Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Once America is no longer perceived as being a moral crusader for the Arabs or Jews welfare, the terrorists will no longer have a scapegoat to blame and the wind will be taken out of their sails. They'll have to find some other excuse for violence

And you can bet that they will. The terrorists are not a just cause using violent methods, they are violence using any cause at all. Our withdrawing from the world stage will only embolden them. The idea that if we just 'dont do anything to make them angry' and they wont be angry is a recipe for disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you can bet that they will. The terrorists are not a just cause using violent methods, they are violence using any cause at all.
Of course they will. As an integration, there is a similarity between them and the environmentalists -- you cannot please them. If you fix nuclear energy, they'll say the problem is oil, if you use wind they'll say that's the problem, if you use the sun they'll say that's the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Your assumption, Statesman, is that Ron Paul is somehow NOT the lesser of the evils presented. Somehow Ron Paul, despite his flaws, is a " good " candidate.

But what is good about succumbing to the wishes of Islamic Totalitarians? What progress will come from a foreign policy of suicide which states we must be Nuked by Iran before attacking them, despite constant evidence in that direction, and despite the fact that Iranians have already killed American soliders, and perhaps funded the killing of American journalists as well? Ron Paul turns a blind-eye to Iran, and to the necessity for victory in the Middle East. He panders to Libertarians and Socialists with his Anti-American messages. He appears on the famed Conspiracy Theorist's Alex Jones' show constantly. Jones is an avid supporter of Paul, and it would not surprise me if Dr. Paul himself were all in for every conspiracy Jones spews out of his ignorance-filled mouth.

How about his stance against abortion? Or his conspiracy theories on the border, and calls for a strict Militarized Border where breakers of the Law can be shot, just for coming to work and make money.

And let's not forget that while he is okay with Marijuanna, he would keep hard drugs such as Heroin illegal. He isn't even a fucking Libertarian. He's just a Paleo-Con who wants to blur the borders between Church And State

Ron Paul claims to be a fan of Rand's work, but it certainly doesn't show in his policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ron Paul were to be elected president he would be elected just that, president, not King or Dictator.

For that reason I'm comfortable disagreeing with some of his views. I disagree with his views on abortion. I partially disagree with his views on illegal immigration. If you watch the video below he seems to have the right idea but the wrong solution. I also find it completely unrealistic for him to change laws on abortion, which if I understand correctly, would require 2/3 of the legislature & 3/4th of the state since it should require a constitutional amendment.

Also here's an interesting video on

which pretty much sealed the deal. I'll be voting for him.

I think he is the best possible candidate so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is also adamantly opposed to US self-defense. THAT is something the president can do a LOT about.

Of course, both the Republicans and the Democrats are horrible in regards to defense, but they do not blame the US for 9/11 either.

I think I'll vote for Hilary Clinton at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked at even the dimmest support for Paul amongst Objectivists who recognize Islam as a very serious problem. Ron Paul is the most pacifistic of all candidates, Democrat or Republican. It's completely psychotic to vote for such a man, opposed to war in all forms unless we are attacked. Attacked AGAIN, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although i'm disappointed that he always talks about what he is not going to do in foreign policy (no nation building or "spreading democracy" etc.) rather than what he would do.

This is because Ron Paul will do absolutely nothing to keep the United States safe from foreign aggressors. Dr. Paul is currently running for the Republican nomination. To secure this, he will need to secure Republican votes; a base that typically values assertive stances on foreign policy. By the Full Disclosure Principle of Economics, Dr. Paul would reveal anything positive he would have to say about defending the country to Republican primary voters, as it would be in his self-interest. But Dr. Paul reveals nothing on defending America. This is because he has nothing.

Also here's an interesting video on
which pretty much sealed the deal.

Everyone should note how in this video Dr. Paul explicitly laments how politicians today have abandoned "Just War Theory". However, as Dr. Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein so eloquently argue, "Just War Theory" is not a theory that stems from an ethics of egoism; it stems from an ethics of altruism. It is not a philosophy we wish to have when fighting a war.

Furthermore, Ron Paul insinuates that Iran has never directly done anything to harm the United States. This is untrue. It is widely accepted that the government of Iran lends political and financial support to terrorists groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah has committed direct attacks on United States personnel. They are responsible for the bombing of the U.S. military base in Beirut, which killed over 200 U.S. marines and for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudia Arabia, which resulted in the death of 19 U.S. servicemen. This is amongst numerous other acts of terrorism that Hezbollah is responsible for. Furthermore, there is presently an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Al Qud's force, a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (who answer directly to Ayatollah Khamenei, have been supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq. The current government in Iran still embodies the spirit of the revolution that involved the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, where 52 U.S. citizens were held hostage for over 444 days. Ron Paul's assertion that Iran has done nothing to the U.S. is utterly ridiculous.

I think he is the best possible candidate so far.
I think he is one of the worst. He is good on many economic issues but he is atrocious on foreign policy. In fact, he opposes many aspects of American self-defense on principle. This is far worse than all of the other pragmatic candidates who will be inconsistent when it comes to foreign policy. At least they can be pressured into taking action when truly necessary.

Rest assured it frustrates me that arguably the most pro-free market candidate is unsupportable because he is so philosophically backwards on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where and when did he say he opposes self-defense? I have heard plenty on strengthening our defense.

Yes, but his ideas are wrong. You can say you're for building a tall skyscraper, but if your foundation is of balsa wood, it's not going to work.

The reason he’s bad is because he has drawn all the wrong conclusions about Islamic terrorists. He doesn't think religion is to blame, but, rather, blames our "intrusive" foreign policy. He won't support Israel, the only free nation in the region, against barbaric muslim states, because he thinks they have the right to do what they wish, because it's their land. This implies that he is a collectivist, and not an individualist, since he appears to be placing the state ahead of the individual. He appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the evils of religion.

At the end of the day, he'd be a disaster for foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where and when did he say he opposes self-defense? I have heard plenty on strengthening our defense.

No candidate with any tact is going to say " I don't believe in American Self Defense ". And really, I'm sure Paul THINKS he is acting in America's interest ( I like to think the best of people ), but that doesn't mean what he thinks and believes is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. military base in Beirut, which killed over 200 U.S. marines and for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudia Arabia, which resulted in the death of 19 U.S. servicemen. This is amongst numerous other acts of terrorism that Hezbollah is responsible for. Furthermore, there is presently an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Al Qud's force, a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (who answer directly to Ayatollah Khamenei, have been supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq. The current government in Iran still embodies the spirit of the revolution that involved the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, where 52 U.S. citizens were held hostage for over 444 days. Ron Paul's assertion that Iran has done nothing to the U.S. is utterly ridiculous.

Both cases you cited are examples of foriegn interventionism. Why are US troops in Beirut and Saudi Arabia?

even though I agree with his non-interventionist policy, i think that islamic fundamentalism is a lot more than just a reaction to bad policy. That is why i was hoping he would at least recognize the threat.

But wishing something were true does not make it so. :(

I may start considering Guiliani more closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how to combat Fundamentalism with the military. The resources should be put rather in police and intelligence services. The only thing one accomplishes invading / occupying a country is to provide an easy target for terrorist groups that don't have the means to act on an international level.

Furthermore, there is presently an overwhelming amount of evidence that the Al Qud's force, a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (who answer directly to Ayatollah Khamenei, have been supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

That wouldn't be a problem if no US troops were stationed there.

The current government in Iran still embodies the spirit of the revolution that involved the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, where 52 U.S. citizens were held hostage for over 444 days. Ron Paul's assertion that Iran has done nothing to the U.S. is utterly ridiculous.

Ron Paul does not 'assert that Iran has done nothing to the U.S.'.

He argues that there is currently no threat from Iran so the costs of invasion are too high compared to the gain. Even if Iran got its hand on a nuclear weapon, compared to Pakistan and North Korea, Iran is a relatively civilized country.

The hostage taking and 'Islamic revolution' in 1979 was a consequence of putting up a dictatorship under the Shah in 1953 to protect the oil interests in Iran. The question is of course if that action was justified as the nationalization of the oil industry was a violation by Iran. Yes, it may have been justified, but I don't think that it was in the self-interest of the US.

I'm refering to statements of Ron Paul in this speech: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

I guess it boils down to the question if the US should do what is justified or do what is in the self-interest. Yes, the US can invade Iran to remove the current regime, but in the long-term this won't solve any problem. The problem is in the base of a population and that can only be changed by trade and education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is how to combat Fundamentalism with the military. The resources should be put rather in police and intelligence services. The only thing one accomplishes invading / occupying a country is to provide an easy target for terrorist groups that don't have the means to act on an international level.

Iran acts on an international level, as does Syria. The terrorists get their strength and support from states: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria being the big three. These states provide ideological support, an abundance of wealth, and safe haven to terrorists. In fact, these states are spearheading Islamic terrorism, and creating terrorists. The support is indirect in the case of Saudi Arabia, and direct in the case of Iran. The Hezbollah gets something like 200 million dollars a year from Iran, and is really just a wing of the Iranian army.

Imagine getting rid of the ideological support, safe haven, and wealth being pumped in by these states.

If you annihilate the Islamic fundamentalist states supporting war against us, you will immensely weaken terrorists. Once you've either destroyed terrorist states, or turned them around so that they will fight terrorism on their own soil, you can turn it into a police action, and then you’ll have greatly weakened forces on the run.

That wouldn't be a problem if no US troops were stationed there.

Islamacists cause trouble wherever they go. Look at any place in the world, and you'll see this. Kashmir, the Philippines, Europe, everywhere you see these people trouble starts. So, I dispute your claim. These people are a problem because they are immensely irrational.

As to U.S. troops, they are only a threat to thugs. They aren’t the equivalent of Nazi storm troopers. They are, by-and-large, supporters of freedom and justice.

But, there is a more important point I’d like to make. The right thing to do is to stand up to thugs not run from them and not pretend they have the right to be thugs because they have lived in some region for a long time. We shouldn’t have to tippy-toe around the world in deference to irrational forces. We should give them no quarter, and treat them in accordance with their nature. Civilized men should rule, not despots. This is what Jefferson and Madison did when they took on the Barbary States,

Link: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urba..._jefferson.html

I guess it boils down to the question if the US should do what is justified or do what is in the self-interest. Yes, the US can invade Iran to remove the current regime, but in the long-term this won't solve any problem. The problem is in the base of a population and that can only be changed by trade and education.

Listen, the problem is war against us. It would have been hard to remove the philosophy in Nazi Germany as well, but we did have the means to remove their army, and removing their army solved quite a few problems.

You should read Professor Lewis on this, because he makes it clear why we have to dishearten the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran acts on an international level, as does Syria. The terrorists get their strength and support from states: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria being the big three.

Can you explain me why Pakistan is not in the list?

It is known that Pakistan is heavily involved into the drug trade processing the opium from Afghanistan, it is an islamic military dictatorship, supports or did support terrorists and it is known that Pakistan (their intelligence service to be correct) was one of the financeers of one of the 911 terrorists. Yet the relationship to the US is pretty cozy.

The Hezbollah gets something like 200 million dollars a year from Iran, and is really just a wing of the Iranian army.

Yes, Iran is basically in war with Israel.

And I agree with you that Ron Paul's position would not help Israel (Israel can't "pull out" so to speak).

But the main income of terrorism is the drug trade. Abolishing the drug laws will allow US companies to produce safer drugs at a low price and will cause a major blow against most criminal organizations.

Does Giuliani want to do that? No, he is even against medical applications of marijuana.

"I believe the effort to try and make marijuana available for medical uses is really a way to legalize it. There's no reason for it,"

But, there is a more important point I’d like to make. The right thing to do is to stand up to thugs not run from them and not pretend they have the right to be thugs because they have lived in some region for a long time. We shouldn’t have to tippy-toe around the world in deference to irrational forces. We should give them no quarter, and treat them in accordance with their nature. Civilized men should rule, not despots.

Yes, but that shouldn't end in self-sacrifice (and the sacrifice of others by war taxation). A war and the aftermath costs much more money than any terrorist could ever destroy with bombs. In addition it provides them with an ideal recruiting ground for new members who ignore the fact that the attack was justified. The problem with dealing with irrational forces is that either way you loose.

It would have been hard to remove the philosophy in Nazi Germany as well, but we did have the means to remove their army, and removing their army solved quite a few problems.

I think it caused more problems than it solved, at least for the US. The direct consequences were the war dept, the loss of life abroad and liberty at home. The indirect consequence was the strenghtening of the Soviet Union.

You should read Professor Lewis on this, because he makes it clear why we have to dishearten the enemy.

While I'm doing that I suggest that you reread The Roots of War by AR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who can't see that :(+"death to America" = threat really shouldn't be president.

By this reasoning Hillary/Obama/Edwards shouldn't be president.

As for Giuliani, he should be in jail for what he did to the great business giants of the 1980s.

Ron Paul is not perfect, but at this stage of societal evolution, we will not see a perfect presidential candidate.

Ron Paul said on C-SPAN recently when he was asked about abortion that the constitution does not authorize the federal government to legislate abortion, so he would defer the issue to the states. And remember, hard-money-man Dr. Paul wants to implement objective money in America, i.e., the gold standard. That single act would reverse the power structure, effectively stripping power from politicians & bureaucrats while empowering entrepreneurs, businesspeople and productive citizens -- a power they lost in 1913. This would vanish the welfare state while supercharging the prosperity of everyone in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, being back on the gold standard will be great once I get the radiation cleared out of my fucking body.

Paul is for great things economically, but there is no economy without a country.

As far as Giuliani goes, I was all for him before the debates began, and he began to succumb to pressure from Social Conservatives. He suddenly became strictor on immigration, gave 5 minute excuses for why he was for abortion and I'm sure now he hates queers, eh?

I realize the terrible things Giuliani did in the 80s. Well, that is not quite true. I wasn't conciouss for most of the 80s, but I have heard what an absolute scurge he was for businesses. It's sad.

But, I suppose I will vote for anyone that will defend us against Iran, but then how do we know they will? Elections are filled with doubt, especially when it is between a " douche and a turd sandwich ".

Edited by TheEgoist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain me why Pakistan is not in the list?

They’re part of the equation, too. However, I'm in agreement with Yaron Brook on this, we only need deal with one of these nations resoundingly, the biggest and baddest terrorist state, Iran, and the rest will get the message.

It is known that Pakistan is heavily involved into the drug trade processing the opium from Afghanistan, it is an islamic military dictatorship, supports or did support terrorists and it is known that Pakistan (their intelligence service to be correct) was one of the financeers of one of the 911 terrorists. Yet the relationship to the US is pretty cozy.

And with Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Iran is basically in war with Israel.

And with us. American hostages in 1979, the murdering of hundreds of U.S. marines in the 1980s, the continual insurgency attacks on us in Iraq, and the building of a nuke are examples of their war against us.

And I agree with you that Ron Paul's position would not help Israel (Israel can't "pull out" so to speak).

And he doesn't recognize the moral superiority of Israel. He seems to think there are legitimate gripes by Arab states against Isreal.

But the main income of terrorism is the drug trade. Abolishing the drug laws will allow US companies to produce safer drugs at a low price and will cause a major blow against most criminal organizations.

I question this. I'm more inclined to think oil is the main support, but you could be right. Tracinski wrote an article about Saudi Arabia, and them becoming rich off of oil has lead to financing of Islamacism.

Does Giuliani want to do that?

Let's focus on Ron Paul here. I understand that Giuliani has some real flaws.

Yes, but that shouldn't end in self-sacrifice (and the sacrifice of others by war taxation). A war and the aftermath costs much more money than any terrorist could ever destroy with bombs.

Self-defense is not self-sacrifice. We're fighting for our lives here. We have to stop them from killing us and trying to kill us so that they won't think about doing it again. This is the principle. If you let people walk over you, then everyone is going to join in. Right now we have a case where Americans are targets for murder by Islamic states. We have to put an end to it. This is the entire purpose of the U.S. military, and U.S. government, to uphold our inalienable rights.

The war for us would be relatively easy if we'd go all out and annihilate such a state, instead of trying to bring democracy to the region. We have more technology and fire power than they and their little god ever dreamed of. If we did this just after 9/11 these people would have gotten the message we're not going to put up with them.

This war should have been quick, decisive and to the point. We have to be ruthless about defending ourselves against thugs. We have to be uncompromising ala the Romans back in the day.

In addition it provides them with an ideal recruiting ground for new members who ignore the fact that the attack was justified.

If we obliterate them, and take away their financing and safe haven they won't have any ability to recruit much of anything. If we show them that they have no chance of winning, then this will reduce their number of recruits still further. This is primarily a war against states, not rogue terrorists.

The problem with dealing with irrational forces is that either way you loose.

I don't understand this statement. By killing the bad guys, you free yourself up from that threat. You can then get on with living your life in a free society, which is the whole point in obliterating such an enemy as quickly as possible. They have no business messing with us, and they should learn their lesson but quick.

I think it caused more problems than it solved, at least for the US. The direct consequences were the war dept, the loss of life abroad and liberty at home. The indirect consequence was the strenghtening of the Soviet Union.

Well, let me put it to you this way, the Brits and their allies had to destroy the German army.

While I'm doing that I suggest that you reread The Roots of War by AR.

Okay, I just did. What point did you want me to take from it? :huh:

By this reasoning Hillary/Obama/Edwards shouldn't be president.

Yes, it’s good reasoning. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both [the Beirut military base and Khobar Towers bombing] are examples of foriegn interventionism. Why are US troops in Beirut and Saudi Arabia?

I am honestly not sure if you meant this as a question or as a challenge. Before pursuing this discussion further, I first wish to understand your position.

Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe the United States has the moral authority to station troops over seas? Does it matter if the government of the foreign nation gives its consent? Does it matter if the troops are there to prevent an atrocity, such as genocide?

Furthermore, given that troops are stationed in a foreign country, under what circumstances do you perceive that a brutal attack on the military personnel is justified? Do you think it would it be justified if Germans, Italians, Japanese or Filipinos started bombing some of United States military bases in their countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just the way I look at politics but, here is how I see it.

Politicians don't think in terms of individuals, only in voting blocs. It's not about,"how can I get average Joe American to vote for me" it's "How can I get Black Bob and his friends or Christian Chris and his ministry to vote for me"

They derive all their power from the little collectivist blocs they pander too.

The other day this total stranger added me on Facebook. I checked him out and saw his interests included, altruism, mysticism, and philosophy. He was super-mystic-spiritualist. Guess what else he had all over his wall? VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!! Right next to his 9/11 Truthers propoganda.

He and his friends also were discussing if Ron Paul would finally declassify the truth about UFOs and the free energy that Big Corporations were keeping away from us.

Now, why is this information relevant? Because of George W. Bush. When Bush got elected, who did he pander the most too? Most certainly not the Objectivists who voted for him, not the paleo-conseratives, not the fisically responsible, not the moderates who he told he was "tough on terror."

He pandered to the Christians. He gave the Chrisitians everything they wanted.This way, they would vote for him. It's no different with Ron Paul.

So, from what I see, if Ron Paul is pandering to the nutjobs of every kind, then who you think is going to get everything he wants. These people finally get a politician they like,can work with and who will reveal the truth about Israel supporting the Decipticons and Big Corporations killing the dinosaurs.

The difference between democracy and dictatorship is the difference between the puppets and the ones pull their strings. Do you want the 9/11 Truther crowd's hands on the Executive Branch?

It's something to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Al Quds supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents] wouldn't be a problem if no US troops were stationed there.
And Hitler would not have been a problem had the United States never went to Europe during World War II.

Ron Paul does not 'assert that Iran has done nothing to the U.S.'.

He does during the Republican primary debates. For example, go to 5:05 in the

that Dorian linked.

He argues that there is currently no threat from Iran so the costs of invasion are too high compared to the gain. Even if Iran got its hand on a nuclear weapon, compared to Pakistan and North Korea, Iran is a relatively civilized country.

Iran might be more civilized than North Korea but their government is far from civil. The government is essentially an autocratic, Shiite theocracy. Protesters are routinely beaten. The Iranian President has even openly relished a world without the United States. Leaving all discussions of what actions to take aside, the Iranian government is an enemy to the Western way of life.

The hostage taking and 'Islamic revolution' in 1979 was a consequence of putting up a dictatorship under the Shah in 1953 to protect the oil interests in Iran. The question is of course if that action was justified as the nationalization of the oil industry was a violation by Iran. Yes, it may have been justified, but I don't think that it was in the self-interest of the US.

The emphasis is mine. Stating that the Islamic Revolution was a "consequence" suggests that it is a reasonable response to misdeeds in Western foreign policy. This is a dangerous mentality that will only embolden Islamic Fundamentalists and will only jeopardize Western defenses. These extremists will never be placated. They will relentlessly pursue destruction in the name of Islam even if all of the governments of the West all unilaterally withdraw from the Middle East. Of all of the countries whose governments have been modified with by the United States: Japan, Germany, The Philippines, Chile, Guatemala, South Korea and the like, Iran is the only one who serves as a beacon for global terrorism. The Shah was brutal to the Iranian people, but so was Ayatollah Khomeini. To merely describe one of the defining moments of the modern Islamic Fundamentalist movement as a mere "consequence" of bad foreign policy is to disregard the underlying evil behind the movement itself.

There is certainly no dichotomy between the Libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy of Ron Paul and the Neoconservative idea of bringing countries democracy regardless of who they will vote for. The United States has certainly made a lot of blunders overseas in recent history and almost surely should be less of an interventionist. However, Dr. Paul has given me zero confidence that he will actively defend the United States when military action becomes vital. What do you think Dr. Paul will do to combat Islamic Extremism if he was elected to office besides withdraw entirely from the Middle East and try to decriminalize drugs?

It is known that Pakistan is heavily involved into the drug trade processing the opium from Afghanistan, it is an islamic military dictatorship
This is not known. General Musharraf is a secular dictator who is actively combating the growing Islamic Fundamentalist movement in his country (we can all imagine what will happen if we bring Pakistan a democracy.) He is far from an ideal leader, but he is certainly not an Islamic Fundamentalist leader. Just look at the recent standoff between the Pakistani government and the radicals who barricaded themselves inside the Red Mosque.

By this reasoning Hillary/Obama/Edwards shouldn't be president.
Although this is a little off topic, I think we have some reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will be considerably better than Barack Obama and John Edwards with respect to foreign policy. Of course, she will definitely not be a role model. Given that the Democrats might wind up being the lesser of two evils in 2008, we might as well not conflate their three major candidates when they are all not equally as horrendous. John Edwards has called the War on Terrorism a "bumper sticker slogan" but has failed to provide an alternative to combating Islamic Fundamentalists. Barack Obama does not seem to acknowledge any enemies but he does mention that he plans to protect our troops from avian flu under his "defense" plan. Hillary Clinton does repeatedly acknowledge Al Qaeda as a threat and repeatedly expresses the need to continue military action against them without keeping a ridiculous commitment to the present war of self-sacrifice in Iraq Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Hitler would not have been a problem had the United States never went to Europe during World War II.

Really not the best analogy and Germany was a problem and would have been. Germany and the Axis powers declared war on the U.S. and our allies. We were being attacked on our lands. Germany was invading multiple allied countries and was a threat to our freedom. I don't see how this relates to Iran.

The way I see this thread boiling down to is either you're Pro-War or not. Personally I don't believe in the Iraq war, I don't think it did us any good or will. I don't like how my tax dollars are being used to fund this when I'd rather have it go towards paying our debt and balancing the budget.

Iran is a touchy situation but I personally would prefer to avoid war with them at all costs and stay out of the middle east. When its obvious that it would serve our best interest to engage them then we should but right now it doesn't seem reasonable.

I agree with Ron Paul, I'd rather pull our troops out and strengthen our defenses. He still has my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...