August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

I fail to see where me making that statement is the same as calling my intelligence into question. Stating that you think someone is out of touch on military affairs is not the same as cussing at and talking down too someone. Maybe I should have reworded it but unlike the other poster I ment no disrespect. It is possible to have different opinions without resorting to insults.

 

[Immanuel]

No. I'm sure they'd still want a nuclear bomb, even though we have no evidence of them attempting to build one, because Israel has nuclear weapons. They'd be no more a threat to us if we left them alone than they would be to Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden or any other country that knows how to mind its own business.

I think you are wrong... maybe if we quit intervening in the ME and stayed out for 1000 years, but in the meantime we'd be waiting for the day they came after us.

Immie

Well you've got to start sometime if it's going to take 1000 years, but I don't believe that for a second. If you make it clear that the U.S.'s policy is to mind its own business from here on out, and show signs of following through on that promise, then the terrorist threat against the U.S. is going to lose much of its teeth right away.

Hmm, George Bush didn't believe that.

Immie

 

[ShackledNation]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

That is like saying Obama's policies have wrecked the economy, but we should continue to pursue them because walking away wont make them go away.

If the genie is wreaking havoc, put him back in the bottle--don't encourage his havoc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

I fail to see where me making that statement is the same as calling my intelligence into question. Stating that you think someone is out of touch on military affairs is not the same as cussing at and talking down too someone. Maybe I should have reworded it but unlike the other poster I ment no disrespect. It is possible to have different opinions without resorting to insults.

I agree, it is possible to have differing opinions without resorting to insults, but saying that we're out of touch is an insult.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think you are wrong... maybe if we quit intervening in the ME and stayed out for 1000 years, but in the meantime we'd be waiting for the day they came after us.

Immie

Well you've got to start sometime if it's going to take 1000 years, but I don't believe that for a second. If you make it clear that the U.S.'s policy is to mind its own business from here on out, and show signs of following through on that promise, then the terrorist threat against the U.S. is going to lose much of its teeth right away.

Hmm, George Bush didn't believe that.

Immie

I believe this is sarcasm, but I'm aware that George Bush didn't believe that. And look where that's got us.

 

[Immanuel]

Whew, it scares me you're a voter.

So lets see, you dodged his answer by asking the same question again... Here, let me ask you a question.

If US policy and the policy of other nations with nukes around Iran have helped give them reason to "hurry" and developed nukes of their own... wouldn't that make your foreign policy a real threat? Not a "possible" threat by a nonintervention policy like Ron Paul’s? Not to mention your way costs money, lots of it and provokes war…

I dodged nothing. I gave my answer. Adopting Paul's nonintervention policy is not going to bring about the forgiveness of the Iranian people.

You seem to believe that by adopting Paul's attitude we would somehow win the graces of the President of Iran. That isn't going to happen. In the meantime adopting such policies will leave us and our allies sitting ducks for a lunatic who has made it clear that his goal in life is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

You seem to think that suddenly throwing our hands in the air and saying we're done is going to change something. That is foolishness X 1000.

Immie

The thing is is that the Iranian people of the younger generations at the least really don't have anything to forgive the U.S. for. It's the Iranian government that resents us. However, if we were to start bombing them and applying sanctions to them then we would give the Iranian people a reason to dislike us.

I don't think I mentioned either bombing or sanctions. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we should just pull all of our troops out and let Iran have its way either. However, saying that the funny thing is that I do believe and have for a long time that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan on the ground. We have the military might to have a presence in the area without actually being there.

We are a threat to any nation in the world whether or not we have troops in their vicinity.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Well you've got to start sometime if it's going to take 1000 years, but I don't believe that for a second. If you make it clear that the U.S.'s policy is to mind its own business from here on out, and show signs of following through on that promise, then the terrorist threat against the U.S. is going to lose much of its teeth right away.

Hmm, George Bush didn't believe that.

Immie

I believe this is sarcasm, but I'm aware that George Bush didn't believe that. And look where that's got us.

Just a little bit of sarcasm in that post.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I dodged nothing. I gave my answer. Adopting Paul's nonintervention policy is not going to bring about the forgiveness of the Iranian people.

You seem to believe that by adopting Paul's attitude we would somehow win the graces of the President of Iran. That isn't going to happen. In the meantime adopting such policies will leave us and our allies sitting ducks for a lunatic who has made it clear that his goal in life is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

You seem to think that suddenly throwing our hands in the air and saying we're done is going to change something. That is foolishness X 1000.

Immie

The thing is is that the Iranian people of the younger generations at the least really don't have anything to forgive the U.S. for. It's the Iranian government that resents us. However, if we were to start bombing them and applying sanctions to them then we would give the Iranian people a reason to dislike us.

I don't think I mentioned either bombing or sanctions. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we should just pull all of our troops out and let Iran have its way either. However, saying that the funny thing is that I do believe and have for a long time that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan on the ground. We have the military might to have a presence in the area without actually being there.

We are a threat to any nation in the world whether or not we have troops in their vicinity.

Immie

Well if you don't support sanctions or bombs to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, assuming that they ever attempt to acquire them, what is it that you would do?

 

[Immanuel]

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

For any of us to think we have all the answers or any for that matter is ridiculous. It's fun to debate and exchange ideas but ultimately it matters not what we think so much as it does what those we elect believe.

With that I'm out. It's late and I got estimates to complete in the morning. Peace

 

[Immanuel]

You don't hear much about him...yet he is polling above Bachman. That should make you question the media, not Paul.

For the rest of your statement, it is wrong on two counts. 1) what you describe is not isolationism and 2)what you describe is not even noninterventionism, which Paul adovcates.

Isolationism is completely shutting a country out from the world. No trade, no relations, no war, no contact whatsoever. Paul never has argued for that.

Noninterventionism is not "taking a back seat." Countries may only do what they wish so long as they are not aggressing against others. Paul would definitely support military retaliation if we were attacked by a foreign aggressor. Furthermore, noninterventionists argue for free trade and peaceful relations with all nations, just as Thomas Jefferson did. They do not advocating taking a back seat in economics either.

What those other clowns on the stage advocated was interventionism and empire. It did not work for the Romans, or any other empire in history. All empires collapse, and they are advocating policing the world and empire. Conservatives once argued against this, and it was progressives that demanded for interventionism and nation building. Why conservatives are adopting progressive foreign policy is beyond me.

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Iran in our own backyard, huh? Iran is going to attack and invade the preeminent military power that has ever existed on this planet? Iran?

September 11, 2001 ring a bell?

Honest question and not a damned bit of sarcasm there.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

It should be pointed that there is some controversy over the translation of what Ahmadinejad actually said in the speech you're referring to. Which translation is more accurate I don't know, because I obviously don't speak the language. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad dislikes Israel, but whether he actually threatened to wipe them out is questionable at the least.

 

[oreo]

August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

I figured we might want a thread for the Republican Debate to night.

It starts at 9pm EST, I’ll bump it unless there are like 10 other threads already going.

Link to the debate: Fox News Live - Video - FoxNews.com

Discuss!

Newt Gingrich came back big time. He out of this field knows more than the others--it's obvious after his confrontation he doesn't take crap off of the media.

In my opinion Newt Gingrich won tonight. He is an historian--he has the experience--he is the former house leader--

And Newt Gingrich could easily cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter.

 

[Immanuel]

You guys advocating for Ron Pauls policies are just completely out of touch.

The genie is already out of the bottle. Mistakes have been made as well as good decisions. We can't erase all that by simply leaving people alone. Our soldiers are their excuses but their beliefs are their reason. We have to finish what we've begun for better or worse. We created some of the problems over there and walking away from them won't make them go away.

You break it you bought it.

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

I fail to see where me making that statement is the same as calling my intelligence into question. Stating that you think someone is out of touch on military affairs is not the same as cussing at and talking down too someone. Maybe I should have reworded it but unlike the other poster I ment no disrespect. It is possible to have different opinions without resorting to insults.

What other poster?

I didn't say anything disrespectful to either Avorysuds, Shacklednation or Kevin, did I? I hope not because I respect all three of them even Avory after he was rude to me earlier.

If I did, then I apologize. I considered a retort to Avory after the comment about me voting, but because of my respect for him, I reworded it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

The thing is is that the Iranian people of the younger generations at the least really don't have anything to forgive the U.S. for. It's the Iranian government that resents us. However, if we were to start bombing them and applying sanctions to them then we would give the Iranian people a reason to dislike us.

I don't think I mentioned either bombing or sanctions. That doesn't mean, however, that I think we should just pull all of our troops out and let Iran have its way either. However, saying that the funny thing is that I do believe and have for a long time that we should not be in Iraq or Afghanistan on the ground. We have the military might to have a presence in the area without actually being there.

We are a threat to any nation in the world whether or not we have troops in their vicinity.

Immie

Well if you don't support sanctions or bombs to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, assuming that they ever attempt to acquire them, what is it that you would do?

That I don't have an answer to yet.

Our support and protection of Israel has been sufficient to date. For now, that is what I would consider. With proof of a nuclear program, I would have to re-evaluate the threat at that point.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is not saying "we give up." That is were you are fundamentally wrong. Allowing Iran to develop such weapons is in the better interest of the United States than continually threatening them with sanctions and military force.

The end goal of foreign policy is peace. How is restricting trade with Iran and threatening to invade them going to create peace? How will it create anything but resentment and more hate?

I do not understand how anyone believes that allowing a damned lunatic that has made it plain as day that he intends to wipe Israel off the face of the earth to have a nuclear weapon will bring about peace?

Immie

It should be pointed that there is some controversy over the translation of what Ahmadinejad actually said in the speech you're referring to. Which translation is more accurate I don't know, because I obviously don't speak the language. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad dislikes Israel, but whether he actually threatened to wipe them out is questionable at the least.

I've not heard of any refutation on his part and it has been an issue for quite some time.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I understand your points here.

However, I think it is too late for that. Electing Ron Paul and suddenly saying we give up is not going to solve the problem. Iran is not going to stop seeking the bomb and they are not going to stop being a threat to either the U.S. or Middle East security.

Damn! I know I am going to sound like George Bush with this statement, but we will eventually have to deal with them, either in the ME or in our own back yard.

Immie

Iran in our own backyard, huh? Iran is going to attack and invade the preeminent military power that has ever existed on this planet? Iran?

September 11, 2001 ring a bell?

Honest question and not a damned bit of sarcasm there.

Immie

Well Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 for starters, though I don't believe that was your point. I believe your point is that some terrorists got us back then so it could potentially happen again. Yes, crimes happen, and horrible things could happen in the future no matter what we do. However, a noninterventionist foreign policy would dramatically reduce the motives anyone may have to want to plot some kind of 9/11 style terrorist attack on the United States.

 

[liebuster]

What right do we have to tell another country that they can't have nuclear weapons, while at the same having 5,113??

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

I figured we might want a thread for the Republican Debate to night.

It starts at 9pm EST, I’ll bump it unless there are like 10 other threads already going.

Link to the debate: Fox News Live - Video - FoxNews.com

Discuss!

Newt Gingrich came back big time. He out of this field knows more than the others--it's obvious after his confrontation he doesn't take crap off of the media.

In my opinion Newt Gingrich won tonight. He is an historian--he has the experience--he is the former house leader--

And Newt Gingrich could easily cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter.

How did he show he knows more than any of the others? He looked very good in the debate tonight, but that was simply because he went on the offensive on the media. He didn't really put that much out there on the policy front, other than an audit of the Federal Reserve which is simply him parroting Ron Paul.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Weren't you the one complaining about people being condescending towards you in this very thread?

I fail to see where me making that statement is the same as calling my intelligence into question. Stating that you think someone is out of touch on military affairs is not the same as cussing at and talking down too someone. Maybe I should have reworded it but unlike the other poster I ment no disrespect. It is possible to have different opinions without resorting to insults.

What other poster?

I didn't say anything disrespectful to either Avorysuds, Shacklednation or Kevin, did I? I hope not because I respect all three of them even Avory after he was rude to me earlier.

If I did, then I apologize. I considered a retort to Avory after the comment about me voting, but because of my respect for him, I reworded it.

Immie

I don't believe Grampa was referring to you.