It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul predicts and explains reasons for Libyan Benghazi Attack event in March 2011 on youtube wit

page: 1
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Just came across this looking for answers to libya.



Wow I still wish this guy could be President

Also of worthy note - Does this philosophy quoted by Obama in 2007 help explain his response to the Benghazi attack?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
Barack Obama 2007

www.factcheck.org...
edit on 2-11-2012 by CyberTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Did you just find this enigma known as Ron Paul?? LOL...j/k.

Ron only explains common sense which is missing in our society now a days. I will expand later. Thx for the post.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hoochymama
 


Ron Paul will always have my Vote. I wanted Ron Paul for 2008. If Romney was smart and does manage to get elected, one of the greatest things he could possibly do is appoint Ron Paul the Secretary of the Treasury.

edit on 3-11-2012 by CyberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Appreciate all the flags but was hoping for more comments



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


awe...Flaggg....I'll comment in a day....runninn'

my comment could be is it a waisted vote....I voted yesterday to take away the worst case candidate....



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
of course obama is tight lipped about the benghazi attacks, because anything he says will swiftly insert foot-into-mouth. Because he unconstitutionally invaded libya.

And of course libyans are pissed, they bombed the crap out of them the whole time.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Couldnt have said it better myself. Ron Paul was the only honest guy running too bad he got cheated out by the corporate media and all the buffoons that wasted all that time cheating at caucases for romney just so he can lose to obama..



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 



"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
Barack Obama 2007

Wow... if I had a dollar for every time Obama said something remarkably logical and rational, and then did the exactly opposite of what he said.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


I doubt he would but, yes please!!!
next



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


Ron Paul, really? The guy who doesn't know what was published in his own newsletter? Really?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Yes, for the love of God, give us more Timothy Geithner. The guy who can't remember his tax history; really?

RP saves room in his brain for only one newsletter, Alan Greenspan's "Gold and Economic Freedom."
edit on 4-11-2012 by Samtzurr because: Because, jeez.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by CyberTruth
 



"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,”
Barack Obama 2007

Wow... if I had a dollar for every time Obama said something remarkably logical and rational, and then did the exactly opposite of what he said.


And if only we all had a dollar every time Ron Paul spoke and nobody in the MSM or Government listened



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
i cant even listen to his videos anymore , i really wanted him as president and it was a huge knife to the gut for him to pull out of the race.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Voted early yesterday! Johnson all the way!

I don't think that Johnson actually has a chance, but the libertarian party just needs 5% to qualify for ballot placement in all 50 states next time around and it will also qualify the party for Federal Presidential Election Funds. This would see a real contender 4 years from now. Dr. Paul could have his revolution!

If you are tired of the two party system a vote for Johnson make allot of sense. I know it will be Romney or Obama this time around, but my vote is for the 5%. Plus I have voted my conscious and not for what I may have seen as the less of two evils!

I feel like I cast my vote where it counted the absolute most! A vote for Johnson is not wasted friends! It is a crucial step to put an end to the two party system!

All Ron Paul supporters should be made aware of this!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleErp
 


Well unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to be President but why not Secretary of Treasury? I cannot think of a more knowledgeable and qualified person for the job. The Federal Reserve would have a hand full if that were to ever happen.
edit on 4-11-2012 by CyberTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury?....no no no no no......Secretary of State!

And as another poster put it, Romney is/was nothing more than a means
to keep Ron Paul out of the race and give Obama a nice fat tackling dummy to
knock down come election day.

TPTB were ready to throw their influence behind Perry (and his pretty face) but
he self-imploded. Romney just got lucky in that he was the only half-decent
crash dummy left standing.....


edit on 4-11-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberTruth
Appreciate all the flags but was hoping for more comments


The embedded interview might have something to do with the Benghazi murder of the US ambassador in the sense that NATO did take sides in an internal Libyan matter, the revolt against Gaddafi, and did assist a conglomeration of opposition groups to topple the dictator and to seize power. All of which begs the questions, "Are the former supporters of Gaddafi now a potential insurgent force within the country?" and "Did former supporters of Gaddafi mount the attack which led to the asmbassador's death?"

Larger questions would be "To what degree did Gaddafi represent an idea supported by Libyans, beyond his personality and military supremacy within the country?" "Is there a large constituency of Libyans within the country for whom the United States and its NATO allies represent the wanton destruction of their ideal and who will remain implacable enemies of the United States and NATO until that ideal is restored?" "Is there, in Libya a significant segment of the population of Libyans for whom the current rulers of Libya will always be regarded as "Quislings"?

These things are difficult to assess at this time although by the end of the NATO assisted uprising against Gaddafi there were signs that Gaddafi's support would simply go to the next holder of the biggest stick in the country, and that "kingpinning" (knocking off the leader) is precisely the strategy to be used to topple regimes in countries where political beliefs and allegiances operate on a meagre and unsophisticated level, based on a personality and personal military power rather than ideas.

Having said all that, the actual reasons for the Benghazi attack are probably more related to current infighting among the rebels that America supported against Gaddafi. If Ron Paul was saying America shouldn't get involved in complex situations overseas, as a matter of principle, to avoid injury to its ambassadors, then I don't agree with him, but I don't think he was saying that.

Ron Paul doesn't really, in the vast majority of his statements that I have heard, address the real issues in American foreign policy. He's great on many issues, and I am sure that he knows what is really going on in foreign policy but the American public is just not ready to hear the truth on American foreign policy from any American politician or from anyone else for that matter.

The real truth of these matters is out there and being spoken by some great Americans, but not by Ron Paul, and that's not a knock against him. Americans can't deal honestly with the truth on these matters and as a would be mainstream politician Dr. Paul simply can't speak plainly. He has to "by indirections find directions out".

I've never heard one American politician say "Support America's initiatives in the Middle East and Caspian Basin, because we're going to pull off the largest heist in the history of the world, if you vote for me."

Or the contrary, "Don't vote for them because they are the moral equivalent of John Gotti x 1,000,000,000."
edit on 4-11-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Ron Paul does have a decent foreign policy most of the time. I support his strive to roll back the American empire. The American empire causes a lot of suffering in the world. There are no many nations who would be a lot easier to deal with if it was not for the American empire threatening these nations and placing harsh, and unnecessary, international trade restrictions on them.

Refocusing on what Ron said about Libya. Yes, it sure did call it on the money. Libya has turned into a hot zone for military forces and warlords looking to make a name for themselves and take control of the resources in that region. The USA has had it`s dirty hands in the entire mess and I do not see how US influence is helping anything.

Libya was a socialist Islamic Republic with an appointed president(and national spiritual leader) by way of a politburo. People in Libya had free healthcare, education, electricity, gas, housing(depending on the level of construction) and many other things they will never enjoy again.

Yes, at the time when the US started to get involved the nation of Libya was having some political problems but it was nothing they were unable to work out themselves. The people were asking for some political reforms to better manage the outlining areas of the nation(of which there are many). Due to the nation having a very harsh desert area, it was becoming harder and harder to build the needed infrastructure to support several regions. The government had been taking a heavy hand on these matters but the wheels of change had already started moving. There was no need for the rest of the world to get involved in Libya`s political problems.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CyberTruth
 


Sometimes I think Ron Paul must be some sort of super disinformation specialist.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 


I've thought of this too, but he would be shooting himself in the foot every time he mentioned von Mises and Rothbard.




top topics



 
28
<<   2 >>

log in

join