My point there was merely that objecting to the mission to kill bin Laden ain't no vote winner. It has nothing to do with how good the argument is or not (which, frankly, has nothing to do with voters believing it)
Ron Paul just kills his own campaign...
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
- Status
My point there was merely that objecting to the mission to kill bin Laden ain't no vote winner. It has nothing to do with how good the argument is or not (which, frankly, has nothing to do with voters believing it)
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Because everybody knows what a canny politician he is, instead of being the true exception in American politics: An honest man who is willing to publicly state highly unpopular opinions no matter the political costs.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=552_1179300364
Ron Paul is not interested in the least in actually winning the presidency. If he were, he wouldn't commit political suicide so frequently.
Sad and true. Man, people are stupid...
Ron Paul's base prior to this would have no problem with his statements, so I'm not really afraid he'd lose votes.
If they were capable of doing their jobs, Bin Laden would have been taken care of years ago.
I think Dr. Paul knows what he's doing. For better or for worse, he's remaining morally and logically consistent. And for that reason, I'll sleep better at night not supporting the guy that can simply win the most votes. This isn't a middle school student class president election.
mangxema
I
Whoa, Atlas, are you talking to yourself?
Yes...why aren't you??? But seriously my computer is malfunctioning like a champ
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Do you mean if the US had been been capable of doing a fairly simple job in a reasonably competent manner?
Reassessing The Cost Of The Post-9/11 Era, Post Bin Laden
How much has it cost Pakistan?
One last hurrah indeed.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I find the notion that this will be regarded as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of all quite ridiculous to be honest.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Probably, but that doesn't mean it was the right decision or that Paul is wrong. How would you respond to a more watered down defense like mine?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10490422&postcount=28
Since US foreign policy under Paul's worldview would be so drastically different, it's hard for me to postulate if there was a better way to "get" Bin Laden.
The idea that this particular move was one of the dumbest of all time seems pretty ridiculous to me though. Letting "Pakistan do their job" means he'd still be hanging in his crib an hour outside of the capital.
Yep - especially when held up against the codpieced costume party announcing Mission Accomplished on May 1, 2003.
GhostWriter16
Deity
@MB- This is simply partisan crap.
Ron Paul did not say that he did not think we should go after Osama, he said we should have done it differently. He is entitled to his opinion.
And for the record, I disagree with him, and I still support him after this. Its only one issue.
I doubt Osama being dead will stop terrorism anyways.
Exactly.
@Formaldehyde- Which is exactly why I support him. I highly doubt he'd do any better as a Democrat though. Either way, he's alienating pretty much every partisan voter on the planet. And that is a good thing.
Ron Paul did not say that he did not think we should go after Osama, he said we should have done it differently. He is entitled to his opinion.
And for the record, I disagree with him, and I still support him after this. Its only one issue.
I doubt Osama being dead will stop terrorism anyways.
Exactly.
@Formaldehyde- Which is exactly why I support him. I highly doubt he'd do any better as a Democrat though. Either way, he's alienating pretty much every partisan voter on the planet. And that is a good thing.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Right. Because everybody knows they are the ones who are actually the terrorists. That they would have merely assassinated the dozens of SEALs surrounding the site and given bin Laden new keys to another cave. That isn't "pretty ridiculous" at all.
Good point. Merely embarrassing the entire country that way for no reason whatsoever really doesn't compare that well to the needless deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis based on deliberate lies and distortions. And let's not forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the fire bombing of cities in Germany and Japan that caused the deaths of perhaps as many as 1 million civilians.
It is just yet another absurd foreign policy blunder in a colorful history riddled with similar fiascos.
Narz
keeping it real
Was it worth the trillion or so dollars to kill a man who was dying anyway?
Think of what the trillion dollars could have done for our country. Libraries across the country are cutting hours, roads are all f-ed up, we're still dependent on foreign oil, economy is still pretty lousy.
Warprofitters are happy, our enemies are all riled up, we've killed a million or so civilians & sacrificed thousands of young men. OMG, Bin Laden is dead, now it's all ok! BS.
This last ten years we could have spent that money to help secure a hospitable planet for future generations (and the young currently living). We could have spent that money on medicinal, ecological, technological research, on studying the mind, the seas, space (well space would probably also be largely a waste but at least we wouldn't have all the blood on our hands).
These last ten years were so critical & we wasted them chasing a boogie-man instead of taking real stock of the problems on the horizon & trying to prevent them before they happened. Sad.
These wars have been a disaster. You don't need to be libertarian to see that. At least, unlike the rest of the right, libertarians are consistent in regards to their financial conservatism.
Think of what the trillion dollars could have done for our country. Libraries across the country are cutting hours, roads are all f-ed up, we're still dependent on foreign oil, economy is still pretty lousy.
Warprofitters are happy, our enemies are all riled up, we've killed a million or so civilians & sacrificed thousands of young men. OMG, Bin Laden is dead, now it's all ok! BS.
This last ten years we could have spent that money to help secure a hospitable planet for future generations (and the young currently living). We could have spent that money on medicinal, ecological, technological research, on studying the mind, the seas, space (well space would probably also be largely a waste but at least we wouldn't have all the blood on our hands).
These last ten years were so critical & we wasted them chasing a boogie-man instead of taking real stock of the problems on the horizon & trying to prevent them before they happened. Sad.
These wars have been a disaster. You don't need to be libertarian to see that. At least, unlike the rest of the right, libertarians are consistent in regards to their financial conservatism.
warpus
In pork I trust
Ron Paul, as we all know, is crazy. He's got some good ideas when it comes to SOME things but on some points he's just a nutcase.
GhostWriter16
Deity
This is simply untrue...
Come on Dommy, cut Ron Paul some slack. He does have some good ideas.
He wasn't just sitting in a room reliving his glory days. All of the evidence released in the past 2 weeks points to him continuing to have an active role in leading and planning AQ activities. Stopping that sort of thing is exactly the point of having a military.
I'm not saying the Pakistani military police force are terrorists, merely that they haven't done a good job of eradicating islamist terrorist forces in their western border area. It doesn't seem at all inconceivable to me if they had been tipped off, Bin Laden might have found a way to 'get away'. Pakistan gets US military aid, and win politically at home.
I just find it really hard to believe that the guy could be so close to their military for so long and *nobody* knew. That either leads to incompetence (what they're pleading) or collusion. Either way, it seems sensible for us to come in and finish the job.
- Status
Similar threads
