4um: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA

Title: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA
Source: CNN
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 2, 2008
Author: CNN
Post Date: 2008-05-02 18:28:55 by a vast rightwing conspirator
Keywords: None
Views: 8487
Comments: 534

Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better which is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while.

#17. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, *Obama 2008*, aristeides, iconoclast (#0)

He's not Ron Paul. But Obama will get us out of Iraq, I believe. Plus he doesn't use the word "obliterate" when it comes to Iran.

W Bush is/was clearly in incompetent retard who can/could not function or 'lead' without handlers guiding him every step of the way. Anyone who trusts or trusted Bush now or then is/was either too naive or is/was not paying attention or makes/made a decision to trust him regardless of the abundant evidence. This is not uncommon. Most Americans bought the pre-war propaganda and supported the Iraq invasion. The evidence was clearly lacking and the scare campaign was so crude, most people should have saw it for what it was but they didn't.

Oh, but we were talking about 'trust'. Clearly, it's impossible to completely predict how much of one's promises will become one's future actions. However, I have little doubt that McCain's promises of more war are likely to translate into more war if he becomes the U.S. president. I believe that it will be less war than McCain dreams and promises because the country can't afford a lot more, but there will be more. I also have doubts that Hillary's promises of ending the Iraq involvement are likely to be fully kept because she promised not to talk with the local 'adversaries' and it's hard to reach some good and final outcome absent either some good negotiations or a complete victory and Hillary promises not to do either. In the case of Obama, I believe that he is likely to do more than he is promising, as far as the ME involvement is concerned. He is as intelligent as Hillary but he also appears to be more principled. He also must carry the black man's burden. He will only be judged good or satisfactory as a prez only if he performs way beyond expectations and he seems to be ambitious enough to actually give it a try.

Vast. After reading your post, the thought struck me we're debating the merits of professional American politicians based on 'hope', 'change' and 'trust.' Looking back at my life, in terms of America's foreign policy, it would be illogical for me to 'hope' that a selected politician could 'change' what has become an imperialistic nature, driven by the military industrial complex.

I was born at the end of WWII (FDR knew about PH in advance of the attack, but his desire shuck our isolationism won the day. American troops are still in Germany and Japan). Then Korea came ("The only reason I told the President to fight in Korea was to validate NATO." - Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, but more importantly a CFR member. American troops are still there). Following Korea was Viet Nam (the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, and that nation is now our low labor manufacturing colony). Scattered between Viet Nam and Iraq (WMDs my ass and 9-11 "a second Pearl Harbor"), were Desert Storm, Somalia, Serbia, and probably a half-dozen or so other little messes I've forgotten.

Given this fully developed, interventionist foreign policy of ours, are you honestly telling me you believe one man, Barack Obama, a lowly state senator three years ago, will be able to stop the the MIC and its lust for money and power?

The others surely will not. There is a very small chance Obama would do something on that front.

His defined Middle East policy is to hold Israel "sacrosanct" and to move "some" troops from Iraq to Afghanistan so they can "hunt down" Al Qaeda, which is nothing more than creation of the US government.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Israel may care little whether we expand, maintain or end the war there. Israel is probably worried about the Paki nukes so, to the extent that the Paki gov't is kept on the leash, they don't really care who's in charge in Kabul.

I didn't say it was. Obama is sending troops currently in Iraq, to Afghanistan to war with a US government created entity. And, BTW, should Pakistan (a nuclear power) pop it's ugly head up, he said he'd poke them in the ribs too.

Obama stated that he would try to blow up AlQueda guys in Paki if there was sufficient intelligence that made it possible. He never threatened to obliterate Pakistan or overthrow their government.

yes, Al quaeda is likely a CIA creation. and Obama's statements that he is hot on the 'war on terror' and wants to expand operations in pakistan indicates that he just doesn't get it or worse yet is a willing puppet of evil. Also, that Obama wants to expand the ethanol subsidies and thus kill millions of people through starvation indicates to me the man is no different from his opponents.

However, Robin made a very strong & logical case that Obama was differentiating himself. She did it in a very civil manner using links showing Obama's speeches & stances on issues. Obama has changed his web site in the last month/6 weeks to say that he will withdraw all troops from Iraq within 16 months and leave only enough to protect the embassy. When he says he'll leave enough to protect the embassy this seeems like a weasel phrase to me and discounts his promise. But he is the only one of the 3 who even hints at a withdrawal. and so Robin's case to support him was a very strong one IMHO.

But people greeted Robin with contempt and persistent insults over this. and so Robin bozo'd them. She bozo'd 14. That was judged to be too many. and she was limited to 10. Then she quit the forum.

she posted a lot of articles and was always ready with links and info to make her comments worthwhile.

Obama: Shift Troops to Fight al-Qaida

OELWEIN, Iowa - The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al- Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.

He said President Bush's war-fighting policies have left the United States at greater risk from terrorists. The first-term Illinois senator said decisions by the Republican president had allowed Osama bin Laden and his deputies to elude capture.

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Obama spoke during his 15th trip to Iowa, where precinct caucuses set for January begin the presidential nominating process. He opened his day with a rally on the shores of a lake in Oelwein before his later stops.

The senator focused on the threat of terrorism just days after a new U.S. intelligence assessment warned that al-Qaida has succeeded in rebuilding its strength.

"What I would say is that as a consequence of bad decisions we are more at risk and less safe than we should have been at this point, given all the resources we have spent and the U.S. lives that have been lost," Obama said.

Obama contended the Bush administration erred by choosing to fight in Iraq rather than concentrating on Afghanistan, where he said al-Qaida has rebuilt itself.

"They have entirely regrouped along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Obama said. "The threat of terrorism has actually increased and we've seen a massive spike in terrorist activity, in part because we did not finish the job in Afghanistan and were distracted by a war of choice in Iraq."