus, and to a degree – rightfully so considering ho wmuch death and damage was able to be done by 19 Special Forces Jihadists WITHOUT WMDs in their arsenal.
Indeed, this war is a mistake; was a mistake to go in. It’s very costly. And it has a lot of economic ramifications. We’re going broke. We have this huge deficit. We’re spending nearly $1 trillion with maintaining our empire overseas. And that’s a cost.
In comparison to the TRILLIONS of dollars we waste and spend on the failed Welfare Society and the cost of Federal Government programs for everything OUTSIDE of defense spending (which IS a legitimate Constitutional function of the Federal government) – what we spent on the military is paltry, and what we do spend is necessary in this world we exist in.
Right now, we owe foreigners $2.7 trillion. No wonder they have money to come back in here and buy stuff up, and then we object.
The Government has set a great example and even subsidized and encouraged going into debt to get what one wants. Responsibility is someone else’s problem, everyone is a victim in this age and the government LOVES such dependents.
So if we want prosperity, we have to change our foreign policy. We have to live within our means.
Tell you what – YOU get Congress to live within it’s means instead of taxing the producers to death Mr. Paul, and the rest of us will follow your example of responsibility.
And that is the reason all this money goes overseas. And at the same time, we finance all this military activity overseas, it’s bankrupting this country.
No Mr. Paul – CONGRESS, the WELFARE STATE, RUNAWAY SPENDING by yo and your colleagues has bankrupted this country. Funding our military, the troops and their missions is NOT bankrupting us, it’s protecting us.
And not only that; it’s a threat to our personal liberties here and it’s going to be a threat to our economy, because we are beginning to live beneath our means. And that is a natural consequence when you live beyond your means.
So we must change our policy, both overseas and domestically.
Congress is a threat to our personal Liberties Mr. Paul.
You and a bunch of unelected Judges in Robes who decide what is lawful and not, and a host of trial lawyers are our largest threat to liberty. Second, comes in the form of Jihadists YOU have stated are no threat to us, despite what they themselves have said they are going to do.
Mr. Paul I am concluding you are as dangerous or worse than having Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kuccinich as Commander In Chief.
And the Jihadists perceive this.
Which is why they endorse Hillary and the Democrat Party – and why you are their second choice for the job.
5 Comments
October 9, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Iran is not a threat to the US — they have a military budget of $7 billion per years, ours is ten times that if you count Iraq expenditures. With one aircraft carrier group we can control Iran’s skies and coast with ease.
The real reason we are going to war with Ahmedinejad is because he’s selling his oil in currencies other than the dollar. Saddam tried this with euros and got whacked.
Ahmedinejad asked the Japanese to start paying for their oil in yen this summer and they agreed. The Chinese will start paying for their oil in yuan next month. Other oil-producing countries like Russia and Venezuela will follow suit, and we can’t attack everyone.
These countries are sick of importing our dollar inflation with forced dollar transactions. These transaction artificially inflated the value of our dollar over the past few decades but the bills are coming due — look at the dollar index’s decline from over 120 six years ago to 78 now. The dollar is collapsing.
Ron Paul is right — this the fault of the Federal Reserve (for inflating the money supply), the military-industrial complex, and a mercantilist, immoral foreign policy.
We will be killing Iranians in 2008 for the same reason we overthrew Mossadegh, their elected leader, in 1953: they wouldn’t give us a big enough cut of their oil profits.
Our foreign policy is shameful.
October 9, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Explain this. The first question, as you have posted above:
Chris Matthews: Congressman Paul, would you — would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren’t so dependent on Middle East oil?
Ron Paul: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. That’s an old theory. It’s mercantilistic, it’s neo-colonialism, that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources.
Your response:
First of all, the question and this answer Ron Paul gave are absurd. We have as yet to requisition ONE BARREL of oil from Iraq since liberating Kuwaait from Sadaam’s army in 1991 until this present day. So the notion of invading Iraq for oil is completely moot.
Ron Paul said “Probably not” as you wrote. Probably not says nothing about oil. You must not understand English. So Chris Mathews asked a question, Ron Paul said no, you agree with his position, yet you still say he’s wrong. After reading that I couldn’t read the rest. You are either intentionally lying to yourself or anyone who may read this. Sorry I wasted my time getting through the first paragraph. You are un-American.
October 10, 2007 at 12:08 am
I took a look around your blog tonight, and I found a lot of scriptures used in support of war.
It’s important to note that I despise Islam more than you can imagine. The religion (as far as I understand it) has directly descended from moon-god worship.
However, do you really propose a “Crusade” as the solution? Killing Muslims indiscriminately will only lead to more children without parents who hate “Christians” and “Americans” for killing their family members.
Truly, justice should be carried out against those who would commit acts of terrorism and destroy innocent life. I just don’t believe that fomenting hatred towards Muslims is the “best” answer.
The Gospel is the only hope in winning the “War on Terror.”
To conclude, before you rush to sound the “drums of war,” remember what Jesus said:
Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
—Matthew 26:52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword
October 10, 2007 at 1:11 am
Iran is not a threat to the US
Right. Not any more of a threat than 19 Jihadists trained in a desert camp in the backward sands of Afghanistan and sent to America armed with box cutters.
They managed to wipe out 3,000 Americans in under two hours’ time.
So by that reckoning, Ron Paul insists Iran is not a threat to the US, even though they are making nukes they say they are going to use on us.
Boxcutter wielding terrorists are far more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman hell-bent on bringing armageddon to fulfill a religious duty??
What exactly do you people smoke?
do you really propose a “Crusade” as the solution?
Immaterial whether or not we want a ‘crusade’ or not. (fact is we refuse to even consider militant Islam any kind of real threat) The only thing that matters is that Jihadists DO WANT a Crusade, have been waging a crusade, and will not rest until we are destroyed and subjugated in their crusade. We might not want a holy war, but holy war is upon us, regardless.
I do have to thank God the Greatest Generation did not think like people do today. If they did, the idea of “Unconditional Surrender” and the use of the A-bombs on Japan to end the war would never have materialized, and America would be a satellite slave state of the Nazis and the Japs.
Peace comes through the other side of war when the enemies of peace are crushed or annihilated.
That’s a fact, both in this present world, and when Christ returns.
Killing Muslims indiscriminately will only lead to more children without parents who hate “Christians” and “Americans” for killing their family members.
They will hate us regardless because we are not Muslim, we do not submit to Sharia and we have the prosperity and wealth they think they deserve more than we do.
Jihadists have shown they hate the Danes and kill them, the Indonesians, the Beslans, Spain, France and so on. Praytell what did those nations do to piss off the Jihadists if they must be provoked into holy war?
A cartoon?
Different skin tone?
The fact they are not of their exact religious stripe?
All of the above?
Truly, justice should be carried out against those who would commit acts of terrorism and destroy innocent life. I just don’t believe that fomenting hatred towards Muslims is the “best” answer.
Fomenting hatred?
I don’t think so.
I’m calling a spade a spade.
If you want to see “fomenting hatred” – I suggest you visit MEMRI and watch the clips from Arab and Muslim TV from the last 4 decades.
You might learn something beyond the talking points from the nightly news. The hatred against the West and America in particular has been ‘fomented’ by Jihadists for DECADES.
To conclude, before you rush to sound the “drums of war,” remember what Jesus said:
Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
—Matthew 26:52
By that reckoning then, America should never have come into existence at all.
For if Jesus meant Christians should be pacifists at all times, then the taking up of arms against the legal, lawful authority of the Crown of England should have been struck down by the Almighty as sin for a Christian people.
Same is true of the Huns in WWI, the Nazis and Japs in WWII.
Peace comes through the other side of war.
Something even Jesus will have to do at His Return to establish Peace.
October 10, 2007 at 9:26 am
RK,
Your reply is illogical.
Ron Paul said “Probably not” as you wrote. Probably not says nothing about oil.
I will assume you are either unfamiliar with the English language, or are a recent public school graduate.
The question was whether Ron Paul would have gone to war in Iraq if America was not dependant on oil – so the question was PREDICATED on our dependence on Middle East oil and whether or not we would have gone to war over it.
So Chris Mathews asked a question, Ron Paul said no, you agree with his position,
Wrong. I do NOT agree with his position.
Mathews’ question was in regards to whether or not ‘we’ or Ron Paul would have gone to war if we WEREN’T dependent on ME oil.
Ron Paul’s answer essentially says that our motive to war in Iraq is over oil. This war was never about acquiring oil, despite the mantras of the Left and the Anti-war idjits that continue to insist the war is blood for oil.
Ron Paul thinks if we were not dependent on oil, we probably would not have gone to war, which overlooks all the reasons we ARE at war with Jihadists in the M.E.
You are either intentionally lying to yourself or anyone who may read this. Sorry I wasted my time getting through the first paragraph.
It’s obvious you have a reading comprehension problem, and an acute inability to accurately argue a position due your brainwashed worship of a codger who has no clue, nor wants a clue about our enemies and their stated intentions.
You are un-American.
You think what you like.
I know where I stand, and God knows where I stand.
That is all that matters.
But you, you would be calling Jefferson UnAmerican given what he did to the Mohammedans off Barbary – which is no different than what we do to Jihadists today.