Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
.
The Israeli AF did a nice job, however, of attacking the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans and wounding 174. Brave lads, those Israelis, when they can attack an unarmed American ship. Most senior U.S. government officials involved with the incident, did not believe that the attack was a mistake. The attack, furthermore, remains the only maritime incident in U.S. history where American military forces were killed that was never investigated by the Congress.

So much for my opinion of the Israeli Air Force and their claim to third place.
Click to expand...
What do most senior government officials believe the motivation was for attacking the USS Liberty?

And do you think that Jews in high places were somehow involved in a conspiracy of sorts to block an investigation into the incident?
If not, what would be the reasoning that this was not investigated?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Similar to how some seem determined to undermine Ron as a legitimate candidate to the point of questioning him the same as some question the far left? :rolleyes:

It’s amazing how some have targeted Ron Paul as they do the democrats after the primaries. So far, I haven’t seen another republican I am ready to go to as a second choice if Ron doesn’t get the nomination.
Click to expand...
He doesnt need me to undermine him. His average in all the polls taken is about 8%. He has no more support this time around than he has in the past.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh, so Dick Cheney insinuated it. Now that’s persuasive! :rolleyes: And it isn’t “maybe” G.W. Bush never did. It’s “he never did”, pure and simple. And I don’t think our Israeli allies or the British and American pilots Saddam shot at would think his threats quite as “potential” as you do. Do you not know that in paying the families of suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians, he was trying to start an Arab-Israeli war, just as he did when he was shooting Scuds at Israel?

And remember, Saddam started two wars, the last of which ended in a truce, which he violated. Fortunately, he was not allowed to start a third.

Wait, don’t you guys believe the U.S. should have stayed out of World War II? Or is that just Buchanan and a handful of leftists who believe that?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about staying out of World War II. There was a clear aggressor and the war was waged by the proper civil authority. You are confusing non-interventionism with isolationism. Nice try, though.
 
Darryl1958 said:
What do most senior government officials believe the motivation was for attacking the USS Liberty?

And do you think that Jews in high places were somehow involved in a conspiracy of sorts to block an investigation into the incident?
If not, what would be the reasoning that this was not investigated?
Click to expand...
How dare you even insinuate that the nation of Israel could do something wrong or illegal. That is impossible. Are you an anti-semite?
 
estesbob said:
He doesnt need me to undermine him. His average in all the polls taken is about 8%. He has no more support this time around than he has in the past.
Click to expand...
He very well has more support and more are looking at him, it appears for other reasons some are working overtime this election to undermine him. Then the problem will be all those Ron Paul supporters will be at fault if the current administration stays in for another term. Does that about sum it up?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Huh? Now we’re making a new “Bush Doctrine” out of something George H.W. Bush said twenty years ago? Not that I agree with him, or even liked him. But we’re starting to get uncomfortably close to Black Helicopter stuff here, piecing this and that together to come up with something that looks coherent but isn’t on its own.

Ah! So you believe Saddam Hussein was justified in shooting missiles at American and British planes in violation of the truce he entered, and he was ever bit as justified as the U.S. would be in repelling Chinese planes from California. My stars! If you don’t see the difference in those things, then I can easily understand how you and the Ron Paulists manage to blame America for virtually everything. Did we cause the Japanese tsunami too? Just asking.

So, it seems the only country you would perhaps deign to call “evil” is the United States.
You guys are not painting all that attractive a portrait of what your man stands for. Are you UinstructedU by the organization to drive off as many potential voters as you can?

The Iraq War wasn’t a world war? My goodness man, even Japan was in on it. From start to finish, nearly every country one ever heard of played some part in it. Just because nobody invaded the Philippines in the course of it does not make it any the less a “world war”.
Click to expand...
So it’s your position that we were forced to go to war with Iraq and so was the rest of the world? Talk about bizarro interpretations of history. Unlike you, I don’t ascribe a positive or negative quality to any country’s government as they are ALL Force… like a gun / ‘hand grenade’ (or Atomic Bomb)… if They (Governments) are inherently evil it is only because Man is inherently evil. Our Country was founded on the best principals up to that time on restraining the government to it’s only just roll of protecting the lives and liberties of it’s citizens. The US has strayed far from that beginning… to where we today subsidize the killing of over a million of our younger brothers and sisters per year in this country and untold millions overseas. To overlook this evil is to not see the world clearly.

I’ll stand with John Paul II “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity,”
americancatholic.org/news/JustWar/iraq/papalstatement.asp
 
kubark said:
Of course he would shoot at planes flying over HIS country. And for the last time, infractions of no-fly zones was not the primary reason for launching the 2003 War on Iraq. And so what if he was hostile toward the Israelis. They are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves (thanks to the taxpayers of the United States) and have a history of taking care of themselves. There is not one country in the Middle East that is worth the life of a Marine.
Click to expand...
As a part of the truce in 1991 or so, Iraq had to agree to a no-fly zone. As you recall, Saddam was involved in mustard gas attacks against his own citizens in the past, so this was put in as a condition so as to avoid similar actions.
Of course this did not stop him from slaughtering the Marsh Shia Arabs in the south, while American troops unfortunately did not get involved with to respect the truce, even as Saddam was breaking it.

There were many reasons given for the re-invasion. No need to rehash all that. Suffice it to way that Saddam’s time had come where he was not going to be tolerated any longer.

As far as no one in the region being worth the effort, that is a rather brutal assessment. I think the ultimate sacrifices made by so many American volunteers in order to bring hope to the region will not be in vain. They obviously thought the people of the region were worth it, or they wouldn’t have volunteered to lay down their lives for the cause of freedom for these people.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
He very well has more support and more are looking at him, it appears for other reasons some are working overtime this election to undermine him. Then the problem will be all those Ron Paul supporters will be at fault if the current administration stays in for another term. Does that about sum it up?
Click to expand...
If they stay home pouting becuase Ron didnt get the nomination they will indeed be complict if Obama is re-elected.
 
MMolloy said:
Wow, convenient rewrite of history. You left out Saddam was the US’s ally and we supported him in his was with Iran. No one here is claiming any country is innocent (except you might be making that claim about the US). Saddam did invade Kuwait but to say he started a World War is disingenuous at best… It was the UN and US that decided to make it a cause celeb for the New World Order… George Bush Sr. on September 11th 1990 in front of a joint televised session of congress told us why we were going to engage Iraq: “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective - a new world order - can emerge…We are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by it’s founders.”

As far as the rest of you rant… most of the things that you indict Iraq for trying to do, the US has actually done: Like Dropping Atomic Bombs on Cities. And if the UN led by China had imposed a no-fly zone over our east and west coasts, you can be sure Americans would be firing on those planes occupying our country.
Click to expand...
Is this Ron Paul as anti-American as you are?
 
Darryl1958 said:
Is this Ron Paul as anti-American as you are?
Click to expand...
Yes, these days according to the Tea Baggers it is anti-American to be in favor of peace and to oppose war. Let’s be pro-American and wage as many wars as possible.
 
estesbob said:
If they stay home pouting becuase Ron didnt get the nomination they will indeed be complict if Obama is re-elected.
Click to expand...
I just don’t see it that way bob. There are many issues being weighed right now, that can unite Catholics. If people overlook a chance at unification, even at the expense of undermining a potential candidate because of other reasons, I believe the blame would go to a much broader group.

It won’t be ‘pouting’, it will be in disappointment that a majority placed other issues above a chance at unifying, and an expectation of hearing the single issue outweighed all other issues, as with the last presidential election.
 
Darryl1958 said:
As a part of the truce in 1991 or so, Iraq had to agree to a no-fly zone. As you recall, Saddam was involved in mustard gas attacks against his own citizens in the past, so this was put in as a condition so as to avoid similar actions.
Of course this did not stop him from slaughtering the Marsh Shia Arabs in the south, while American troops unfortunately did not get involved with to respect the truce, even as Saddam was breaking it.

There were many reasons given for the re-invasion. No need to rehash all that. Suffice it to way that Saddam’s time had come where he was not going to be tolerated any longer.

As far as no one in the region being worth the effort, that is a rather brutal assessment. I think the ultimate sacrifices made by so many American volunteers in order to bring hope to the region will not be in vain. They obviously thought the people of the region were worth it, or they wouldn’t have volunteered to lay down their lives for the cause of freedom for these people.
Click to expand...
Again, no-fly zones were not the reason why we invaded Iraq in 2003. The war was launched against POTENTIAL THREATS of WMDs and to disarm a POTENTIAL AGGRESSOR. This is not in keeping with the requirements of Just War Doctrine. Additionally, infrations of UN imposed sanctions are not CONSTITUTIONAL reasons for going to war. Also, please don’t insinuate that our soldiers “volunteered to lay down their lives for the cause of freedom.” That is nauseating. They volunteer their lives for and take an oath to defend OUR Constitution and OUR Security. I will repeat: there is not one nation in the Middle East worth the life of a Marines. We can’t afford it and the Constitution does not authorize it. Perhaps it is time for our military to remember that they do not take an oath to defend “peace” or “freedom” or “world democracy” or Israel or any other country but OUR OWN. Perhaps it is time that they remember that they DO NOT take an oath to defend the Bush Doctrine, and that before they pledge their allegiance to orders of the Commander in Chief, they take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I just don’t see it that way bob. There are many issues being weighed right now, that can unite Catholics. If people overlook a chance at unification, even at the expense of undermining a potential candidate because of other reasons, I believe the blame would go to a much broader group.

It won’t be ‘pouting’, it will be in disappointment that a majority placed other issues above a chance at unifying, and an expectation of hearing the single issue outweighed all other issues, as with the last presidential election.
Click to expand...
A canidate who can not gain more than 8 to 10% support can not be descibed as “unifying”. The majority of people are like me-believing that eliminating the federal Resefve, isolationism and going back on the gold standard are wacky, simplisitc solutions to the complex problems facing this country.

Rons vision for the country is not my vision. i would support him if he go the nomination, however. I would not stay home and pout. Removing Obama from office is too important,
 
estesbob said:
A canidate who can not gain more than 8 to 10% support can not be descibed as “unifying”. The majority of people are like me-believing that eliminating the federal Resefve, isolationism and going back on the gold standard are wacky, simplisitc solutions to the complex problems facing this country.

Rons vision for the country is not my vision. i would support him if he go the nomination, however. I would not stay home and pout. Removing Obama from office is too important,
Click to expand...
He can not be described as ‘unifying’ because of all those on the early attack to guarantee other issues. Just as Ron’s vision for the country is not your vision, there are many candidates right now I have the same problem with. Using ‘pout’ won’t work on me brother. If my conscience tells me no one is worthy of my vote in the general election, I’ll go fishing. 😉
 
estesbob said:
If they stay home pouting becuase Ron didnt get the nomination they will indeed be complict if Obama is re-elected.
Click to expand...
Maybe they will stay home because there is no other viable alternative. I don’t play the “less of two evils” game anymore. I turned in my Republican Party frequent flyer card when they proved that they are just as much big government control frauds as the Democrats.
 
pnewton said:
I would hope that the Catholics here that support Dr. Paul will prove to be Christian in their responses, restrained in their answers and capable of turning the other cheek. Not only on these forums, but also when dealing with family and friends, there is little to be gained by meeting insult with insult.
Click to expand...
You’re right, I didn’t mean my warning of the forum rules as an insult. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top