Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Campaign propaganda with a totally misleading title. What a joke. If you want to get the people's attention, point to the heavily armed Mexican forces crossing over onto American soil "accidentally". That is real.

reply to post by Raelsatu


this is Ron Paul's "militarism" platform. If we don't want them to do it to us, then don't do it to them. People need to start asking who all this war garbage benefits. sure ain't us regular folk

Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Campaign propaganda with a totally misleading title. What a joke. If you want to get the people's attention, point to the heavily armed Mexican forces crossing over onto American soil "accidentally". That is real.

Obama is welcoming them with open arms. This video is something Ron Paul talks about as his reasoning for wanting to stop our imperialistic militarism.

Originally posted by johnnygamble
so as far as your question of if i would go to arms....I'm just waiting for an opportunity..i look forward to it to a point actually

Well that says a lot. Now I understand why you don't like the video/speech..

Originally posted by BadNinja68

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by kyred

 

Perhaps you should watch it and find out.

Perhaps you should summarize the video, instead of posting coy replies.
I do not just click vid links on message boards that do not at least have a summary of the topic.
I reserve the right to decide whether the video is worth my time or not.


Summary would be nice rather than trying to bait readers into clicking randon vid links.

Usually I would agree with you, but, for once I don't agree with your statement about just putting a video up. Everyone would have known exactly what was happening and what the message intended. It was more for shock value. For the people that actually watched it, it is a great message. For those that don't like it, the truth hurts doesn't it?

Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Campaign propaganda with a totally misleading title. What a joke. If you want to get the people's attention, point to the heavily armed Mexican forces crossing over onto American soil "accidentally". That is real.

So you are denying this makes sense? I just want to clear that up, before you switch over to a completely different subject. The title IS misleading, but, it made you watch this didn't it?

Let me chime in too, I Love It! It really puts our pride in perspective.

S & F my friend

Originally posted by NightGypsy

I am quite aware that many people "took up arms" with American troops. I don't need your help in this regard, but thanks anyway.

Why is it America's job to make sure that foreign countries elect "good leaders?" Do other countries occupy our soil to ensure we do the same? Get off your soapbox because I am very tired of hearing this rhetoric from those who keep supporting our need to impose our "views" on other nations with the use of the military.

Obviously you are not because you seem to believe that "Iraqis don't want us there"... It is the Islamic extremists from other countries, and the remaining forces of Saddam's socialist Baath party who have been attacking Iraqis and U.S. as well as allied forces...

Second of all, Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups which have even attacked Americans including in our soil...

Just like the founding fathers did against the Islamic extremists/pirates during the Barbary Wars 1801-1816 we should make it clear that if any country harbors, trains, and or funds terrorist groups that attack us we will respond in force.

Maybe you should be reminded...

..

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripolis envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:


It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. [12]

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.(13) The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[citation needed]

Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

But I guess "Islamic terrorists have never existed and they were made up by the CIA"...

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Sorry, some of us look at the platforms of the candidates, rather than going "Everyone else on ATS likes him, so i like him too!"

He has a good foreign policy angle. he has an absolute # domestic policy though. And his foreign policy is reliant on congress going along with him - which is "iffy" at best.

So. Sorry, not the leader of my pack. probably the best the republicans have, though, which is sad for them.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Bravo well put together, That is Just how any people would feel.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Obviously you are not because you seem to believe that "Iraqis don't want us there"... It is the Islamic extremists from other countries, and the remaining forces of Saddam's socialist Baath party who have been attacking Iraqis and U.S. as well as allied forces...

Actually in lage part it's the Iraqi military, which we dismissed without first disarming htem, plus internal iraqi factions that took up arms - we helped recruit for them. There are indeed foreign fighters - the mujahadeen will always come in - but it was a fight by Iraqis for Iraq. The elected iraqi government wants us to leave. The iraqi people want us to leave. The iraqi guerillas want us to leave. Iraq's neighbors want us to leave. That you do not believe that these people "count" does not change the fact.

Also, baath was not socialist. I know, you're just clumping everything you dislike together, since knowing your ass from a hole in the ground is too much work. Baath was Baath. A secular militarist Arabist political movement. In both Syria and Iraq it took the form of a totalitarian monarchy-style organization.

Second of all, Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups which have even attacked Americans including in our soil...

Feel free to name them. Which organizations? What attacks? What's the evidence?

Just like the founding fathers did against the Islamic extremists/pirates during the Barbary Wars 1801-1816 we should make it clear that if any country harbors, trains, and or funds terrorist groups that attack us we will respond in force.

Maybe you should be reminded...

Hardly extremist rhetoric for the time; Remember, that's almost the same argument Washington used to wage war against the Iroqois.

But I guess "Islamic terrorists have never existed and they were made up by the CIA"...

That is, in fact, the origin of al-Quaeda. (Similarly, Hamas is a product of the IDF. Go figure, huh?) There are, of course, plenty of "natural" terrorist organizations, but you can't pretend that there aren't any formulated by American efforts (for instance, we pretty much invented the Contras)

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You're right when you say he can't get anything done with the current congress. However, IF he got elected, two years after that election, congress gets some new folks in through their elections and we'll be right as rain. Can you see the revolution starting to happen here? A little here and a little there will turn into a little more and a little more and then a lot more...as our folks lose their jobs and have no where to go. Positive thinking my friend.

And it doesn't matter about his domestic policy right now. We need to shore up the foreign affairs as that is what is sinking us. Later we can worry about domestic.

You gotta give it to him on his economic policy and health care as well, guy. And the left-right paradigm is not all there is as quite a few believe. No one in either camp wants to be constitutional except Paul and he's only joined the Repubs to get heard.

It isn't we repubs. It's all Americans.

Hey, whats with this guy using Ron Paul's imagine speech without giving him credit?



EDIT: Add the original speech.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NightGypsy

I am quite aware that many people "took up arms" with American troops. I don't need your help in this regard, but thanks anyway.

Why is it America's job to make sure that foreign countries elect "good leaders?" Do other countries occupy our soil to ensure we do the same? Get off your soapbox because I am very tired of hearing this rhetoric from those who keep supporting our need to impose our "views" on other nations with the use of the military.

Obviously you are not because you seem to believe that "Iraqis don't want us there"... It is the Islamic extremists from other countries, and the remaining forces of Saddam's socialist Baath party who have been attacking Iraqis and U.S. as well as allied forces...

Second of all, Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups which have even attacked Americans including in our soil...

blahblahblah

But I guess "Islamic terrorists have never existed and they were made up by the CIA"...

1st: It depends on whose poll you believe or subscribe to. Some say Iraqi's want the US out some say they want them to stay...but read WHY they want them to stay please.

2nd: Saddam was harboring and funding terrorist groups? And they even attacked Americans!? Wow. Hmmmm...that sounds familiar...sounds like the CIA training the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Now who was a part of that?...OH YES!! Osama Bin Laden!!! Hmm...how did that turn out? So to answer your question...yes Islamic terrorists exist but some were trained to the US Gov't.

That entire video was sick as ****.

Awesome...i dont have much else to say.

Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

You're right when you say he can't get anything done with the current congress. However, IF he got elected, two years after that election, congress gets some new folks in through their elections and we'll be right as rain.

So if we elect the magical pixie candidate, we have to wait two years for magical pixie congresspeople?

Can you see the revolution starting to happen here? A little here and a little there will turn into a little more and a little more and then a lot more...as our folks lose their jobs and have no where to go. Positive thinking my friend.

Indeed i can. Thing is? it's not going to go well for a Libertarian whose ideology is punish the poor, reward the rich. Which is, in fact, Ron Paul's platform - a platform which is identical to the rest of his party. See, that's the thing with the GOP, no matter who wins, the fix is in. Public service will be sold to private interests, corporations and banks will gt even bigger deregulations and tax cuts, and you and I will be left looking for a way to emigrate to the Philippines 'cause we heard Nike is hiring shoe-gluers for a nickel a day.

And it doesn't matter about his domestic policy right now. We need to shore up the foreign affairs as that is what is sinking us. Later we can worry about domestic.

Yeah, I guess the conditions of the American people don't matter that much...

Sorry, no. His domestic positions are critical. The wars might be expensive, and they do need to be ended. But it's not going to do you or I any good if they end and we're still stuck being ruled by pirates becuase our shiny new magical pixie gold bug millionaire president can't stand the thought of letting corporations get sued for damages they cause...

You gotta give it to him on his economic policy and health care as well, guy.

Maybe if I were a sociopath or misanthropist with a decided interest in seeing people suffer. His "economic policy" is to close his eyes and pretend corporations will self-regulate. His "health policy" is "be rich or die."

And the left-right paradigm is not all there is as quite a few believe. No one in either camp wants to be constitutional except Paul

In the sense that applies when you consider that the constitution was written by wealthy male white landowners who wanted to enshrine their interests and exclude everyone who was not also a white male wealthy landowner, sure.

and he's only joined the Repubs to get heard.

That and the money, of course.

It isn't we repubs. It's all Americans.

Like myself, most Americans are neither sociopaths nor misanthropes. There's a reason why Ron Paul does exceedingly poorly in offline polls, and it's not because of a grand conspiracy against him - it's becuase most Americans don't care much for him.

It makes a very good point. Personally, I'm sick of our government invading sovereign nations. Anybody who thinks it makes good sense to get thousands of troops killed, tens of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of troops severely injured for a mere handful of "terrorists", is not thinking clearly.

The latest out of the CIA is that the Taliban are no longer considered a "terrorist" group. This BS "war on terror" is nothing but a ploy to get people in line with the NWO. We've kill more innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan than Ghadaffi has ever killed. Any sovereign nation that chooses to stay sovereign and not play ball with TPTB, WILL be targeted.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I usually refuse the SnF for a lack of text.
It's nice to see a reason to go against that grain.

My government has killed my country. I mourn bitterly.

SnF

Yeah Obama did say things of similar nature, but did quite the opposite.

We seem to forget that this current system is a ponzi scheme. here is what I think about this Political Madness.

What many have failed to see is that we have a system in place that we tend to follow in order to bring about any change. But seldom do we realize that this political system by which we enforce and live by, is no different than any other pyramid scheme whereby power resonates from the top down.



The rest of humanity in this context, is quite frankly oblivious, and thus work within the confines of this so called political system.

A way out of this Madness - Politics

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I didn't read all the comments to see, so I'm sure someone has already told you this, but I believe that our government helped set Saddam up in power (along with many other dictators) and then turned on him when it became convenient, right?