Does electing a Republican, who is not Ron Paul, mean war with Iran?
Submitted by RonPaulRadical on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 09:26Isn't this scenario so obvious that Dr. Paul should just bluntly express this point in a debate, for example, 'If you vote for one of these jokers, you are voting for war with Iran', I don't expect him to word it like that, but something similar. At the very least he should start hinting at this, and planting the idea in the minds of the voters. He could go all in and bring up the fact that he's the only candidate not supported by AIPAC or similar interest groups but that's probably going too far at this point.
I think that a re-elected Obama would start the war as well, but that action would further unmask the false left/right paradigm. This is probably the main reason why the establishment seems to be dumping Obama and going with the Red team this time. I'm interested in getting some feedback on this, I could be wrong, from a tactical standpoint, I guess, thanks
Obama could start the war before or during the election making this topic irrelevant, but I think that's unlikely.
- Login to post comments
CIA + Bilderberg
This election is CIA + Bilderberg vs. Ron Paul.
So, no, the GOP has nothing to do with it. It's either Ron Paul or more war, regardless of party.
I agree but . .
I also wanted opinions on how far he should go in debates and interviews on the subject. If you read the post again you'll see that question too. thanks
Don't forget the CFR, the Trilateral Commission,
and other assorted statist organizations.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
McCain has the wrong type of birds in sight: Angry Birds are the type!
www.dailypaul.com/277441/mccain-calls-paul-cruz