Ron P, Rick S, and Mitt R pick up 6 delegates each in Iowa
- Thread starter DemZad
- Start date
Once we do something about Iran, then there will just be someone new we have to do something about the list is never endin, and we can not afford it. Think about every single major military action we have been involved in since world war 2 and not one of them has ended up in a way that you could say was positive for us.
I agree that i dont want Iran with a nuclear weapon, and maybe total isolationism isnt the answer but why dont we at the very least get some of the other countries to do some of the heavy lifting for a change? The reason we always end up having to do something is because everyone else knows that we are ready and willing to go to war at a moments notice over just a about anything, so no one else ever bothers. The rest of these countries laugh at us, as we do the work the rest of the world doesnt want to do, and we foot the entire bill for it.
The other thing is that i dont even think that nuclear weapons are truly the scariest thing out there anymore, i believe that some of the biological weapons that these places are working on pose a much more serious threat in the 21st century, then any nuke is going to, so we better start learning to get along with other countries or its going to be lights out for us from any one of the numerous countries we have pissed off over the last century.
Yeah i like Ron Paul, but im also a realist, his chances were slim to none of winning to begin with, he absolutely needed Iowa to win, and that loss is devastasting, Im not sure how anyone who is sane could try to spin that as a positive, DAS trader is starting to look like an irrational cheerleader..... or a Browns fan who is able to spin a 2-14 season into a victory.
I agree that i dont want Iran with a nuclear weapon, and maybe total isolationism isnt the answer but why dont we at the very least get some of the other countries to do some of the heavy lifting for a change? The reason we always end up having to do something is because everyone else knows that we are ready and willing to go to war at a moments notice over just a about anything, so no one else ever bothers. The rest of these countries laugh at us, as we do the work the rest of the world doesnt want to do, and we foot the entire bill for it.
The other thing is that i dont even think that nuclear weapons are truly the scariest thing out there anymore, i believe that some of the biological weapons that these places are working on pose a much more serious threat in the 21st century, then any nuke is going to, so we better start learning to get along with other countries or its going to be lights out for us from any one of the numerous countries we have pissed off over the last century.
Yeah i like Ron Paul, but im also a realist, his chances were slim to none of winning to begin with, he absolutely needed Iowa to win, and that loss is devastasting, Im not sure how anyone who is sane could try to spin that as a positive, DAS trader is starting to look like an irrational cheerleader..... or a Browns fan who is able to spin a 2-14 season into a victory.
I agree we need to find a way to get along with them but you can't stop crazy. I'm not worried about the Iranian government. I'm not really worried about any government. I worry who the 3rd parties are that could get their hands on it. Any military action we take would not be a "war with Iran" but a destruction of their nuclear facilities. I agree ideally we need to get other countries involved. But this is not a "war for oil" argument.
My whole argument was not to debate whether war is good or not, but rather we need to start actually debating this stuff instead of using the "Bush Doctrine" of strike first ask questions later and the Ron Paul approach of putting his hands on his ears and singing songs pretending nothing is going on. We need to start talking about this stuff. I don't mind isolationism but can we can talk about it please first?
My comment regarding Santorum is that of all the guys in the field outside of Paul, this guy says what he believes and sticks to it. And not just on foreign policy which is in many cases popular on the neo-conservative right, but he says a lot of things on the culturally conservative front that absolutely are NOT popular and he never backs away. I have to respect that. Sure Romney is electable, but he is an empty suit. Better then Obama, sure, we can agree to that. But I do respect politicians that hold to their beliefs. That includes people like socialist Bernie Sanders, democrat Dennis Kucinch, and obviously Ron Paul. But Rick Santorum I believe also falls into that group.
I guess we'll see in the NH debates if he gets accused of flip flopping on other issues.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
Yeah i like Ron Paul, but im also a realist, his chances were slim to none of winning to begin with, he absolutely needed Iowa to win, and that loss is devastasting, Im not sure how anyone who is sane could try to spin that as a positive, DAS trader is starting to look like an irrational cheerleader..... or a Browns fan who is able to spin a 2-14 season into a victory.
I agree, the Iowa result was devastating to Paul. He has by far the largest and most organized organization there. And he bused people in from out of state. Ron Paul let a left leaning Mormon win in a hard right evangelical state. LOL. You can't spin that.
You remind me of my father. The Rams are 2-14 but they will make the playoffs next year! You'll see!!!! Emotion does crazy things to people.
And you saw that with your own eyes? Or are you just regurgitating someone else's words?
