Perry endorses concept of preemptive strike at VFW conference

[freeatlast]

Despite being asked by conference leaders to appear as state governor and not a presidential candidate, Gov. Rick Perry endorsed an aggressive foreign policy doctrine, including support for the concept of preemptive strikes, in his welcoming remarks this morning at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in San Antonio....

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/08/3418/
If you vote for this guy get ready for more wars.

 

[carpro]

Despite being asked by conference leaders to appear as state governor and not a presidential candidate, Gov. Rick Perry endorsed an aggressive foreign policy doctrine, including support for the concept of preemptive strikes, in his welcoming remarks this morning at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in San Antonio....

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/08/3418/
If you vote for this guy get ready for more wars.

Well, let's see...

The dummy in the White House now has widened the war in Afghanistan with frequent incursions into Pakistan.

Then , of course, he has gotten us into an illegal armed conflict in Libya, in support of alqaeda and God only knows who else.

And then, watch out Syria. The imperial president Obama may have you in his crosshairs next.

Perry's looking better all the time.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, let's see...

The dummy in the White House now has widened the war in Afghanistan with frequent incursions into Pakistan.

Then , of course, he has gotten us into an illegal armed conflict in Libya, in support of alqaeda and God only knows who else.

And then, watch out Syria. The imperial president Obama may have you in his crosshairs next.

Perry's looking better all the time.

Don't tell me do your telling at the voters box.

 

[carpro]

Good advice. Why don't you do the same?

Not being a Perry fan myself, I'm simply providing some balance for all your hyper criticism.

In the end, it doesn't matter who republicans put up, the enemy is in the white house. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, running for the republican nomination would be an improvement over the arrogant elitest called Barak Obama.

 

[billwald]

The dummy in the white house apparently sold out to our owners before he was elected.

 

[targus]

Despite being asked by conference leaders to appear as state governor and not a presidential candidate, Gov. Rick Perry endorsed an aggressive foreign policy doctrine, including support for the concept of preemptive strikes, in his welcoming remarks this morning at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in San Antonio....

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/08/3418/
If you vote for this guy get ready for more wars.

“We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home,” Perry said.

He made the comment as part of a larger discussion about the impact of September 11th terror attacks on American foreign policy.

“We respect our allies, and we must always seek to engage them in military missions. At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies. And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders,” he said.


So what part do you disagree with?

Do you think that we must wait for an attack on U.S soil before we respond?

Do you think that we should not act when it is time to act?

Do you think that we should concede our moral authority to multilateral debating societies?

Do you think that when our interests are threatened that American soldiers should be led by foreign commanders?

I truly would like your answers to these questions.

 

[InTheLight]

“We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home,” Perry said.

He made the comment as part of a larger discussion about the impact of September 11th terror attacks on American foreign policy.

“We respect our allies, and we must always seek to engage them in military missions. At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies. And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders,” he said.


So what part do you disagree with?

I know you're asking someone else, but I agree with Perry. I thought his comments were refreshingly candid and spot on.

 

[freeatlast]

“We must renew our commitment to taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home,” Perry said.

He made the comment as part of a larger discussion about the impact of September 11th terror attacks on American foreign policy.

“We respect our allies, and we must always seek to engage them in military missions. At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies. And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders,” he said.


So what part do you disagree with?

Do you think that we must wait for an attack on U.S soil before we respond?

Do you think that we should not act when it is time to act?

Do you think that we should concede our moral authority to multilateral debating societies?

Do you think that when our interests are threatened that American soldiers should be led by foreign commanders?

I truly would like your answers to these questions.

[SIZE=+0]I certainly agree with his concept. However if you look at the article and see what he wrote in his book he has already set the stage for more war before there is even a need. That is why I said if he gets into office prepare for more war. He certainly knows how to fire up the war mongers as he is a carrier politician and very smart in such areas.

I also agree with this statement. "And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders" IN fact so much so that I hold that any American solder who wears an insignia of the united nations or accepts orders from anyone of another country has become a traitor to the US as they violate our constitution since they are under another flag.
[/SIZE]

 

[targus]

I also agree with this statement. "And when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders" IN fact so much so that I hold that any American solder who wears an insignia of the united nations or accepts orders from anyone of another country has become a traitor to the US as they violate our constitution since they are under another flag.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I did read the article. That is where all the Perry statements that you now agree with came from.

Why is it that when you are asked to back up your claims you tell others to go find the proof for you?

How about some proof that Perry supports preemptives strikes?

And after you have found it - explain what it is that you disagee with.

BTW I can't help but noticed that you picked only one question to cherry pick.

So do you believe that we have to wait for an attack on U.S. soil before we respond?

 

[freeatlast]

I did read the article. That is where all the Perry statements that you now agree with came from.

Why is it that when you are asked to back up your claims you tell others to go find the proof for you?

How about some proof that Perry supports preemptives strikes?

And after you have found it - explain what it is that you disagee with.

BTW I can't help but noticed that you picked only one question to cherry pick.

So do you believe that we have to wait for an attack on U.S. soil before we respond?

Read his book and the article. Enjoy. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[targus]

Read his book and the article. Enjoy. :smilewinkgrin:

In other words - "you got nuthin".

You start a bunch of anti-Perry threads.

Making accusations.

With no proof or documentation.

And then want others to find your proof for you.

We've got another poster on the board who likes to do the same.

Spam the board with baseless accusations and then assign homework. :laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

In other words - "you got nuthin".

You start a bunch of anti-Perry threads.

Making accusations.

With no proof or documentation.

And then want others to find your proof for you.

We've got another poster on the board who likes to do the same.

Spam the board with baseless accusations and then assign homework. :laugh:

Can you prove the the posts are not true? That is your assignment. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[targus]

Can you prove the the posts are not true? That is your assignment. :smilewinkgrin:

Still waiting for your answers to the questions which are directly related to your OP.

Do you think that we must wait for an attack on U.S soil before we respond?

Do you think that we should not act when it is time to act?

Do you think that we should concede our moral authority to multilateral debating societies?

As you continue to evade your credibility is dropping faster than Obama's poll numbers. :laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

Still waiting for your answers to the questions which are directly related to your OP.

Do you think that we must wait for an attack on U.S soil before we respond?

Do you think that we should not act when it is time to act?

Do you think that we should concede our moral authority to multilateral debating societies?

As you continue to evade your credibility is dropping faster than Obama's poll numbers. :laugh:

read #8 as that covers it

 

[targus]

read #8 as that covers it

It would appear from post #8 that you too argee with a concept of preemptive strike.

So in that regard you are no different than Perry. :smilewinkgrin:

I guess that you started the thread then because you think that he is right.

Well that is refreshing.

 

[freeatlast]

It would appear from post #8 that you too argee with a concept of preemptive strike.

So in that regard you are no different than Perry. :smilewinkgrin:

I guess that you started the thread then because you think that he is right.

Well that is refreshing.

I am glad you are refreshed. We all need to do that from time to time. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[targus]

I am glad you are refreshed. We all need to do that from time to time. :smilewinkgrin:

Since you agree with Perry on the concept of preemptive strike what was the point of this theard?

 

[freeatlast]

Since you agree with Perry on the concept of preemptive strike what was the point of this theard?

It is called information. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[targus]

It is called information. :smilewinkgrin:

Given all the negative threads about Perry that you have started it is obvious that you have an agenda.

When it is shown that you have nothing in this thread you resort to being silly.

 

[freeatlast]

Given all the negative threads about Perry that you have started it is obvious that you have an agenda.

When it is shown that you have nothing in this thread you resort to being silly.

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin: