Ron Paul, "What if the Chinese had military bases in America?"

http://www.ManifestLiberty.com Brilliant piece of animation, logic and diplomacy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ron Paul
• Imagine
• China
• military
• russia
• 2012

[nechikens]

Everyone here is so naive. Do you guys really believe that this guy will stand by what he says, won't be corrupt, doesn't have a hidden agenda, and can really pull any changes together? No. We need a real democracy, not this representative bullshit.

[manifestliberty]

@nechikens he has a 30 year consistent track record. by real democracy you mean whatever the 51% decides on goes right?

[sirbadass1234]

I think DHS and TSA have allready beat the Chinese and Russians to this

[manifestliberty]

@sirbadass1234  good one!!!

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st Nobody would go into a full scale war for monetary gain. At least I can't imagine it. It's possible I guess that although I can't conceive it, people like you can, because you know what it would take you personally to choose to see thousands die so you could get rich. I just don't have that in me, and so I don't see how others could either. But obviously, you can. So maybe I'm wrong...

[bruce21st]

@mollesjohn Oh, you have sunken back to the unsophisticated level of name-calling. It is naive of you to think you know what every human being on earth wants.

*sigh*

I believe you have much to learn about those who profit greatly from war - but talking to you about that directly is a waste of time if you do not know how to maintain a proper discussion with someone who questions you on every aspect of your foreign policy beliefs.

I wish you well. I have nothing more to say.

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st Huh? Nobody wants war. You're an idiot.

[bruce21st]

@mollesjohn Oh, yes. I also remember how eager the war mongers were about going to war with Iraq, spreading lies about them having WMDs, & watching all of the news stations in the US engage in propaganda (like we currently are with Iran), to promote the agenda of war.

It was great for CNN because of coverage. Since 2004, after the Iraq war, they have made record profits ($500M in 2009). That is why they, like the MIC, were so adamant in supporting the war in the first place.

[bruce21st]

@mollesjohn The source I'm referring to is not Al-Jazeera. It is a report from BBC on the 10th October of 2003 called "Iraqis protest at US 'terrorism" - around 10,000 people.

Terrorism is just a convenient word to label an enemy or someone you want justify a way to control. When we accuse countries like Iran for sponsoring attacks against us, we call it terrorism. When we engage in secret assassination programs to do the same to them, we call it "covert operations", not terrorism.

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st

The interview was live on CNN back then... and let me tell you... NOBODY in the CNN offices could even imagine this terrorist expert would name Saddam Hussein over Osama Bin Laden when asked the question this way, but he did.

He explained: Hussein has a long history of supporting terrorism, and unlike Bin Laden, Hussein has borders and sovereignty to protect terrorist operations inside his country. And Saddam has more $.

I watched the CNN guys go into stunned silence.

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st

And you might want to start by DEFINING terms... like terrorist. It does have a meaning. The term in no way twisted or otherwise could possibly apply to what we were actively seen doing, upfront, or objective-wise in Iraq.

We wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, who, to the shock of Bill Glass (boy do I remember the moment) who asked a terrorist expert who was the bigger threat, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden and without blinking the expert said "Saddam Hussein."

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st Nope...

"Hundreds of Iraqis have been demonstrating in the centre of Baghdad demanding urgent action to combat the wave of lawlessness that has swept the city.

The protesters chanted slogans and carried placards demanding tighter security to prevent looting."

I saw an Al Jazeera propaganda piece that claimed tens of thousands in the streets and showed pictures where at most 80 people could be seen at any one time.

You've got an agenda, but maybe your facts are wrong.

[bruce21st]

@mollesjohn Yes, unfortunately, many of them did see us as terrorists. There was a huge protest movement in the Fall of 2003 in Bagdad about it. The person who was a leading activist said:"America claims to be the pioneer of freedom and democracy, but it resembles or indeed is a terror organisation." - which was a response to US shootings & ransacking of homes.

The ransacking of homes & constant bloodshed motivated further insurgency, which is what this video is warning against.

[mollesjohn]

@bruce21st (part 3, last)

See, after 9-11 I researched Islam, consulted with Muslims for a good English translation and found three translation into English... read them all, and all three used this word.

When I first heard the liberal media use this word, I practically screamed NOOOOOOOO!!! For I knew exactly what the result would be if they couched the conflict in those terms. Every day, they used the term more and more, and my heart sank, for I knew they were killing OUR people.