A HS classmate of mine (now 48 years old) has been in the Army since he was 18. A very dedicated and serious, professional soldier that is very loyal to the US. So far, he has served several tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 12 years.
Unsolicited... He adamantly stated that what we are doing over there is ABSOLUTELY STUPID and a colossal WASTE of LIVES, MONEY, FRIENDSHIP and RESOURCES. He is of the FIRM BELIEF that we must GET OUT... RIGHT NOW!
Full video: citizenlink com /2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/ - at around the 32 min mark of the full video, a man is allowed to come forward and give his 2 cents in which he calls out the federal reserve.
WMD's were never found but now you argue that the pre-emptive attack on Iraq thwarted possible future utilisation of nuclear weapons? -That's insane. Let's not mention that the U.S. armed the shit out of Hussein in the 80's against Iran, and now we’re on the threshold of attacking them on shaky grounds of defense.
You are aware that most of the U.S’s involvement in the region has nothing to do with defense- don't you?
@Samsgarden To answer you in order: there was a smoking gun in Iraq which intimated Saddam in attempts to buy nuclear weaponry,and that alone deserves retaliation, right? The U.S arguably did do damage to the regime in Iraq, and didn't arm it. They were the reason other countries stopped funding Saddam. We did impose heavy regimes on Iraq, did we not? Also, the U.S is defending itself from a repetition of 9/11, so yes, our stay there is for defense, by my estimation.
There hasn't been evidence of Saddam Hussein trying to obtain nuclear weapons since the 80s, and he hasn't had an WMD program since the end of the Gulf War of 1991. Had we simply done nothing, the security of the US and Israel would be just as safe, if not safer given that our removing Saddam Hussein allowed Iranian influence to spread throughout Iraq and thus destabilizing what was once a balance of power in the Middle East.
@Bud2400 I accept that there were problems with the Iraq/Afghan wars.
I have got to call you out on the idea we'd be safer with Hussein in power. I mean, he was invading many areas without any provocation, named members of his family went out to acquire nuclear materials, he lied to the UN on biological and cruise missile programs he had set up.
Do you really think a regime like that would ever be able to hold a "balance of power?"
That is very naive, and something I don't think is logical.
Like it or not, Saddam's Iraq did withhold the balance of power in the Middle East - mainly against Iran. With Iraq under Iran's influence now, Iran is capable of spreading its influence throughout the rest of the Middle East. That was a major blunder in the US's strategic planning in the Middle East these last 10 years.
Moreover, Saddam hadn't invaded nations since the early 90s. Whatever way you spin it, Iraq was of absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever.
@Grawpify It has been proven for a long time that Iraq was not threat on us. The war in Iraq was just an invasive unconstitutional attack on them, and even if you believe invading them in the first place was necessary, surely you can agree that we shouldn't STILL be there.
@homemadepie91 I agree we should leave... once we get the combatants round the table, of course.
If it happens soon, that's great, no one wants war. I think when the Taliban and the UN form Democratic talks, like what happened in my own country, Britain, in Northern Ireland with the IRA, then I think the UN could leave... but not a second before or after negotiations... complete, impotent withdrawal serves no ones interests in this war, in fact it will only embolden the insurgents of Iraq.
A HS classmate of mine (now 48 years old) has been in the Army since he was 18. A very dedicated and serious, professional soldier that is very loyal to the US. So far, he has served several tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the past 12 years.
Unsolicited... He adamantly stated that what we are doing over there is ABSOLUTELY STUPID and a colossal WASTE of LIVES, MONEY, FRIENDSHIP and RESOURCES. He is of the FIRM BELIEF that we must GET OUT... RIGHT NOW!
DanH454 1 month ago
If the Economy is about people... Then, how can killing people be good for the economy?
- Richard Maybury
On average, the aggressor will spend about 500-600 times as much as the country and its people that they are attacking.
- Richard Maybury
DanH454 1 month ago
Just look who's sitting at the "head" of the table!! RP 2012!!
francenefallin 2 months ago
Goddamn I want him as president!!! no more war mongering puppets who profit from wars.
caddidon 2 months ago
Good answer Dr. Paul.
3monkeysmomma 3 months ago
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY TRUE MAN OF CHARACTER UP THERE ..
STUDY YOUR BIBLES PEOPLE .. WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB?
N8Revolution 3 months ago
Full video: citizenlink com /2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/ - at around the 32 min mark of the full video, a man is allowed to come forward and give his 2 cents in which he calls out the federal reserve.
BrianVeritasAequitas 3 months ago
Not a very good answer- if we didn't invade Iraq, we would have seen Hussein and others with nuclear weapons. We had to invade Iraq.
Vietnam and Indo-China were imperialist and bad wars, however, I agree with Ron Paul there.
I know I'm going to get flamed for saying that Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be invaded, but that's my belief.
Grawpify 3 months ago
@Grawpify
WMD's were never found but now you argue that the pre-emptive attack on Iraq thwarted possible future utilisation of nuclear weapons? -That's insane. Let's not mention that the U.S. armed the shit out of Hussein in the 80's against Iran, and now we’re on the threshold of attacking them on shaky grounds of defense.
You are aware that most of the U.S’s involvement in the region has nothing to do with defense- don't you?
Samsgarden 3 months ago
@Samsgarden To answer you in order: there was a smoking gun in Iraq which intimated Saddam in attempts to buy nuclear weaponry,and that alone deserves retaliation, right? The U.S arguably did do damage to the regime in Iraq, and didn't arm it. They were the reason other countries stopped funding Saddam. We did impose heavy regimes on Iraq, did we not? Also, the U.S is defending itself from a repetition of 9/11, so yes, our stay there is for defense, by my estimation.
Grawpify 3 months ago
@Grawpify
There hasn't been evidence of Saddam Hussein trying to obtain nuclear weapons since the 80s, and he hasn't had an WMD program since the end of the Gulf War of 1991. Had we simply done nothing, the security of the US and Israel would be just as safe, if not safer given that our removing Saddam Hussein allowed Iranian influence to spread throughout Iraq and thus destabilizing what was once a balance of power in the Middle East.
Bud2400 3 months ago
@Bud2400 I accept that there were problems with the Iraq/Afghan wars.
I have got to call you out on the idea we'd be safer with Hussein in power. I mean, he was invading many areas without any provocation, named members of his family went out to acquire nuclear materials, he lied to the UN on biological and cruise missile programs he had set up.
Do you really think a regime like that would ever be able to hold a "balance of power?"
That is very naive, and something I don't think is logical.
Grawpify 3 months ago
@Grawpify
Like it or not, Saddam's Iraq did withhold the balance of power in the Middle East - mainly against Iran. With Iraq under Iran's influence now, Iran is capable of spreading its influence throughout the rest of the Middle East. That was a major blunder in the US's strategic planning in the Middle East these last 10 years.
Moreover, Saddam hadn't invaded nations since the early 90s. Whatever way you spin it, Iraq was of absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever.
Bud2400 3 months ago
@Grawpify It has been proven for a long time that Iraq was not threat on us. The war in Iraq was just an invasive unconstitutional attack on them, and even if you believe invading them in the first place was necessary, surely you can agree that we shouldn't STILL be there.
homemadepie91 3 months ago
@homemadepie91 I agree we should leave... once we get the combatants round the table, of course.
If it happens soon, that's great, no one wants war. I think when the Taliban and the UN form Democratic talks, like what happened in my own country, Britain, in Northern Ireland with the IRA, then I think the UN could leave... but not a second before or after negotiations... complete, impotent withdrawal serves no ones interests in this war, in fact it will only embolden the insurgents of Iraq.
Grawpify 3 months ago
such an inspirational answer
oceaurill 3 months ago