Thread: To people who got upset about Tancredo's endorsement

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Besides the plan of Iran to destroy Israel, US, and all other Western nations due to the radical Muslim plan----they also want to try to destroy us by limiting our access to oil or pricing it so that we can be pushed into bankruptcy. I believe that China and Russia are probably behind this scheme as well.

If our country does not have access to oil, like it or not, we will be destroyed.

You can GUARANTEE that part of the deal for us being in Iraq----is a "FAIR" price and continual access to oil for the US.

Originally Posted by butterbean

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by butterbean

I was hoping Tancredo would stand behind Hunter.

Why would he stand behind Hunter, when his numbers are lower than Tom's numbers??

He picked NOW, and he picked Romney-----as he is concerned that Huckabee may take Iowa!!!!

I know. I'm just po'd. I am sad that good people like Tom get treated like crap by the media. I am tired of Hunter being ignored too. I am just really upset by the entire situation.
It is almost like this whole entire election has been bought and paid for by the CFR traitors. It isn't "almost like", IT PROBABLY IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE TRAITORS.

Yep, you are right. Tom perceived our biggest current threat to be Huckabee taking Iowa and then New Hampshire----and it snowballing from that point forward!!!

Originally Posted by Bren4824

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Besides the plan of Iran to destroy Israel, US, and all other Western nations due to the radical Muslim plan----they also want to try to destroy us by limiting our access to oil or pricing it so that we can be pushed into bankruptcy. I believe that China and Russia are probably behind this scheme as well.

If our country does not have access to oil, like it or not, we will be destroyed.

You can GUARANTEE that part of the deal for us being in Iraq----is a "FAIR" price and continual access to oil for the US.

We've got more oil than we can burn in 200 years right here in America!!!
The problem is the globalists who're profiting off of ME oil won't drill for it here until they've sqeezed EVERY LAST PENNY from you & me!

We're shipping oil from Alaska off to Japan, for God's sakes.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Why?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Bren4824

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Besides the plan of Iran to destroy Israel, US, and all other Western nations due to the radical Muslim plan----they also want to try to destroy us by limiting our access to oil or pricing it so that we can be pushed into bankruptcy. I believe that China and Russia are probably behind this scheme as well.

If our country does not have access to oil, like it or not, we will be destroyed.

You can GUARANTEE that part of the deal for us being in Iraq----is a "FAIR" price and continual access to oil for the US.

We've got more oil than we can burn in 200 years right here in America!!!
The problem is the globalists who're profiting off of ME oil won't drill for it here until they've sqeezed EVERY LAST PENNY from you & me!

We're shipping oil from Alaska off to Japan, for God's sakes.

I believe........We may have oil here, but we do not have "enough" oil here.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Bren4824

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Why?

I actually agree with you in a way

We still have 10k nukes and very accurate ones at that
It worked as a deterrent for a lot of years against the ussr ,

Simple deal , Target a couple dozen on Iran , make it public and
let Iran know if they get out of line , we turn it into a parking lot

Problem solved

Originally Posted by Bren4824

I believe........We may have oil here, but we do not have "enough" oil here.

If we don't have 'enough', why are we shipping some of what we DO have to Japan?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Bren4824

We will ALWAYS have to have troops/bases in the Middle East, just like they are still in Korea.

Iran CANNOT be ignored!!

Why?

I also question WHY. Is it because THEY say so?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

So where's those answers, hmmmmm?

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Sometimes work gets in the way of surfing the internet.

Exactly how do you propose we deploy our military to protect ourselves?

I think Muhammad Ali said it best: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". I agree with a lot of Buchanan's views regarding the military and foreign policy.

Are the 14 permanent bases in Iraq a part of your plan?

No. Since when did the 14 bases become "permanent"? Do you have any links to support your claim that those bases are "permanent"? The Iraqis don't want us to cut and run right now, but I highly doubt they'd want us to have 14 "permanent" bases in their country.

What do you propose to do about Iran?

Isolation. It didn't work with Iraq because Germany and France ignored the sanctions while their U.N. officials were taking oil for food bribes from Saddam. Nowadays, Merkel and Sarkozy are backing sanctions and telling their respective countries' corporations to quit doing business with Iran. Hopefully, isolation will help to foment the movement of young Iranians who are fed up with this islamic theocracy that has only existed for 29 years.

Are we sending in the Army there next?

After all of the flak we've taken for Iraq, I doubt we'll ever put boots on the ground in Iran unless they shoot first. We have them contained right now with troops in Afhanistan and Iraq; I don't think Ahmadenijad has the balls to do it.

I think Tom might be doing this to offset Gilchrist's endorsement of Huckaby. If Gilchrist had not endorsed Huckaby, Tom would have more cards to play.