PDA

View Full Version : Elections Ron Paul influence is a threat to the GOP


googlegoogle
02-10-2010, 02:51 AM
http://www.newser.com/story/80458/tea-partiers-attack-ron-paul.html

kcfanXIII
02-10-2010, 05:48 AM
he is absolutely a threat to the power structure that has taken over the GOP. he's a fiscal conservative. as for the three opponents, i highly doubt any of them are a real threat, but we'll see if the GOP backs any of their campaigns.

donkhater
02-10-2010, 07:00 AM
Just shows the GOPs influence and desperation. What once was nothing more than people (from both parties) gathering on Tax day to protest out of control government spending and intrusion on liberties, the Tea party idea has morphed into the far right Republican party.

If the Tea party movement wants to align itself with Palin and Brown (both of whom back McCain) and run candidates against the only person in Washington who currently votes the way they "say" they want their representatives to vote, then God's speed. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out of my life.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:35 AM
Just shows the GOPs influence and desperation. What once was nothing more than people (from both parties) gathering on Tax day to protest out of control government spending and intrusion on liberties, the Tea party idea has morphed into the far right Republican party.

If the Tea party movement wants to align itself with Palin and Brown (both of whom back McCain) and run candidates against the only person in Washington who currently votes the way they "say" they want their representatives to vote, then God's speed. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out of my life.

Nice and i agree 100%, You can thank Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for that hijacking.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:37 AM
he is absolutely a threat to the power structure that has taken over the GOP. he's a fiscal conservative. as for the three opponents, i highly doubt any of them are a real threat, but we'll see if the GOP backs any of their campaigns.He's also an isolationist. That won't sit well with the strong defense plank of the tea party or for that matter either the Republican or Democratic party.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:39 AM
He's also an isolationist. That won't sit well with the strong defense plank of the tea party or for that matter either the Republican or Democratic party.

He's not an isolationist he just doesn't believe in Team America world police. We should avoid foreign entanglements such as promoted by our forefathers.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:41 AM
He's not an isolationist he just doesn't believe in Team America world police. We should avoid foreign entanglements such as promoted by our forefathers.BS, Isolationist, he is.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:42 AM
BS, Isolationist, he is.

That term holds no value here, just because he doesn't believe in expanding the empire doesn't mean he's an isolationist.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:45 AM
That term holds no value here, just because he doesn't believe in expanding the empire doesn't mean he's an isolationist.again, BS. He believes that if we pull our our troops out of the middle east, terroism will stop. Thats isolationism.

You can see whatever you want to see. You think our government did 9/11 so your ability to see things objectively doesn't hold a lot of water with me. You have a right to your beliefs and can promote isolatioinism if you so choose but be prepared to be called out on it.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 07:49 AM
again, BS. He believes that if we pull our our troops out of the middle east, terroism will stop. Thats isolationism.

You can see whatever you want to see. You think our government did 9/11 so your ability to see things objectively doesn't hold a lot of water with me. You have a right to your beliefs and can promote isolatioinism if you so choose but be prepared to be called out on it.

If we stop funding THE DATABASE(CIA) then terrorism will stop. We need to stop the self inflicted wounds.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:51 AM
If we stop funding THE DATABASE(CIA) then terrorism will stop. We need to stop the self inflicted wounds.yeah, who needs to find out information about what our enemies are plotting against us? and you still think its not isolationism? wake up dude.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 07:54 AM
The CIA is the basis for Muslim Fundamentalism? Who would have ever known? I think they are behind this Bigfoot myth as well but I cant prove it. I keep motion cameras up at the farm and one of these days Ill have my proof.

donkhater
02-10-2010, 07:56 AM
BS, Isolationist, he is.

So every other nation in the world are isolationists? How are they somehow global yet don't have 700+ military bases around the world?

Amnorix
02-10-2010, 07:56 AM
He's not an isolationist he just doesn't believe in Team America world police. We should avoid foreign entanglements such as promoted by our forefathers.

The ones who formulated that theory when it took several weeks to get from one side of the Atlantic to the other, and didn't know where teh Pacific coast was in relation to where they were?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:00 AM
So every other nation in the world are isolationists? How are they somehow global yet don't have 700+ military bases around the world?No, they just lack the resource that we have or they would do the same thing. WMD, muslim extremist groups and many others are a threat to us here in the homeland. We can't just defend the nation from these threats from within our own border. We have the capability to prevent or try to prevent that from happening. Other nations only wish they had that capability.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:02 AM
Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson started this you know. Never should have made nice with the French. They were hoodwinked by wine and strong drink. And Women.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:06 AM
Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson started this you know. Never should have made nice with the French. They were hoodwinked by wine and strong drink. And Women.I hate those elitist French asswipes as much as anyone but, I think most historians agree that without France's help we wouldn't exsist today. Now, we have paid that back by saving their ass's twice.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:07 AM
Just shows the GOPs influence and desperation. What once was nothing more than people (from both parties) gathering on Tax day to protest out of control government spending and intrusion on liberties, the Tea party idea has morphed into the moderate left and mercantilist Republican party.
FYP

Gotta spread democracy ya' know? 'Cause will be safer. *cough* Might as well make over all countries!

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:09 AM
Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson started this you know. Never should have made nice with the French. They were hoodwinked by wine and strong drink. And Women.

NTTAWWT

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:10 AM
The CIA is the basis for Muslim Fundamentalism? Who would have ever known? I think they are behind this Bigfoot myth as well but I cant prove it. I keep motion cameras up at the farm and one of these days Ill have my proof.

We fund the DATABASE ie Al Qaeda which means the (CIA) DATABASE, this is an endless war in which we will NEVER catch the supposed terrorists because they are the created boogeyman. We need to look a lot deeper to see what the agenda is.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:12 AM
NTTAWWT

Id bet they would agree! Randy old buggers those boys were.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:12 AM
We fund the DATABASE ie Al Qaeda which means the (CIA) DATABASE, this is an endless war in which we will NEVER catch the supposed terrorists because they are the created boogeyman. We need to look a lot deeper to see what the agenda is.so now muslim extermist/terriosts are a fictional charector of the CIA's imagination?

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:13 AM
We fund the DATABASE ie Al Qaeda which means the (CIA) DATABASE, this is an endless war in which we will NEVER catch the supposed terrorists because they are the created boogeyman. We need to look a lot deeper to see what the agenda is.

Do you think there is a connection to Shriners? They use a lot of Arab sybolism and stuff. And they are into parades not unlike the muslims are in modern day street demonstrations.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:14 AM
The ones who formulated that theory when it took several weeks to get from one side of the Atlantic to the other, and didn't know where teh Pacific coast was in relation to where they were?

So your argument is that we are much smarter now than those old GOD fearing blase forefathers?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:15 AM
so now muslim extermist/terriosts are a fictional charector of the CIA's imagination?

No they are real, and created by the CIA.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:16 AM
Do you think there is a connection to Shriners? They use a lot of Arab sybolism and stuff. And they are into parades not unlike the muslims are in modern day street demonstrations.

eh?

donkhater
02-10-2010, 08:43 AM
Why is anyone surprised by a conspiracy theory attitude? Hasn't the actions of our government over the last century given cause to be suspicious of them in nearly every aspect of its function?

Those on the right are suspicious of liberals' intentions and modes of operation with regards to domestic spending and entitlements

Those on the left are suspicous of the neocons' intentions and modes of operations with regards to the war machine.

I say, "Hell ya!!". We all should be. Just because they paint it with partisan rhetoric (everyone has a right to healthcare, save the planet, war on terror) doesn't mean that it isn't bright friggin' red underneath.

Cheney and his warhawk buddies can spout all they want about protecting America by nation rebuilding but all those tax dollars get spent and find their way into someone's pockets. They just don't disappear. And if you think billions of dollars isn't motivation for some parties to perpetuate a war mongering foreign policy you are being incredibly partisan or naive.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:53 AM
Why is anyone surprised by a conspiracy theory attitude? Hasn't the actions of our government over the last century given cause to be suspicious of them in nearly every aspect of its function?

Those on the right are suspicious of liberals' intentions and modes of operation with regards to domestic spending and entitlements

Those on the left are suspicous of the neocons' intentions and modes of operations with regards to the war machine.

I say, "Hell ya!!". We all should be. Just because they paint it with partisan rhetoric (everyone has a right to healthcare, save the planet, war on terror) doesn't mean that it isn't bright friggin' red underneath.

Cheney and his warhawk buddies can spout all they want about protecting America by nation rebuilding but all those tax dollars get spent and find their way into someone's pockets. They just don't disappear. And if you think billions of dollars isn't motivation for some parties to perpetuate a war mongering foreign policy you are being incredibly partisan or naive.

Yeah, I suspect Cheney is a One Worlder ( Mercantilist-style). His connections to certain think-tanks tells me he gives a shit about American sovereignty.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:07 AM
So every other nation in the world are isolationists? How are they somehow global yet don't have 700+ military bases around the world?

They rely on the goodwill and mercy of nations like the United States.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:08 AM
Nothing like a Ron Paul thread to get pat foaming at the mouth. Just don't spit on me. Okay?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm starting to wonder what kind of refreshments they were serving at all those Ron Paul meetups a couple of years ago.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 09:14 AM
I'm starting to wonder what kind of refreshments they were serving at all those Ron Paul meetups a couple of years ago.

Freedom and Liberty refreshments as opposed to tyranny tea that you're no doubt accustomed to. ;)

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:20 AM
Freedom and Liberty refreshments as opposed to tyranny tea that you're no doubt accustomed to. ;)

At the Establishment Republican events they serve Jim Jone's style Kool-Aid mixed with a Goebbles touch....shaken not stirred.

wild1
02-10-2010, 09:24 AM
I'm starting to wonder what kind of refreshments they were serving at all those Ron Paul meetups a couple of years ago.

It was a clever ruse to disguise reconstitution of the MKULTRA program.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 09:24 AM
At the Establishment Republican events they serve Jim Jone's style Kool-Aid mixed with a Goebbles touch....shaken not stirred.

:LOL:

God Bless ya Pat but you kind of set yourself up there.

BigChiefFan
02-10-2010, 09:26 AM
Why is anyone surprised by a conspiracy theory attitude? Hasn't the actions of our government over the last century given cause to be suspicious of them in nearly every aspect of its function?

Those on the right are suspicious of liberals' intentions and modes of operation with regards to domestic spending and entitlements

Those on the left are suspicous of the neocons' intentions and modes of operations with regards to the war machine.

I say, "Hell ya!!". We all should be. Just because they paint it with partisan rhetoric (everyone has a right to healthcare, save the planet, war on terror) doesn't mean that it isn't bright friggin' red underneath.

Cheney and his warhawk buddies can spout all they want about protecting America by nation rebuilding but all those tax dollars get spent and find their way into someone's pockets. They just don't disappear. And if you think billions of dollars isn't motivation for some parties to perpetuate a war mongering foreign policy you are being incredibly partisan or naive.

That's a fair take. Good post.

|Zach|
02-10-2010, 09:31 AM
he is absolutely a threat to the power structure that has taken over the GOP. he's a fiscal conservative.

/thread LMAO

|Zach|
02-10-2010, 09:32 AM
again, BS. He believes that if we pull our our troops out of the middle east, terroism will stop. Thats isolationism.

You are just being silly if you believe that.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:40 AM
Yeah, it's "isolationism" to not have troops ( actually what Paul has said is military bases) in the ME when we didn't before PGWI. We handled things just fine with our ships in the area if needed to escort oil out. Isolationism means to be isolated with NO contact such as 19th century Japan. Few countries fit that description and no major power fits it. Ron Paul is for commercial ties with these areas because it promotes peace. One is less likely to kill it's customers as it would be non-survival. It's sanctions, embargoes, blockades that lead to war—not trade. This is what gross and persistent intervention leads to. Isolationism is a misnomer and misdefined. It was a term coined by the international interventionists....of the left to use as a smear because they wanted to marginalize anyone who got in their way.

BigChiefFan
02-10-2010, 10:06 AM
The truth is always a threat to liars.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 10:19 AM
Knock down every country, search high and low
Follow every by way, every path you know
Knock down every country, ford every stream
Crush every nation, till you find your dream
A dream that will need, all the govt you can get

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:21 AM
You are just being silly if you believe that.

I take it you're not familiar with Ron Paul.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:23 AM
Yeah, it's "isolationism" to not have troops ( actually what Paul has said is military bases) in the ME when we didn't before PGWI. We handled things just fine with our ships in the area if needed to escort oil out. Isolationism means to be isolated with NO contact such as 19th century Japan. Few countries fit that description and no major power fits it. Ron Paul is for commercial ties with these areas because it promotes peace. One is less likely to kill it's customers as it would be non-survival. It's sanctions, embargoes, blockades that lead to war—not trade. This is what gross and persistent intervention leads to. Isolationism is a misnomer and misdefined. It was a term coined by the international interventionists....of the left to use as a smear because they wanted to marginalize anyone who got in their way.

You sound like banyon arguing that socialism only means complete, unfettered socialism.

Taco John
02-10-2010, 10:46 AM
He's also an isolationist. That won't sit well with the strong defense plank of the tea party or for that matter either the Republican or Democratic party.

You suck at political analysis.

SNR
02-10-2010, 11:11 AM
Ron Paul is the only man in Washington who would successfully pull back the troops from Iraq and close down Gitmo if he had the power.

BRC elected a guy who promised to do exactly those things and botched his promises. Now he calls Ron Paul's foreign policy ineffective.

...huh?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:13 AM
Ron Paul is the only man in Washington who would successfully pull back the troops from Iraq and close down Gitmo if he had the power.

BRC elected a guy who promised to do exactly those things and botched his promises. Now he calls Ron Paul's foreign policy ineffective.

...huh?

:thumb: Excellent analysis. So we have the pro-war right and the pro-war left but I'd lump them altogether as the pro-war left. Afterall, it was the left that got America involved in more wars in the 20th century than the right. The right got us out of them.

Taco John
02-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Ron Paul is the only man in Washington who would successfully pull back the troops from Iraq and close down Gitmo if he had the power.

BRC elected a guy who promised to do exactly those things and botched his promises. Now he calls Ron Paul's foreign policy ineffective.

...huh?


The real question is whether or not Ron Paul would bow to foriegn leaders. That's the true sign of a non-isolationist.

donkhater
02-10-2010, 12:31 PM
They rely on the taxpayers of the United States.

FYP

wild1
02-10-2010, 12:35 PM
Ron Paul is the only man in Washington who would successfully pull back the troops from Iraq and close down Gitmo if he had the power.

BRC elected a guy who promised to do exactly those things and botched his promises. Now he calls Ron Paul's foreign policy ineffective.

...huh?

It's not about what Obama says or does, it's a personal loyalty toward him that transcends all else, for some.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 12:42 PM
The real question is whether or not Ron Paul would bow to foriegn leaders. That's the true sign of a non-isolationist.

LMAO

BIG_DADDY
02-10-2010, 01:17 PM
You suck at political analysis.

LMAO I just want you to know he doesn't support Obama either, it just looks like he does.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 01:23 PM
He's also an isolationist. That won't sit well with the strong defense plank of the tea party or for that matter either the Republican or Democratic party.

Do you even know what an isolationist is?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 03:04 PM
Do you even know what an isolationist is?Plank 1 of the Paul foreign policy: pulling all of our troops out of the middle east.

SNR
02-10-2010, 03:06 PM
Plank 1 of the Paul foreign policy: pulling all of our troops out of the middle east.We can't fucking afford it. This foreign policy is going to bankrupt the fucking country.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 04:09 PM
We can't ****ing afford it. This foreign policy is going to bankrupt the ****ing country.

Nonsense. It's not our defense budget that's spiraling out of control. Let's stop pretending like entitlements are sacred cows and focus on the real problem for a change.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 04:23 PM
Nonsense. It's not our defense budget that's spiraling out of control. Let's stop pretending like entitlements are sacred cows and focus on the real problem for a change.

HAHA! We spend more on military than the rest of countries in the top10 spend combined.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 04:24 PM
Plank 1 of the Paul foreign policy: pulling all of our troops out of the middle east.

Isolationism is where attacking a country isolates you from the rest of the world see: The Iraq war. Neo-cons have tried to re-write the term to fit there PNAC agenda.

wild1
02-10-2010, 04:30 PM
HAHA! We spend more on military than the rest of countries in the top10 spend combined.

Which is a larger percentage of the federal budget?

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 04:48 PM
Which is a larger percentage of the federal budget?

So spending 700 billion is ok when it matches up with your ideas? Gotcha.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 05:40 PM
We can't ****ing afford it. This foreign policy is going to bankrupt the ****ing country.

It's bankrupt now. Even Russian television is reporting on our imminent bust up with the nation splintering into different regions and the demise of the dollar.
The European Union could bust up as well, along with the demise of the Euro.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 05:44 PM
HAHA! We spend more on military than the rest of countries in the top10 spend combined.

That sounds like a good thing to me. Weak countries are victims in waiting.

BTW, according to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures), the US is ranked 27th in the world in terms of percentage of GDP spend on the military.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 06:41 PM
1 United States 607.0 41.5
2 Chinaa 84.9 5.8
3 France 65.7 4.5
4 United Kingdom 65.3 4.5
5 Russiaa 58.6 4.0
6 Germany 46.8 3.2
7 Japan 46.3 3.2
8 Italy 40.6 2.8
9 Saudi Arabia 38.2 2.6
10 India 30.0 2.1

orange
02-10-2010, 06:45 PM
That sounds like a good thing to me. Weak countries are victims in waiting.

BTW, according to this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures), the US is ranked 27th in the world in terms of percentage of GDP spend on the military.

I guess we need to be more like Oman and Qatar. Allahu Akbar!

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 06:46 PM
I guess we need to be more like Oman and Qatar. Allah Akbar!

We need to not spend money on infrastrcture and spend it on the military instead. Lets be like North Korea!

patteeu
02-10-2010, 07:20 PM
I guess we need to be more like Oman and Qatar. Allahu Akbar!

Why would we want to be like them? I'm content with spending a more modest portion of our annual production.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:41 PM
GDP includes govt spending. LOL! What a stat to use. Republicans using Keynes. Boy are we in trouble! Not only that but America has more people to tax and spend on, have a larger economy which makes the military budget appear reasonable. Therefore, we get to defend the world.

kcfanXIII
02-11-2010, 12:56 AM
so now muslim extermist/terriosts are a fictional charector of the CIA's imagination?

more like a nonfictional character made up by the cia. al qaeda was formed, funded, and trained by the CIA in the 80's when they were fighting the soviets. the literal translation of al qaeda is "the database"

patteeu
02-11-2010, 07:48 AM
more like a nonfictional character made up by the cia. al qaeda was formed, funded, and trained by the CIA in the 80's when they were fighting the soviets. the literal translation of al qaeda is "the database"

The US didn't form, fund, or train al Qaeda. Al Qaeda never fought the Soviets. Al Qaeda means "the base" not "the database".

OBL was involved in the fight against the Soviets, but he was a bit player. The US provided funding and other support to Pakistan's ISI and they, along with the Saudis, funded, trained, and equiped the effort.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 08:24 AM
more like a nonfictional character made up by the cia. al qaeda was formed, funded, and trained by the CIA in the 80's when they were fighting the soviets. the literal translation of al qaeda is "the database"You are mistaken and your facts are wrong. a simple google search is needed by you to get the facts straight.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 11:47 AM
The US didn't form, fund, or train al Qaeda. Al Qaeda never fought the Soviets. Al Qaeda means "the base" not "the database".

OBL was involved in the fight against the Soviets, but he was a bit player. The US provided funding and other support to Pakistan's ISI and they, along with the Saudis, funded, trained, and equiped the effort.

:LOL: Spin at work.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 11:56 AM
http://i6.tinypic.com/1z5p7ki.gif

Brzezinski and Tim Osman (Osama bin Laden) discuss the string of Jihads that Zbigniew never regrets

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/53/brzezinskibinladen2.jpg

patteeu
02-11-2010, 12:08 PM
Brzezinski and Tim Osman (Osama bin Laden) discuss the string of Jihads that Zbigniew never regrets[/IMG]

Oh, a man with a beard. Must be Osama. LOL

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:10 PM
Oh, a man with a beard. Must be Osama. LOL

I know with all the fake vids you've seen he keeps a changin' but yes that was OBL in those pics.

wild1
02-11-2010, 12:14 PM
What does meeting with them do to prove your points that the CIA created and runs AQ?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:20 PM
What does meeting with them do to prove your points that the CIA created and runs AQ?

Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear:
The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Published 15-21 January 1998
Translated by Jean Martineau

I. Comment: The US & European States are still using Brzezinski's Muslim terrorist strategy!
by Jared Israel

II. Interview with Brzezinski

[Posted 6 September 2004]

Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...

Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear:
The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser
Published 15-21 January 1998
Translated by Jean Martineau


Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons.

First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.

Not so, says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

"I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets."

Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called "conspiracy theory." To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.

One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again?

We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).
Read more: http://tinyurl.com/l76y6

Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...

patteeu
02-11-2010, 12:22 PM
I know with all the fake vids you've seen he keeps a changin' but yes that was OBL in those pics.

Sure it was.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 12:33 PM
Killer_Clown,

The issue isn't whether the US provided support (mostly, if not completely, indirect support through Pakistan, btw) for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The issue is whether or not al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. It is not. Not even close. You are blurring some pretty huge distinctions here.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 12:36 PM
Killer_Clown,

The issue isn't whether the US provided support (mostly, if not completely, indirect support through Pakistan, btw) for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The issue is whether or not al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. It is not. Not even close. You are blurring some pretty huge distinctions here.

These dudes could have peacefully existed in caves still looking to invent the wheel were it not for our boogeyman intervention.

kcfanXIII
02-11-2010, 01:59 PM
The US didn't form, fund, or train al Qaeda. Al Qaeda never fought the Soviets. Al Qaeda means "the base" not "the database".

OBL was involved in the fight against the Soviets, but he was a bit player. The US provided funding and other support to Pakistan's ISI and they, along with the Saudis, funded, trained, and equiped the effort.

al qaeda is a a network of islamic fundamentalists. it never would have been as well equipped or as well organized as it is today had the cia not helped them out because they were fighting our enemy for us.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:11 PM
al qaeda is a a network of islamic fundamentalists. it never would have been as well equipped or as well organized as it is today had the cia not helped them out because they were fighting our enemy for us.

That's like saying that Toyota would have never become the world's largest auto maker if we hadn't dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it's probably true in a "butterfly moves it's wings" kind of way, it's such an indirect effect that it's not the sort of thing you should be describing in "cause and effect" language. The US didn't form or train al Qaeda. Some of the funds and equipment provided to the Afghan resistance may have ended up in the hands of people who were later involved in al Qaeda, but it was a small fraction of our support and it was mainly the Pakistanis who decided how to distribute that support.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2010, 02:22 PM
al qaeda is a a network of islamic fundamentalists. it never would have been as well equipped or as well organized as it is today had the cia not helped them out because they were fighting our enemy for us.

They're still fighting our enemy for us, that is if your with the government or the oligarchy that needs to enslave the masses. We are the enemy, plain and simple.

kcfanXIII
03-04-2010, 02:04 AM
just to follow up, the opponents didn't really have a chance:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-03/landslide-victory-for-ron-paul-in-texas-primary/

Landslide Victory for Ron Paul in Texas Primary (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-03/landslide-victory-for-ron-paul-in-texas-primary/)

By tmartin (http://www.ronpaul.com/author/tmartin/) on <abbr class="published" title="Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010, 12:23 am">March 3, 2010</abbr>
Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com/) won today’s Republican primary election in Texas’s 14th district in a landslide.
With all 271 precincts reporting, 80.76% of voters expressed their desire for Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com/) to remain in office.
END RESULTS
John Gay – 3,003 votes – 5.27%
Tim Graney – 5,536 votes – 9.73%
Ron Paul – 45,947 votes – 80.76%
Gerald D. Wall – 2,402 votes – 4.22%