Ron Paul DESTROYS Bachmann on Iran war debate.

He really exposes how much of a war monger these candidates are, particularly Bachmann.



I love how at the very end, she says "As president i would stand on the side of peace" after declaring we need to start another war ASAP.

Bachmann's very last comment makes my blood boil. How could she even fathom saying that after everything she just got done saying!

Yeah, I saw that. It really bothered me how she was going on about this nuke that Iran doesn't even have, advocating for a war to stop a nuclear attack from them....

Did we not learn our lesson with Iraq? Those WMD's that they were supposed to have but were never found?

It's fear mongering and I hate to see them gearing up to take out Iran and being blatant about using the same old scare tactics....

Ron Paul nailed it.... If we are so worried about the safety of our country, quit needlessly attacking other countries. Bring our troops home and secure our own borders....

I bet the military industrial complex hates Ron Paul. He would make it very hard to make a profit, since he actually doesn't want war.....


Now, how can she stand there and claim to stand on the side of piece, after just advocating for war with Iran?

So how much are you being paid again, Bachmann?

Has anybody noticed that Bachmann's FIRST concern was "destroy our ally Israel", America came second. For me this only phrase says it all.

Bachmann scares the living bejesus out of me (no pun intended). If she gets into power in the US I swear to god I am moving to Mars.

Actually, apply that to everyone but Ron Paul......she just scares me more than the others.

(This is from an outsiders perspective. Many of the rest of us around the world see Ron Paul as America's last hope to not only redeem itself to the world, but to fix the internal problems that you have amassed over the last few decades.)

Bachmann has no problem supporting ANYONE,Terrorists Included. She has no problem sleeping with the enemy,manipulating those who America calls its enemys. Its time someone calls her out on it.

reply to post by Alaskan Man


What the HELL is this Bachmann saying about worldwide domination and caliphates?

Has Israel really invaded your politics to such a degree that everyone in the Republican party, except for Ron Paul, is Israel's little bitch?

It is insanely disturbing to see those lies spouted from a religio-tard with some influence. Sort it out America.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Alaskan Man

 

Has Israel really invaded your politics to such a degree that everyone in the Republican party, except for Ron Paul, is Israel's little bitch?

You don't really need the answer to that question, do you? I am surprised the stars on the flag have not changed their shape yet (next step).

P.S. It is not only Republican party.

Bachman's view is also very popular on ATS I have seen her line of argument many a time in the Middle east forums. I guess some republicans must find it hard to back RP over his foreign policy comments, even though they are true.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Bachman's view is also very popular on ATS I have seen her line of argument many a time in the Middle east forums.

Not only here but other sites as well. Literally; word. for. word. That is because these people are phony posters and this Bachmann is a phony person. You will not find a sane person that will defend those talking points in real life, without stooping to slandering and name calling(anti-semite etc). And as it shows through Bachmann it also shows in these fake posters with their puffed up talking points; they haven't a clue what they are talking about. And because they don't know what they are talking about there is the inherent risk of, not only doing damage to others, but to themselves and their own loved ones as well.

So what if Iran is nearing one nuclear weapon? Why are we acting so protective of Israel which has up to four hundred and can defend themselves accordingly?!

She's not fooling anyone with all that darn white she wears. And those eyes! Nightmares incoming. I bet she doesn't even know there's been more Jewish acts of terrorism on American soil than Islamic between the years of 1980 and 2005.

here is more

Oddly enough, while I agree 100% with Paul on this issue, I also think that it is his weakest debate point. He needs to refine and streamline the talking points so that he can deliver it with the level of impact it deserves. He started getting to that point with Bachmann last night.. I think it was because he was getting angry.

He should discuss more about the politics of fear, the devestating effects of spreading yourself thin (see: Collapse of Rome), and really hit home that diplomacy is the answer. He should also corner these guys who are saying "nothing is off the table" by asking if that means using nuclear weapons against Iran.

Might also be good to point out only one country has ever used an atomic bomb against another country.

reply to post by rogerstigers
I agree, and he really could update his means of address here so if gets questions like "There is solid intelligence that Iran has this/wants to do this, blah blah blah...", he should respond more clearly in lines of his actual views - presenting the information to Congress, pushing for a declaration of war, and then cleaning house appropriately and getting out of these instead of piddling around for decades and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.

Paul is not a pacifist, he just doesn't believe in preemptive warfare, the president acting without Congress having declared war, sending in armies for a protracted ground war when not necessary (as letters of Marque and Reprisal will allow small/independent tactical units to address the threat quickly and easily), and so forth. The republicans like to talk so much about Reagan's Peace through Strength, but Paul's the only one actually advocating it - get our troops home out of harm's way, stop antagonizing the world, and let our military refresh/rebuild/defend our borders - and be ready to decimate any actual threat as needed.

What do we have now? Open borders, a running war in the south with the cartels, troops burnt from multiple deployments and committing suicide at greater-than-civilian levels, more countries militarizing and hating us as a result of our military aggression...it's simply nonsensical.

reply to post by Praetorius


Indeed. I think another analogy he could use is the strong silent type. Who's more likely to be beat up, a loud obnoxious ahole who keeps getting into everyones business or the muscular alpha dog type that sits in the corner and peacfully conducts business? We need to be the strong alpha dog type sitting peacefully in the corner.

Originally posted by PURIFIER
Has anybody noticed that Bachmann's FIRST concern was "destroy our ally Israel", America came second. For me this only phrase says it all.

Precisely.

What a lot of these people are failing completely to fathom is that if Iran fired anything at any nation, they would be pounded into oblivion with an hour. They might be a little irrational, but they are not suicidal.

The idea that any nation would fire a Nuke at another nation simply because they don't like them is simply insane, just as this Bachmann woman is.

I love how these lunatics preach about Iran being so violent, and yet they neglect to recognize that Iran has not invaded other countries, has not imprisoned a whole nation, doesn't steal land from their neighbors, has not refused to acknowledge their own Nuclear capabilities, does not openly spy and infiltrate other nations, hasn't committed countless murders abroad and used illegal practices.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that Iran is a nice regime, far from it. But it's insanely disgusting for Bachmann to be talking like this while ignoring the actions of her own nation, and Israel, and most of Europe all around the world.

Actions speak louder than words, and the USA, Israel and UK have acted to attack several nations while Iran has simply sat there seething with rage.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I thought it was interesting that Paul specifically said that Isreal has about 300 nukes.. I had never heard a solid number

Let's make this simple. If Iran has one nuke and Israel has 300 nukes would you launch that one nuke knowing that?? Iran wants the nuke to advertise to the world that they have a deterrent if attacked...The same deterrent that all nuke nations have...A DETERRENT to prevent them from being attacked..