Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

If you were/are a Ron Paul supporter, how do you feel about his comments that he wouldn't have ordered the Bin Laden raid?

Drew_Fl

By Drew_Fl
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

Considering that an agreement had been made with Afghanistan 10 years ago to cover this exact sort of mission, I'd say that Ron Paul has just outed himself again as someone who is wholly out of touch with political reality. Have fun Ronnie.

*edit...Not Afghanistan, but Pakistan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
Considering that an agreement had been made with Afghanistan 10 years ago to cover this exact sort of mission, I'd say that Ron Paul has just outed himself again as someone who is wholly out of touch with political reality. Have fun Ronnie.

You do realize Osama was in Pakistan, yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

Slowly but surely Ron Paul has been or will be proven to be correct.

4 years ago it was political idiocy to consider auditing the fed. 100 percent DOA. You were a kooky brain dead jackass for considering the fed should be audited.

Now we saw in the last congress a bi partisan bill passing to audit the fed.

And while Paul comes off, note the key words comes off, as kooky at times with his foreign policy, he more so is looking correct. It is completely over reaching, we have far too many bases world wide, and yes people around the world resent us in part due to this.

Does it mean all of his answers are right? Of course not, nobody has the magic beans to correct this mess, but his analysis in regards to the military establishment, the fed, and debt have all been very accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
You do realize Osama was in Pakistan, yes?

Aren't all countries that end in -stan really the same country? :silly:

I can understand Pakistan being frustrated (at least publicly), but if they were really our ally then Osama shouldn't have been able to happily hide there for so many years. Obama told Pakistan what he would do if they found Osama there and he did it. No duplicity involved. No international wrong committed in my back. Heck, even the larger Muslim communities seem pretty much fine with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sly

sly

Posted
Posted
Show me a rational, well-adjusted, educated Ron Paul supporter, and I'll show you a kidnap victim.

That's not really fair, zoony.

Ron Paul might have a healthy share of conspiracy nuts in his corner (Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura crowd), but all of his supporters definitely shouldn't be labeled with such a ridiculous generalization. I won't apologize for believing in less government.

I don't agree with his opinion on the Bin Laden raid, but Ron Paul strongly has my vote when he runs in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted

To answer the question in the thread title, I don't agree. There's not much more to add. One of the unfortunate flaws within the Ron Paul supporter base is the tendency to try to defend any position he holds, no matter what. In this case, while I certainly understand what he's getting at, I think he's failing to tailor his beliefs to a very unique scenario.

On the other hand, one thing I've noticed after running a quick search is that this story seems to be based on a couple lines within a much larger conversation. One of Paul's problems is that he's the polar opposite of a soundbite politician, and many of his views require archaic things like "context" and "complex thought." So perhaps there was a larger point that made more sense. I'll try to find out, and I'm sure we'll all find out rather soon, as this is sure to come up in the GOP battle. But on the surface, this is simply one of the areas in which I disagree with RP.

(not you of course hubbs and snydershrugged, you guys are okay :ols: :paranoid: )

:ols:

I think you've gone soft, zoony. ;)

No politician is perfect.

If you told supporters of President Obama this time 2008 that in 3 years GITMO would be open, the Patriot Act still enforce, TSA agents would be groping like none other, Bush tax cuts would still be in place, and we'd accelerate military spending they'd call you a liar

At least Ron Paul is very honest in his opinions

Good points. One of the big reasons I like RP is that he sticks to his guns, even when it's unpopular. I think I'd take that over a guy who apparently couldn't stick to his guns if he had Super Glue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stew

Stew

Posted
Posted
Slowly but surely Ron Paul has been or will be proven to be correct.

4 years ago it was political idiocy to consider auditing the fed. 100 percent DOA. You were a kooky brain dead jackass for considering the fed should be audited.

Now we saw in the last congress a bi partisan bill passing to audit the fed.

And while Paul comes off, note the key words comes off, as kooky at times with his foreign policy, he more so is looking correct. It is completely over reaching, we have far too many bases world wide, and yes people around the world resent us in part due to this.

Does it mean all of his answers are right? Of course not, nobody has the magic beans to correct this mess, but his analysis in regards to the military establishment, the fed, and debt have all been very accurate.

I thought bases in other countries created local economies in those areas. I remember when the Geissen base in germany closed, people were mad because the local economy in Geissen was going to suffer due to all the soldiers with money leaving the area. I would imagine the same is true for places like Korea Japan, etc. Now im sure there is a certain percentage that does not want US soldiers in their country, but I figured the majority of the people didn't mind soldiers in the area's because it boosted their local economy. Im sorry in advance, if i have it all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
allannis

allannis

Posted
Posted
I'm for the death penalty in maybe one percent of the cases where it might be considered. My criteria would be that the criminal do something so unforgiveable and monstrous that they could never be entrusted into society again and could not contribute anything positive in any respect to society. Osama fits that pretty well. I felt similarly about the DC Sniper. There are very few of these people out there who death is the only sane way to protect society, but sadly, they are out there.

I sure ther are plenty of Osama wannabe's are in Gitmo, but I don't hear anyone saying we should go shoot them in their pjs. in fact I hear alot about how they should get a fair trial or be set free.The DC snipers and soddam got fair trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
I guess all the people here that are happy we killed bin laden, are also for the the death penalty,right? Just asking

Only marginally responsive to your post, and to Ron Paul's position, but . . .

My own opinion? If we went there for the purpose of killing Ossama, then I've got a problem with it, too.

If we went there for the purpose of capturing him, and he resisted, and we had to shoot him, then that's a big "waaaaaaaa".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Pretty much what Larry said. The last scenario I want is...

Our forces charge in. They spot Osama Bin Laden and shout.

"Surrender!"

Only to hear Osama and his men shout

"Never"

and our guys shrugging and saying, "Well, we tried, but he said 'no'"

If he resisted our men had the right to protect themselves and use deadly force. As to the trial situations, that's where the 1% thought goes into play. There is a very small population of people who are so dangerous, insane, and destructive that the death penalty is fitting. For those very, very few... I can understand it. Is it justice? Is it revenge? Probably not. It's protecting society. Morally hazy, I know, but there ya go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted
Slowly but surely Ron Paul has been or will be proven to be correct.

4 years ago it was political idiocy to consider auditing the fed. 100 percent DOA. You were a kooky brain dead jackass for considering the fed should be audited.

Now we saw in the last congress a bi partisan bill passing to audit the fed.

And while Paul comes off, note the key words comes off, as kooky at times with his foreign policy, he more so is looking correct. It is completely over reaching, we have far too many bases world wide, and yes people around the world resent us in part due to this.

Does it mean all of his answers are right? Of course not, nobody has the magic beans to correct this mess, but his analysis in regards to the military establishment, the fed, and debt have all been very accurate.

I could list find 5 things Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were correct about. I could simultaneously point out that they were bat-**** insane and dangerous to humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
I could list find 5 things Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were correct about. I could simultaneously point out that they were bat-**** insane and dangerous to humanity.
Godwin. You lose the thread.

And Paul's correct about the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hubbs

Hubbs

Posted
Posted
I could list find 5 things Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were correct about. I could simultaneously point out that they were bat-**** insane and dangerous to humanity.

"This guy is so anti-war that he reminds me of Hitler."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted
Slowly but surely Ron Paul has been or will be proven to be correct.

4 years ago it was political idiocy to consider auditing the fed. 100 percent DOA. You were a kooky brain dead jackass for considering the fed should be audited.

Now we saw in the last congress a bi partisan bill passing to audit the fed.

And while Paul comes off, note the key words comes off, as kooky at times with his foreign policy, he more so is looking correct. It is completely over reaching, we have far too many bases world wide, and yes people around the world resent us in part due to this.

Does it mean all of his answers are right? Of course not, nobody has the magic beans to correct this mess, but his analysis in regards to the military establishment, the fed, and debt have all been very accurate.

This pretty much ehcos my answer.

I'm not as rabid a Paul supporter as I once was, but I root for him because, unlike most mainstream politicians, this guy sticks to his guns; whether or not they're popular or not.

Sure, I don't agree with everything Paul has to say. Some of his stuff is damn near extremist; but I like the fact that someone in D.C. actually wants to bring about real, almost revolutionary, reform to government.

I don't know if Paul is the hero this country needs or deserves to be locked up, and to be honest, you don't either (though you may have strong opinions in either direction). What I do know, though, is that what we're doing right now isn't working and needs to be fixed somehow. Paul's got ideas for fixing it. Why not hear him out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Special K

Special K

Posted
Posted
The last scenario I want is...

Our forces charge in. They spot Osama Bin Laden and shout.

"Surrender!"

Only to hear Osama and his men shout

"Never"

and our guys shrugging and saying, "Well, we tried, but he said 'no'"

Evidently I have lost my moral compass, because that scenario doesn't bother me in the least :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DjTj

DjTj

Posted
Posted
Evidently I have lost my moral compass, because that scenario doesn't bother me in the least :ols:
It's not a moral thing, it's a practical thing.
If he resisted our men had the right to protect themselves and use deadly force.
The level of "resistance" has to be put really low in that situation. They can't wait until their lives are clearly in danger like a police officer would. They were breaking into a compound that nobody had ever been inside before, which could be booby trapped or strapped with explosives, where Al Qaeda reinforcements could be coming at any time, in a country that didn't allow them in, and if they failed the mission the US military might even deny that they were even there. Any kind of resistance that is even going to slow down your escape in that situation probably warrants deadly force. If somebody in the room refuses to get on the floor, you probably shoot them. Any move could be a move that is going to set off a bomb or call for reinforcements.

I doubt there was even time for anyone to think, "Well, we tried." Osama may have disobeyed one command and gotten shot. And I think that would have been the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...