republicans, iowa, debate/straw poll

Post Reply New Topic

@ Jakoby
Ron Paul is probably the only candidate that Obama could beat and here is why. Did you see his response where he didn't see the problem with lunatics, that think they will get 70 virgins for killing infidels, get their hands on nukes. I mean seriously, I don't even think Obama would say something that stupid and that's saying something. Ron Paul may have some good points domestically (even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but he is a complete and total moron when it comes to foreign policy.


On another note, I honestly think Newt Gingrich won the debate by a mile. Romney didn't have to do much but avoid taking hits, but he still suffered the implications of Obamney Care. Pawlenty in my opinion is done, as the analysts have said and I agree, it was like he was on a murder suicide mission.


I got a quick question, did anyone here actually watch the debate all the way through from start to finish like I did?

Getting back to Newt winning, did anyone else see how he turned tables on the moderators not once, but twice. His ability to recall minute details off the cuff, his confident speaking style, etc. and the fact what he said actually appealed to a lot of Conservatives, puts his campaign back in business.

If it were between just Romney and Gingrich, it wouldn't even be a contest, Newt would mop the floor with Romney.

Based on Newt's performance, I like many other Conservatives would actually pay money to see Gingrich totally dismantle Obama and a left-wing moderator in a debate.

You're completely out of touch. An isolationist foreign policy, given the turmoil in the domestic economy and the lingering residue of two wars, is probably the one Ron Paul stance that would MOST resonate.

What is wrong with his positions on those? He's against abortion, that's never been a mystery. He's a doctor(an OB/GYN and delivered over 4,000 babies) and has seen abortions preformed, you should at least respect his opinion on the matter.

'And what of separation of church and state? He doesn't think people should be able to apply their religious or non-religious beliefs on other people. He's not an atheist but good luck finding one of those in American politics if that's what you're waiting for. I think Karl Rove is one, there's your man lol.

Surely, you wouldn't of supported Obama would you? Can you admit that Ron Paul is a lot lot better than Obama?

Here is why your statement is idiotic at best.

The Iranian Government is ran by a bunch of religious fanatics that would have no problem with using nuclear weapons on Israel, Europe, the United States, etc. In fact these fanatics believe they get 70 female virgin slaves to entertain them if they kill infidels. We are not talking about the Soviet Union here, which even though they weren't exactly good people from a morality standpoint, at least they had some sense of sanity and self-preservation.

The reason MAD (mutually assured destruction) actually worked in the cold war is because neither side wanted to pay the cost to wipe out their opponent. This wouldn't work with the Iranian Government, because they really don't care if they are killed in the process of nuking everyone else, they think they are on a trip to paradise for slaughtering infidels in their Jihad.

People are stupid I guess so I suppose they probably won't understand his positions on those but he has said a ton of times that cutting those are not as big of a priority of ending our ridiculous wars overseas(we're at 6 now I think), the war on drugs, and the rampant corporatism which is essentially systematic in our government. People need to understand that there will be no social security, medicare, student loans, or whatever beloved government program eventually(sooner rather than later) without ending these. Who do you think Obama's priorities are with?

I've seen clips of it. Do you have a link to the video?

I will point out again, it is the height of insanity to think there is nothing wrong with Iran having nukes. I could see Ron Paul being a cabinet member or appointed specifically to audit the Federal Reserve, that said he is a complete and total moron when it comes to foreign policy.

Newt probably is our best candidate that is currently officially running. I think he's also came out of the debate in Iowa as pretty much a guarenteed pick at the very least to be an advisor for the Republican nominee, a cabinet position, or I'm guessing he may end up the next President.

Ron Paul's answer in the debate on Iran was brilliant but I figured as much that some people wouldn't understand what he was talking about. We're not going to stop Iran from getting nukes by force. The threat of force would be what is motivating them to get nuclear weapons if they even are. (Remember, we're in Iraq right now because of those supposed weapons of mass destruction) Maybe they'd be more open to diplomacy if we weren't invading their neighboring countries. The Ayatollah and Islamic Republic came to be because of our meddling in their affairs by bringing the Shah back to power in the 50s. Diplomacy is not a sign of weakness and it is not isolationism.

Hate to break it to you, but they announced they want to wipe Israel off the face of the map, they will use a nuke if they acquire it, regardless of whether or not we're in the area. In fact, most of our soldiers being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are being killed by weapons made in Iran.

Also, we're not necessarily advocating invading Iran, there are plenty of ways to disrupt their nuke program, including computer viruses, abducting their scientists (I don't agree with deliberately going out with an intent to kill them), cutting off their supply of gasoline (believe it or not Iran doesn't have much in the way of refining capacity), etc. All can be done without actually invading Iran, heck we could even pull a gunrunner operation and conveinently lose a bunch of machine guns, assault rifles, etc. that just happen to fall into the hands of the people of Iran whom oppose their current government. At least we know that if a new government forms from the people of Iran, they won't be radical lunatics, it would solve our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time too.

Source? If we exclude accidents and friendly fire, over half of the casualties in Afghanistan have "IED" in some form listed as the cause of death. Typically IEDs (by their very nature as improvised explosive devices) would be produced locally. To claim that Iranian weapons are causing the majority of troop deaths, you would have to show a fairly significant level of IED import from Iran, as well as somehow demonstrating that virtually all of the conventional weapons that are being used (RPG, small arms, etc) came from Iran.


No, we really don't know that. The current government of radical lunatics was formed by a popular uprising. And a few months ago you were pissing your pants over the prospect of the Egyptian people electing a government of Islamic extremists after they overthrew their dictator.

Iran's rhetoric against Israel is to preserve what little legitimacy the ruling dictatorship has left with it's tortured people. The reason the Iranian people originally turned to a theocratic dictatorship is because of support for their previous dictator, the Shah Reza Pahlavi. Most Iranians are very liberal believe it or not but almost of all them hated the Shah so in order to oust him they coalesced around the Ayatollah. Brinkmanship is counterproductive since that only strengthens Iran's theocracy the same way our occupations of other certain neighboring middle eastern countries only breed further resentment.

Diplomacy and trade would be far far better way to avoid conflict. That's not an isolationist stance.

As for weapons in Afghanistan, I wonder how many of those weapons that are killing our troops now were provided by our very own government in the 80s to the mujaheddin? Did they shoot down that helicopter with Seal Team Six using a stinger missile?

Our conflict in Afghanistan is a perfect example of blowback.

While it's funs seeing the reptition of how many babies Ron Pau delivered (some fact many supporters seem to think qualifies him for the Presidency), unless he's got training in developmental neurology I don't car. Seeing an abortion performed and knowing what's going on in the brain are two entirely different things, and while Paul's never denied his anti-abortion positions, he certainly likes to emphasize different beliefs to different crowds.

'

I, it's great to see lame strawmen set up. I've never said that being an atheist candidate is some prerequistie for me, but I do regard distain for a secular government a liability when selecting people to office. And Ron Paul, despite repetitive claims at being a "constitutionalist", really doesn't believe in Seperation of Church and State.

http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&dt=1&as=2148



Ron Paul's only better than Obama when it comes to drug legalization, torture, and whether to invade foreign countries. While those are pretty substantial assests in my assessment, his position that would completely dismantle the progressive income tax, big three social programs, US-UN relationship, workplace health and safety standards, and his gold standard fixation mean I couldn't support him. His regime would be austerity on steriods, bringing back a deflationary gold standard, and killing jobs - he'd devestate the US domestic economy so much that I'd start to fear for the Canadian economy being dragged down with it.



Having someone utterly incapable of independent thought call my position "idiotic' is precious. And, no, it's completely right as a statement of fact - Americans are tired of foreign wars and, with domestic turmoil at a level unseen since the Great Depression, are eager for a President focused on the home turf.



Despite what neo-conned sheep like yourself think, Iran is not so zealous as to be indifferent to worldly matters. If the crushed "Green revolution" showed anything, it was that Iran's political dynamic is utterly influenced by worldy politicians and elites warring with each other for control/influence, and maintaining power under the pretense of Islamic republicanism. Even the nuttiest religiots in history with power over a major country wouldn't risk their worldly riches for nuclear war.



People are people and the Iranian Republic is no different from any other regime in history. Even the most religiously based autocracies in history (i.e. Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of Britian) were responded to geopolitical realities.

Which is why Neo-cons and neo-conned sheep fail foreign policy 101.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 14 Aug 2011, 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

Again, a minority (though probably more weapons in Afghanistan are leftovers from the 1980s war against the Soviets than are coming from Iran). IEDs certainly are not from the weapons we gave them, and Afghanistan is a country where the people (and especially tribal warlords) have traditionally had fairly ready access to a lot of weapons. Perhaps some of the mortars, RPG launchers, etc are still left over from the 80s, but not much.

IMHO, a Stinger would be worth so much money on the black market that it would make more sense to sell them and buy a greater quantity of cheaper weapons, I believe that Chinook was brought down with a modified RPG, a very cheap weapon indeed. It was the Somalis that figured out that if you welded a curved tube to the back end of an antitank rocket launcher, you could shoot it at aircraft without crisping yourself with the back-blast. Seems so simple but it took till the early 90's for someone to think of it. Chinooks are big, slow heavy lift choppers, you wouldn't need a guided missile to hit one.
I think Afghanistan is like Vietnam in that we're fighting a foe who's very used to improvising with the debris of war; unexploded bombs and shells, scavenged triggering mechanisms, metal shrapnel scavenged from wrecks. We are giving them their weapons in a sense, through our trash rather than directly. We most certainly gave them some of the know how though, part of the support we gave there in the 70's and 80's was in the form of some very unconventional weapons and the tactics to use them, on the Russians back then. At the time, it was seen as being very cost efficient...

I was under the impression that it would be pretty implausible to take down a chinook with an RPG but I'll take your word for it. Whole story was pretty weird imo.