CIA Spies Caught, Fear Execution in Middle East

polaris_x wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I believe I've given you this answer before. If I haven't, I'll state it now-- the commander- in-chief has all of the power to bring the troops home whenever he or she wishes through executive order. There is NOTHING Congress can do about this. The less our physical military presences around the globe, the less need there is to continually supply those troops with additional weapons, vehicles, armor, housing, food, etc... We don't have to keep re-manufacturing bombs if we're not dropping any. Any crazy spending bills authorized by Congress can still be vetoed by the president-- in which Congress needs to be REALLY determined to pass the bill to get a 3/4 majority (or 2/3, I forget) to over-ride the veto. Dr. Paul has publicly stated that he would bring the troops home ASAP, and anyone who knows his track record of voting against wasteful spending knows that he would exercise his power to veto far more than any other president ever. Throw in a huge push for more accountability and transparency of The Fed, and we would know exactly how much UNAUTHORIZED spending is being done by our central bank to well-connected corporations. Not to mention, the next president is going to appoint a new Fed Chairmen, and Paul would nominate a number of his friends from the Austrian School that do not believe in bailing out businesses or printing money to finance overbloated government. Just because no other president has chosen to exercise these powers legally doesn't mean he wouldn't. He's doing great in the polls right now. He's second in New Hampshire and was recently statistically tied in Iowa. If people are serious about changing the direction of the country right now, they have to get behind Paul in the Republican primaries, even if they have no intention of voting for him. He's the only guy that can keep Obama honest.

sorry Vinny - i don't want to know what he says he's gonna do ... i am asking you guys HOW he is going to do it ... congress isn't keeping the military forces in afghanistan ... the powers that require the gov't to engage and spend on conflict is (mic) ... how is dr. paul going to go against the mic? ... how is dr. paul going to institute an isolationist type policy when military open or covert action is a primary avenue by which economic imperialism is enforced?

edit: same response for you mike as well ...

I don't know what you mean I guess. He will bring the troops home. that simple. It isn't any more complicated than that. they will come home. for better or worse in Iraq and Afghanistan. Japan, Germany, Turkey, every where. they come home. Foreign policy will be in short terms "Good luck world the police force is retiring"

He will also not authorize the use of force for nation building, poor intelligence or anything else. Without covering every hypothetical, that is how. What more are you looking for? what more do you want to be said?
it isn't isolationism it is non-interventionism.

The bigger question that should be asked is how will the MIC deal with a president who will not increase the size of the military nor its reach around the world?

your question isn't possibly going to be answered to your liking if you ignore the response. you ask how is he going to deal with the MIC....the answer is he is going to pull back the military reach of the united states by first pulling home the troops and secondly by not using our military in response to every world crisis. so again, the better question would be how will the MIC deal with a shrinking budget and less military reach around the world.

polaris_x wrote:

hey ... don't get me wrong ... i would love it if the mic would just sit idly by while dr. paul brings all the troops home and cuts military expenditures by a gazillion dollars ... i just don't see how he can do this ... this is the group that manufactured the conditions that put you guys in iraq to begin with ... do you think the US spends more on weapons than most of the rest of the world combined is a coincidence? ... or the fact spending on these items continues to rise despite cuts in many other areas?

Well, the fact that we are at in some sort of conflict, is the reason why there remains a blank checkbook for entities like the Military Industrial Complex. Take away the wars, the bases, the provocation by being in countries that don't want us there, and budgets for these types of activities will begin to dry up. The MIC is always going to lobby like crazy to plunder the American people out of money for "Star Wars" type projects even after the violence and overseas occupations have ceased. While this is still not good, and should be done away with, it's better to be wasteful with weapons we're never going to use. Since we're fighthing, the spending seems "justified" to many, even if the conflicts themselves don't make sense-- and people are waking up to how ridiculous these bullshit wars more and more everyday. It's the same way lobbies work for all types of programs, laws, subsidies, etc... Lobbyists present a "need" for something, grease politicians, and the rest of us foot the bill. Unless you rid the world of greed, there will always be an attempt by private entities to fleece the taxpayers on a national level by promising something for the greater good, be it warfare or welfare. The fact is, there are 2 ways they can get money for these type of things: Congress has to allocate the money, in which case, they also need a president to be on board to sign the spending bill. President Paul would be no such president. The other way is secret transactions through the central bank. President Paul would be the only president to make stopping taxpayer money from being funneled secretly to corporations. It's all so hard to imagine because every president this century has been complicit in allowing speding to be out of control by being the last one that gets to authorize spending, as well as paying ZERO attention to the actions of The Fed. This is why people like myself take the stance that we do, and make it all very black and white, via strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a larger emphasis on state's rights. If we're going to plunder each other (not my preference, but it's the current way of the world), it should be at the most local levels, where change is possible, where bad programs can die if ineffective. While I'd loved to see an end to totally unchecked greed tomorrow, I don't see it as a possibility, not quickly anyway. I believe that giving greed a giant hired gun in the name of the federal government (or any other mob-like entity) is the greatest facilitator of the greedy getting exactly what they want. The best way to end greed would to be to advocate a system where the ends of greed cannot be obtained by force. Ironically, those claiming to be the most benevolent people are those who are most in favor of coercion to obtain their ends.

Is Ron Paul an automatic answer for putting a stop to the forces that attempt to rip off the people of this country and the world at large? No. But he is our best shot. Electing him as president of the USA would indicate a signifcant shift in how people view the role of government and it's authority to giveth and taketh away, or at least would signify that people are in search of a truly honest leader for the first time in a very long time.

polaris_x wrote:

i don't see them standing idly by as ron paul pulls everything back ...

dr.paulmobile



done and done. 8-)

and a much better chance of fixing things then a revolution ... just ask the egyptians.

polaris_x wrote:

haha

if only that would be enough ...

fixed.

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

hey ... don't get me wrong ... i would love it if the mic would just sit idly by while dr. paul brings all the troops home and cuts military expenditures by a gazillion dollars ... i just don't see how he can do this ... this is the group that manufactured the conditions that put you guys in iraq to begin with ... do you think the US spends more on weapons than most of the rest of the world combined is a coincidence? ... or the fact spending on these items continues to rise despite cuts in many other areas?

Well, the fact that we are at in some sort of conflict, is the reason why there remains a blank checkbook for entities like the Military Industrial Complex. Take away the wars, the bases, the provocation by being in countries that don't want us there, and budgets for these types of activities will begin to dry up. The MIC is always going to lobby like crazy to plunder the American people out of money for "Star Wars" type projects even after the violence and overseas occupations have ceased. While this is still not good, and should be done away with, it's better to be wasteful with weapons we're never going to use. Since we're fighthing, the spending seems "justified" to many, even if the conflicts themselves don't make sense-- and people are waking up to how ridiculous these bullshit wars more and more everyday. It's the same way lobbies work for all types of programs, laws, subsidies, etc... Lobbyists present a "need" for something, grease politicians, and the rest of us foot the bill. Unless you rid the world of greed, there will always be an attempt by private entities to fleece the taxpayers on a national level by promising something for the greater good, be it warfare or welfare. The fact is, there are 2 ways they can get money for these type of things: Congress has to allocate the money, in which case, they also need a president to be on board to sign the spending bill. President Paul would be no such president. The other way is secret transactions through the central bank. President Paul would be the only president to make stopping taxpayer money from being funneled secretly to corporations. It's all so hard to imagine because every president this century has been complicit in allowing speding to be out of control by being the last one that gets to authorize spending, as well as paying ZERO attention to the actions of The Fed. This is why people like myself take the stance that we do, and make it all very black and white, via strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a larger emphasis on state's rights. If we're going to plunder each other (not my preference, but it's the current way of the world), it should be at the most local levels, where change is possible, where bad programs can die if ineffective. While I'd loved to see an end to totally unchecked greed tomorrow, I don't see it as a possibility, not quickly anyway. I believe that giving greed a giant hired gun in the name of the federal government (or any other mob-like entity) is the greatest facilitator of the greedy getting exactly what they want. The best way to end greed would to be to advocate a system where the ends of greed cannot be obtained by force. Ironically, those claiming to be the most benevolent people are those who are most in favor of coercion to obtain their ends.

Is Ron Paul an automatic answer for putting a stop to the forces that attempt to rip off the people of this country and the world at large? No. But he is our best shot. Electing him as president of the USA would indicate a signifcant shift in how people view the role of government and it's authority to giveth and taketh away, or at least would signify that people are in search of a truly honest leader for the first time in a very long time.

All the more reason Dems must switch to vote GOP in the primary and cast that vote for the ONLY anti-war candidate, Dr. Ron Paul.

As POTUS, Ron Paul has the direct authority to bring the troops home. He has that power. It's a shame Ron Paul is the only one consistent about wanting that. Anyone who is serious with their talk of ending wars and expresses concerns with Foreign Policy decisions being made can now make their voices count.

Question is. How much do these "talkers" really want it?

Drowned Out wrote:

Tony Stark IS the MIC. Conflict of interest.

based on the movie ... he WAS the MIC ... i don't really know too much about him outside of the movies ...

Drowned Out wrote:

oh did he quit his job in the movies? I don't remember ...
Outside the movies? Iron Man is real?
oh, the comics....ya, not my thing.

... well, in the movies he feels guilty about all his weapons being used to kill innocent people so he changes his ways ...