Is Ron Paul Bad for Defense and Foreign Policy?

[Focused Gunfire]

All the talking heads on the television and radio seem to think so. Even on the forums you will hear people say I like RP, but not his foreign policy. Maybe if things got better, but too risky now. I have been thinking recently, and maybe I am just foolish, but I don’t think he would be that bad in that department.

The way I see it is O has been the worst president in this category in a long time. I’m sure some mouthpiece will show up shortly and brag about the pirates, and OBL. The thing is, that was not O’s doing. In fact I would say when he over involved himself in the operations is when the problems started. Like when he tried to make political hay out off OBL’s death. Anyway the president may change, but the people who protect us stay the same for the most part. I don’t think RP will waste all his time and capital to shit on our troops/defense department. I see big budget cuts, but nothing that will leave us anymore vulnerable than we already are.

Well it’s too risky because Iran may get a nuke! I say let Israel handle it. We didn’t give them all that money/weapons for nothing did we? All be it a very small portion of our budget, but still. They are closer, and probably the first target too. They probably have bombing plans drawn up.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

We shouldn't be the policemen and nation builders of the world. That said I am a little afraid of the Mullahs getting the bomb, they will use it or give it to their cohorts.

As far as needing to be everywhere around the world to protect ourselves? Nonsense. We could make in impenetrable ring around our country with our troops and ships and planes and technology, even bring illegal immigration to a virtual end. We need end entrance of people from countries that hate us to start with. You cannot go to Saudi Arabia for instance unless they request you for some technical reason.

RP doesn't scare me, he voted to go into Afghanistan BTW.

[mriddick]

I'm not sure you can say bad, but he doesn't miss a chance to sound weak. Really I don't mind his policy so much but the way he sells it I find seriously lacking and worrisome for a national election.

[O.S.O.K.]

This is all academic because his statements on Iran will sink him.

On a bright note, my wife came home today from school (she's an 8th grade science teacher) and told me that her kids were all badmouthing obummer - saying that he's bad for the country :lool:

This is funny because there's a good number of illegals around here and also quite a few lower income folks. So, they must be watching all of the repub goings-on and drinking it all in. GOOD!!!

[old Grump]

If you think the constitution and the founding fathers were wrong about getting entangled in foreign affairs then yes he is bad. If you believe in sane government then he is good...your choice.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

If you think the constitution and the founding fathers were wrong about getting entangled in foreign affairs then yes he is bad. If you believe in sane government then he is good...your choice.

That is the point that drives me insane. The founders warned us about foreign adventures/entanglements, yet most Conservatives on here are all for doing it while claiming they love the Constitution..Almost like Libs claiming they love the Constitution but hate guns for example.

[N/A]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

[El Laton Caliente]

The foundeers changed their mind in 1784 when the Islamists attacked our shipping. We invented the USA's Navy and Marines and invaded Tripoli...

[old Grump]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.Makes it more important today than it was then since we are all connected by WWW.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

Good point, but don't we have the technology to ring our country defensively from any threat? How exactly does nation building give us security? That's almost the same argument for restricting our 2nd amendment rights..... They couldn't have envisioned machineguns from their muskets...... When it comes down to it, we could annihilate any country in the same timeframe, so how are we better off deploying troops to die by IED's ect while others reap the rewards they died for?

[1 Patriot-of-many]

The foundeers changed their mind in 1784 when the Islamists attacked our shipping. We invented the USA's Navy and Marines and invaded Tripoli...
Did we take over Libya? There's a difference in defensive actions than nation building.

[mriddick]

The military is going to be cut back regardless, we can't keep on spending almost 1/3 of tax receipts on the military. I just think the way he's going about is not the best for his general election chances.

[El Laton Caliente]

Did we take over Libya? There's a difference in defensive actions than nation building.

There is a difference in nation building and isolationism. Isolationism does not work, it just shows weakness...

[El Laton Caliente]

The military is going to be cut back regardless, we can't keep on spending almost 1/3 of tax receipts on the military. I just think the way he's going about is not the best for his general election chances.

No doubt. The military, and much of it is Congress' pork, wastes billions...

[N/A]

Good point, but don't we have the technology to ring our country defensively from any threat? How exactly does nation building give us security? That's almost the same argument for restricting our 2nd amendment rights..... They couldn't have envisioned machineguns from their muskets...... When it comes down to it, we could annihilate any country in the same timeframe, so how are we better off deploying troops to die by IED's ect while others reap the rewards they died for?

In my mind, they were worried about becoming entangled in a foreign adventure that was at the end of a very long supply line. They had seen how that supply cost the British. They were not so keen to repeat that mistake. Closer to home, they had no trouble fighting numerous Indian wars. And as pointed out, they had no trouble going to Tripoli. As for "nation building", they had never heard of such a thing. Again, they would not have been foolish enough to try it at the end of that very long supply line. Do I think it is a good idea today. I say crush them and rebulid them in our image.

[old Grump]

There is a difference in nation building and isolationism. Isolationism does not work, it just shows weakness...Non-intervention does not mean isolationism.

[rshaneck2002]

Every time this nation has minded its own beeswax someone comes along and truly messes with us,ever hear of Pearl Harbor? we try to play referee in the middle east and we get 9/11. I will always think that the US needs a very strong military presence around the world,a serious display of power,especially in this modern world.this country tends to forget that the number one responsibilty of our fed gov is national defense,or international defense which we already have in this day of high tech. we have been drawn in wars in the past and i am afraid we will be in the future,unless humans can find ways of getting along better as world population increases. I see no faith in that aspect,they have not in their entire history for any lasting length of time.
They may not love you,but they sure as hell will respect you.there is not one country in this world we have not helped at onetime or another and we always seem to get kicked in the teeth for sure. Building a moat around us does appeal to me heavily but dos not work in the long run,besides we already have the moat around us. I like Mr Pauls ideas on the economy,not so much on national defense. could i live with it?sure? could live with Obama care too but I sure as hell do not like it or what it may create down the road.

[5.56NATO]

You have Ron Paul, who has never voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars, and you have all the rinos who have voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars and will again. Voting rino is the same as voting dem as the rinos are as regressive as any dem.

Who are you going to vote for?

[abpt1]

RP seems like a nut job .....Guess I am stuck picking the lesser of two evils .....Again



Rick Santorum

[tank_monkey]

You have Ron Paul, who has never voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars, and you have all the rinos who have voted for antigun legislation, tax increases, or wars and will again. Voting rino is the same as voting dem as the rinos are as regressive as any dem.

Who are you going to vote for?

Kinda a sweeping generalization, don't you think? Gun rights is a number 1 in my book, but I'm flexible on others, depending on the situation. Also I'm a realist. If someone 'flip flops' and says 'Hell no I won't support Gun Control" and happens to have a GUN FRIENDLY Congress, ultimately nothing will happen that can make things worse. sure I want someone who will reverse a bunch of stuff, but the minimum I require is someone who will not make things worse. So regardless of who it is, I have to do what millions of other voters have had to do for centuries. Pick the one which fits the best but don't SIT IT OUT because no one fits 100%. :D

[Warthogg]

Who are you going to vote for?

I would say enough will vote for Mittens to give him the nomination.


Wart

[Warthogg]

......but the minimum I require is someone who will not make things worse.

And if that "someone" is a gridlocked Barry Obama ??


Wart

[old Grump]

The foundeers changed their mind in 1784 when the Islamists attacked our shipping. We invented the USA's Navy and Marines and invaded Tripoli...

War was against the pirates and their leaders.


Every time this nation has minded its own beeswax someone comes along and truly messes with us,ever hear of Pearl Harbor? we try to play referee in the middle east and we get 9/11. I will always think that the US needs a very strong military presence around the world,a serious display of power,especially in this modern world.this country tends to forget that the number one responsibilty of our fed gov is national defense,or international defense which we already have in this day of high tech. we have been drawn in wars in the past and i am afraid we will be in the future,unless humans can find ways of getting along better as world population increases. I see no faith in that aspect,they have not in their entire history for any lasting length of time.
They may not love you,but they sure as hell will respect you.there is not one country in this world we have not helped at onetime or another and we always seem to get kicked in the teeth for sure. Building a moat around us does appeal to me heavily but dos not work in the long run,besides we already have the moat around us. I like Mr Pauls ideas on the economy,not so much on national defense. could i live with it?sure? could live with Obama care too but I sure as hell do not like it or what it may create down the road.We were not minding our own business, we had our fingers in Japan's business in a big way. They were wrong to attack us and it cost them dearly but we are not entirely blameless. I'm guessing your history book left out the why they attacked and only focused on they attacked.

[Bluedog]

If you think the constitution and the founding fathers were wrong about getting entangled in foreign affairs then yes he is bad. If you believe in sane government then he is good...your choice.

Sane government? You know how I know you don't pay much attention to what Ron Paul says?

Ron Paul has said Iran is justified in blockading the Straits of Hormuz in response to sanctions, because sanctions are an act of war. He then compared sanctions to a naval blockade, which he says is an act of war, but not apparently if Iran does it! God, he is so stupid it hurts my head to try and decipher his lunatic ravings.

[old Grump]

Sane government? You know how I know you don't pay much attention to what Ron Paul says?

Ron Paul has said Iran is justified in blockading the Straits of Hormuz in response to sanctions, because sanctions are an act of war. He then compared sanctions to a naval blockade, which he says is an act of war, but not apparently if Iran does it! God, he is so stupid it hurts my head to try and decipher his lunatic ravings.
I don't like the situation and it isn't going to turn out good for anybody but I think he is right. I wouldn't have thought of it but then I'm not running for President. Agree or disagree as you wish but it doesn't fall under the rubric of lunatic.

[Bluedog]

RP seems like a nut job .....Guess I am stuck picking the lesser of two evils .....Again



Rick Santorum

Santorum is NOT the lesser evil. That idiot fuck is opposed to E-verify. More jobs for illegals. Why?

[Bluedog]

I don't like the situation and it isn't going to turn out good for anybody but I think he is right. I wouldn't have thought of it but then I'm not running for President. Agree or disagree as you wish but it doesn't fall under the rubric of lunatic.

How are sanctions akin to a blockade? If a bunch of nations decide not to do business with Iran, that's their prerogative. In any event, If Iran blockades the straight, that is an act of war. Who will fight that war?

[mriddick]

Santorum is NOT the lesser evil. That idiot fuck is opposed to E-verify. More jobs for illegals. Why?

I suppose because he is opposed to a national ID system, which does have some merits in an honest discussion. However E verify would not be needed if the government would just shut the border to illegals.

[N/A]

why shut the borders. Just take every US business man to jail that hires an illegal worker.

[T2K]

In my opinion, he could absolutely articulate himself better on foreign policy (and other) issues. He's not a naturally smooth speaker, oh well. BUT ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

His consistent record of actions over the past several decades speak volumes. He served in the US Air Force, he's seen cold war and knows that it is preferable to a shooting war.

We need a conservative radical, not more of the same. He's the only one in the whole field.

George Washington's warning about avoiding foreign entanglements was good advice, very good, in my opinion. That should not be confused with being weak on defense, which Paul is not.

[Warthogg]

Ron Paul has said Iran is justified in blockading the Straits of Hormuz in response to sanctions, because sanctions are an act of war. He then compared sanctions to a naval blockade, which he says is an act of war, but not apparently if Iran does it! God, he is so stupid it hurts my head to try and decipher his lunatic ravings.

One has only to look at the months leading up to Japan's attacking Pearl Harbor to see the parallel with Iran and I'm sure RP knows that history chapter and verse. Simply NEOCONS, AIPAC and Netyanhu are attempting to push the US into war with Iran.

If successful, Iran will not only attack the Strait of Hormuz but also close-off the Gate of Tears and attack Saudi Arabia across that narrow choke point. Iran will fire everything at Israel not fired at the Saudis. Israel will, of course respond.

Now I know many of you will be just thrilled shitless at this point but consider this wild card:


Russia says strike on Iran would be a 'very serious mistake'

From: AFP
November 07, 2011 7:58PM

RUSSIA has warned of the dire consequences of a possible military strike on Iran.




Vlad Putin. has some problems now in Russia and could use a diversion.

Now what is THE BEST my country, the USA, can get from this insanity ?? EIGHT DOLLAR A GALLON gasoline is the best and will probably be more....much more.

The worst scenario is incalculable.


Wart

[mriddick]

why shut the borders. Just take every US business man to jail that hires an illegal worker.

That's the argument for E verify, use private business to enforce immigration laws through the use of a national ID system to verify who is able to work and who isn't.

[LAGC]

why shut the borders. Just take every US business man to jail that hires an illegal worker.

The Republican Party and their Chamber of Commerce will never allow that, too much of a "burden" on poor small business people after all.

Must use e-Verify on your employees to make sure they are legal? NO WAY, JOSE!

[Warthogg]

I don't like the situation and it isn't going to turn out good for anybody but I think he is right.

Yes....unfortunately he is right.


Wart

[Warthogg]

The Republican Party and their Chamber of Commerce will never allow that, too much of a "burden" on poor small business people after all.

Must use e-Verify on your employees to make sure they are legal? NO WAY, JOSE!

Rethuglicans AND the Dimocrats.


Wart

[N/A]

You know, in my opinion, Ron Paul is a fan of Ayn Rand, and her ideas. I, myself am also. Ayn Rand made the observation, that we are morally justified when we help out anyone who is being wronged. She also said, that we were under no moral obligation to do so, but if we did, we were morally justified to do so. Ron Paul should have studied more of Ayn Rands writings, and then I might think he had a firm grasp on his basic premises.

[N/A]

That's the argument for E verify, use private business to enforce immigration laws through the use of a national ID system to verify who is able to work and who isn't.
which is cheaper and more effective?

[mriddick]

The Republican Party and their Chamber of Commerce will never allow that, too much of a "burden" on poor small business people after all.

Must use e-Verify on your employees to make sure they are legal? NO WAY, JOSE!
Well you could also argue it's not the job of private business to enforce immigration laws, why not have the federal government do it (you know like the Constitution says it should)?

[LAGC]

Well you could also argue it's not the job of private business to enforce immigration laws, why not have the federal government do it (you know like the Constitution says it should)?

How's the government supposed to know where they all are? If no one ever checks their status, the government is operating blind! There are an estimated 10 million undocumented workers still in this country right now (down from 12.5 million as recently as 2007) -- why are there less than just 5 years ago? Because the JOBS have disappeared. People wouldn't risk life and limb coming across the border if they didn't think they could make a lot more money working here than back home. The most reasonable "choke-point" is to just force employers to check their status and only hire legit citizens!

Sure, you can round a few of them up if they happen to get arrested like these misguided laws in Arizona and Alabama that target Hispanic citizens as well, but most are very careful about not participating in illegal activity that might make them appear on the government's radar. Doesn't it make more sense to go after the SOURCE that draws them here in the first place?

[1 Patriot-of-many]

War was against the pirates and their leaders.

We were not minding our own business, we had our fingers in Japan's business in a big way. They were wrong to attack us and it cost them dearly but we are not entirely blameless. I'm guessing your history book left out the why they attacked and only focused on they attacked.
Bingo........ There's nothing wrong with punishing the guilty. There's no sense in spending yourself in our sons and daughters lives to build countries.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

How's the government supposed to know where they all are? If no one ever checks their status, the government is operating blind! There are an estimated 10 million undocumented workers still in this country right now (down from 12.5 million as recently as 2007) -- why are there less than just 5 years ago? Because the JOBS have disappeared. People wouldn't risk life and limb coming across the border if they didn't think they could make a lot more money working here than back home. The most reasonable "choke-point" is to just force employers to check their status and only hire legit citizens!

Sure, you can round a few of them up if they happen to get arrested like these misguided laws in Arizona and Alabama that target Hispanic citizens as well, but most are very careful about not participating in illegal activity that might make them appear on the government's radar. Doesn't it make more sense to go after the SOURCE that draws them here in the first place?

Okay did I step into the alternate reality again? LAGC is actually arguing for E verify? or have a drank too much tonight?

[gpwasr10]

We shouldn't be the policemen and nation builders of the world. That said I am a little afraid of the Mullahs getting the bomb, they will use it or give it to their cohorts.

As far as needing to be everywhere around the world to protect ourselves? Nonsense. We could make in impenetrable ring around our country with our troops and ships and planes and technology, even bring illegal immigration to a virtual end. We need end entrance of people from countries that hate us to start with. You cannot go to Saudi Arabia for instance unless they request you for some technical reason.

RP doesn't scare me, he voted to go into Afghanistan BTW.

It's 1940's tech, they'll get it eventually....

[mriddick]

Again it's not for me if they get the bomb, it's in how RP sold his policy which was very weak in how he presented it. His foreign policy stance is probably why he lost the voters of Iowa (whom I'm sure are not all Jewish Neocons.). Had he just answered every foreign policy question with the economy sucks I think he might of won.....

[rshaneck2002]

We cut off their oil supply(Japan) to keep them from riping China any worse than the rape of Nanking (or butcher) so what? which is worse? we cut off the oil or they bomb Pearl. You are right of course Mr Grump all i know is that my dad was at Normandy beach and i served in the 4th Inf in VN in 71-72, do i regret it hell yes so did my father but he always said this,if we had not we would have been speaking German in the United States down the road or at least he thought so. Maybe Rooseveldt and Truman brainwashed him. Seems to me that at that time the only one who truly got it right was Yamamoto when he said we only awoken a sleeping giant. Me it was LBJ who got us there and in the news lately its getting hot off the straits of Hormuz another Dem Prez getting ready, Bush? 9/11 did happen or was i dreaming the whole thing 10 yrs ago. Dont think so. Lets see for yrs we try to get the people there Oh HELL why even try to explain it,crap is going to happen again i do believe simple as that?

[5.56NATO]

Yamamoto said they "would put in a fine performance for two years, then lose the war." The Japanese mil leadership felt that they had to start it when they knew they had at least some advantage over us, wich they held at the time, but they knew from the beginning they would lose. So why attack? They thought we would attack them after we were strong enough and they would never get their licks in. So they started it. With Iran it's a bit different. China and Russia may take part in any actions over Iran. That would complicate things immensely.

[stinker]

There is a difference in nation building and isolationism. Isolationism does not work, it just shows weakness...

Isolationism is a term that was invented by Wilson and his lot to propogandize our way into WW1 when we had zero business being involved in the first place. WW1 led to the Weimar Republic, Weimar Republic led to the third reich, and we all know how that one worked out. If we had just minded our own business WW2 would NOT have happened.

Don't let the left define the terms of the debate. It's bad for your soul.

Sane government? You know how I know you don't pay much attention to what Ron Paul says?

Ron Paul has said Iran is justified in blockading the Straits of Hormuz in response to sanctions, because sanctions are an act of war. He then compared sanctions to a naval blockade, which he says is an act of war, but not apparently if Iran does it! God, he is so stupid it hurts my head to try and decipher his lunatic ravings.

Who's territorial waters is the strait? Is it ours?

What would you think if China determined that the west coast of the US was a security threat to their nation and they sent a bunch of warships to patrol and restrict trade traffic in and out of the US simply because they decided to. It's the exact same thing.

Sanctions are a diplomatic act of war. The reason Japan attacked us was because of sanctions that cut off their supply of oil. Previous to that they never even thought about attacking us and was involved with a conflict with the chinese, a rivalry that went back several centuries i might add.

Santorum is NOT the lesser evil. That idiot fuck is opposed to E-verify. More jobs for illegals. Why?

I'm opposed to E-verify. Not because i sympathize with the "plight" of illegals, but because it gives more power to the federal government. If the feds were doing their allready authorized and legitimate job of controlling the security of our borders there would be no need for E-verify.

Instead of E-verify hows this for a novel concept, snipers with radios. You cross the border with a visible weapon, kiss your ass goodbye when a .50 or a Cheytac cuts you in half. No weapon, say hello to the fleet of blackhawks that are going to let you hitch a ride to the friendly neighborhood detention center.

With Iran it's a bit different. China and Russia may take part in any actions over Iran. That would complicate things immensely.

And the winner of the glaringly obvious understatement award.

Iran is selling most of their oil to China and Russia. They will no likey if we do something that cuts that off.

You want to see WW3 in less than a month, apply the "sanctions" to the Iranian central bank, which would have the effect of declaring ANY business transaction with Iran illegal and force the cutoff of all business transactions by any NATO country with any other country that does business with Iran at any point. Chaos and death would soon follow.

RP seems like a nut job .....Guess I am stuck picking the lesser of two evils .....Again

And the best for last...

I'm getting sick of this "Ron Paul is great except his foreigh policy he's nuts and gonna get us all killed" crap.
That's 100 or so years of Progressive propoganda and indoctrination talking.
If it is'nt, then why does every single person that says it say it the exact same way almost down to the exact same words EVERY TIME?

History lesson time.
The Monroe Doctrine, How to understand Ron Pauls foreign policy 101 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h255.html)

It worked pretty damn good at keeping us safe until Teddy came along. Then the nation building began.

Theodore Roosevelt was never shy about asserting American interests, so it's not surprising that he devised what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. In it, Roosevelt acknowledged that at times, chaos in a small country could necessarily lead to the intervention of a great power, and that in the Western Hemisphere, that great power would always be the United States.

This is much better for us i think.

In his message to Congress, Monroe set forth the following principles, which would later become known as the Monroe Doctrine:

The Western Hemisphere was no longer open for colonization
The political system of the Americas was different from Europe
The United States would regard any interference in Western hemispheric affairs as a threat to its security
The United States would refrain from participation in European wars and would not disturb existing colonies in the Western Hemisphere

[Warthogg]

The Japanese mil leadership felt that they had to start it when.......

.......their oil supply dropped to X months. Think that number may have been six months but not sure.

Actually the peace party was in control in Japan until our blockade made war inevitable and the militarists lead by General Tojo took over.


Wart

Much the same tactics are being used today to force Iran into war.

[Warthogg]

Quote Originally Posted by 5.56NATO
With Iran it's a bit different. China and Russia may take part in any actions over Iran. That would complicate things immensely.




Quote Originally Posted by stinker

And the winner of the glaringly obvious understatement award.


The statement by 5.56 is "glaringly obvious" to only a few here.

The absolute BEST outcome from a war with Iran for the US is $8.00/gallon gasoline.

The worst....incalculable.


Wart

[mriddick]

Was it first the Banks were too big to fail and then Iran had too much oil to confront, or was Iran had too much oil to confront first? :)

[Warthogg]

Was it first the Banks were too big to fail and then Iran had too much oil to confront, or was Iran had too much oil to confront first? :)

Iran was first.


Wart

ETA

Ya know my answer above may not be correct. The Fed has been in bidness shafting the American public since 1913. Back then Iran was still Persia....IIRC.

[T2K]

Sanctions are not an act of war, per se. If the US tells its companies that they can't sell to Iran, that is a domestic issue of the US.

A blockade, however, is an act of war. A blockade is when you use force to stop cargo coming to or from another nation's port.

Sanctions and blockades are two different things. We have sanctions on Iran. We do not have a blockade on Iran.

[Texas Soldado]

One thing to keep in mind is that in the days of the founding fathers, foreign entanglements were a good 30 days across the Atlantic. Today, they are only 30 minutes by ICBM. We live in a vastly smaller world today. We can be attacked more quickly today then we could 200+ years ago.

EXACTLY... the framers couldn't have conceived of some boy-raping mullah having a ICBM that could hit us from the other side of the world. Iran is currently threatening our carriers and the Iranian president thinks a world war will bring on the return of the 13th 'lost' mullah.

[Warthogg]

.............. the Iranian president thinks a world war will bring on the return of the 13th 'lost' mullah.

In Iran, the President has about as much authority as Joe Biden (Vice President) here.

Don't Christians have some what similar belief in that all Jews must be rounded up in Israel and be 'encouraged' to convert to Christianity in order to promote the Second Coming ??


Wart

[5.56NATO]

In Iran, the President has about as much authority as Joe Biden (Vice President) here.

Don't Christians have some what similar belief in that all Jews must be rounded up in Israel and be 'encouraged' to convert to Christianity in order to promote the Second Coming ??


Wart

Yep! Says so right in the Gospel of St Lucifer, after the passage where Jesus and Lucifer call a truce and Satan says he's sorry for everything. Then Lucifer and Jesus work together to save all mankind!

[samiam]

if the second coming were covered by Fox News it would likely go something like this: Mr. Jesus H. Christ the Anti-American, long-haired, radical, socialist Jew arrived today . . . .

[Warthogg]

Yep! Says so right in the Gospel of St Lucifer, after the passage where Jesus and Lucifer call a truce and Satan says he's sorry for everything. Then Lucifer and Jesus work together to save all mankind!

So Lucifer and Satan are two different entities....huh ??

Maybe that's why the Catholics have a Saint Lucifer.

Wart

[Warthogg]

if the second coming were covered by Fox News it would likely go something like this: Mr. Jesus H. Christ the Anti-American, long-haired, radical, socialist Jew arrived today . . . .

Or on NBC;

Jay Christ dropped down this morning to personally lead the 'Occupy the Bronx" effort. Mr Christ, well known for his populist, anti-conservative, anti-gun views, arrival with much trumpet blowing caused a huge traffic jam. Mayor Bloomberg has stated Mr. Christ will be charged with disturbing the peace with trumpets and obstructing traffic......

[Warthogg]

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)


Hmmmmmm...


Wart

[old Grump]

So Lucifer and Satan are two different entities....huh ??

Maybe that's why the Catholics have a Saint Lucifer.

Wart
Lucifer of Cagliari was never canonized so he is not a saint and he was not a satanist. That was just more misunderstandings brought out by poor translations.

[mriddick]

to get back on post...
Ron Paul is bad for defense and foreign policy because he sounds weak on defense and foreign policy, and sounding weak is worse then being weak at times.

[5.56NATO]

to get back on post...
Ron Paul is bad for defense and foreign policy because he sounds weak on defense and foreign policy, and sounding weak is worse then being weak at times.

What's wrong with if you do anything bad with your nukes we will vaporise your cities? Following your logic we will "have" to attack every country eventually.

[smittylite]

With Iran it's a bit different. China and Russia may take part in any actions over Iran. That would complicate things immensely.

don't forget to throw in Pakistan and India as well.

[mriddick]

What's wrong with if you do anything bad with your nukes we will vaporise your cities? Following your logic we will "have" to attack every country eventually.

I'm not sure saying RP is sounding weak expresses the opinion we need to invade every country. If anything I've steadfastly agreed with RP on the policy of us closing most (if not all bases) what I don't agree with is how he's expressing it (weakness).