- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
This pushes buttons
- Thread starter FluffyMcDeath
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,487
- Reaction score
- 31
Pity Ron Paul is so anti-Reagan when it comes to Reagan's Defense or Foreign Policies. Not that I like Perry either, but Ron Paul's trying to connect to Reagan is almost as funny as Obama's White House using Reagan's name and such to support Obama.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
... like?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,487
- Reaction score
- 31
Let me give you a quick reply. Ron Paul = McGovern policy which is very isolationist vs Reagan wanted American influence around the world. Ron Paul is planning to "cut" (more like gut) the DoD where Reagan wanted a very strong military. Reagan would never have blamed 9-11 on the US, unlike Ron Paul who says US shares the blame. Then there is support of Israel and ignoring the biggest threat, Iran with MRBM payload nukes. I agree on Ron Paul on alot of the domestic issues, his loony view of the world is dangerous, and conflicts with what Reagan had in policies.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
I think you mischaracterize his position. He is more Jeffersonian - relations with the world but not military intervention. Reagan wasn't a "bases everywhere and damn the cost". Reagan left Lebanon.
Everyone should have a strong defence. However, the US has a very powerful Department of Offence. No-one has militarily attacked the US in ... a couple of hundred years? In that time the US has attacked multiple countries (for profit and influence). If Ron Paul put the military back to what it was in Reagan's time it WOULD be a huge cut - but would still be capable of defending the US.
You just said two different things. Blaming is not the same as sharing the blame. But it isn't that the US shares the blame, it's that what the US does to other people around the world has consequences. That just happens to be true. Sucks for you if you can't accept that. You'll just have to go on imagining that they hate you for your "freedom" (which shouldn't be a concern so much anymore considering how much of it the Bush years took away and it's not improving under the big O).
Yes, you are right. Supporting Israel IS a big threat to the US. Iran having nukes? That would be a threat to the US as well. It would mean that the US couldn't attack Iran easily. Saddam gave up nukes so the US invaded. Moamma gave up nukes, so the US invaded Libya too. North Korea thought about it - but wised up. Iraq... well, if they're smart they'll find a way to get some nukes - but so far they seem to be playing it straight.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
This is true, but GWB also painted himself as an isolationist before he got elected. But you could also argue he doesn't count as he was never really in charge of anything.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,487
- Reaction score
- 31
Which was one of the biggest mistakes he made in foreign policy. What he did was to inform the Arab world, especially Iran, the US would duck and run away when punched. Had Hamas/Iran paid dearly for that attack, I don't think AQ would been strong enough to pull off 9-11. Weakness is a very bad sign to show in that part of the world.
I guess Canadian schools don't teach as well as I thought they did.
Lets see here, ~30 years ago (1982 budget), the DoD budget was $214B. DoD retirement and VA services are rough equal to that alone (~$203B) today. Your Canadian school system really did let you down.
I'm so glad you are a Canadian and not an American. I just wish most American Progressives would immigrate to Canada.
I figured at the beginning it would be "blame America and blame Israel" Progressive talking points. It seems you have no clue on why Mahmoud wants those nuclear weapons so badly either. Pity.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,814
- Reaction score
- 6,534
During that election campaign, it was apparent to those paying attention that this version of Bush was nonsense.
I say 'those paying attention' because I was not one of them. I didn't even know (far less care) who were the Republicans and who were the Democrats.
One of my band-mates asked me if I was paying attention to the US election and I told him that, apart from Gore apparently being able to present an argument and Bush coming across as a bumbling oaf, I couldn't care less who won.
His response will go with me to the grave: "If Bush wins, America will invade Iraq."
Fast forward 15 months or so and the drums start beating for invading Iraq, on the flimsiest of pretences.
I remebered what my friend had said and my bullshit-o-meter went off the scale.
I started taking an interest in US politics because I realised that the lying, greedy, war-mongering, power-hungry, murdering cunts affect all of us and maybe I *should* start paying attention.
What I've learned since then has amazed, dismayed and depressed me in various measures.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,814
- Reaction score
- 6,534
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
More Fluff
"Everyone should have a strong defence. However, the US has a very powerful Department of Offence. No-one has militarily attacked the US in ... a couple of hundred years? In that time the US has bla bla bla"
-----------------------------------------------
As usual McDeath, your memory sucks as bad as any other Canadian or European.
Funny how you can skip over the US entry into WW I after the sinking by German U Boats of 7 US ships carrying supplies to Europe. Or for that matter, the US supply ships sunk by German subs in WW II, before we entered that war. And of course Pearl Harbor never hit the Canadian newspapers either.
The USS Pueblo, was captured in international waters in 1968 and is still held by North Korea.
The American embassy was attacked by Iran in 1979 and 52 Americans held prisoners until Ronald Reagan became president in 1981.
And the most dangerous one of all; not an attack, but a prelude to a nuclear one, known as the Cuban missle crisis.
In each case, except the one in Iran, these attacks were made on Americans and the United States because we were helping out or protecting other countries.
Did it ever dawn on you that if other countries, (yours included) spent their own money for their own self defense, then the US military wouldn't have to be as large as it is? But I guess it is just easier to suck off the US taxpayers instead.
"Everyone should have a strong defence. However, the US has a very powerful Department of Offence. No-one has militarily attacked the US in ... a couple of hundred years? In that time the US has bla bla bla"
-----------------------------------------------
As usual McDeath, your memory sucks as bad as any other Canadian or European.
Funny how you can skip over the US entry into WW I after the sinking by German U Boats of 7 US ships carrying supplies to Europe. Or for that matter, the US supply ships sunk by German subs in WW II, before we entered that war. And of course Pearl Harbor never hit the Canadian newspapers either.
The USS Pueblo, was captured in international waters in 1968 and is still held by North Korea.
The American embassy was attacked by Iran in 1979 and 52 Americans held prisoners until Ronald Reagan became president in 1981.
And the most dangerous one of all; not an attack, but a prelude to a nuclear one, known as the Cuban missle crisis.
In each case, except the one in Iran, these attacks were made on Americans and the United States because we were helping out or protecting other countries.
Did it ever dawn on you that if other countries, (yours included) spent their own money for their own self defense, then the US military wouldn't have to be as large as it is? But I guess it is just easier to suck off the US taxpayers instead.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
blah blah blah blah...
It's like you've never listened to anything I've ever said. Which is probably true. Or are you senile? Maybe you just forget our conversations, though it's probably more likely that you just fly in to drop a few dumb bombs and get out again before you take any return fire. At least Dammy gives it an honest try.