Thread: why are there so many PRO-WAR posters here?

Just Curious..

Why do many of you "fake" republicans (remember, republicans use to be the anti-war party) fill these boards. I hate to say it, but I almost feel that many of you are just establishment hawks looking to manipulate.

Last election cycle, THIS election cycle you all always seem to try to back the most pro-war hawkish candidate who will tell you they are "hard on illegal immigration" but will just be another Bush.

I mean, don't you all understand this is what the establishment wants..

ENDLESS WARS, GLOBALISM, OPEN BORDERS, WELFARE/DEPENDENCY, ECONOMIC POLICIES... are all wrapped up into the same meal.

Just an fyi - willing to send americans to the soil for the special interests is not a republican belief. And to fall for the continued fear mongering to validate this is beyond the pale.

** EDIT: Yes, my choice of words were incorrect = Instead of saying "Repubs" I should have said "pro-war voters".

We are concerned with the issue of immigration and the effect that it has on the Republic, not Democracy of the US.

The members of this board are not all Republicans or Democrats, but I would venture to say there are a great number of self proclaimed Independents that are sick of the globalist games of both parties.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

We are concerned with the issue of immigration and the effect that it has on the Republic, not Democracy of the US.

The members of this board are not all Republicans or Democrats, but I would venture to say there are a great number of self proclaimed Independents that are sick of the globalist games of both parties.

Absolutely, the concept of Globalism has been a talking point of Ron Paul for decades and its coming to fruition. But part of this globalism tactic is to stack each side with essentially the same candidate while spewing opposing views.
But, I just see many here following whomever says "I will stop illegal immigration" YET the same candidate is a puppet to the bankers, or military industrial complex etc.... which is all part of the agenda. You can't deal with the illegal immigration issue in a vacuum. You must address the welfare state, the warfare state, the monetary policy that creates both etc...

until then, we are splitting our forces always voting for the candidates that inch us towards globalism.. and in our cause the NAU.

You need to spend a lot more time here before you put foot in mouth.
Your opine seems a bit hurried and fact less Emanon.
The N.A.U IS a HUGE ISSUE HERE !
Open borders and Amnesty is a HUGE part of that plan !
"Pro-War"? Give me a break. Pro- Service men and woman yes.
I want them home to secure our American soil !

Im a DEMACRAT on here but i support the candidate i think is right for the job even if he or she is republican or independent.I havent seen where your getting the the republican party is pro war.If you look at history there has been more wars started with republican presidents than any other party,but thats beside the point this site is for fighting illegal immigrants i thought you might notice when you logged on.We dont fight a war on here but we start wars by lobbing congress and others to enforce the laws thats already in place against illegals.I guess we could start another site to stop wars i guess.I served 30 years in military and i guess it would be easier to fight on line than in the sand.But as far as Paul being the better candidate i dont think so he flip flops like McCain and we see where he wound up.

Originally Posted by airdale

You need to spend a lot more time here before you put foot in mouth.
Your opine seems a bit hurried and fact less Emanon.
The N.A.U IS a HUGE ISSUE HERE !
Open borders and Amnesty is a HUGE part of that plan !
"Pro-War"? Give me a break. Pro- Service men and woman yes.
I want them home to secure our American soil !

AMEN

Originally Posted by Emanon

I mean, don't you all understand this is what the establishment wants..

ENDLESS WARS, GLOBALISM, OPEN BORDERS, WELFARE/DEPENDENCY, ECONOMIC POLICIES... are all wrapped up into the same meal.

Yeah it's the "Full Meal Deal!"

Damn! am I glad you showed back up! Hell we didn't know any of this was going on!

Is it against the law if I slap myself?

I mean you know in the bathroom with the door closed in front of the mirror so I don't miss?

Please go here and tell all this to the Republicans:
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-247495-50.html

Thanks!

I think you are way off base. I actually LEARNED of the NAU, the NWO, globalists, how to identify phony politicians, etc from the people and articles on this site. Got my "bachelor's" on this type of stuff from Alex Jones' movie The Obama Deception too. I was a babe in the woods on all these things before discovering ALIPAC in AUg 2007. Man, have I learned so much. So much that I wish I didn't know because I'll never be the same...

It's safe to say most everyone here is WELL aware and very against of what you speak of in your post.

I'm anti-war but I support our soldiers. As for supporting Republican candidates who support the war, the problem isn't with us. It is with the Republican party leadership. They are under the control of the shadow government, that's why they support all the wars the U. S. is fighting. So far the only candidate who has said he will stop these wars is Ron Paul. But can we believe him? But he also seems to be pretty soft on illegal immigration.

I don't agree with much of what Ron Paul comes up with. Until human being totally cease from doing crazy, dangerous things there will always be a need for government to protect them and others, too. The hands-off, libertarian view is an ideal--and no more than that at this point.

As far as the hands off approach in foreign policy that sounds plausible, when you see the stupid blunders that our role as lone superpower gets us in to. However, an international concept known as the "regional security initiative" has been active---at least since Operation Desert Storm---and has been implemented in some trouble areas, sparing the US the burden of stepping in. Contrary to what many people think this is what George Bush, Sr. was talking about during the Kuwait invasion, and which he labeled as "a new world order." Most countries now are willing to share a larger burden of containing aggression in their sphere of the world, and spare superpowers from intervening, but it's still an unrefined idea. It has a long ways to go, but the US should be working with the idea, not trying to discard it.

Ron Paul kind of misses the boat in his super isolationist and laissez faire ideas.