Ted Cruz: We ought to bomb ISIS back to the stone age

[tsai3904]

Cruz Invites Obama to Border, Calls for Bombing ISIS ‘Back to the Stone Age’

Sen. Ted Cruz today invited President Obama to accompany him to a golf course on the Texas-Mexico border, telling conservatives at an Americans for Prosperity summit in Dallas he thought that was “the only way there is a chance in heaven that he might come” to the region.

The Texas Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender also heavily criticized the president’s foreign policies and suggested that the U.S. should bomb ISIS “back to the stone age.”

...

“America has always been reluctant to use military force, but we have never shied away from defending the United States of America,” Cruz said. “ISIS says they want to go back and reject modernity, well I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the stone age.”

...

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...calls-for-bombing-isis-back-to-the-stone-age/

 

[devil21]

Hard to believe Ron endorsed this guy once upon a time.

This is what happens when you sleep with Goldman Sachs and the CFR every night.

 

[extortion17]

The Texas Republican and potential 2016 presidential contender also heavily criticized the president’s foreign policies
and suggested that the U.S. should bomb ISIS “back to the stone age.”

More:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...calls-for-bombing-isis-back-to-the-stone-age/

really . . .
The Canadian-born Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sounds alot like Muck Hickabee
on the stage in 2008 in South Carolina - to a roaring applaud and standing ovation . . . no less
(I'll dig up the part of the transcript I refer to where Cruz = Huckabee on Monday )

Here's a good exchange on foreign policy at the same debate.
Huckster :

HUCKABEE: Well, we've spent $12 billion, and it was supposed to be to fight terrorism. We really don't know how much of that money was used to fight terrorism. In fact, we know a lot of it was used to build up their own military.

So there is a problem with accountability and the money. And I think we now are in a position more than ever that we should ask the Musharraf government for a better accounting. And it also ought to buy us some leverage with the Musharraf government.
I want to agree with my colleagues. Several of them have mentioned that it's not the best idea just to try to push Musharraf out, because we don't know who might come into that vacuum.
And that's why it is important to make sure that we communicate with him, that our displeasure with his inability to go after Osama bin Laden, and part of the problem is he tells us that that part of the area he doesn't control. On the other hand, he says, "I don't want you going in. Let me do it, and give me the money."
He can't have it both ways. And that has to be communicated to him in the strongest way.
But my final seconds, I'd like to just, with all due respect, Congressman Paul, the issue of whether the president should be in the Middle East comes to something that I think we've got to recognize.
We've got one true ally in the Middle East, and that's Israel. It's a tiny nation. I've been there nine time. I've literally traveled from Dan to Beersheba, and I understand something of that nation and the vulnerability of it.
And for us to give the world the impression that we would stand by if it were under attack and simply say, "It's not our problem," would be recklessly irresponsible on our part.
And if I were president, you can rest assured that we would not let an ally be annihilated by those enemies which is surround it, who have openly stated it is their direct intention to destroy that nation. It would not happen under my presidency.
HUME: Congressman Paul, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don't let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.
I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.
(APPLAUSE)
And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they'd be a lot better off.
I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.
But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.
PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don't have any money to do this.
(APPLAUSE)

 

[thoughtomator]

becaue that worked SOOO well last time!!!

 

[tod evans]

Ask Ted Cruz to point to "ISIS" on a map..

Nuff said.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Hard to believe Ron endorsed this guy once upon a time.

This is what happens when you sleep with Goldman Sachs and the CFR every night.

I think Ron got terrible advice on whom to endorse many times. A lot of his endorsements make me smh.

 

[RJB]

I'd like to give him a rifle, put a parachute on his back and kick his ass out of an airplane over Iraq. You wanna fight? Go fight!

 

[Brett85]

I'd like to give him a rifle, put a parachute on his back and kick his ass out of an airplane over Iraq. You wanna fight? Go fight!

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

 

[Brett85]

This is basically the same position that Rand has taken, so it seems like if people are going to criticize Cruz for taking this position, then they should criticize Rand as well. The only difference is that Rand wouldn't use that type of rhetoric.

 

[presence]

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

There's a solution for that rhetoric too:

 

[Brett85]

There's a solution for that rhetoric too:

And you would say the same thing to Rand too?

 

[presence]

And you would say the same thing to Rand too?

Yep. You want to drop bombs. Ride 'em Mr. Despot. Any bombing campaign against ISIS is preemptive war. The future of Iraq is NONE of our business. The billion dollar embassy should never have been built and should be abandoned until there is peace and security provided by Iraq or IS.


Bring the troops home.
End foreign aggression.
Stop building empires.


Drones in the air creates just as much blowback as boots on the ground.

https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

 

[RJB]

He didn't advocate troops on the ground, just air strikes. He's not saying that we should send in a bunch of troops to Iraq and risk getting them killed.

That doesn't change my opinion of him one bit. If he wants to a fighting leader, then lead.

 

[Brett85]

Yep. You want to drop bombs. Ride 'em Mr. Despot. Any bombing campaign against ISIS is preemptive war.

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans? I understand that U.S intervention overseas is largely responsible for the rise of ISIS, like Rand said, but I don't necessarily see how this would be "preemptive war" like when we invaded Iraq in 2003. We have the permission of the Iraqi government to launch the air strikes. The air strikes would be launched against a group that murdered a U.S citizen and have stated that they're at war with the United States. I'm undecided at this point whether air strikes would be a good idea or not, but I just don't really see it as "preemptive war" like the war in Iraq or war in Vietnam was.

 

[presence]

Would it be preemptive war when they've beheaded a U.S citizen and have clearly stated that they intend to attack the United States and kill Americans?

How many times have some of our politicians stated that we plan to bomb their people to glass? How many women and children have we ghosted along the way? Its preemptive war because

WE ALREADY STARTED IT

Nobody did shit to the United States. Then 2 August 1990: economic sanctions against Iraq.

24 years later we're still bombing them.

 

[Brett85]

How many times have some of our politicians stated that we plan to bomb their people to glass? How many women and children have we ghosted along the way? Its preemptive war because

WE ALREADY STARTED IT

Nobody did shit to the United States. Then 2 August 1990: economic sanctions against Iraq.

24 years later we're still bombing them.

I understand that our interventionist foreign policy is largely to blame for the terrorist threat that we face today, and for a lot of other problems in the world. The rise of ISIS never would've happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq originally in 2003. But an argument can still be made that we have to deal with the blowback that's been caused by past U.S foreign policy decisions, and that we have to protect the American people from these threats.

 

[William Tell]

Chicken Hawk.

 

[presence]

we have to protect the American people from these threats.

Watch how fast this can happen:

As of today the embassy in Baghdad is closed as Iraq was unable to provide embassy security. We advise all US residents to not travel to Iraq as they are engaged in a civil war. Broadening our new found non intervention policy, all US ships are now on orders to patrol within 6 miles of the US mainland. All troops stationed abroad are being picked up by C-130's and will be back on the mainland within 72 hours. All airforce resources are being called home and shall not leave our territorial airspace.


Everyone is protected, mission accomplished.

...maybe we throw in some privateer marque and reprisal for Somali pirates.

 

[Brett85]

Watch how fast this can happen:

As of today the embassy in Baghdad is closed as Iraq was unable to provide embassy security. We advise all US residents to not travel to Iraq as they are engaged in a civil war. Broadening our new found non intervention policy, all US ships are now on orders to patrol within 6 miles of the US mainland. All troops stationed abroad are being picked up by C-130's and will be back on the mainland within 72 hours. All airforce resources are being called home and shall not leave our territorial airspace.


Everyone is protected, mission accomplished.

...maybe we throw in some privateer marque and reprisal for Somali pirates.

That sounds like a decent plan. At the same time, the passport issue has to be dealt with. We have a situation where people from the U.S are going to Iraq to fight ISIS, and they could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and launch an attack against the United States.

 

[tod evans]

That sounds like a decent plan. At the same time, the passport issue has to be dealt with. We have a situation where people from the U.S are going to Iraq to fight ISIS, and they could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and launch an attack against the United States.

Anything could happen at anytime to anyone...

Government is not a preventative tool.

Military was intended to be defensive in nature, perversion of the term "defense" is costing this country dearly.

Who profits from fear? (Government employees and their contractors)