These tankers who go through these dangerous areas do go at their own risk and know it. Many escort services are used and these heavily armed ships make sure that no one messes with their clients. Some companies are just too cheap to pay for some insurance on their goods.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ron Paul and his supporters are driven by paranoia derived from conspiracy theories like '9/11 was an inside job', 'North American Superhighway' and so on.
He can't SAY he thinks it or he'll get JFK'd. The implications of that reaching the sheeple could wipe out everything the Nazi's have been working toward.
IMHO,Obama is using the wars as an opportunity/excuse to increase DoD spending.The reason is so once he recalls solders,he can use them to police the United States itself.This will be used to keep rebellions in line and prevent state secession.He will seek to deminish the effectiveness of the 2nd,4th and 10th amendments once he stacks the Supreme Court. FDR tried to do it.There is no reason to believe Obama won't too.He may go so far as to declare an "emergency" requiring amendment 3 adjustment.
I'm a US citizen abroad, and I registered to vote in the primaries just to vote for HIM - mainly based on his monetary/fiscal policy and desire to drastically scale back government power.
However, comissioning privateers to take out Somalian pirates is plainly insane. This is on the same level of ridiculousness as Ron Paul's claim that the attacks of 9/11 could been thwarted if the passengers of the hijacked airplanes were packing concealed firearms.
Are you calling the Founding Fathers insane? The Letters of Marque and Reprisal were put in the Constitution to do exactly this. They were wise enough to know that 1) Navies are not very good at going after pirates since they are designed to go after other navies, and more significantly: 2) the Founders understood that if you send navies & armies after pirates, eventually we would be in the uncomfortable position of militarily violating other countries sovereignty which could start wars
Well, in history, the difference between a privateer and a pirate was subtle at best and invisible at worst. Therefore, the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private parties was prohibited for signatories of the Declaration of Paris in 1856. Now, we know the United States was not a signatory to that Declaration and not bound by it. But that doesn't mean Congress should go against American and international precedent for the last 150 years and start issuing Letters of Marque again.
I am really wary of the ethics of allowing American vigilantes to sink and plunder Somali pirates.
The international community should be trying to capture pirates for prosecution, and to try to return their loot to the rightful owners. We need seamen with proper military training to take down pirate vessels efficiently and humanely, seeing as these pirates are criminals and not soldiers.
Privateers, unbound by military laws and convention, would likely be much more destructive and merciless.
This is a complex issue. The Navy is ill equipped to handle it;. The Cost Guard is, but is only allowed to operate near U.S. waters, and has their hands full with their current workload anyway. There is no international body equipped for handling it.
My real beef with you is the way you say you "really love" R.P. yet then bash him by dismissing his ideas as crazy and ridiculous. This is NOT the way any admirer of him would ever express disagreement on an issue with him and you know it.
I admire many of his ideas, especially those inherited from Mises. Furthermore, I admire that him as a man of integrity, and his constitutional record speaks to that.
But I certainly don't revere him. When I see bad ideas, even if I respect the man they came from, I call them out as such ... and in no uncertain terms. You are correct that my language was unnecessarily harsh in my original post, but it was directed squarely at this particular policy and not at Mr. Paul himself.
AGREED. Ron Paul has a good head on his shoulders. Not to many people saw slavery as a problem back then ANd women didn't have rights any where else as far as I know. Voodoo's spin is pathetic.
When being anti-paul means you support leaders who oppress the America public and replace fundamental freedoms with collectivist fascism....Yes, I suppose there is something wrong.
Being anti-Ron Paul means I oppose the agendas promoted by neo-Nazis working for Ron Paul like Randy Gray (Ron Paul's Michigan fundraiser during last presidential primaries), Another neo-Nazi David Duke, one of Ron Paul's early endorser who got expelled from Czech Republic for Holocaust denial. Neo-Nazi Don Black , a white supremacist who personally offered money to Ron Paul and when media asked about the money Ron Paul told that he wont return the money.
So you cherry pick a handful of people out of 5 million supporters and apply their beliefs to Ron Paul. So I guess you believe Obama believes the same things as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers- both gave money to Obama's campaign. Clinton got money from ecoterrorists in the 1996 campaign. Your attempts at a red herring attack are not going to work. The Ron Paul supporters are above such idiocy.
The difference between these politicians whether it's Obama or McCain or Hillary and Ron Paul is other politicians repudiated such people once such facts became public. Obama repudiated and disowned pastor Wright, Bill Ayres, Faraakhan. McCain repudiated Pastor Hagee.
While Ron Paul never repudiated these unsavory Neo-Nazis working for him and wont even disown them. That tells how strong the influence of Neo Nazis is in Ron Paul's circle. Ron Paul wont even dare to touch these Neo-Nazis.
That is a blatant lie. Ron Paul on more than ten occasions has repudiated, disowned, and repeated stated that returning campaign money to neo-Nazis is bad policy. Watch his interview with Tim Russert, when questioned by Chris Matthews and pretty much every interview after the tea party money bomb. But you won't because you're a self-righteous troll. If Paul is such a racist, then why does he have the most black supporters of any republican? And what particular policy is racist voodoo?
He wont even return money taken from Neo-Nazi like Don Black. Obama Campaign took money from one of his aunt living illegally here. The Obama Campaign immediately returned the money after it was known to public.
McCain took money from one of his Texas fundraiser. He returned the money after it was known that the fundraiser had made sexist remarks about former Texas governor Ann Richards.
Furthermore, every policy of Paul's campaign is against the beliefs of the Neo-Nazis from gun control to government powers. How will the government become an evil fascist empire if Paul strips it of its power? There is no logic behind you thoughts. You lack any reason behind how a racist behaves. You also fail to acknowledge the hundreds of black children Paul delivered during segregation in Texas that he didnt have to deliver.
He voted against Civil Right Act of 1965 which meant he wanted keep keep Jim Crow Laws alive. Is there any Neo-Nazis who would not love Jim Crow Laws ?
He voted against the bill because it is unconstitutional in its form presented as he has done more so than any other politician. You obviously know nothing of the constitution or for that matter campaign finance. Look up Norman Hsu and then leave the Ron Paul crowd alone. We won't listen to a ignorant demagogue like you nor we have any part in your sad attempt to hijack one of the last American heroes we have left.
And secondly, when Paul makes the statement, and LISTEN CAREFULLY when he does, about firearms on planes to have prevented 911, ****he says the flight CREW (that's the pilots and stewardesses), NOT the passengers were the entity that should have been armed. There's NOTHING crazy about that.
And his proposal for Somalia is to do what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution to do for the purpose of fighting pirates. There is NOTHING crazy about the Founders. They understood piracy
I am relieved to hear that I was mistaken in Paul's position on the issue of firearms on planes. I only heard about this second hand from friends and have to admit I was totally dumbfounded. Now that you have clarified this for me, I realise I should apologise for being needlessly contemptuous. Thank you :-D
where is the economic incentive for untrained crew members to fight? these pirates are highly motivated young men - should the merchant vessels hire mercenaries then? just a thought
Hmm, wonder what this discussion was about? Looks like two self-important fools fighting about something... impossible to glean the original point. I think it starts to surface about six pages back. Should I continue to waste my time? This IaoGawd seems to be acting like a "grown up" maybe I'll stick around and listen. When we're done, we can wipe mymindisfree09 Magni56's noses, give them a glass of milk, and put them to bed.
Why does a pirate qualify as a terrorist? The pirate will see the inside of a US courtroom, but terrorists never will. Aren't both "non-uniformed, non-nationality combatants?"
American Libertarians like Ron Paul, believing tyranny to be the sole domain of governments, are absolutely oblivious to the tyranny of private dictatorial empires which are even more repressive of human liberty.
If you study the teachings of Jesus Christ, the true purpose of what God has for us will be revealed.
We are to love one another, support one another, and be there in truth and loving kindness in every regard.
Study the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you don't know where to start, begin with the book of John as it speaks beautifully of Jesus as the son of God.
Also, to hear what Jesus said about these times today, read Matthew 24. Peace.
People have guns to defend their homes (at least, here in Texas, we still do). The Federal Government denied airlines the right to carry arms in self defense. Then 9/11 happened...
Here we are again, with our fellow peasants defenseless. Everyday Joe's getting jacked by pirates on the high seas. They HAVE to rely on others for help. No right to self defense.
RP is right: you want pirates knowing that every ship will defend itself; as burglars in Texas know they can be killed on sight.
"The Federal Government denied airlines the right to carry arms in self defense."
Not as if any airline would have been interested in the least to actually put any guns on their planes. Better to pay a ransom or let some spec-ops assault the plane after it lands than loosing passengers. Because, you see, back then nobody thought about hijackers playing kamikaze.
It´s jsut the same with the freight lanes. It´s not "the government", it´s the entire situation making it a fucking bad idea.
"Arming pilots is not a new idea. In fact, airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts — including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. "
American Libertarians like Ron Paul, believing tyranny to be the sole domain of governments, are absolutely oblivious to the tyranny of private dictatorial empires which are even more repressive of human liberty.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, "There are three ways to control people; control through military, control through religion and control money." We are not oblivious to tyranny but we don't want to see it happen to our country which is what is happening
When did I say you need 1 man for tyranny. I am talking about people having control over their economic lives. Libertarians favor a society in which dictatorial economic institutions shape American life, with the mass of people having absolutely no say in economic/cultural out-put. Remember what Jefferson DID (slave owner). Dont think that I am a fan of Obama. For true liberty, corporations will be owned/run by the workers, not some top down pyramid, inconducive to freedom.
And Obama is doing just that. Dude you are retarded you have no idea what so ever. Libertarians don't believe in dictatorial economic institutions they believe in GETTING RID OF THE INSTITUTIONS. Don't attack Jefferson you weak asshole. Jefferson said he was more then willing to free his slaves but couldn't or else Montecello would go bankrupt. He treated his slaves justly and they loved him. Oh and by the way dumbass after everything you just said you proved YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN
"Libertarians don't believe in dictatorial economic institutions they believe in GETTING RID OF THE INSTITUTIONS."
Yeha. Just look how well that worked in the Gilded Age. It´s not like it made life so shitty for the majority of the population that it caused numerous rebellions and the birth of communism.....
What is the difference between a few private individuals owning GM and the government owning GM? Not much, either way the people who actually work at GM have no say in their economic existence. However, with the state socialist model the leaders may be under some form of democratic control. Both systems suck. Libertarians cant seem to comprehend that the structure of the modern corporation is completely illegitimate, oppressive, and inconducive to human freedom.
GM should be owned/run by the workers. You say that you want the government out of the private sector thinking you are giving power to the people, but what you are really doing is giving dictatorial powers to a small number of individuals at the very top of our society. And as far as Tom Jefferson is concerned, god forbid someone actually do what is morally just in the face of economic ruin.
Someone who sits around philosophizing about the best way to contol people is not worth listening to. You are quoting someone, who if alive today, would be jailed. "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter, of order" Have some faith in people would you?
Control?!? Ha! were the founding fathers thinking of ways to control us were they?
Oh and I think your talking about Obama.
Oh and Jefferson wrote your Declaration of Independence and insisted on a bill of rights. Plus he said he more then willingly free his slaves if he wasn't going to go bankrupt.
So go read a fucking book you retard and learn some goddamn history.
Seriously, as long as Somalia is the shithole it currently is, you will have pirates simply because there isn´t much choice for a lot of people and most people tend to take becoming a criminal over starvation.
Either you manage to actually stabilise Somalia into a functioning country or this kind of thing will persist.
The only possibillity to cause a short-term break in these attacks would be to destroy the pirates harbors, but evne that will only offer a short reprise.
If I walk through what I know to be a particularly dangerous neighborhood, unarmed and unable to protect myself, and then get mugged and robbed, am I not partly to blame for my own complacency in the matter? Therefore I avoid those areas by traveling around them or making sure I am protected in some way while in the area (perhaps by traveling with others in a group to offer protection).
Shouldn't shipping companies do the same to protect their interests?
"Shouldn't shipping companies do the same to protect their interests?"
Too expensive. It´s literally cheaper to pay a ransom once in a while than going completely over to a convoi system or arming the merchants. And arming your ship comes with the additional drawback that most nations won´t let you into their ports anymore.
God, I'm just reading the comments here. Fucking Ron Paul supporters are the stupidest fucking people in the country.
I'm glad you people have zero power and that the Republican party no longer satisfies you. Keep fucking each other, nobody cares about you. You're a lost cause.
Watch your dirty mouth my Friend. Ron Paul makes an excellent suggestion. Why cant these ships protect themselves from a few Pirates. I remember off the coast of China, there was a similar problem and they dealt with it and there were no more problems. What is your solution? How is a couple of shots fired by Navy Seals better than people protecting their own vessel. I would rather an incident like this not look Like the USA is getting tangled yet again in international affairs. Thats just me
"Why cant these ships protect themselves from a few Pirates."
They can! Sort of! I'd be happy to share with you knowledge that is actual, as opposed to Ron Paul populism, though I doubt you'd really listen. I will send you actual REFERENCES from mariners, people who have to make these decisions.
You know, working people, people that don't have to live under Ron Paul's rudimentary "gut instinct" 1930's throw-away polemics. Up to you. I'm tired of posting. Send me a PM.
"Watch your dirty mouth my Friend. Ron Paul makes an excellent suggestion. "
No, he´s talking nonsense, as usual.
Seriously, hiring mercs? IE guys that will do nigh anything for money and have no accountability whatsoever? Great idea, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Will be fun once those guys start kidnapping somali fishermen and present them as pirates. Or once a few of them fake an incident on a freighter and then "free" it and take it as their marque.
I dont agree with sending in armed mercs. Nor do I agree with sending military force. Perhaps you agree with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton and George Bush? Sending in armed forces under the pretense of bringing peace and stability when in reality were just sticking our asses in other countries affairs when we have no business intervening. Ron Paul sticks up against the bullying of our U.S. government in other countries. Something both the Neo-Cons and the Democrats don't want to end.
Yes he does. He stood up against the war in Iraq, he stood up against the war on drugs, he stood up against the Patriot Act, he wants to abolish the CIA, FBI, and the Federal Reserve and legalize Marijuana. Hey man...no need to get defensive. I'm not here to declare YouTube war with you. I'm just trying to have a civil political discussion. There really is no overall difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're all in it together. Stop watching CNN or Fox, look at alternative news.
"he wants to abolish the CIA, FBI, and the Federal Reserve"
Okay, that´s even more stupid than I thought. Abolishing your own intelligence agency and your most important anti-intelligence agency. What could possibly go wrong?
Not to mention the lolbertarian part of his agenda.
Do you agree with Obama asking congress for 83 billion dollars to fund Bush's war. Do you agree with Obama's stance with the "war on terror" when he should pull the plug on it immediately. Don't you think that Obama should shut down every U.S. military base in the world and downsize our military to a minimum? Do you not agree that the Patriot Act should be abolish as well as the CIA? How do you feel about Obama letting CIA agents who committed torture walk away without charges being pressed?
"Do you agree with Obama's stance with the "war on terror" when he should pull the plug on it immediately."
In fact, yes I do. What some people don´t realise is that one cannot end a deployment like Iraq from today to tomorrow. it´s literally physically impossible, not to mention the political consequences. A fixed date to pull out is pretty much all I ever wanted.
Thanks for not lashing out at me. I respect your opinions even though I disagree. Would you consider the term "Non-Interventionism" just a friendly cop-out term for "isolationism"? How about the Patriot Act? What do you think should be done about it? I do believe we can pull the plug in Iraq. Yeah were gonna wait for a proper pull out but guess what? Were already building a military base the size of the Vatican. So we are there to stay no matter what.Its really sad what we did to the Iraqis.
"How about the Patriot Act? What do you think should be done about it?"
I´d say let the supreme court rip it to shreds. And blaming Obama for keeping it in is imo a bit silly. He has preciously little to say in legislative matters after all.
The base was to be expected. Off course, by now the Army also has managed to get it´s shit together and Iraq is getting more stable. I´m not in favour of the Iraq war, never was. But I´m sure glad it seems to end rather well.
"The Iraq War is no where near over. All the major players are simply taking money and guns from the US to maintain stability for now."
Let´s see... violent attacks on an all-time low, the administration stabilising, the economy kicking in in earnest... well, it might not be over, but it sure as hell is looking really fucking good.
And that´s all that´s needed. Get the country working and all that civil war doomsaying will die a messy death.
You reference "violent attacks on an all-time low" in complete denial of what I stated was the reason behind that stability -- groups in Iraq are being paid in money and guns to not fight.
You are not seeing the situation for what's boiling underneath... you merely see what it appears to be at face value -- improving. This is truly the calm before the storm.
"You reference "violent attacks on an all-time low" in complete denial of what I stated was the reason behind that stability -- groups in Iraq are being paid in money and guns to not fight."
Yadda, yadda, yadda. It works, end of story. Also, LOL@doom´n´gloom rethorics.
It works? How does giving money and weapons to both sides in a conflict work? Oh, yeah, it works for us, not them. When one destroys the other, we still win, because we backed both sides.
You're right... giving money and guns to Iraqis in order to stop the violence... yeah, it works. But, not in the way you would hope it does.
Years from now, as Iraq burns in Civil War, ass-hats like you won't even admit you were wrong: and will still be trying to tell us how to do it the way 'it works.'
"How does giving money and weapons to both sides in a conflict work? "
No idea. But then, to deny that it does, indeed, work is to deny the reality on the ground in Iraq right now.
The fact is that the insurgency in Iraq is burning out and that the country is on it´s best way to become a stable democracy, no matte rhow much some people whine about it.
Nazi Germany and Saddarm Iraq had no street crime. Effective result of a Dictatorship, yes. Effective result of a Free Society, no.
I do not deny the fact that violence is down and stability is up. I am merely debating whether it's temporary (and thus will end with our depature) or permanent, as you suggest.
The Sunni Awakening is a known fact that greatly contributed to the draw-down in violence. They are biding their time for the real war to come.
I love how Magni56 selectively quotes people to avoid ever answering any of their evidence... and his use of such BIG words as "false dilemma fallacy" and "Godwin's Law."
Try to understand that Godwin's Law doesn't apply to appropriate comparisons to Nazi's. And I was merely using an example of extremes. Where the hell is the dilemma fallacy?
You can't wrap your brain around the concept that temporary stability bought with guns and money is only adding fuel to a massive fire to later burn.
Maybe my comparison was too complicated for you to follow. Let me repeat it for your benefit.
You said stability, no matter what the method, is self-evident proof that the method is good and right.
I argue that you are making a gross conceptual error here. And my evidence is the extreme version of how stability won with an Iron Fist doesn't equate to a good thing. Examples of this being a bad thing are Nazi Germany, Saddam Iraq, and I'll add now: Stalin Soviets.
"Would you consider the term "Non-Interventionism" just a friendly cop-out term for "isolationism"?"
Yes and no. Mostly, I´d say that any kind of such policies as interventionism or isolationism is pretty stupid. One should hold himself all options open and decide depending on the situation on hand and not some political ideals.
Okay I'm guessing you have to be a school dropout so I'm going to give you a history lesson. You know the proverb that says to obey the warnings of the past to save the future? George Washington said, "It is the sole goal of this country not to get involved in foreign affairs or make ANY permanent alliances, to do so will be the downfall of this country." Our government invaded Iraq and us being there now is what intelligent people call IMPERIALISM. WE ARE OCCUPYING IRAQ TO NO END
"Okay I'm guessing you have to be a school dropout"
Ad hominem fallacy.
"George Washington said"
George Washington also lived in a time where it took a message from London to Washington several weeks. Your attempts to take the Founding Fathers as a solution to modern problems doesn´t work, just like you wouldn´t ask W. T. Sherman about 21st century warfare.
Fundamentals are still fundamentals. Concepts are still concepts. Details change, but the story remains the same. History doesn't repeat... but it does rhyme.
Would you be willing to argue that Freedom of the Press, Religion, Assembly are out-dated? How about a Representative form of Government?
Yes, we can improve on the Founding Father's 'Experiment' but we must first re-visit and assess what did and didn't work.
I'm in the camp that thinks they got a lot more right then we have now.
One if they did have a democratically elected Iraqi government why are we still there? Didn't we do our job already?
Also I find it funny that you talking about us setting up a permanent base in Iraq a basis as to how we are not establishing imperialism. So you think a military presence not imperialism.
1st Century Imperialism: The tax collectors in Israel, during Roman Occupation, were still Jews. Don't want the Roman masters collecting the taxes lest a riot break out.
Imperialism always relies on locals to enforce their foreign rule. Different techniques, different mechanisms, but the result remains the same. The state is not as independent as it appears.
21st Century: the CIA has helped overthrow democratically elected governments around the world because they wouldn't play ball.
Yeah just like the Romans did. That German fucker knows nothing about history. How does a German think he knows more about history then Americans who have been studying their county's history since the were in 3rd grade?
There's still a lot about American history that we've been bullshitted on. That's to be expected in a government education program, after all. American can do no wrong! Ha!
It saddens me when I find out the real reasons behind a lot of things in our country's past. Innocent victims attacked at Pearl Harbor? Ha! 9/11 was an unforseeable event, completely un-connected with our Imperialistic foreign policy? Ha!
"Yeah just like the Romans did. That German fucker knows nothing about history. How does a German think he knows more about history then Americans who have been studying their county's history since the were in 3rd grade?"
Thanks for another completely unfounded ad hominem attack, fucktard.
And how do I think that? Well, there´s the fact that you´re a complete moron who doesn´t even understand his own history.
Ok. The so called Democratic government as you call it was established by the United States. The fact that we did establish a democracy in the first place is imperialism. Imperialism is when one country forces it's form of government on another country. Whether you like it or not that is the definition of imperialism. Duh
We aren't renting we established a base there. You know why we established the base? So other then Israel America would have a base in the Middle East to attack Iran
Oxford Dictionary defined Imperialism is when one coutry forces form of government on another country.
Thanks for proving my point. Did not the US go into Iraq to establish a Democracy. I'm sorry retard but your definition is actually in my favor. We forced Democracy over (even though there is no such thing as Democracy and Iraq is actually a republic.) If you think that the US has a right to force our own government on other countries then that is Imperialism. Thanks you giving me more ev
Allowed a US base? Iran 'allowed' the US in their country for decades, as 'guests' of the Shah. The Shah was in power thanks to a CIA-backed overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government after World War II.
The Islamic Revolution of '79 is based on extremeist uprising against an oppressive regime. The Shah was a ruthless dictator who killed all dissenters. He remained in power thanks to the US government.
If you don't understand 'puppet governments,' then you're ignornant.
You're right... puppet governments, a lot of times, don't work so well with the democractic system. But, again, it's not impossible.
The heads of the Iraqi government rely on the US military for stability. Reliance on a foreign power: puppet.
That's where the Civil War comes in... when those in power, who have been cooperating with the US military for stability, will be challenged by others who have their own power and military.
And, thanks to US,:lots of guns and money out there.
America isn't a democracy it is a republic. And forcing our way of government onto other countries is imperialism. Maybe if that Kraut studied his country's history then he would know what the definition meant.
Yeah, America is a Constitutional Republic, if you want to get all official-like. But, considering we use the Constitution only for toilet paper now, and mob-rule allows discrimination to be passed as 'Ammendments...'
We've wandered way far from our founding father's Consitutional Republic. We are a Democracy in the sense of the word... in the sense of majority rule without much legal restricitions.
We vote for the guy who promises us a "turkey in every pot, and a car in every driveway."
Look, the situation in Iraq is all fucked up. The truth is that political reconciliation is the only long-lasting solution. And since Saddam killed most of the bright thinkers of Iraq, then what we have are mostly extremists fighting for power and control.
Instead of the People rising up and over-throwing Saddam (which would've taken many more years), we short-sighted the situation and took him out ourselves.
Now we have a power struggle waiting to explode; biding the time until we leave.
Again you are nothing more then a hypocrite. Again you're the one attacking and again you fail to provide any answers or evidence. You are so pathetic I can't even believe it. Hey dude you need some therapy dude. You have serious brain problems, it's called self projecting and you know what's funny?
Only people with serious brain problems do that. I know I take psychology.
"Again you're the one attacking and again you fail to provide any answers or evidence. You are so pathetic I can't even believe it. Hey dude you need some therapy dude. You have serious brain problems, it's called self projecting and you know what's funny?
Only people with serious brain problems do that. I know I take psychology."
Wow, one massive heap of ad hominem fallacies and trying to shift the burden of proof.
Again you still don't provide any proof to your argument. Come on man can't you ever state facts? I guess not since you have yet to show us any concrete detail. Maybe if spent a little more time providing us with facts instead of you stupid ad hominem fallacies. a
That's the problem when you lower yourself to their name calling and insults... the people that started it will always be the first ones to call you out on your use of them.
It's a tool of hypocrites. Same concept when you consider that oppression breeds extremism. A people who are beaten into submission will eventually rise up and fight back. When that happens, the oppressors act surprised and cry 'victim.'
Just as we won't accept that 9/11 was inevitable because of our foreign policy.
No dude seriously I have studied psychology and people like that guy are really unstable. I mean this guy is mentally challenged. I'm not saying it to be mean I'm saying it because I know what it's like to be with people like that guy. I've worked with special needs kids and some of them have that problem. You should just stop now it won't go anywhere. This guy has serious mental issues
Mental issues or not... it doesn't help to antagonize them. They win when they can get you to stoop to their level. No one is perfect... but we should try to maintain the higher moral ground.
People say terrorists are crazy so torturing them is okay. It's not. Same concept. We cannot win by playing their game, we must rise above it.
Ghandi and MLK preached non-violence and civil disobedience to prevent the oppressors from having any excuse for their violence and cruelty.
You know what's funny I never once seen LoaGawd attack you you hypocritical mental freak. Maybe if stopped proclaiming Godwin's Law yet you know your wrong. Maybe you should try to understand that YOUR comparisons are anything but appropriate. You don't provide evidence yet everyone who disagrees with you does.
"You know what's funny I never once seen LoaGawd attack you you hypocritical mental freak. Maybe if stopped proclaiming Godwin's Law yet you know your wrong. Maybe you should try to understand that YOUR comparisons are anything but appropriate. You don't provide evidence yet everyone who disagrees with you does.
Well where is your true content? Again you have yet to show us any true content what so ever. You just speak out of your ass. Maybe if you actually watched the news and did research instead of watching video games then you may be able to put up an argument. And by the way, when I take courses in psychology I know exactly the reasons people act. You're a scared coward that can't admit he is wrong. Rather then providing any stable facts you attack people. You're just sad man.
What's wrong Magni? Can't make any intellectual comebacks? Oh and by the way it's called conceding, man if you don't even know that then you just prove you're a retard. I take the fact that you no basis for an argument as you conceding. It was fun but once again you fail to supply any evidence. Keep talking if you want, you lost, it's just sad that you can't admit it.
Correction: It was all fucked up 2 years ago. Till then, things got better.
"Now we have a power struggle waiting to explode; biding the time until we leave. "
Except for the part where those particular morons lacked patience and alread tried their move. And failed. By now, the government of Iraq is pretty much stable enough to survive.
"Except for the part where those particular morons lacked patience and alread tried their move. And failed. By now, the government of Iraq is pretty much stable enough to survive."
Wow you really contradicted yourself. If the Iraqi government is stable enough to survive then why does America need to be there? Remember?
"Said government requesting help till they can build up a working security force themselves, as is happening now. Duh."
If they're stable then they should have security. Duh
"If they're stable then they should have security. Duh "
By now, less people die in Iraq due to terror attacks then due to (traffic/work/whatever) accidents. I´d consider that pretty safe.
Did you moron even read my comment? I was obviously referring to the truly hot phase of the war. As it stnads, the war is in it´s last phase. US troops are slowly pulling out and the Iraqi security is taking over their jobs. And it works.
I just realized I'm arguing with someone who is highly unstable. Sorry dude but you're nothing but a waste of time. I feel sorry for you, really. I realized that there is no longer any point in arguing with you any more. You never had an argument to begin with. Sorry dude but I'm done with you. Say what you want but I know a seriously fucked up person when I see them. Don't fucking talk to me any more. I'm done with you
Have you watched the news recently? The deadliest attacks this year... just blips compared to what's stirring underneath.
And what's this "pretty much stable enough to survive." Are you admitting that civil war breaking out is possible after we leave? But, that you believe the government will be strong enough to win?
I'm not trying to predict which sect (Kurds, Sunni, Shiite) would win the war... I'm just saying that one is inevitable and we're making it worse by buying stability now.
America isn't a democracy you dumb shit! It's a republic. If you knew anything about American history you would know that the founding fathers didn't want a democracy because democracy doesn't work. How about you get fucking educated before making dumb ass comments.
"We aren't renting we established a base there. You know why we established the base? So other then Israel America would have a base in the Middle East to attack Iran"
Except that the Iraqi government gets a yearly revenue for that base. Oh, and nice conspiracy theory there. Too bad it´s nothing but hot air and bullshit.
OH so all the talk on the media about how they want to go to war with Iran, in fact they practically declared it. Watch the fucking news then again your probably off playing video games rather then paying attention to the world.
Even if bases aren't being built in the Middle East specifically to attack Iran... how about this scenario?
With the US trops now in every major country bordering Iran, how long before Iran feels threatened and provoked enough to fire first?
But that's not even necessary. Since the Bush Doctine allows for "pre-emptive strikes" against any 'perceived' enemy. As we all know now, Iraq had no WMD's and no threat to the US.
What stops such a 'false flag' scenario with respect to Iran?
"What stops such a 'false flag' scenario with respect to Iran?"
How about the fact that the US Armed Forces wouldn´t even be able to effectively invade Iran in the first place, something BOTH sides know. The logistics needed simply aren´t there.
Don't be naive that the Draft won't be instituted if a serious enough attack occurs that provides justification for War with Iran.
Yes, right now, we cannot logistically fight an additional war in Iran. But, that can change as the requirement changes. Just like we weren't logistically ready to enter WWII but the Japanese changed that for us.
Don't think the same thing can't happen.
But, you seem to have no problem with the fact that we have troops in so many Middle Eastern countries?
You're right. Remember what George Washington said, "It is the sole priority of this nation to not make permanent alliances and interfere with foreign affairs."
I think Dr Paul is mainly making the point that we should not be inclined to use our military to patrol the area for pirates when the job of protecting the ships from attack should be the shipping lines themselves. Certainly they should arm themselves and create SOP's for being boarded, but I agree it is not in the Constitution or budget where we are required to protect US Flag ship with our military. Very few vessels are actually under a US Flag anyway since it costs so much to do so!
This is a very important time to awaken the conservative people of America. Please help spread the word that if they SUPPORT Ron Pauls campaign for liberty ( youtube campaignforliberty ) we may be able to put a true patriot not controlled by the zionist or global groups like the CFR and stop a possible civil war amongst our nation. LISTEN ONLINE to REPUBLICBRADCASTING.[org for daily info on gun control to globalism without the party spin.
So called Ron Paul libertarians cannot accept the fact that Somalia has embraced libertarianism to the greatest extent. Ron Paul libertarians would rather define and possibly impose the definition libertarianism upon Somalis.
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION. YouTube Search: Webcast Excerpt: A Monetary vs Credit System
gkgreger 2 years ago
Ron Paul 2012!!
thegreendome1 2 years ago 3
No one compares to Ron Paul.
Obama is such a rockstar these days...
no politician should be and it's a SHAME Dr. Paul wasn't elected. However, he is my President.
I refuse to recognize someone born outside of the US as my President. It's illegal, and proven.
EveryoneNeedsToChill 2 years ago 3
Be glad John McCain didn't win. He was born in Panama.
paulpalmbeach 2 years ago 2
These tankers who go through these dangerous areas do go at their own risk and know it. Many escort services are used and these heavily armed ships make sure that no one messes with their clients. Some companies are just too cheap to pay for some insurance on their goods.
sqemishfish 2 years ago
lol blowback 1:55
sqemishfish 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul and his supporters are driven by paranoia derived from conspiracy theories like '9/11 was an inside job', 'North American Superhighway' and so on.
UnsavoryMen 2 years ago
Ron Paul does not think 9/11 was an inside job. Get your facts straight.
7Luke7 2 years ago 3
He can't SAY he thinks it or he'll get JFK'd. The implications of that reaching the sheeple could wipe out everything the Nazi's have been working toward.
bobo4691 2 years ago 2
I think you have a very good guess, sir.
terr547 2 years ago
IMHO,Obama is using the wars as an opportunity/excuse to increase DoD spending.The reason is so once he recalls solders,he can use them to police the United States itself.This will be used to keep rebellions in line and prevent state secession.He will seek to deminish the effectiveness of the 2nd,4th and 10th amendments once he stacks the Supreme Court. FDR tried to do it.There is no reason to believe Obama won't too.He may go so far as to declare an "emergency" requiring amendment 3 adjustment.
TobinTitus1 2 years ago 7
I will vote for Ron Paul....wish i had...I voted for obama and see no change.
JennDianne09 2 years ago 6
You too? It's funny that he's done nothing that he said he would do during the election and nobody seems to care/realize.
ThePoisonYouth 2 years ago
First, I'll say I really love Ron Paul.
I'm a US citizen abroad, and I registered to vote in the primaries just to vote for HIM - mainly based on his monetary/fiscal policy and desire to drastically scale back government power.
However, comissioning privateers to take out Somalian pirates is plainly insane. This is on the same level of ridiculousness as Ron Paul's claim that the attacks of 9/11 could been thwarted if the passengers of the hijacked airplanes were packing concealed firearms.
hegelec 2 years ago
hegelec
Are you calling the Founding Fathers insane? The Letters of Marque and Reprisal were put in the Constitution to do exactly this. They were wise enough to know that 1) Navies are not very good at going after pirates since they are designed to go after other navies, and more significantly: 2) the Founders understood that if you send navies & armies after pirates, eventually we would be in the uncomfortable position of militarily violating other countries sovereignty which could start wars
RonPaulRevolution4u 2 years ago
Comment removed
hegelec 2 years ago
Well, in history, the difference between a privateer and a pirate was subtle at best and invisible at worst. Therefore, the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private parties was prohibited for signatories of the Declaration of Paris in 1856. Now, we know the United States was not a signatory to that Declaration and not bound by it. But that doesn't mean Congress should go against American and international precedent for the last 150 years and start issuing Letters of Marque again.
hegelec 2 years ago
I am really wary of the ethics of allowing American vigilantes to sink and plunder Somali pirates.
The international community should be trying to capture pirates for prosecution, and to try to return their loot to the rightful owners. We need seamen with proper military training to take down pirate vessels efficiently and humanely, seeing as these pirates are criminals and not soldiers.
Privateers, unbound by military laws and convention, would likely be much more destructive and merciless.
hegelec 2 years ago
hegelec
This is a complex issue. The Navy is ill equipped to handle it;. The Cost Guard is, but is only allowed to operate near U.S. waters, and has their hands full with their current workload anyway. There is no international body equipped for handling it.
My real beef with you is the way you say you "really love" R.P. yet then bash him by dismissing his ideas as crazy and ridiculous. This is NOT the way any admirer of him would ever express disagreement on an issue with him and you know it.
RonPaulRevolution4u 2 years ago
Why not follow the Libertarian society of Somalia as suggested my Mises Institute?
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
I admire many of his ideas, especially those inherited from Mises. Furthermore, I admire that him as a man of integrity, and his constitutional record speaks to that.
But I certainly don't revere him. When I see bad ideas, even if I respect the man they came from, I call them out as such ... and in no uncertain terms. You are correct that my language was unnecessarily harsh in my original post, but it was directed squarely at this particular policy and not at Mr. Paul himself.
hegelec 2 years ago
Founding fathers were insane in some respects. They talked about all men as equal yet left out the half of the population, women as equal as men.
They did not see slavery as a problem.
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
Voodoo is a troll, ignore him. He has a massively anti-Paul agenda
charleshoskinson 2 years ago 2
AGREED. Ron Paul has a good head on his shoulders. Not to many people saw slavery as a problem back then ANd women didn't have rights any where else as far as I know. Voodoo's spin is pathetic.
sjs4763 2 years ago
Anything wrong with having anti-Paul agenda ?
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
When being anti-paul means you support leaders who oppress the America public and replace fundamental freedoms with collectivist fascism....Yes, I suppose there is something wrong.
charleshoskinson 2 years ago
Being anti-Ron Paul means I oppose the agendas promoted by neo-Nazis working for Ron Paul like Randy Gray (Ron Paul's Michigan fundraiser during last presidential primaries), Another neo-Nazi David Duke, one of Ron Paul's early endorser who got expelled from Czech Republic for Holocaust denial. Neo-Nazi Don Black , a white supremacist who personally offered money to Ron Paul and when media asked about the money Ron Paul told that he wont return the money.
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
So you cherry pick a handful of people out of 5 million supporters and apply their beliefs to Ron Paul. So I guess you believe Obama believes the same things as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers- both gave money to Obama's campaign. Clinton got money from ecoterrorists in the 1996 campaign. Your attempts at a red herring attack are not going to work. The Ron Paul supporters are above such idiocy.
charleshoskinson 2 years ago 2
The difference between these politicians whether it's Obama or McCain or Hillary and Ron Paul is other politicians repudiated such people once such facts became public. Obama repudiated and disowned pastor Wright, Bill Ayres, Faraakhan. McCain repudiated Pastor Hagee.
While Ron Paul never repudiated these unsavory Neo-Nazis working for him and wont even disown them. That tells how strong the influence of Neo Nazis is in Ron Paul's circle. Ron Paul wont even dare to touch these Neo-Nazis.
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
That is a blatant lie. Ron Paul on more than ten occasions has repudiated, disowned, and repeated stated that returning campaign money to neo-Nazis is bad policy. Watch his interview with Tim Russert, when questioned by Chris Matthews and pretty much every interview after the tea party money bomb. But you won't because you're a self-righteous troll. If Paul is such a racist, then why does he have the most black supporters of any republican? And what particular policy is racist voodoo?
charleshoskinson 2 years ago
He wont even return money taken from Neo-Nazi like Don Black. Obama Campaign took money from one of his aunt living illegally here. The Obama Campaign immediately returned the money after it was known to public.
McCain took money from one of his Texas fundraiser. He returned the money after it was known that the fundraiser had made sexist remarks about former Texas governor Ann Richards.
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
Furthermore, every policy of Paul's campaign is against the beliefs of the Neo-Nazis from gun control to government powers. How will the government become an evil fascist empire if Paul strips it of its power? There is no logic behind you thoughts. You lack any reason behind how a racist behaves. You also fail to acknowledge the hundreds of black children Paul delivered during segregation in Texas that he didnt have to deliver.
charleshoskinson 2 years ago 2
He voted against Civil Right Act of 1965 which meant he wanted keep keep Jim Crow Laws alive. Is there any Neo-Nazis who would not love Jim Crow Laws ?
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago
He voted against the bill because it is unconstitutional in its form presented as he has done more so than any other politician. You obviously know nothing of the constitution or for that matter campaign finance. Look up Norman Hsu and then leave the Ron Paul crowd alone. We won't listen to a ignorant demagogue like you nor we have any part in your sad attempt to hijack one of the last American heroes we have left.
charleshoskinson 2 years ago
tell me some more about ron paul becaues he was killing the other canidates in the debates
damarcuswilson 2 years ago 2
Nice, Charley! Nice!
ThePoisonYouth 2 years ago
hegelec:
And secondly, when Paul makes the statement, and LISTEN CAREFULLY when he does, about firearms on planes to have prevented 911, ****he says the flight CREW (that's the pilots and stewardesses), NOT the passengers were the entity that should have been armed. There's NOTHING crazy about that.
And his proposal for Somalia is to do what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution to do for the purpose of fighting pirates. There is NOTHING crazy about the Founders. They understood piracy
RonPaulRevolution4u 2 years ago 2
I am relieved to hear that I was mistaken in Paul's position on the issue of firearms on planes. I only heard about this second hand from friends and have to admit I was totally dumbfounded. Now that you have clarified this for me, I realise I should apologise for being needlessly contemptuous. Thank you :-D
hegelec 2 years ago
Comment removed
hegelec 2 years ago
where is the economic incentive for untrained crew members to fight? these pirates are highly motivated young men - should the merchant vessels hire mercenaries then? just a thought
n66178 2 years ago
What would you do if your lively hood depended on fishing and these ships were dumping toxic wast killing there fish.
WarDogLRS 2 years ago
The idea that merchant ships must not carry guns is stupid, dreamed up by some bureaucrats who have never been on a boat.
If Banks are allowed armed guards, why should not ships have armed guards?
Or is it because the CIA or KGB or whatever have trained the Somali pirates and given them advance weapons?
To beat a bully you have to fight the bully.
Blow the fucking pirates out of the water.
Those who live by the sword should jolly well die by the sword.
Few would moan their timely demise :0
CommanderUTube 2 years ago
Hmm, wonder what this discussion was about? Looks like two self-important fools fighting about something... impossible to glean the original point. I think it starts to surface about six pages back. Should I continue to waste my time? This IaoGawd seems to be acting like a "grown up" maybe I'll stick around and listen. When we're done, we can wipe mymindisfree09 Magni56's noses, give them a glass of milk, and put them to bed.
prawnd 2 years ago
mymindisfree09 :Off-topic but I dig your name. Keep it up. Free-thinking seems to be a lost art lately. Peace--777
antisocialdemon21 2 years ago
thanks man. Nice to see more and more people have really become open minded. Some not so much, but that is why we are fighting. Keep yourself free
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Why does a pirate qualify as a terrorist? The pirate will see the inside of a US courtroom, but terrorists never will. Aren't both "non-uniformed, non-nationality combatants?"
IaoGawd 2 years ago
Wow, gigantic strawman detected.
Magni56 2 years ago
Oops... I meant:
"Why doesn't a pirate qualify as a terrorist?"
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"Why doesn't a pirate qualify as a terrorist?"
...you´re kidding, right? I mean, a single look at a freakin´ dictionary will answer that.
Magni56 2 years ago
Again you provide no evidence
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Thor Heyerdahl with the reedboat "Tigris" was boarded by pirates in that region as early as in 1977..
gunthaarz 2 years ago
thanks mr. paul for speaking. always enjoy your refreshing views and information
stoneeh 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you heard about HIBBERT THE PIRATE?
He is a pirate that lives right here in America.
He might be living in your neighborhood.
In fact, he might actually be you.
Or just maybe hes me.
Arrr
Click my username to find out.
theblackandwhitenews 2 years ago
American Libertarians like Ron Paul, believing tyranny to be the sole domain of governments, are absolutely oblivious to the tyranny of private dictatorial empires which are even more repressive of human liberty.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
If you study the teachings of Jesus Christ, the true purpose of what God has for us will be revealed.
We are to love one another, support one another, and be there in truth and loving kindness in every regard.
Study the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you don't know where to start, begin with the book of John as it speaks beautifully of Jesus as the son of God.
Also, to hear what Jesus said about these times today, read Matthew 24. Peace.
foxmuldr 2 years ago
Follow not your preacher, teacher or government minister. These are the ones who have misled and divide us - brothers !
nobster3 2 years ago
People have guns to defend their homes (at least, here in Texas, we still do). The Federal Government denied airlines the right to carry arms in self defense. Then 9/11 happened...
Here we are again, with our fellow peasants defenseless. Everyday Joe's getting jacked by pirates on the high seas. They HAVE to rely on others for help. No right to self defense.
RP is right: you want pirates knowing that every ship will defend itself; as burglars in Texas know they can be killed on sight.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
Us to in AZ
I'll shoot any fucker that comes for my guns
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"The Federal Government denied airlines the right to carry arms in self defense."
Not as if any airline would have been interested in the least to actually put any guns on their planes. Better to pay a ransom or let some spec-ops assault the plane after it lands than loosing passengers. Because, you see, back then nobody thought about hijackers playing kamikaze.
It´s jsut the same with the freight lanes. It´s not "the government", it´s the entire situation making it a fucking bad idea.
Magni56 2 years ago
"Arming pilots is not a new idea. In fact, airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts — including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. "
IaoGawd 2 years ago
favorited, dugg, and shouted to all my digg friends.
gr8dalmuti 2 years ago
Magni56 is a troll. Ignore it.
freedomman121 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
American Libertarians like Ron Paul, believing tyranny to be the sole domain of governments, are absolutely oblivious to the tyranny of private dictatorial empires which are even more repressive of human liberty.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
You don't need 1 man to be a tyrant
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said, "There are three ways to control people; control through military, control through religion and control money." We are not oblivious to tyranny but we don't want to see it happen to our country which is what is happening
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
myMINDistrapped09
When did I say you need 1 man for tyranny. I am talking about people having control over their economic lives. Libertarians favor a society in which dictatorial economic institutions shape American life, with the mass of people having absolutely no say in economic/cultural out-put. Remember what Jefferson DID (slave owner). Dont think that I am a fan of Obama. For true liberty, corporations will be owned/run by the workers, not some top down pyramid, inconducive to freedom.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
And Obama is doing just that. Dude you are retarded you have no idea what so ever. Libertarians don't believe in dictatorial economic institutions they believe in GETTING RID OF THE INSTITUTIONS. Don't attack Jefferson you weak asshole. Jefferson said he was more then willing to free his slaves but couldn't or else Montecello would go bankrupt. He treated his slaves justly and they loved him. Oh and by the way dumbass after everything you just said you proved YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"Libertarians don't believe in dictatorial economic institutions they believe in GETTING RID OF THE INSTITUTIONS."
Yeha. Just look how well that worked in the Gilded Age. It´s not like it made life so shitty for the majority of the population that it caused numerous rebellions and the birth of communism.....
Magni56 2 years ago
mymindisTRAPPED09
What is the difference between a few private individuals owning GM and the government owning GM? Not much, either way the people who actually work at GM have no say in their economic existence. However, with the state socialist model the leaders may be under some form of democratic control. Both systems suck. Libertarians cant seem to comprehend that the structure of the modern corporation is completely illegitimate, oppressive, and inconducive to human freedom.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
You talk exactly like a libertarian
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
mymindisTRAPPED09
GM should be owned/run by the workers. You say that you want the government out of the private sector thinking you are giving power to the people, but what you are really doing is giving dictatorial powers to a small number of individuals at the very top of our society. And as far as Tom Jefferson is concerned, god forbid someone actually do what is morally just in the face of economic ruin.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
Again you are talking like a libertarian
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
mymindisTRAPPED09
Someone who sits around philosophizing about the best way to contol people is not worth listening to. You are quoting someone, who if alive today, would be jailed. "Freedom is the mother, not the daughter, of order" Have some faith in people would you?
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
Control?!? Ha! were the founding fathers thinking of ways to control us were they?
Oh and I think your talking about Obama.
Oh and Jefferson wrote your Declaration of Independence and insisted on a bill of rights. Plus he said he more then willingly free his slaves if he wasn't going to go bankrupt.
So go read a fucking book you retard and learn some goddamn history.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Comment removed
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks Congressman Paul for fighting so hard while we were asleep for so many years.
If you can help or live in the Shenandoah Valley come to our site at shenandoahmilitia (dot) wordpress (dot) com and help us grow and get ready.
SHENANDOAHMILITIA 2 years ago
Seriously, as long as Somalia is the shithole it currently is, you will have pirates simply because there isn´t much choice for a lot of people and most people tend to take becoming a criminal over starvation.
Either you manage to actually stabilise Somalia into a functioning country or this kind of thing will persist.
The only possibillity to cause a short-term break in these attacks would be to destroy the pirates harbors, but evne that will only offer a short reprise.
Magni56 2 years ago
Ron Paul Rules
mikeiswylde 2 years ago
Hooray reprisal!!!!!!!
numba1stunna4269 2 years ago
If I walk through what I know to be a particularly dangerous neighborhood, unarmed and unable to protect myself, and then get mugged and robbed, am I not partly to blame for my own complacency in the matter? Therefore I avoid those areas by traveling around them or making sure I am protected in some way while in the area (perhaps by traveling with others in a group to offer protection).
Shouldn't shipping companies do the same to protect their interests?
martron3000 2 years ago 2
"Shouldn't shipping companies do the same to protect their interests?"
Too expensive. It´s literally cheaper to pay a ransom once in a while than going completely over to a convoi system or arming the merchants. And arming your ship comes with the additional drawback that most nations won´t let you into their ports anymore.
Magni56 2 years ago
God, I'm just reading the comments here. Fucking Ron Paul supporters are the stupidest fucking people in the country.
I'm glad you people have zero power and that the Republican party no longer satisfies you. Keep fucking each other, nobody cares about you. You're a lost cause.
lol
Mangina9000 2 years ago
OK?
luomio 2 years ago
Watch your dirty mouth my Friend. Ron Paul makes an excellent suggestion. Why cant these ships protect themselves from a few Pirates. I remember off the coast of China, there was a similar problem and they dealt with it and there were no more problems. What is your solution? How is a couple of shots fired by Navy Seals better than people protecting their own vessel. I would rather an incident like this not look Like the USA is getting tangled yet again in international affairs. Thats just me
mikeiswylde 2 years ago
"Why cant these ships protect themselves from a few Pirates."
They can! Sort of! I'd be happy to share with you knowledge that is actual, as opposed to Ron Paul populism, though I doubt you'd really listen. I will send you actual REFERENCES from mariners, people who have to make these decisions.
You know, working people, people that don't have to live under Ron Paul's rudimentary "gut instinct" 1930's throw-away polemics. Up to you. I'm tired of posting. Send me a PM.
Mangina9000 2 years ago
"Watch your dirty mouth my Friend. Ron Paul makes an excellent suggestion. "
No, he´s talking nonsense, as usual.
Seriously, hiring mercs? IE guys that will do nigh anything for money and have no accountability whatsoever? Great idea, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Will be fun once those guys start kidnapping somali fishermen and present them as pirates. Or once a few of them fake an incident on a freighter and then "free" it and take it as their marque.
Magni56 2 years ago
I dont agree with sending in armed mercs. Nor do I agree with sending military force. Perhaps you agree with the foreign policy of Bill Clinton and George Bush? Sending in armed forces under the pretense of bringing peace and stability when in reality were just sticking our asses in other countries affairs when we have no business intervening. Ron Paul sticks up against the bullying of our U.S. government in other countries. Something both the Neo-Cons and the Democrats don't want to end.
mju1482 2 years ago
1. Thanks for not even asnwering the point.
2. LOL@libertarian nonsense.
Oh yeah, I do in fact agree with Clinton´s policies overall.
"Ron Paul sticks up against the bullying of our U.S. government in other countries."
ROFL.
Magni56 2 years ago
Yes he does. He stood up against the war in Iraq, he stood up against the war on drugs, he stood up against the Patriot Act, he wants to abolish the CIA, FBI, and the Federal Reserve and legalize Marijuana. Hey man...no need to get defensive. I'm not here to declare YouTube war with you. I'm just trying to have a civil political discussion. There really is no overall difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're all in it together. Stop watching CNN or Fox, look at alternative news.
mju1482 2 years ago
"he wants to abolish the CIA, FBI, and the Federal Reserve"
Okay, that´s even more stupid than I thought. Abolishing your own intelligence agency and your most important anti-intelligence agency. What could possibly go wrong?
Not to mention the lolbertarian part of his agenda.
Magni56 2 years ago
Do you agree with Obama asking congress for 83 billion dollars to fund Bush's war. Do you agree with Obama's stance with the "war on terror" when he should pull the plug on it immediately. Don't you think that Obama should shut down every U.S. military base in the world and downsize our military to a minimum? Do you not agree that the Patriot Act should be abolish as well as the CIA? How do you feel about Obama letting CIA agents who committed torture walk away without charges being pressed?
mju1482 2 years ago
"Do you agree with Obama's stance with the "war on terror" when he should pull the plug on it immediately."
In fact, yes I do. What some people don´t realise is that one cannot end a deployment like Iraq from today to tomorrow. it´s literally physically impossible, not to mention the political consequences. A fixed date to pull out is pretty much all I ever wanted.
Magni56 2 years ago
"Don't you think that Obama should shut down every U.S. military base in the world and downsize our military to a minimum?"
Isolationism? In todays globalised world there is another word for that: Suicide.
"Do you not agree that the Patriot Act should be abolish as well as the CIA?"
Abolishing your own intelligence service. What could possibly go wrong?
"letting CIA agents who committed torture... "
Bad. But it´s not as if there are far more important things than that.
Magni56 2 years ago
Magni, I'm glad there's another smart person posting on these boards.
Mangina9000 2 years ago
Thanks for not lashing out at me. I respect your opinions even though I disagree. Would you consider the term "Non-Interventionism" just a friendly cop-out term for "isolationism"? How about the Patriot Act? What do you think should be done about it? I do believe we can pull the plug in Iraq. Yeah were gonna wait for a proper pull out but guess what? Were already building a military base the size of the Vatican. So we are there to stay no matter what.Its really sad what we did to the Iraqis.
mju1482 2 years ago
"How about the Patriot Act? What do you think should be done about it?"
I´d say let the supreme court rip it to shreds. And blaming Obama for keeping it in is imo a bit silly. He has preciously little to say in legislative matters after all.
The base was to be expected. Off course, by now the Army also has managed to get it´s shit together and Iraq is getting more stable. I´m not in favour of the Iraq war, never was. But I´m sure glad it seems to end rather well.
Magni56 2 years ago
The Iraq War is no where near over. All the major players are simply taking money and guns from the US to maintain stability for now.
Once we're gone, the real civil war will follow as they fight for power.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"The Iraq War is no where near over. All the major players are simply taking money and guns from the US to maintain stability for now."
Let´s see... violent attacks on an all-time low, the administration stabilising, the economy kicking in in earnest... well, it might not be over, but it sure as hell is looking really fucking good.
And that´s all that´s needed. Get the country working and all that civil war doomsaying will die a messy death.
Magni56 2 years ago
You reference "violent attacks on an all-time low" in complete denial of what I stated was the reason behind that stability -- groups in Iraq are being paid in money and guns to not fight.
You are not seeing the situation for what's boiling underneath... you merely see what it appears to be at face value -- improving. This is truly the calm before the storm.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"You reference "violent attacks on an all-time low" in complete denial of what I stated was the reason behind that stability -- groups in Iraq are being paid in money and guns to not fight."
Yadda, yadda, yadda. It works, end of story. Also, LOL@doom´n´gloom rethorics.
Magni56 2 years ago
It works? How does giving money and weapons to both sides in a conflict work? Oh, yeah, it works for us, not them. When one destroys the other, we still win, because we backed both sides.
You're right... giving money and guns to Iraqis in order to stop the violence... yeah, it works. But, not in the way you would hope it does.
Years from now, as Iraq burns in Civil War, ass-hats like you won't even admit you were wrong: and will still be trying to tell us how to do it the way 'it works.'
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"How does giving money and weapons to both sides in a conflict work? "
No idea. But then, to deny that it does, indeed, work is to deny the reality on the ground in Iraq right now.
The fact is that the insurgency in Iraq is burning out and that the country is on it´s best way to become a stable democracy, no matte rhow much some people whine about it.
Also, another LOL@doom´n´gloom predictions.
Magni56 2 years ago
Nazi Germany and Saddarm Iraq had no street crime. Effective result of a Dictatorship, yes. Effective result of a Free Society, no.
I do not deny the fact that violence is down and stability is up. I am merely debating whether it's temporary (and thus will end with our depature) or permanent, as you suggest.
The Sunni Awakening is a known fact that greatly contributed to the draw-down in violence. They are biding their time for the real war to come.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"Nazi Germany and Saddarm Iraq had no street crime."
*facepalm* No, just no. This is so retarded, it hurts. Not to mention that it´s a complete false dilemma fallacy and a violation of Godwins Law.
Magni56 2 years ago
I love how Magni56 selectively quotes people to avoid ever answering any of their evidence... and his use of such BIG words as "false dilemma fallacy" and "Godwin's Law."
Try to understand that Godwin's Law doesn't apply to appropriate comparisons to Nazi's. And I was merely using an example of extremes. Where the hell is the dilemma fallacy?
You can't wrap your brain around the concept that temporary stability bought with guns and money is only adding fuel to a massive fire to later burn.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"I love how Magni56 selectively quotes people to avoid ever answering any of their evidence..."
And I love your usage of silly ad hominem fallacies.
"Try to understand that Godwin's Law doesn't apply to appropriate comparisons to Nazi's."
Try to understand nthat your comparisons are anyhting but appropriate.
Magni56 2 years ago
Again no evidence
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Maybe my comparison was too complicated for you to follow. Let me repeat it for your benefit.
You said stability, no matter what the method, is self-evident proof that the method is good and right.
I argue that you are making a gross conceptual error here. And my evidence is the extreme version of how stability won with an Iron Fist doesn't equate to a good thing. Examples of this being a bad thing are Nazi Germany, Saddam Iraq, and I'll add now: Stalin Soviets.
Understand Godwin's Law.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"Would you consider the term "Non-Interventionism" just a friendly cop-out term for "isolationism"?"
Yes and no. Mostly, I´d say that any kind of such policies as interventionism or isolationism is pretty stupid. One should hold himself all options open and decide depending on the situation on hand and not some political ideals.
Magni56 2 years ago
Okay I'm guessing you have to be a school dropout so I'm going to give you a history lesson. You know the proverb that says to obey the warnings of the past to save the future? George Washington said, "It is the sole goal of this country not to get involved in foreign affairs or make ANY permanent alliances, to do so will be the downfall of this country." Our government invaded Iraq and us being there now is what intelligent people call IMPERIALISM. WE ARE OCCUPYING IRAQ TO NO END
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"Okay I'm guessing you have to be a school dropout"
Ad hominem fallacy.
"George Washington said"
George Washington also lived in a time where it took a message from London to Washington several weeks. Your attempts to take the Founding Fathers as a solution to modern problems doesn´t work, just like you wouldn´t ask W. T. Sherman about 21st century warfare.
Magni56 2 years ago
Fundamentals are still fundamentals. Concepts are still concepts. Details change, but the story remains the same. History doesn't repeat... but it does rhyme.
Would you be willing to argue that Freedom of the Press, Religion, Assembly are out-dated? How about a Representative form of Government?
Yes, we can improve on the Founding Father's 'Experiment' but we must first re-visit and assess what did and didn't work.
I'm in the camp that thinks they got a lot more right then we have now.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"Our government invaded Iraq and us being there now is what intelligent people call IMPERIALISM. WE ARE OCCUPYING IRAQ TO NO END"
*Sigh* Learn the meaning of imperialism before spouting such blatant nonsense.
Magni56 2 years ago
the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
We invaded Iraq so what would you call it? What do the Iraqis believe it to be.
*sigh* I feel bad that you think special needs counts
Anyways maybe even you heard the proverb, "Listen to the warnings of the past so that the disasters in the future can be diverted."
OH and I'm not taking about warfare and you can't even make a legit argument.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago 2
"the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."
Funny, and here I am, looking at a democratically elected Iraqi government that allowed a US base and is getting rent for it...
Magni56 2 years ago
One if they did have a democratically elected Iraqi government why are we still there? Didn't we do our job already?
Also I find it funny that you talking about us setting up a permanent base in Iraq a basis as to how we are not establishing imperialism. So you think a military presence not imperialism.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"One if they did have a democratically elected Iraqi government why are we still there? Didn't we do our job already?"
Said government requesting help till they can build up a working security force themselves, as is happening now. Duh.
"Also I find it funny that you talking about us setting up a permanent base in Iraq a basis as to how we are not establishing imperialism."
Renting a base on a treaty premise with the local government isn´t quite imperialistic enough...
Magni56 2 years ago
1st Century Imperialism: The tax collectors in Israel, during Roman Occupation, were still Jews. Don't want the Roman masters collecting the taxes lest a riot break out.
Imperialism always relies on locals to enforce their foreign rule. Different techniques, different mechanisms, but the result remains the same. The state is not as independent as it appears.
21st Century: the CIA has helped overthrow democratically elected governments around the world because they wouldn't play ball.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
Yeah just like the Romans did. That German fucker knows nothing about history. How does a German think he knows more about history then Americans who have been studying their county's history since the were in 3rd grade?
He is just a dumb shit.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
There's still a lot about American history that we've been bullshitted on. That's to be expected in a government education program, after all. American can do no wrong! Ha!
It saddens me when I find out the real reasons behind a lot of things in our country's past. Innocent victims attacked at Pearl Harbor? Ha! 9/11 was an unforseeable event, completely un-connected with our Imperialistic foreign policy? Ha!
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"Yeah just like the Romans did. That German fucker knows nothing about history. How does a German think he knows more about history then Americans who have been studying their county's history since the were in 3rd grade?"
Thanks for another completely unfounded ad hominem attack, fucktard.
And how do I think that? Well, there´s the fact that you´re a complete moron who doesn´t even understand his own history.
Magni56 2 years ago
Again you have never once supplied any evidence. Or fact.
You think you can win an argument based off your opinion? No, give me facts or else shut up.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Ok. The so called Democratic government as you call it was established by the United States. The fact that we did establish a democracy in the first place is imperialism. Imperialism is when one country forces it's form of government on another country. Whether you like it or not that is the definition of imperialism. Duh
We aren't renting we established a base there. You know why we established the base? So other then Israel America would have a base in the Middle East to attack Iran
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"The so called Democratic government as you call it was established by the United States."
And then went around an won an open election. But hey, that´s just details, right?
And lo and behold, Iraq does in no way resemble a colony or a vassal state, making all these "IMPERIALISM !!!!1!" screams quite a bit comedic.
"Imperialism is when one country forces it's form of government on another country."
Oxford Dictionary disagrees.
Magni56 2 years ago
Oxford Dictionary defined Imperialism is when one coutry forces form of government on another country.
Thanks for proving my point. Did not the US go into Iraq to establish a Democracy. I'm sorry retard but your definition is actually in my favor. We forced Democracy over (even though there is no such thing as Democracy and Iraq is actually a republic.) If you think that the US has a right to force our own government on other countries then that is Imperialism. Thanks you giving me more ev
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Allowed a US base? Iran 'allowed' the US in their country for decades, as 'guests' of the Shah. The Shah was in power thanks to a CIA-backed overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government after World War II.
The Islamic Revolution of '79 is based on extremeist uprising against an oppressive regime. The Shah was a ruthless dictator who killed all dissenters. He remained in power thanks to the US government.
If you don't understand 'puppet governments,' then you're ignornant.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"If you don't understand 'puppet governments,' then you're ignornant."
Well, how long will a puppet government survive in a democracy? Seems like that´s the worst pick you can have for a puppet...
Magni56 2 years ago
You're right... puppet governments, a lot of times, don't work so well with the democractic system. But, again, it's not impossible.
The heads of the Iraqi government rely on the US military for stability. Reliance on a foreign power: puppet.
That's where the Civil War comes in... when those in power, who have been cooperating with the US military for stability, will be challenged by others who have their own power and military.
And, thanks to US,:lots of guns and money out there.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
America isn't a democracy it is a republic. And forcing our way of government onto other countries is imperialism. Maybe if that Kraut studied his country's history then he would know what the definition meant.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Yeah, America is a Constitutional Republic, if you want to get all official-like. But, considering we use the Constitution only for toilet paper now, and mob-rule allows discrimination to be passed as 'Ammendments...'
We've wandered way far from our founding father's Consitutional Republic. We are a Democracy in the sense of the word... in the sense of majority rule without much legal restricitions.
We vote for the guy who promises us a "turkey in every pot, and a car in every driveway."
IaoGawd 2 years ago
A group of people, which cause panicking might ban porceline next, for fear of toilets.
brentpieczynski 2 years ago
As a drinker, I would be up in arms if they ban porcelain!
Oh the nights where that cold God cradled and soothed me... memories....
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"The heads of the Iraqi government rely on the US military for stability. Reliance on a foreign power: puppet."
Then wouldn´t it be a bit, you know, illogical to train up the Iraqi army and police to do it themselves?
Magni56 2 years ago
For 6 fucking year! It didn't take us that long to kick your asses! Twice!
The fact is your opinion doesn't matter. We have the facts and until you can supply facts STFU you retarded dick
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Look, the situation in Iraq is all fucked up. The truth is that political reconciliation is the only long-lasting solution. And since Saddam killed most of the bright thinkers of Iraq, then what we have are mostly extremists fighting for power and control.
Instead of the People rising up and over-throwing Saddam (which would've taken many more years), we short-sighted the situation and took him out ourselves.
Now we have a power struggle waiting to explode; biding the time until we leave.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
See Magni59 can't respond. He is a coward that talks shit and then won't respond when you provide the facts.
Keep it up and show that faggot what the truth is.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"See Magni59 can't respond."
Oh wow. One day not online and all the fucktards with their personal attacks crawl out of the bushes...
Magni56 2 years ago
Again you are nothing more then a hypocrite. Again you're the one attacking and again you fail to provide any answers or evidence. You are so pathetic I can't even believe it. Hey dude you need some therapy dude. You have serious brain problems, it's called self projecting and you know what's funny?
Only people with serious brain problems do that. I know I take psychology.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"Again you're the one attacking and again you fail to provide any answers or evidence. You are so pathetic I can't even believe it. Hey dude you need some therapy dude. You have serious brain problems, it's called self projecting and you know what's funny?
Only people with serious brain problems do that. I know I take psychology."
Wow, one massive heap of ad hominem fallacies and trying to shift the burden of proof.
I´m gonna take that as a concession.
Magni56 2 years ago
Again you still don't provide any proof to your argument. Come on man can't you ever state facts? I guess not since you have yet to show us any concrete detail. Maybe if spent a little more time providing us with facts instead of you stupid ad hominem fallacies. a
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
That's the problem when you lower yourself to their name calling and insults... the people that started it will always be the first ones to call you out on your use of them.
It's a tool of hypocrites. Same concept when you consider that oppression breeds extremism. A people who are beaten into submission will eventually rise up and fight back. When that happens, the oppressors act surprised and cry 'victim.'
Just as we won't accept that 9/11 was inevitable because of our foreign policy.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
No dude seriously I have studied psychology and people like that guy are really unstable. I mean this guy is mentally challenged. I'm not saying it to be mean I'm saying it because I know what it's like to be with people like that guy. I've worked with special needs kids and some of them have that problem. You should just stop now it won't go anywhere. This guy has serious mental issues
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Mental issues or not... it doesn't help to antagonize them. They win when they can get you to stoop to their level. No one is perfect... but we should try to maintain the higher moral ground.
People say terrorists are crazy so torturing them is okay. It's not. Same concept. We cannot win by playing their game, we must rise above it.
Ghandi and MLK preached non-violence and civil disobedience to prevent the oppressors from having any excuse for their violence and cruelty.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
You know what's funny I never once seen LoaGawd attack you you hypocritical mental freak. Maybe if stopped proclaiming Godwin's Law yet you know your wrong. Maybe you should try to understand that YOUR comparisons are anything but appropriate. You don't provide evidence yet everyone who disagrees with you does.
Get therapy dude! You seriously need it.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"You know what's funny I never once seen LoaGawd attack you you hypocritical mental freak. Maybe if stopped proclaiming Godwin's Law yet you know your wrong. Maybe you should try to understand that YOUR comparisons are anything but appropriate. You don't provide evidence yet everyone who disagrees with you does.
Get therapy dude! You seriously need it. "
More ad hominems without any true content.
Concession accepted.
Magni56 2 years ago
Well where is your true content? Again you have yet to show us any true content what so ever. You just speak out of your ass. Maybe if you actually watched the news and did research instead of watching video games then you may be able to put up an argument. And by the way, when I take courses in psychology I know exactly the reasons people act. You're a scared coward that can't admit he is wrong. Rather then providing any stable facts you attack people. You're just sad man.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
What's wrong Magni? Can't make any intellectual comebacks? Oh and by the way it's called conceding, man if you don't even know that then you just prove you're a retard. I take the fact that you no basis for an argument as you conceding. It was fun but once again you fail to supply any evidence. Keep talking if you want, you lost, it's just sad that you can't admit it.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"Look, the situation in Iraq is all fucked up."
Correction: It was all fucked up 2 years ago. Till then, things got better.
"Now we have a power struggle waiting to explode; biding the time until we leave. "
Except for the part where those particular morons lacked patience and alread tried their move. And failed. By now, the government of Iraq is pretty much stable enough to survive.
Magni56 2 years ago
"Except for the part where those particular morons lacked patience and alread tried their move. And failed. By now, the government of Iraq is pretty much stable enough to survive."
Wow you really contradicted yourself. If the Iraqi government is stable enough to survive then why does America need to be there? Remember?
"Said government requesting help till they can build up a working security force themselves, as is happening now. Duh."
If they're stable then they should have security. Duh
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"If they're stable then they should have security. Duh "
By now, less people die in Iraq due to terror attacks then due to (traffic/work/whatever) accidents. I´d consider that pretty safe.
Did you moron even read my comment? I was obviously referring to the truly hot phase of the war. As it stnads, the war is in it´s last phase. US troops are slowly pulling out and the Iraqi security is taking over their jobs. And it works.
Magni56 2 years ago
So that's why Obama just said that we need more troops? Man dude watch the news for once
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
I just realized I'm arguing with someone who is highly unstable. Sorry dude but you're nothing but a waste of time. I feel sorry for you, really. I realized that there is no longer any point in arguing with you any more. You never had an argument to begin with. Sorry dude but I'm done with you. Say what you want but I know a seriously fucked up person when I see them. Don't fucking talk to me any more. I'm done with you
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Have you watched the news recently? The deadliest attacks this year... just blips compared to what's stirring underneath.
And what's this "pretty much stable enough to survive." Are you admitting that civil war breaking out is possible after we leave? But, that you believe the government will be strong enough to win?
I'm not trying to predict which sect (Kurds, Sunni, Shiite) would win the war... I'm just saying that one is inevitable and we're making it worse by buying stability now.
IaoGawd 2 years ago
America isn't a democracy you dumb shit! It's a republic. If you knew anything about American history you would know that the founding fathers didn't want a democracy because democracy doesn't work. How about you get fucking educated before making dumb ass comments.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
"We aren't renting we established a base there. You know why we established the base? So other then Israel America would have a base in the Middle East to attack Iran"
Except that the Iraqi government gets a yearly revenue for that base. Oh, and nice conspiracy theory there. Too bad it´s nothing but hot air and bullshit.
Magni56 2 years ago
OH so all the talk on the media about how they want to go to war with Iran, in fact they practically declared it. Watch the fucking news then again your probably off playing video games rather then paying attention to the world.
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Even if bases aren't being built in the Middle East specifically to attack Iran... how about this scenario?
With the US trops now in every major country bordering Iran, how long before Iran feels threatened and provoked enough to fire first?
But that's not even necessary. Since the Bush Doctine allows for "pre-emptive strikes" against any 'perceived' enemy. As we all know now, Iraq had no WMD's and no threat to the US.
What stops such a 'false flag' scenario with respect to Iran?
IaoGawd 2 years ago
"What stops such a 'false flag' scenario with respect to Iran?"
How about the fact that the US Armed Forces wouldn´t even be able to effectively invade Iran in the first place, something BOTH sides know. The logistics needed simply aren´t there.
Magni56 2 years ago
Were is your evidence?
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Don't be naive that the Draft won't be instituted if a serious enough attack occurs that provides justification for War with Iran.
Yes, right now, we cannot logistically fight an additional war in Iran. But, that can change as the requirement changes. Just like we weren't logistically ready to enter WWII but the Japanese changed that for us.
Don't think the same thing can't happen.
But, you seem to have no problem with the fact that we have troops in so many Middle Eastern countries?
IaoGawd 2 years ago
We attacked THEM. Midway anyone? XD
unityrover 2 years ago
"the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies."
I'm sure many people over there think of us as an empire.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
You're right. Remember what George Washington said, "It is the sole priority of this nation to not make permanent alliances and interfere with foreign affairs."
mymindisfree09 2 years ago
Why are they stupid?
JoinToWin 2 years ago
Events like this is the reason Blackwater and other PMC's exist.
The ships need to hire them and take care of there own problems. America has no buisness in this.
fullcontactfighter88 2 years ago
"Events like this is the reason Blackwater and other PMC's exist.
The ships need to hire them and take care of there own problems. "
Between 600-900 vessels transit the Gulf of Aden daily. It'd be cheaper to pay tribute. Or bomb the pirates with laser-guided sacks of gold.
Magni56 2 years ago
I think Dr Paul is mainly making the point that we should not be inclined to use our military to patrol the area for pirates when the job of protecting the ships from attack should be the shipping lines themselves. Certainly they should arm themselves and create SOP's for being boarded, but I agree it is not in the Constitution or budget where we are required to protect US Flag ship with our military. Very few vessels are actually under a US Flag anyway since it costs so much to do so!
JimLundberg 2 years ago
Thanks for the report Dr. Paul.
tttaaa3 2 years ago
Ron Paul Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!
RP 2012!!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
This is a very important time to awaken the conservative people of America. Please help spread the word that if they SUPPORT Ron Pauls campaign for liberty ( youtube campaignforliberty ) we may be able to put a true patriot not controlled by the zionist or global groups like the CFR and stop a possible civil war amongst our nation. LISTEN ONLINE to REPUBLICBRADCASTING.[org for daily info on gun control to globalism without the party spin.
.I hope I can have your help and re post. Thanks
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
So called Ron Paul libertarians cannot accept the fact that Somalia has embraced libertarianism to the greatest extent. Ron Paul libertarians would rather define and possibly impose the definition libertarianism upon Somalis.
VoodooPolitics101 2 years ago