Republican candidate Ron Paul should have your Democrat or Libertarian Vote

[HybridSS]

Originally Posted by M4gikSt1ck

The congress hasnt made a declaration of war, dont you know our Constitution or do you share the feeling the Constitution is just a piece of paper...

Thats it, Ron Paul is a sissy...So you dont find him attractive....LOL well if you say so coming from someone who doesnt even know the founding scripts of this country I find that mildly amusing.

thanks for the clarification.

Dont tell me, I bet you're a Jew Stock broker?

I voted for Ross Perot.

LOL...you assume alot.

Congress Voted for Public Law 107-243 Oct 16 2002 for a Formal Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002,
This is a Formal authorization for use of Military Force by Congress. There is nothing illegal or unauthorized about this.

Here are all the Formal Authorizations in the History of the US. Iraq is at the bottom of this list.

Military engagements authorized by Congress
Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

War or conflict Opponent(s) Initial authorization Votes President Conclusion
Senate House
Quasi-War France 1798 J. Adams Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine)
First Barbary War Barbary States 1801 Jefferson
Second Barbary War Barbary States 1815 Madison
Raid of slave traffic Africa 1820
Redress for attack on U.S. Navy vessel Paraguay 1859 Buchanan
Intervention during the Russian Civil War Bolshevist Russia 1918 Wilson
Protection of Lebanon Rebels 1958 Eisenhower
Vietnam War National Liberation Front, later Democratic Republic of Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 1964 88-2 416-0 Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon Peace agreement signed in Paris, January 1973
Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia and Druze miltias; Syria September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 Reagan Force withdrew in 1984
Invasion of Panama, also known as Operation Just Cause Panama Defense Force December 20, 1989 George H.W. Bush Manuel Noriega deposed
Persian Gulf War, also known as Operation Desert Storm Iraq January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 The United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991
2001 war in Afghanistan, also known as Operation Enduring Freedom Taliban government of Afghanistan and al-Qaida S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 2001 98-0 420-1 George W. Bush Ongoing
Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom Iraq H.J. Res. 114,
October 16, 2002 77-23 296-133 Ongoing

There have only been 5 full out declarations of War by Congress in the Histroy of the US. And two of those where WWI and WWII.

So maybe its YOU who doesnt know the "founding scripts" of this country...whatever the hell that means.

Either a Formal Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force OR a Formal Declaration of War will suffice for legality as far as the Constitution and US law is concerned.

BTW...I was just busting your balls a bit...until you became a dickhead. I liked Perot on 90% of his stances..and I like Ron Paul on about 70% of his stances. Its the last 30% that just doesnt do it for me. Especially his almost "isolationist stance" towards foreign policy.

[HybridSS]

BTW...if your trying to help Elect Ron Paul..maybe you should just keep quiet. IMO you do more harm than good...lol.

[M4gikSt1ck]

Originally Posted by HybridSS

LOL...you assume alot.

Congress Voted for Public Law 107-243 Oct 16 2002 for a Formal Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002,
This is a Formal authorization for use of Military Force by Congress. There is nothing illegal or unauthorized about this.

Here are all the Formal Authorizations in the History of the US. Iraq is at the bottom of this list.



There have only been 5 full out declarations of War by Congress in the Histroy of the US. And two of those where WWI and WWII.

So maybe its YOU who doesnt know the "founding scripts" of this country...whatever the hell that means.

Either a Formal Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force OR a Formal Declaration of War will suffice for legality as far as the Constitution and US law is concerned.

BTW...I was just busting your balls a bit...until you became a dickhead. I liked Perot on 90% of his stances..and I like Ron Paul on about 70% of his stances. Its the last 30% that just doesnt do it for me. Especially his almost "isolationist stance" towards foreign policy.

Military engagements are not formal declarations of war. I did say we havent declared war I'm pretty sure. My point is we call it a war on terror which is an action then we dont have any plan for complete our goals. 6 years of unfettered control over all branches of Govt, 7 years really since the Dem controlled congress hasn't amounted to shit. hundreds of billions of dollars which will ultimately translate into taxes....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States

That is the common belief that his foreign policy is one of a isolationist, but lets look at that. Vietnam is a great place to start and it wasnt that long ago. They said if we leave vietnam it would have the domino effect and the whole of easy asia would turn communist. Today we trade and invest in Vietnam not only that but the president has been to this country to meet with gwb within the last 2 years.

Right now we have an isolationist position on foreign policy, we were once a great nation and now we have lost the moral high ground and we are hated now more then every before. You can just go into other countries and start wars or install US friendly regimes and not think these countries wont do anything. Its all lip service from the Neo Cons, just look at the rest of the world and who are allies are?

[HybridSS]

Your exact words where:

Originally Posted by M4gikSt1ck

This isnt about winning of losing in Iraq its about fighting an unconstitutional undeclared war.

Its neither unconstitutional nor undeclared due to the fact Congress approved the whole damn thing. If you want to make a case that they were "tricked" or fed bad intel..then do that. but to spout that the war is undeclared and unconstituional is lame.

Vietnam was a screwed up war. Mainly because it was mismanaged. But I still gaurentee you it had a small part in the overall effect. Of which the end result was the fall of communism. Even if we didnt "win" tha war...the struggle between communism and capitolism ended up being a war of economic attrition. That war cost the commies dearly.

Unfortunately for us...this time around...our adversary is not motivated by such minor things as idealistic and philisophical differences. Its pure religion. Our influence around the globe is a must IMO. Of course we need to fix our image,and we are FAR from perfect... But that dosnt change the fact that if we dont provide guidance, and exert our influence and ideals around the globe in strategic areas...someone WILL fill that void. Extremist Muslims will be there to fill in the gaps. They already ARE there and attempting to fll the gaps. In counties like Somalia, phillipines, Bosnia, Indonesia, Iraq, etc etc etc.

Ultimately...in a perfect world everyone would have a hands off policy. But that can only work if the one dumb sonofabitch on the block doesnt throw a monkey wrench square into the middle of it. Once that happens...the status quo is disrupted and action must take place. Because if you dont...someone will. So we exert our influence...or they exert thiers. Pick one!

Ron Paul wants nothing to do with that hard choice. And for that he loses my vote.

[M4gikSt1ck]

Originally Posted by HybridSS

Your exact words where:



Its neither unconstitutional nor undeclared due to the fact Congress approved the whole damn thing. If you want to make a case that they were "tricked" or fed bad intel..then do that. but to spout that the war is undeclared and unconstituional is lame.

Vietnam was a screwed up war. Mainly because it was mismanaged. But I still gaurentee you it had a small part in the overall effect. Of which the end result was the fall of communism. Even if we didnt "win" tha war...the struggle between communism and capitolism ended up being a war of economic attrition. That war cost the commies dearly.

Unfortunately for us...this time around...our adversary is not motivated by such minor things as idealistic and philisophical differences. Its pure religion. Our influence around the globe is a must IMO. Of course we need to fix our image,and we are FAR from perfect... But that dosnt change the fact that if we dont provide guidance, and exert our influence and ideals around the globe in strategic areas...someone WILL fill that void. Extremist Muslims will be there to fill in the gaps. They already ARE there and attempting to fll the gaps. In counties like Somalia, phillipines, Bosnia, Indonesia, Iraq, etc etc etc.

Ultimately...in a perfect world everyone would have a hands off policy. But that can only work if the one dumb sonofabitch on the block doesnt throw a monkey wrench square into the middle of it. Once that happens...the status quo is disrupted and action must take place. Because if you dont...someone will. So we exert our influence...or they exert thiers. Pick one!

Ron Paul wants nothing to do with that hard choice. And for that he loses my vote.

Remind me of a society throughout all of history where they have transcended the ages through the use of force. History says they overextended themselves and go bankrupt, and were pretty close to that now.

This position was actually the exact position of Woodrow Wilson a Democrat back in 1913.

The assertion that we need to exert our influence or they will exert theres is an assumption. We are the aggressors, so this argument cant be backed up by any kind of historical fact. Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba we had the blockade, they didnt put any nukes in Cuba.

Dont get me wrong I am for a very strong military but with todays technological superiority Military, eavesdropping and spying do you really think any country or large or small military force could mount any kind of attack on the US without us knowing about it well in advance..

On one hand we are to believe we are this great force never to be threatened militarily then on the other hand we need to be fearful from a very small group of radical Muslim extremist (on the other side of the world no less with no military) who want to kill us..

If you pick and choose certain parts of this argument then it doesnt make any sense, I agree. If you look at the big picture, our borders, the Oil, Iraq and 911, the Chinese, The Russians, Chavez, Iran, our own dollar, the federal reserve, inflation, at what point do you ask yourself this just isnt making any kind of sense.

I'm not a democrat so war has never been in my best interest. Only because I dont want to pay for it, we need that money here for this country.

no one knows the future, we can only gauge from the past. This preemptive war doctrine has never worked, and never will.

Cheers,

[M4gikSt1ck]

Originally Posted by HybridSS

BTW...if your trying to help Elect Ron Paul..maybe you should just keep quiet. IMO you do more harm than good...lol.

Thanks for your input, I thought I was slacking a bit. I'll work on my game, but quit....never.

[HybridSS]

The assertion that we need to exert our influence or they will exert theres is an assumption. We are the aggressors, so this argument cant be backed up by any kind of historical fact. Russia tried to put nukes in Cuba we had the blockade, they didnt put any nukes in Cuba.

The only historical fact is that man in any group has always exerted influence. May as well be ours. That is if you really do believe in the core principals of democracy.

Dont get me wrong I am for a very strong military but with todays technological superiority Military, eavesdropping and spying do you really think any country or large or small military force could mount any kind of attack on the US without us knowing about it well in advance..

On one hand we are to believe we are this great force never to be threatened militarily then on the other hand we need to be fearful from a very small group of radical Muslim extremist (on the other side of the world no less with no military) who want to kill us..

A small group can do bad things that disrupt. Small grous with an agenda eventually become large groups. Large groups with an agenda are harder to cope with than a small group with an agenda. Me...id rather try to exterminate and/or influence the small groups with an agenda NOW vs a larger group in 10 years.

no one knows the future, we can only gauge from the past. This preemptive war doctrine has never worked, and never will.

I agree here. But premeptive "influence" and "pressure" should be employed when needed. This is where Ron and me differ. And in order to stay out of the actual wars...you need to be active in this premeptive pressure and influence to keep it from getting to war. To do that you cant have blinders on and have that isolationist stance. You must be active in the world community. What we need is LEADERSHIP and responsible policies concerning this.

I keep forgetting your not a Democrat...lol.

Anyways...Ill keep my eye on Ron Paul. I respect the man because he speaks his mind. I just disagree on certain things.

Now the Dems..I think they are 50% idealists and 50% crazy. Not a good mix.

[jabtay]

Originally Posted by Punkin

i'll be amazed the day you actually contribute something substantial instead of pointing out everyone else's short comings. (note *here *here and *here how *so-and-so did *this and misspelled *this word...)

I do contribute thank you. I do not believe I have ever pointed out someones spelling honey...you must have me confused with tresdad or what ever his name is now. Also I pointed out JonNoHs posts because I was just busting his balls.

[Jonnoh]

Originally Posted by M4gikSt1ck

But you know damn well Its about Oil, your not that stupid to believe the hogwash that this administration is saying...

well it's about oil to a point, but to a finer point it's about the U.S. dollar's control over all the oil, instead of switching over to euros. Something the European Union is being amazingly quiet over.

[Political_Man]

HybridSS your doing a good job but M4gikSt1ck is not interested in the truth. I knew that the moment he uttered "unconstitutional undeclared war." To these people unless congress says with the exact words "Declaration of War", any military action by the President is unauthorized by Congress and therefore "unconstitutional." See this is the point at which Ron Paul moves from taking a leisurely stroll down Sanity Lane into kicking and screaming as he runs into downtown Kooksville.

Paul has been all over the map on these sorts of issues. But the real issue is moot because we've spent 7 pages in a thread talking about a guy polling at 3%.


PS: I noticed M4gikSt1ck wanted nothing to do with this link previously posted:

Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Bin Laden --- Source CNN 1999

[Jonnoh]

Originally Posted by Political_Man

HybridSS your doing a good job but M4gikSt1ck is not interested in the truth. I knew that the moment he uttered "unconstitutional undeclared war." To these people unless congress says with the exact words "Declaration of War", any military action by the President is unauthorized by Congress and therefore "unconstitutional." See this is the point at which Ron Paul moves from taking a leisurely stroll down Sanity Lane into kicking and screaming as he runs into downtown Kooksville.

Paul has been all over the map on these sorts of issues. But the real issue is moot because we've spent 7 pages in a thread talking about a guy polling at 3%.


PS: I noticed M4gikSt1ck wanted nothing to do with this link previously posted:

Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Bin Laden --- Source CNN 1999

I love how everyone's a kook in your book even though your ideals seem to be far from everyone else's and direct from the neo-con playbook.

Also, why so quiet in my FISA thread? I know you've read it from top to bottom. Little too tough to stick up for big govt. in that one eh?

[Bucsfan]

What good is supporting Ron Paul going to make if the people that support him won't go vote for him?

[Tripw0l]

Originally Posted by Political_Man

PS: I noticed M4gikSt1ck wanted nothing to do with this link previously posted:

Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Bin Laden --- Source CNN 1999

Not to get too involved, but isn't this a little off base? Sure they may have "offered" asylum but that alone would never cause a full-scale invasion. The fear machine that revved us into Iraq was fueled by the notion and mounds of evidence that was stove-piped onto C-SPAN that Iraq was a threat to us by way of nuclear or biological WMD's. That was the fire that was lit under the ass of the public at large to support the war and it simply wasn't true so you can cut the crap. Not to wear shoe prints into the soap box but what about the windfall profits that Haliburton (see: Dick Cheney) and The Carlyle Group (see:George H.W. Bush) are reaping from this resulted war. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the facts are there to support the claim that these companies would greatly profit from this war and our administration has placed them on a high pedestal.

It doesn't matter what noble reason you claim we went to Iraq for, we're past that. What we're not past is bringing the troops home. What POSSIBLE reason could you proclaim that we're still in Iraq for outside of policing? We've given ample time for self-sustaining entities to be put into place and we're only giving our enemies something to focus their attacks on and our president has done nothing but taunt and mock those very enemies. Staying there will only fatten these corporate and investor wallets, it serves no....other....purpose.

None.

[Political_Man]

Originally Posted by JonNoH

I love how everyone's a kook in your book even though your ideals seem to be far from everyone else's and direct from the neo-con playbook.

No not everyone. Just mainly you and Ron Paul.

Also, why so quiet in my FISA thread? I know you've read it from top to bottom. Little too tough to stick up for big govt. in that one eh?

What is there to comment on? "News" from your sources are a joke. I put a lot of effort in posting stories and information from reputable sources and I find your posts to be intellectually lazy at best.

I'll tell you what. I'll head on over to "your FISA thread", I have some questions about this this law maybe you could answer for me.


Honestly, I'm just not interested in the thread.

[Jonnoh]

I swear he works propaganda dept. for the govt.

[HybridSS]

Originally Posted by Tripw0l

Not to get too involved, but isn't this a little off base? Sure they may have "offered" asylum but that alone would never cause a full-scale invasion. The fear machine that revved us into Iraq was fueled by the notion and mounds of evidence that was stove-piped onto C-SPAN that Iraq was a threat to us by way of nuclear or biological WMD's. That was the fire that was lit under the ass of the public at large to support the war and it simply wasn't true so you can cut the crap. Not to wear shoe prints into the soap box but what about the windfall profits that Haliburton (see: Dick Cheney) and The Carlyle Group (see:George H.W. Bush) are reaping from this resulted war. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the facts are there to support the claim that these companies would greatly profit from this war and our administration has placed them on a high pedestal.

It doesn't matter what noble reason you claim we went to Iraq for, we're past that. What we're not past is bringing the troops home. What POSSIBLE reason could you proclaim that we're still in Iraq for outside of policing? We've given ample time for self-sustaining entities to be put into place and we're only giving our enemies something to focus their attacks on and our president has done nothing but taunt and mock those very enemies. Staying there will only fatten these corporate and investor wallets, it serves no....other....purpose.

None.

Whatever your opinion is of how we got to iraq. Wether there was a "fear machine" that reved us up or not. The simple fact is that Islamic Fundametalsts are out there. Iraq is a large part of thier focus at this point. They want as many "Islamic States" as they can grab. Obviously an "Islamic State" Is one that the Religion and ruling Govt derive thier power from the same place. Fanatical religion. Fanatical religion governing the country. There are efforts all over this globe currently to entrench that radical Islamic sentiment in the local population. Its THEM who are actively and forcefully attmepting to change and control people through out the world.

This war was coming for a very long time...in so many ways. We just screwed it up on how we made an entrance into it. That doesnt change the fact that it is a struggle that must be taken up. Bush and Cheneys time are just about up. IMO they did screw the pooch on many things. Mainly sound leadership. But the one thing I agree with Bush on is that this struggle against radical islam needs to be waged. Its probably THE most important thing we will do as a country over the next 25-50 years.

Me? I cant wait for a change in leadership. Mainly due to the fact Bush is so hated it cripples some of his abilities. We need a fresh start. Another set of eyes to look at the problem at hand and draft a paln. But the goal will be EXACLTY the same. Stamp out radical Islam and terrorists. Hell even Hillary knows this.

Fortunately for us...these groups are still small...relatively speaking. They have no where near the numbers the communists did during the cold War. They are however much more fanatical and dangerous and IRRATIONAL.

So I cannot agree with you that the ONLY reason we are hanging on in Iraq is to line the pockets of Bush and Cheney. If thats all you see here you should reasses your view IMO.
If you have a problem that could potentially grow in size...why in the world would you hold off in addressing it? It makes no sense to me.

And again..this is why Ron Paul and I dont agree. You dont have to get into the details of the past to identify slip ups and mistakes to understand what the correct course of action is for the future.

[M4gikSt1ck]

I see you danced all around the fact we supported the clerics and radicalized them in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets now the Soviets are gone and they want us out. Its called blowback and its not a secret, this it what our own CIA intel tells us.

Iraq wasnt a bastion for these radicals prior to us being there. Our presence is recruiting more radicals faster then we can kill them. To them this is another Christian crusade and there treating this as a jihad. We can never win this war without a political element and its not going to come through occupation.

side note: This is how the lame steam media plays Dr. Paul and of course the Neo Con propaganda machine picks up on.

watch the end of this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoeoc-E9DXk

I will be voting for Ron Paul in 08, not only because I agree with his position on the many issues but I dont need the paid for media making decisions for me.

[Graves]

Was Ron Paul in the military?

[M4gikSt1ck]

YES, served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force during the Vietnam war. 5 Years I believe

[Political_Man]

Originally Posted by M4gikSt1ck

I see you danced all around the fact we supported the clerics and radicalized them in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets now the Soviets are gone and they want us out. Its called blowback and its not a secret, this it what our own CIA intel tells us.

Iraq wasnt a bastion for these radicals prior to us being there. Our presence is recruiting more radicals faster then we can kill them. To them this is another Christian crusade and there treating this as a jihad. We can never win this war without a political element and its not going to come through occupation.

M4gikSt1ck I want to respond to this but I don't have the time at this moment because I think you make some good points. I don't agree but you have some valid concerns. In the end you may not agree but I think there is an important point to be made about the War in Iraq. I hope you'll check back later.