Thread: This Isn't 1776 , So Vote Hunter

Terrorists of ALL kinds are IMPLACABLE, so there is NO use in even TRYING to reason with them!

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

SASAD I think your tops and agree with most of what you say . hre comes the ,but...

I would not join a violent religion or organization . I was a freedom fighter before it was cool . My granfdaddy born in the late 1800s was one too . And we all lived in the south . So not only did the blacks not trust us, buta few of the whites did't like us either ,not nearly the count the racist [imo] NOI or NAACP would have you believe .

So if I joined a nazi party LaRaza , Mencha ,KKK ,NOI or other supremist group, would that be ok and should I accept their religion or theocrocy also ? I don't like hate groups ,religious or otherwise . I saw them all help to divide my nation ,blacks , whites , yellows and reds .

Being racist is not a race thing, it's a people thing ! All of us have evil in us some just more than others .

NOamNasty, those are exactly the people I qualify as radicals, I don't agree with them either, any religon our group that teaches hate is a radical and every race has them, the difference is in Muslim country more have been taught that, but that does not mean they all as in everyone of them believe in it. We are dealing with radical Mexican hate groups also and the kkk these are the kind of people we need to fight, but you can not throw everyone into those groups because they are of that nationality.

We need to be more careful of which muslims we are letting into this country or we will regret it.

They also have to understand what America is about, we all need to respect each others religion and customs, leave mine alone and I will leave yours alone as long as you do not harm another human being using your religion as an excuse.

In other words we are good against evil!! not one nationality or religion against another.

Originally Posted by MW

BrightNail wrote:

First of all, Iran's nukes would not be able to reach us

Hello, have your forgotten about terrorist? What if a group of terrorist were to get there hands on a nuclear device produced by Iran?

Did you even check the link out I provided in one of my post above? I think it described the dangers of an Iran with nuclear weapons.

[quote:1i5o9kep]Because it is all a sham! When the attacks on our own soil start happening, it won't be because they hate freedom.. it will be becasue we are over their boming the sh*t out of them!

Please spare us the Ron Paul rhetoric. [/quote:1i5o9kep]

Yeah, I guess you are right. Lets bomb all the ISLOFASCISTS off the planet. Then we can go in and rebuild, spread our democracy which they seem to love so much and then print their money.

I don't think it is my view that is simplistic. I just don't buy into the boogyman philosphy that so many americans have bought into. Also, if you have read ANY of the 9/11 reports OR any of Ron Paul's books, what I say makes complete sense. The thing is, you like the concept of this "new christian doctrine of war". I mean. Lets break this down. Invade and occupy a country. Sit there and manipulate foreign regimes. Then when it doesn't suit us anymore, overthrow them and manipulate some more. Now, when the water starts to boil - we point fingers and say "They are crazy islofascist nazis who want jew blood, KILL THEM!!!".

There is alot of documentation out there to support Ron Pauls' views on why we are only instigating problems over there. You just have to look it up.

I mean, just look at us here. People are ACTUALLY saying its okay to NUKE Iran. For what? You believe the very media that lied to you about Iraq and now you are believing it about Iran. Now you are being told that "Israel" needs to be saved and us Americans should die for them? what!! Israel beat the shit out of a combined country force in 6 days! They are very capable of taking care of themselves. The truth is, some of those in power love using our soldiers as cannon fodder.

I see things differently. I don't believe in the boogyman anymore.

Ya don't preach terrorism to me until our government believes it, and evidently they don't or this country would have been locked down so fast after 9/11.

Nobody could make me believe we can't do it. HA, what a joke. This is the United States and if there is one thing Americans aren't it is helpless.

Or they want us to be attacked again!

That is my point. US doesn't seem to be concerned about terrorism cause the borders are WIDE OPEN. Yet, the very same government had NO problems creating the Patriot Act which has some VERY defining features that would strip Americans of MANY of their constitutional rights!

To me, that sort of logic to me would be like notifying the neighborhood of a burgler yet leaving your front door WIDE OPEN with valuables inside. To me, that would seem like you are inviting a burgler, right?

You heard it here first, when we get attacked on our soil because of our interventionalist foreign policy, the Patriot Act will take effect - martial law will be instantiated and then the fun really beigns.

*********** Check this *************

Does U.S. Intervention Overseas
Breed Terrorism?
The Historical Record

by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

According to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, terrorism is the most important threat the United States and the world face as the 21st century begins. High-level U.S. officials have acknowledged that terrorists are now more likely to be able to obtain and use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than ever before.

Yet most attention has been focused on combating terrorism by deterring and disrupting it beforehand and retaliating against it after the fact. Less attention has been paid to what motivates terrorists to launch attacks. According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Clinton has also acknowledged that link. The board, however, has provided no empirical data to support its conclusion. This paper fills that gap by citing many examples of terrorist attacks on the United States in retaliation for U.S. intervention overseas. The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.

full text here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb50.pdf[/b]

DITTO!!!!

BrightNail wrote:

The thing is, you like the concept of this "new christian doctrine of war".

Please don't presume to know what I think. No, I don't like war. Actually, I've never personally met anyone that does like war. However, I've met a lot of people that understand tough choices have to be made on occasion.

That is my point. US doesn't seem to be concerned about terrorism cause the borders are WIDE OPEN.

I wouldn't qualify our President or Congress as the U.S. (they certainly aren't representing the people) - we supposedly have 300 million people in this country - they're the U.S. It's the President, Congress, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that's keeping the border open, not the U.S. Unfortunately they are all bought and paid for by corporate America and special interest groups.

Yet, the very same government had NO problems creating the Patriot Act which has some VERY defining features that would strip Americans of MANY of their constitutional rights!

Have you actually read the Patriot Act? It's not perfect, however, I sure as heck agree with a lot more of it than I don't. Please give me a list of your constitutional rights that have been stripped away by the Patriot Act. I'd like to discuss each one.

You heard it here first, when we get attacked on our soil because of our interventionalist foreign policy, the Patriot Act will take effect - martial law will be instantiated and then the fun really beigns.

Please - if we get attacked on our own soil by a foreign government it's because we didn't intervene somewhere when we should have. I prefer not letting things get to that stage. IMHO, burying our head in the sand and pretending everything is hunky dorey in the world is not intelligent policy. Occasionally you have to act against your enemies before they bring the battle to you. :

Can you please direct me to this "attack Iran" policy you're referring to?

"As president my commitment would be to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability. Preemptive military action has been used in the past to disrupt weapons programs. If necessary, I would use it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01460.html

Do you think it wise to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

Do I want Iran to have nukes? No. Do I trust them with nukes? No. But when I hear about this talk of how Iran is the 'head of the snake' or the 'most dangerous Middle Eastern country', I have to ask: why did we attack Iraq?

I'm no pacifist and I do support our wars, but the reality is that we have invested all our resources in Iraq (and Afghanistan to a lesser extent). If we remove these resources, we backslide. The only thing that would change that is a draft. And as the DREAM Act showed us, our government has a pretty good idea of how they can fill those ranks.

When you consider the fact that we have not formally declared war since World War II, a lot of the rationale for these military incursions don't pass the smell test. If attacking another country is so justified, why don't we obey our own Constitution and declare war instead of just authorizing open-ended military force? Anyone? While we bomb and rebuild bridges in Iraq, our own bridges are falling down. We are more concerned with the Iraq-Syria border than the U.S.-Mexico border. We are taking border agents off our own border and putting them in Iraq to train Iraqis how to defend theirs.

A military contractor is recruiting current and former agents with the U.S. Border Patrol to teach Iraqis how to secure their national borders. The U.S. State Department has asked Virginia-based DynCorp International to find 120 people with Customs and Border Enforcement experience to go to Iraq for the training.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/comments?type=story&id=3192304

I am more worried about the immediate threats this country faces that what it might face from someone on the other side of the globe. We need to prioritize, and while Iran is on my list of concerns, it isn't nearly as high as many other issues. When the head of the IAEA says there is no evidence Iran is building nuclear weapons, I have to consider the possibility he's right. The slam dunk that was Iraq is causing us to second-guess ourselves now.

Attacking Iran will surely bring a draft, and that will probably bring a lot of amnesty for illegals willing to fight.

Sen. Hagel says U.S. draft may be unavoidable

Sen. Chuck Hagel, speaking to an audience of Lincoln High School students, warned Tuesday that the nation may need to turn to compulsory military service "or some kind of draft" to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10177959

apropos quote of Hunter:

"As president my commitment would be to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability. Preemptive military action has been used in the past to disrupt weapons programs. If necessary, I would use it."

The operative words here are "if necessary." I don't think he's advocating a war with Iran, however, he is saying he will do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capabilities. Personally, I support that position.

I have a question . Why is the date here showing 11-10-07 ?

It always shows the next days date when I come on .