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

[twomp]

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

Do you work for the MSM? Because you sound just like them. All these scenarios sounds like the boogey man propaganda. IF oil becomes too expensive, people will stop buying it which would cause supply to increase which then causes prices to drop again. This not even considering alternative fuel sources. You went from ISIS being a terrorist group to "controlling the entire middle east" as if the people that actually live there can't handle the problem. This problem can only be solved by America and America only? Oh please. Taking talking points from Lindsey Graham and John Mccain then spewing it here and using it as an excuse to go to war. IF what you are saying is real, then you should be advocating ground troops and the whole nine yards because air strikes alone will not stop ISIS from becoming the big bad boogey man that you are so scared of.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

Syria has one of the largest reserves of crude oil in the region. Guess how much we import from them? NONE!
Iran also has tons and we don't import any from them either. Iran does export a lot of crude but here is the important part, they import a lot of petrol. They lack refinery capacity.

1/3 of the oil we import comes from Canada.
1/6th comes from Saudi Arabia
1/30th of it comes from Iraq
In fact there are a bunch of countries that we import 1/30th from...

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

We produce, rather than import about 50% of the oil we use.
We export a lot too. Oil produced in Alaska is very likely to end up in Russia. This has lots to do with:

The location of ports
The location of pipelines
Refinery capability (we are limited here and haven't built a new one since the 1950's or so. Prices spike when one goes down, though a believe construction of one in New Jersey recently got approved)
Who is willing to pay the most and what it costs to get it there (That's Asia currently)

There are other reasons than oil for the US to be involved in the Middle East, including:

strategic materials
preventing a strategic block from forming and a 4th world power emerging
keeping the dollar as the worlds default currency (tied to oil)
WMD development and control of same.

Boogity boogity!

-t

 

[Brett85]

This problem can only be solved by America and America only?

Not necessarily. I think it would be better to try to form a world coalition to try to stop the rise of ISIS. Of course that's always easier said than done.

 

[Brett85]

I think we should even work with Assad in Syria to root out ISIS. Assad was never any threat to our national security whatsoever. ISIS is. But the neocons still hate Assad, apparently because he killed a bunch of the Syrian rebels, which were composed primarily of ISIS members. I defended Assad last year when the U.S government was demonizing him and was claiming that he murdered his own people. In reality he was killing members of ISIS who were trying to overthrow his government and take over the country.

 

[RJB]

WMD development and control of same.

Boogity boogity!

-t

INVADE THE WORLD! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

 

[Lightweis]

Ok. But what happens if we do nothing and they just take over Iraq and Syria? What would happen if they just took over the entire Middle East and refused to sell oil to us? The price of gas would be too expensive for anyone to drive. There are all kinds of terrible things that can happen if ISIS is able to take over these countries and actually establish their own government in these countries. If nothing we can do can actually solve the problem, then we may be in big trouble, because the entire Middle East will be controlled by a terrorist group that hates us and will try to collapse our economy by not selling oil to us.

I knew Sean Hannity was on this site! smh

 

[Brett85]

I knew Sean Hannity was on this site! smh

I ask again, are the only options to be a 100% pure non interventionist or else be a hardcore Sean Hannity neocon? Is there nothing in between? Or is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger? I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

 

[presence]

I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else" -Smedley Butler

 

[tod evans]

I ask again, are the only options to be a 100% pure non interventionist or else be a hardcore Sean Hannity neocon? Is there nothing in between? Or is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger? I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

The specifics for waging war are very clearly laid out.

Using terms like "intervention" or "limited strike" or whatever, are just attempts to skirt the constitution........Again!

Do yourself a favor and unplug from the MSM........

 

[Brett85]

The specifics for waging war are very clearly laid out.

Using terms like "intervention" or "limited strike" or whatever, are just attempts to skirt the constitution........Again!

Do yourself a favor and unplug from the MSM........

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

 

[presence]

is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger?

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/on-non-harming/

Devotion to being harmless is a core principle of Buddhist religious life.

[]

One has not escaped danger if one has strengthened the habitual and karmic forces of one’s own anger in the process of escaping an external threat.

[]

For the Buddha, even under the threat of death, a monastic must not succumb to hate.

[however,]

one must not give up one’s own welfare for the sake of other people’s welfare, however great.

[]

the Buddha used the analogy of the people stuck in quicksand. As long as they were all stuck they could not help each other. But if one person could get out on solid land, he or she could reach back to pull out the others.

The only enlightened path in a state of war is to get yourself back on dry ground; then help the world attain the same.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think we should even work with Assad in Syria to root out ISIS. Assad was never any threat to our national security whatsoever. ISIS is. But the neocons still hate Assad, apparently because he killed a bunch of the Syrian rebels, which were composed primarily of ISIS members. I defended Assad last year when the U.S government was demonizing him and was claiming that he murdered his own people. In reality he was killing members of ISIS who were trying to overthrow his government and take over the country.

And why would Assad trust us now?

I'd love to see Assad stop ISIS. Unfortunately, its probably too late for that now.

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

Rand said that that was the constitutional requirement and that he'd support it.

Thomas Massie said that that was the constitutional requirement and that he'd vote NO.

Massie >>>> Rand.

 

[tod evans]

Would it be unconstitutional even if Congress approved it? Rand has said that the Constitutional way to go about it would be for the President to make his case to Congress and have Congress approve military action.

No it wouldn't be unconstitutional if congress approved a war...

Our sitting government and their masters do not want a declaration of war because then an objective would have to be named...

There's minimal money to be made from a clearly defined war...

Why do you think government has been pushing wars on behaviors, religions and ideas?

 

[twomp]

I ask again, are the only options to be a 100% pure non interventionist or else be a hardcore Sean Hannity neocon? Is there nothing in between? Or is everyone who isn't a purest non interventionist just a hardcore neocon warmonger? I oppose the vast majority of U.S interventions, but just don't see how it's realistic for non intervention to be an iron clad rule that can never be broken.

We give billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, helicopters and military equipment to Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia yet only our airplanes are capable of performing air strikes? Why is it TC you are more worried about ISIS than Israel? Those countries are literally in the middle of this but they aren't using their airplanes to stop ISIS but we have to do it?

You are on here spewing propaganda about how ISIS will stop everyone in the world from driving their cars and no one will be able to fly or drive if they are left unchecked? Everyone in the world will have to walk now because ISIS will stop the world from traveling. The world as we know it WILL NEVER BE THE SAME! WE MUST BOMB THEM NOW!!! Yet the countries and people who live there are doing nothing about this threat. It makes no sense unless you are a neocon who wants to see more bombs blow up and more bloodshed. Then you would be all for air strikes now wouldn't you? So please answer me this. If ISIS is as scary as you say they are, why are the people in the area not taking care of the problem because they have much more to lose than we do. IF they don't care? Why should we?

 

[georgiaboy]

I'm happy to say that due to the efforts of Dr. Ron Paul and so many on this forum, that I am comfortably on the side of non-intervention with regard to all these so-called crises.

My eyes have truly been opened; thanks, y'all.

The propaganda is just so blatantly obvious this time around.

TC, I'm frankly surprised that you're on the slippery slope of this one. Rand's playing politics; we don't have to.

 

[Brett85]

TC, I'm frankly surprised that you're on the slippery slope of this one. Rand's playing politics; we don't have to.

I don't see any evidence that Rand is playing politics. I think Rand is just someone who supports a generally non interventionist foreign policy, but supports exceptions in rare situations.

 

[georgiaboy]

I don't see any evidence that Rand is playing politics. I think Rand is just someone who supports a generally non interventionist foreign policy, but supports exceptions in rare situations.

fair enough.

 

[Brett85]

We give billions and billions of dollars worth of planes, helicopters and military equipment to Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia yet only our airplanes are capable of performing air strikes? Why is it TC you are more worried about ISIS than Israel? Those countries are literally in the middle of this but they aren't using their airplanes to stop ISIS but we have to do it?

You are on here spewing propaganda about how ISIS will stop everyone in the world from driving their cars and no one will be able to fly or drive if they are left unchecked? Everyone in the world will have to walk now because ISIS will stop the world from traveling. The world as we know it WILL NEVER BE THE SAME! WE MUST BOMB THEM NOW!!! Yet the countries and people who live there are doing nothing about this threat. It makes no sense unless you are a neocon who wants to see more bombs blow up and more bloodshed. Then you would be all for air strikes now wouldn't you? So please answer me this. If ISIS is as scary as you say they are, why are the people in the area not taking care of the problem because they have much more to lose than we do. IF they don't care? Why should we?

Assad has actually said that he would be willing to help us eradicate ISIS in Syria, but our government refuses to work with him because we were opposed to him last year. I'm not a neocon. A neocon is not someone who doesn't agree 100% of the time with libertarian foreign policy. I'm someone who supports non intervention as a general principle but believe that we have to be flexible enough to consider exceptions in rare situations.

 

[mac_hine]

I generally agree with that. I've argued to a lot to people that defense doesn't mean offense and constant intervention. At the same time, there seems to be a difference between invading a country like Iraq in 2003 that never even made any threats against us and posed absolutely no threat to our national security at all, and taking military action against a group of people who have killed a U.S citizen and have threatened to launch attacks on the United States. I'm still not exactly sure what we should do, if anything, but I just don't consider it to be the same as prior interventions like Iraq and Vietnam. I've even run across a lot of people who are Ron Paul supporters and are generally very anti war who support air strikes against ISIS.

McAdams and Woods discuss latest US bombing of Iraq. Why are even some non-interventionists cheering on the bombs as they fall? Are they really still so gullible?

 

[twomp]

Assad has actually said that he would be willing to help us eradicate ISIS in Syria, but our government refuses to work with him because we were opposed to him last year. I'm not a neocon. A neocon is not someone who doesn't agree 100% of the time with libertarian foreign policy. I'm someone who supports non intervention as a general principle but believe that we have to be flexible enough to consider exceptions in rare situations.

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?