Ron Paul: How Many More Wars?

“BLANK CHECK” WAR AGAINST ISIS A “DANGEROUS AND COSTLY SCHEME” || by RON PAUL  || Last week President Barack Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “and associated persons and forces” anywhere in the world for the next three years….


ron paul|| by RON PAUL  || Last week President Barack Obama sent Congress legislation to authorize him to use force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “and associated persons and forces” anywhere in the world for the next three years.  This is a blank check for the president to start as many new wars as he wishes, and it appears Congress will go along with this dangerous and costly scheme.

Already the military budget for next year is equal to all but the very peak spending levels during the Vietnam war and the Reagan military build-up, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives.  Does anyone want to guess how much will be added to military spending as a result of this new war authorization?

The U.S. has already spent nearly two billion dollars fighting ISIS since this summer, and there hasn’t been much to show for it.  A new worldwide war on ISIS will likely just serve as a recruiting tool for jihadists.  We learned last week that our bombing has led to 20,000 new foreign fighters signing up to join ISIS.  How many more will decide to join each time a new U.S. bomb falls on a village or a wedding party?

The media makes a big deal about the so-called limitations on the president’s ability to use combat troops in this legislation, but in reality there is nothing that would add specific limits.  The prohibition on troops for “enduring” or “offensive” ground combat operations is vague enough to be meaningless.  Who gets to determine what “enduring” means?  And how difficult is it to claim that any ground operation is “defensive” by saying it is meant to “defend” the U.S.?  Even the three year limit is just propaganda: Who believes a renewal would not be all but automatic if the president comes back to Congress with the U.S. embroiled in numerous new wars?

If this new request is not bad enough, the president has announced that he would be sending 600 troops into Ukraine next month, supposedly to help train that country’s military.  Just as the Europeans seem to have been able to negotiate a ceasefire between the opposing sides in that civil war, President Obama plans to pour gasoline on the fire by sending in the U.S. military.  The ceasefire agreement signed last week includes a demand that all foreign military forces leave Ukraine.  I think that is a good idea and will go a long way to reduce the tensions.  But why does Obama think that restriction does not apply to us?

Last week also saw the Senate confirm Ashton Carter as the new Secretary of Defense by an overwhelming majority.  Carter comes to the Pentagon straight from the military industrial complex, and he has already announced his support for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine.  Sen. John McCain’s strong praise for Carter is not a good sign that the new secretary will advise caution before undertaking new U.S. interventions.

As we continue to teeter on the verge of economic catastrophe, Washington’s interventionists in both parties show no signs of slowing.  The additional tens of billions or more that these new wars will cost will not only further undermine our economy, but will actually make us less safe.  Can anyone point to a single success that the interventionists have had over the last 25 years?

As I have said, this militarism will end one way or the other.  Either enough Americans will wake up and demand an end to Washington’s foreign adventurism, or we will go broke and be unable to spend another fiat dollar on maintaining the global U.S. empire.

Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.

Related posts

US & World

Amanda Cunningham: The Reach For Freedom

Amanda Cunningham

Letter: About That Semiconductor Guest Column …


Joe Biden Dials It Back In Ukraine

Will Folks


the apple don't fall far February 16, 2015 at 10:14 am

God help us all if Rand Paul gets close to the White House. Only Obama hates America more than his daddy.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:19 am

Yep, he hates America so much that he wants it to stop wasting money & lives on winnable & unnecessary wars.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:21 am


Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:25 am

Btw, his Rand Paul wants war-so you should be cheering him on. Rand Paul doesn’t give two shits what his father thinks.

CNSYD February 16, 2015 at 10:16 am

Obviously Paul does not believe in the statements in Matthew and Mark concerning wars and rumors of wars. But then he is Sic Willie’s deity.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:21 am

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”-Matthew 5:9

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:32 am

So why did Dr. Paul vote for H J Res 64 after the 9/11 attacks giving then President George W. Bush authorization to use of force against any given state sponsors of terrorism?

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:34 am

Because self defense is a form of “peacemaking”.

Also, my understanding(and I could be wrong) is that the authorization was very specific and only referring to those responsible for 9/11, and was later expanded.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:35 am

He’d have voted NAY, his vote wasn’t counted among the NAYS you fool. The fact you justify Dr. Paul’s vote for H J Res 64 makes all of his arguments invalid. He’s just doing it to get money to help prop up his son Rand Paul who’ll do the same sort of hypocritical dance.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:38 am

Here’s the text of the description from you stupid shit:

“Passed House without amendment (09/14/2001)Authorization for Use of Military Force – Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.”

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:40 am

That’s Dr. Paul’s vote, you’ll have to ask Dr. Paul why he voted for H J Res 64 which was passed by Congress. Can’t take the fact that Dr. Paul is a liar when it even comes to his non-interventionist rhetoric? He hangs around with those folks who helped write his racist newsletters to give him money.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:41 am

Can you not read you stupid shit?

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:43 am

Are you stupid to ignore Dr. Paul voting for YEA on H J Res 64?

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:45 am

Dude, you are unable to understand the argument…you have nothing but irrational fear. Good luck with that.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:54 am

You are just that dumb for a Paulbot are you? wRONg Paul voted for H J Res 64 to give permission to the use of force after the 9/11 attacks. I find it funny that someone who is classified as an “anti-war” candidate had voted for this.

You’re the ones whom are being irrational in backing a big fraud who just wants your money. He never made it to become President and neither would his son.

The Making of Biblical "Peace" February 16, 2015 at 10:37 am

“And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining” Joshua 10:39

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” 1 Samuel 15:3

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 10:40 am

The first quote is not an endorsement, the 2nd is a commandment from God.

Are you saying that Bush was commanded by God to wage war across the Middle East?

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:55 am

And yet Dr. Paul gave Dubya that permission with H J Res 64, bwahahahaha!

steve February 16, 2015 at 3:41 pm

the thing about Ron Paul that is missing here is we were attacked on our home land with 9/11, that is different than trying to rundown isis in who know where. I think we should chase em to the gates off hell, Ron Paul believes we need to stay out of these messes.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 3:46 pm

And yet he signed a waiver giving the President the right to do whatever military action to keep this country safe, end of story. Had he voted NAY, he’d have more valid points.

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 2:15 pm


M2000 February 17, 2015 at 2:16 pm

He’d have then voted no for that resolution after 9/11 if it were the truth about Dr. Paul for whatever the heck he’s been saying for.

the closet muslim February 16, 2015 at 11:03 am

Obama is apparently commanded by Muhammed to allow the killing of Christians. 21 yesterday by ISIS.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 11:06 am

The killing of Christians(and Muslims) have been going on for thousands of years across the globe(not just the Middle East). It is simply not in US national security to avenge each and every atrocity committed across the globe, aside from the budgetary implications of having troops fighting wars across the world.

It is impossible to bring the Garden of Eden back on Earth by man’s hand.

God help us all February 16, 2015 at 11:13 am

Right out of Muslim Obama’s playbook.ISIS couldn’t have stated it any better.

Going Old Testament On 'Em February 16, 2015 at 11:08 am

“And the Lord said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee” Joshua 10:8

Who says Bush isn’t just a modern day Joshua? Bush claimed God spoke to him.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

“Who says Bush isn’t just a modern day Joshua? Bush claimed God spoke to him.”

I believe Bush himself suggested that as well….

I’m not going to argue with someone who might believe that he did get such a commandment from God, I’ll only say that I have more respect for someone that argues that versus someone who tries to argue that US led/funded war across the Middle East is serving national security purposes.

The whole reason I quoted the Bible is that people can use it to justify or argue against anything….(see the first comment in the thread)

The Colonel February 16, 2015 at 11:41 am

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” Matthew 10:34

“He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” Luke 22:36

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 12:05 pm

The 2nd is God commanded and specific. The first is the right of God(regardless of the rainbow, which was more specifically the whole of man), not the right of men and is specific in it’s context/wording.

“You shall not kill”, KJV

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 12:09 pm

* we all know “kill” is actually “murder”, but translation specific-you get the point

The Colonel February 16, 2015 at 5:09 pm

Neither verse means exactly what it appears at first glance to mean. In Matthew he is talking about his words, the power of which will cleave existing relations (verse 35 continues “For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”, bring about strife and ultimately bring about judgement. There is much debate about what Jesus meant in Luke but the best explanation seems to be that he is referring to the “sword of the spirit” in words that his disciples could wrap their heads around. He later tells them that two swords would be enough and still later admonishes to Peter to sheath his sword after he lops the ear off of one of those who came to the garden to arrest Jesus.

The commandment is against murder, not “killing”. Capital punishment and killing in warfare can be justified.

I was just poking the bear to see who would object.

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 6:31 pm

“I was just poking the bear to see who would object.”

I’m not sure I object, but I am anti pre-emptive war(I do believe in self defense).

But I’m mostly alone in that I suppose.

9" February 17, 2015 at 5:32 am

God didn’t write the bible.It has some good advice similar to Aesop’s Fable,but if you take it literally,that’s just dumb.My late father was a minister,as were many of his friends.None of them believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to Jehovah’s witnesses,the reason dinosaurs aren’t mentioned in the Bible-Get this:they were planted by archaeologists.Praise The Lord!

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:31 am

Sorry Dr. wRONg Paul, but your vote after 9/11 makes all of your “non-interventionist” arguments invalid:

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 10:35 am

Do you not believe a person can change their mind? I think the guy is an idiot but your remark is just ignorant. Many vvoted to give authorization based on basically manufactured facts and arguments laid out by the administration, Hence why Colin Powell was so pissed later when he realized Cheneys Office of Special Projects had led the country to war on totally bogus made up bullshit. WMDs anyone? Hell even Bush admitted repeatedly that there where no WMDs.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:36 am

And yet Dr. Paul gave Dubya permission when he voted for H J Res 64. He also extended that to Obama as well. Had he NOT voted for H J Res 64, maybe his comments would be more valid.

Rocky February 16, 2015 at 11:03 am

Not a Bush fan, but he masterfully played both Dem and Rebublican Congress members (House and Senate). He boxed them in by electing to push his resolution for Iraq right at the mid-term elections when the country was already hell bent on getting Bin Laden (which Obama masterfully accomplished). He played it so if you voted against it they’d paint you as a wimp. So everyone weighed the options, and the all agreed if they voted Yes and it went south they could blame Bush, and if they voted and it worked, they’d be on the winning team.

dems r traitors February 16, 2015 at 11:06 am

Democrats are no longer trusted on national security issues. They scare the shit out of the American people with the appeasement and support of our enemies.

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 11:38 am

Yeah except for those pesky things called facts…
Bush “Bin Laden is no longer relevant”
Obama “we killed him last night..” Dont forget it was us who gave Saddam hussein the chem weapons in the first place..a republican President I might add..

you be a dummy! February 16, 2015 at 11:16 am

That was laughing gas the ‘other’ Hussein used on the Kurds.
You really are a fucking uniformed,American hating socialist and bigot.

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 11:24 am

So you know more than the sitting president at the time..mmm ok..delusions of grandeur much? There was no doubt that he had chem weapons before gw1, we gave them to him you fucking idiot..the issue was you american hating fucking ignorant rodent was whether he still had viable chem weapons or as the admin at the time states nuclear capabilities, he didnt, Bush admitted it and just about everyone else you fucking ignorant shit on the road of life.

uh huh! February 16, 2015 at 11:22 am

The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more:

Uh huh February 16, 2015 at 11:27 am

This isn’t me.

Btw, does this mean Bush lied about not finding WMD?

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 11:31 am

Do you even read the shit you post or the articles it refrences…from the new york times article YOU quoted: “The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist),” Typical republican response to facts..ignore them. Fucking idiot.

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 11:33 am

or also in the same article…”also point out that if indeed these discoveries would have been evidence of a W.M.D. program, those who waged the war would have been, as Kevin Drum writes at Mother Jones, “the first to trumpet the news.” They didn’t, and that should be “pretty plain evidence that there was nothing here to back up their prewar contentions of an Iraqi W.M.D. program.”

Rocky February 16, 2015 at 1:05 pm

Well done, sir. Well done indeed! You wanna go kick some Tango butt – I think I have him queued up around here somewhere. Need to get some stuff done.

poor Obummer February 16, 2015 at 1:06 pm

Hey pussy, looks like that ‘gasoline’ bump is over for the America hater…
Reuters/Ipsos2/7 – 2/111413 A4350-7FOX News2/8 – 2/101044 RV4549-4The Economist/YouGov2/7 – 2/9663 RV4155-14

grandtangosuglydog February 16, 2015 at 1:26 pm

Changing the subject again…stay focused dim witted idiot…on how many topics do I have to kick your ads?? At least put up some logic it gets boring constantly proving you wrong and making you look idiotic

poor Obummer February 16, 2015 at 1:08 pm

-7 Rueters
-4 Fox
-14 The Economist/YouGov

Ha Ha Ha….

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:38 am

Every time a Paulbot likes to praise Dr. Paul for being “anti-war”, remind a Paulbot that Dr. Paul voted for H J Res 64 which would give the President the authorization to use force against any given country that has harbored terrorism, even in Iraq, and even in Libya.

Dr. Paul should have been the Dr. No he was supposed to be and voted No, this is HIS RECORD you tools. Hope you like wasting money with his moneybombs to help out prop up his son who is also a fraud.

Shaddup February 16, 2015 at 10:41 am

Read the bill dumbass, it was any entity that was responsible for 9/11. It was very specific.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:42 am

Spending all that money with Dr. Paul’s moneybombs is what you tools are doing. That’s Dr. Paul’s little record that he voted yes for H J Res 64 which both the Bush and Obama administrations have both been using.

You claim to read the bill, I did read the bill, I did see Dr. Paul’s vote being YEA on RECORD. Those are the facts, he’s a liar on non-interventionist rhetoric. It’s only a hook line and stinker for tools like you to waste your time with Dr. Paul, rating down any article you feel is “slandering” his name even though those are also words he actually stated.

Shaddup February 16, 2015 at 10:44 am

WTF are you talking about? You sound paranoid as hell. I made a specific case and you ignore it. I’m all done arguing with idiots today, you filled my quota.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:46 am

You freaking Paulbot tools, wasting your time with a fraud, he voted for the use of force in H J Res 64, so therefore all of his comments he’s now making are invalid and a lie. Both administrations have lawyers who could also make the argument Dr. Paul voted the way he did and invalidate his comments as a lie.

So what are your personal beliefs of a war in whatever given country, the fact is Dr. Paul gave Dubya permission with H J Res 64, and extended it toward Obama as well. Maybe if Dr. Paul had a time machine and went back to change his vote, maybe I’ll see his comments as valid, but they’re NOT because that’s what’s on record you stooge Paulbot.

chatting with tards February 16, 2015 at 7:56 pm

It’s sad. Ron Paul votes one time for authorizing the use of military force right after 911 to catch and kill those responsible for attacking our country on our soil (because he’s for defending the country against foreign invaders, not wars for profit like you). Then the corrupt fear and war mongers in the White house take advantage of the authorization and start attacking Iraq, losing site of the original purpose… Of course, anti-American, anti-freedom, pro-government, statists such as yourself try to run him down for a hope he had of catching the perpetrators of 9/11. You should be ashamed of yourself. Then again, you don’t really care about this country.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 9:07 pm

And yet he’s made a career out of being “non-interventionist” yet when it comes to him voting for authorization of the use of force after 9/11, he pandered to the 9/11 “Truther” crowd.

Paulbots you won’t ever wake up because you are all so stupid.

Salim Morgan February 17, 2015 at 1:35 am

Why are YOU examining his “anti-interventionist” credentials? You’re pro-intervention anywhere and everywhere, right? What’s it to you, fool?

Shaddup February 17, 2015 at 8:43 am

He knows Ron Paul’s ideas(which are really just the ideas of the old right) are gaining traction, otherwise he wouldn’t bother to attack them.

His argument is a non-starter because he can’t even differentiate between “non-intervention” & “self defense”. You are wasting words on him because he’s not very bright.

M2000 February 17, 2015 at 10:09 am

He voted for a resolution that supports war, that’s the reason why.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 10:47 am

It’s the same way to invalidate the comments made by Democrats whom went against the war in Iraq though they voted for it. Same gig with Dr. Paul and his vote favoring H J Res 64.

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 2:34 pm

You seem to leave out that Iraq invasion was justified based on a pile of lies. If Putin did that, NATO would be calling for his execution.

M2000 February 17, 2015 at 2:38 pm

And yet wRONg Paul voted for a resolution that gave a President authorization to the use of force.

SolitaryPillar February 18, 2015 at 2:16 pm

To defend the USA against terrorism, not invade some country that did not attack us. Everyone knows Iraq was attacked because they rejected the petrodollar. Therefore H J Res 64 did not authorize Iraq. The truth is we just attacked another country without cause. That is why so many were calling for Bush, Chaney and others to be prosecuted for war crimes. Nobody says anything now because obviously it is not going to happen. Internationally, the talk goes on.

Point is Paul did not agree to anything authorizing an attack on Iraq.

M2000 February 19, 2015 at 4:26 pm

You idiot, wRONg Paul voted for that resolution that gave permission to the President to attack any country he seems to have a desire that might be a threat to this country. His vote would have been in the NAYS if he felt otherwise you doofus.

RogueElephant February 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

Question : How many more wars ? Answer : As many as necessary. Next question.

JCDavis February 16, 2015 at 6:02 pm

As many as necessary for what, exactly? The only thing we’re doing is building our empire, but since Bush, and now with Obama, our rogue actions are tearing it down.

:) February 16, 2015 at 6:29 pm

He is a “RougeElephant”.


Seriously, he really believes all the wars are in our interests…it’s sad..but it is what it is.

GrandTango February 16, 2015 at 8:04 pm

Eliminating Evil is in the world’s interest…you Dumb-F*#k…

You sit on your lazy, liberal @$$ and collect a check…or collect it through the courts, from people who EARNED it…

As long as you can Suck off the contributors…you don’t give a S#!t about anyone else, or their freedom from savages…do you?

:) February 16, 2015 at 10:08 pm

ahhhhh…I should have figured you’d bring up sucking off.

Too bad your not a crazy hot chick instead of a crazy snot dick.

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 2:22 pm

A lot of talk about freedom. Exactly what freedoms do we have that other countries do not have? I am sure you can name Somalia, Saudi Arabia and other such countries but we are no longer the bastion of freedom you claim we are. Any country that has hunting and whose government does not have super computers spying on it’s citizens has more freedom. Any country with an honest political system, instead of a phony two-party system keeping it’s citizens scuring in circles has more freedom. You live in an illusion.

GrandTango February 17, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Saddam Hussein and his sons could – and would – legally rape men’s wives the night before the wedding, if they like them…The Iraqui Soccer team was tortured for not winning. There were political prison in Iraq for children (that we liberated)…

The Hussein government would decapitate the fathers in front of the children, in Iraq, if the father showed any resistance against the government kingpins…and so on and so on…

You are an Ignorant, and weak-minded b@$t@rd . You have been told you are smart…because you swill the myths and lies of the leftwing establishment, that must control its dolts to feed its Greed and maintain its power…

SolitaryPillar February 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm

Since our invasion or Iraq, over one million people there have died. Our dick may hve been in the white house and raking in billions for his ex-employer instead of inside the female victims who died, but they died just the same as a result of our invasion. Prior to the invasion, we had sanctions against Iraq and it is estimated, by the UN, that a half million babies died from starvation due to our sanctions.

It is people like you who are responsible for the loss of all those countless lives. It is your lack of sorrow and compassion that leads to a bunch of extremists beheading those they feel are connected to those responsible. It is the lack of demonstrting Christian values and democratic processes that make our ways rejected. We have not shown anything worth flocking to.

Hitler did not act on some 21 lives, he acted in mass. Who looks like Hitler now? Remember, Hitler got the support of the German people by promising a Christian fatherland. Your rhetoric actually sounds a lot like Hitler’s shouts of support for the Christian religion. He actually went so far as to creating a state religion and outlawing other religions except for Catholicism. It is funny how you compare any current middle east threat to Hitler when, in the name of the white race and Christianity, he would have rubbed out all the brown people probably starting in the middle east.

GrandTango February 18, 2015 at 2:26 pm

So we killed a million terrorists after Congress voted to respond to threats….how many civilians did Clinton kill by blanket blind Abombing? And how many innocents would have been killed if we did not save them?….2 -3 million…

GrandTango February 16, 2015 at 8:02 pm

Why don’t you don a head-dress and join them???…You IGNORANT F*#k….

I’d ESPECIALLY love to have seen you go Muslim-Rogue when we had a REAL president…just for F*#ks like you….

JCDavis February 16, 2015 at 8:12 pm

You really ought to go over there and fight them yourself. I’m sure the CIA has a package for twits like you.

Centrist View February 16, 2015 at 12:31 pm

“We learned last week that our bombing has led to 20,000 new foreign fighters signing up to join ISIS..”

Where are these enrollment figures coming from?

Guest February 16, 2015 at 4:56 pm

He pulled them out of his posterior. Ron Paul is reduced to sensationalism and propagana-speak in an effort to appear relevant.

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm

They know approximately how many are there. At first observations estimated about 3 thousand. Now it is clearly more than 23 thousand. Also ever wonder how 3 thousand conquered half of Iraq? It is because that half supports what they bring. ISIS is more the will of the people than the government we helped bring into power. Apparently we do not have a clue what we are doing.

GrandTango February 16, 2015 at 8:06 pm

Yeah…they were docile innocents – who loved er’body – except for us…

Michaelinlondon1234 February 16, 2015 at 2:39 pm

It is worth looking at the demographics of Afghanistan over the last 40 years to keep it in perspective. Completely out of control birth rate. Every one making money out of it. Increase in desertification.
Kiev has done the bomb its own population while sucking dry financial resources of the west.
Perhaps it is time for a complete ban on aid except for contraceptives and family planing.

M2000 February 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm

Until wRONg Paul recuses himself of voting YEA for H J Res 64, his comments are invalid.

JCDavis February 16, 2015 at 6:01 pm

Add a war tax surcharge to the 1040 and see how many people support our wars of aggression if they have to pay for it.

FastEddy23 February 18, 2015 at 11:21 pm

Or how about a “special” tax on those g/ment employees who have been hired since 2008.

GrandTango February 16, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Somebody, PLEASE send this IGNORANT MoFo over to an Islamic country…and send FITS with him…

I really would contribute to their plane tickets…

They just beheaded 21 Christians …only a F*#king Head-up-his-@$$ idiot would think IGNORING these animals is wise…

Or does RonPaul champion ISIS, because no one would listen to him otherwise…???
Obama did EXACLTLY what RonPaul and FITS told him to, and Obama looks like the Biggest F*#k Up, nowsince Carter destabilized Iran more than 35-years ago….and started this F*#king mess….

Evil does not lay still, you Dumb-F*#k. It NEVER has…and only the most uneducated, and Stupid think placating savages will make them stop and play pretty…

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 2:31 pm

If it were not for idiots like you ISIS would not exist. You can blame all neocons who rushed into Iraq and then supported the same terrorists in Syria over a pipeline war.

GrandTango February 17, 2015 at 2:59 pm

Yeah…and Hitler was a figment of your imagination, too…Dumb@$$…
And you’re not just a F*#king idiot…your kind of ignorance is dangerous…

SolitaryPillar February 18, 2015 at 1:31 pm

Your stupidity is dangerous. Your quoting the bible, as if that means anything, is telling. You have your book and Al Queda has their book. You both are devils in each other’s eyes and frankly, other than the title of your books, I have a hard time telling you apart.

SolitaryPillar February 18, 2015 at 1:55 pm

I left you a present at the top. Sort by newest and read the three on top. Don’t let me get the last word.

GrandTango February 18, 2015 at 2:53 pm

Sorry…but that’s way too much trouble relative to value..

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 3:46 pm

Private meeting between Dick Armey and Dick Chaney. Any neocons calling for more such militaristic actions are clearly Dicks also. That would include the person or persons named Grand Tango and The Colonel.


The threat Cheney described went far beyond public statements that
have been criticized for relying on “cherry-picked” intelligence of
unknown reliability. There was no intelligence to support the vice
president’s private assertions, Gellman reports.

Armey had spoken out against the coming war, and his opposition gave cover to Democrats who feared the political costs of appearing weak. Armey reversed his
position after Cheney told him, he said, that the threat from Iraq was
“more imminent than we want to portray to the public at large.”

Cheney said, according to Armey, that Iraq’s “ability to miniaturize weapons
of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,” had been “substantially refined since the first Gulf War.”

Cheney linked that threat to Hussein’s alleged ties to Al Qaeda, Armey said, explaining “we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as Al Qaeda.”

“Did Dick Cheney . . . purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?” Armey said. “I seriously feel that may be the case. . . . Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end.”

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 4:12 pm


“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.

McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.

….But two of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Like elements of the mujahideen, which benefited from U.S. financial and military support during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and then later turned on the West in the form of al-Qaeda, ISIS achieved scale and consequence through Saudi support, only to now pose a grave threat to the kingdom and the region. It’s this concern about blowback that has motivated Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to encourage restraint in arming Syrian rebels. President Obama has so far heeded these warnings.

John McCain’s desire to help rebel forces toss off a brutal dictator and fight for a more just and inclusive Syria is admirable. But as has been proven repeatedly in the Middle East, ousting strongmen doesn’t necessarily produce more favorable successor governments. Embracing figures like Bandar, who may have tried to achieve his objectives in Syria by building a monster, isn’t worth it.

SolitaryPillar February 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm


FastEddy23 February 18, 2015 at 11:19 pm

The psy-ops war has yet to be examined:

Pig Skin Body Bags for terrorists. (And they don’t have to be real pig skin, just labeled as such … in farci.)


Leave a Comment