Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: World Oil Transit Choke Points

By: lkorrow in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 01 Jan 12 6:44 AM | 34 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner 		Msg. 16714 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 16707 by RalphOmega)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

They're your own words, Due. Take a deep breath and grow up. People aren't always going to agree with you.

Ok, we don't have to be weak. You have said that before. What does it mean in terms of policy?

On Iran, would he let them have the bomb and take sanctions off? How would he proceed from here in S. Asia, the Middle East, Africa, etc? Would he pursue terror orgs covertly, go isolationist, or consult Congress to send in a covert team or armed forces against al qaeda? Those kind of things.




Avatar


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: World Oil Transit Choke Points
By: RalphOmega in CONSTITUTION
Sun, 01 Jan 12 5:28 AM 		Msg. 16707 of 21975

Screw you, Linda. Don't make assumptions about my opinions. You consistently mischaracterize Ron Paul's statements based on the tripe you read. Then you imagine what I 'must' be thinking. I don't need this crap.

What part of referring the matter of war to Congress don't you understand? RP supports a STRONG military but rejects its use for 'nationbuilding'. He also rejects the debt-funded boondoggle of military aid. The reality is that our nation is broke and we can't afford to maintain the 'empire'. That doesn't mean however that we have to be weak.

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next