The case against Dr. Paul

Tokorona said:
Elizabeth I: I usually go by she, but..

In this case, it's because any idiot can post together links. But only someone who understands what they're parroting can make that into an actual point, then push it forward.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Tokorona - I couldn't remember and couldn't find any posts that indicated whether or not you were a girl of the female gender [/Radar O'Reilly].

IchabodPlain said:
Really!>!? Are you serious Jerome? Think about why American troops were stationed in Germany for the first 50 or so years. Do you think it was in America's interest (we'll get to reimbursement next) to keep troops in W. Germany during the Cold War?
Click to expand...

And wasn't there some reason Germany and Japan weren't supposed to have too large a standing army? What was that again? Oh, yeah...
 
Oliver said:
"No" to blabbering about off-topic issues. He's free to discuss the points I made by making some plausible counter-arguments.
Click to expand...

Questions about you having a clue (or not having it) on what you´re talking about are very much on-topic. So cut the blather and answer them.

And for people to be required to make plausible counter-arguments, you would have had to make plausible arguments first.

Actually - no. I don't know everything. You might realize this whenever I post something that looks like this: >>> ? <<<

And I know you don't bother to address those anyway.
Click to expand...

When the day comes that you ask questions that aren´t leading and full of ****, you´ll notice that people will suddenly start adressing your questions... as if by magic.
 
No, it was just Atlantis. You really need to brush up on your Rand if you're going to re-cast Ron Paul as the latter day John Galt.
 
IchabodPlain said:
Really!>!? Are you serious Jerome? Think about why American troops were stationed in Germany for the first 50 or so years. Do you think it was in America's interest (we'll get to reimbursement next) to keep troops in W. Germany during the Cold War?
Click to expand...

America's Soviet interests were past almost 20 years ago. This is besides the point. The point being that the drain on America over the last 60 years of defending "the free world" has placed the world's economy on precarious footing with no answer. The socialist are not going to stop stealing and America is moving ever quicker towards socialism. Once the producers no longer have an incentive...
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
America's Soviet interests were past almost 20 years ago. This is besides the point. The point being that the drain on America over the last 60 years of defending "the free world" has placed the world's economy on precarious footing with no answer. The socialist are not going to stop stealing and America is moving ever quicker towards socialism. Once the producers no longer have an incentive...
Click to expand...

That was particularly incoherent. Even the Mel Brooks reference.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
America's Soviet interests were past almost 20 years ago. This is besides the point. The point being that the drain on America over the last 60 years of defending "the free world" has placed the world's economy on precarious footing with no answer. The socialist are not going to stop stealing and America is moving ever quicker towards socialism. Once the producers no longer have an incentive...
Click to expand...

This this a dodge? What gives?

Do you think it was in American interests during the Cold War to have troops stationed in Germany (and Japan for that matter)? It's such a simple question...please don't run away from it.

(hint: the answer should be yes or no)

NVM, I'm going to assume you are going to say yes, hence your bit about it being in American interest 20 years ago. So then you know why the US was in Germany for, at least, the first 45 or so years, yes?

The US decreed that they maintain troops in post-ww2 countries, outlawed a military for W. Germany and Japan, and did so in our own interest. Why should we expect reimbursement?

Yes Jerome, this is off-topic, but let's not forget what brought us here:

When is Germany going to reimburse America for defending it for the last 60 years?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Since Jerome has started the habit of asking silly questions here, let me reciprocate by asking an even sillier question:

When is the US going to reimburse Germany for occupying it for the last 63 years?

Or, more to the point:

When is the US going to reimburse Germany for the priviledge of using Germany as a potential battleground for World War 3?

(Not that I´m serious about either question, but I still want Jerome to answer them)
 
IchabodPlain said:
Do you think it was in American interests during the Cold War to have troops stationed in Germany (and Japan for that matter)? It's such a simple question...please don't run away from it.
Click to expand...

No, but that would be a hard position to argue during the political climate of the cold war.

NVM, I'm going to assume you are going to say yes, hence your bit about it being in American interest 20 years ago. So then you know why the US was in Germany for, at least, the first 45 or so years, yes?
Click to expand...

It was the expanding of new Empire.

The US decreed that they maintain troops in post-ww2 countries, outlawed a military for W. Germany and Japan, and did so in our own interest. Why should we expect reimbursement?
Click to expand...

Why did the Allies decree that America maintain troops in the post-WWII countries is the question. The answer is expansion of Empire.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
No, but that would be a hard position to argue during the political climate of the cold war.



It was the expanding of new Empire.



Why did the Allies decree that America maintain troops in the post-WWII countries is the question. The answer is expansion of Empire.
Click to expand...

Last post you told me it was in American interest, now you disagree? Let's re-cap!:

America's Soviet interests were past almost 20 years ago
Click to expand...

No, [it was not in American interest]
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing with yourself? Or is it that you just couldn't resist your favorite red herring of 'Empire'? And even if it were true that the US's motivation for providing troops was to expand into an empire, why would you think that the US should expect reimbursement?
 
IchabodPlain said:
Last post you told me it was in American interest, now you disagree? Let's re-cap!:
Click to expand...

You are not understanding the phases in context. Read again what I wrote and you should be able to understand that it is not inconsistent.


Are you disagreeing with yourself? Or is it that you just couldn't resist your favorite red herring of 'Empire'? And even if it were true that the US's motivation for providing troops was to expand into an empire, why would you think that the US should expect reimbursement?
Click to expand...

Empires traditionally require tribute from their vassals.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Empires traditionally require tribute from their vassals.
Click to expand...
I see, so you maintain that the US is maintaining an empire but have to radically alter the definition of an empire so that you can accuse the US of maintaining an empire? :eek:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are not understanding the phases in context. Read again what I wrote and you should be able to understand that it is not inconsistent.
Click to expand...

No. You explicitly stated that America had Soviet interests, but that those interest were in the past. Your next statement was then that no, they didn't have interests, but that such a position would have been hard to argue in that time period. So, which is it?
 
IchabodPlain said:
No. You explicitly stated that America had Soviet interests, but that those interest were in the past. Your next statement was then that no, they didn't have interests, but that such a position would have been hard to argue in that time period. So, which is it?
Click to expand...

America had Soviet interests, yes. That does not equate to my saying that American interests concerning the Soviets necessitated military force stationed in Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom