When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chubs
16 years ago
By the same token, are you willing to accept the possibility that we may not succeed in Iraq? If not, then I suppose you would view any withdrawal at any time to be “premature”. So I would ask you… what specific set of circumstances would have you convinced that our best course of action would be to leave and accept that we cannot succeed? As a reasonable human being, there must be some line you can draw. I’m curious what that is.
Stepping back from the immediate issues, however… I support a massive change to our Middle East foreign policy. The presence of our troops in the region is often our response to a problem we created or helped escalate in the first place. What we seem to be blind to is the irrationality of much of that part of the world. This is why allies that we’ve propped up and armed often become huge problems and ultimately our enemies. We’ve been involved militarily in the Middle East for a -very- long time, and when you step back and look at the result, there certainly has been no improvement to the overall state of affairs for the region. It is, in fact, probably worse off now than it has been for the past 50 years.
I don’t believe our Constitution supports us being there militarily… and if we were to leave completely (while maintaining diplomatic ties), I believe the long term result would be a radical Islamic movement that has no motivation to attack the US. Radical Islam is fueled by hatred… and when you take away it’s fuel, it tends to dissapate. Our continued presence has been a rallying cry for Al Qaeda… and our absence would likely be their doom.
You are correct… the ball -is- in my court, and I intend to vote for a presidential candidate who believes in conservative (as in less) Federal government, and a conservative foreign policy. The idea that we are somehow obligated to use our military in a constant attempt to stabilize the world constitutes a liberal (as in, a liberal use of federal power and world influence) agenda to me. As a conservative, I must reject that approach.
Chubs
16 years ago
“I may not agree with this war, but, my God I will support the decisions that both sides approved to invade that country.”
If everyone took up the same attitude, boy, what a boring country we would live in. Dissent is the spark for change. Without it, we would still be a British colony.
Believe it or not, it is okay, and recommended, to disagree even with your elected representatives. If you disagree with the war (as you stated), then as an American, you should try to do something about it. Voting in a president who shares your negative position on the war is absolutely your right. Changing your mind about the war based on the current evidence is absolutely your right. We do -not- have an obligation to remain in Iraq. The only obligations we have are to the Constitution and to the will of the people. If the people vote for an end to the war in the 2008 presidential election, then that absolutely what should happen.
Chubs: We only fail if we give up. You would give up. You would have us fail.
We are Americans. We never fail at anything we really want.
We went to the moon despite numerous setbacks. And I’ve already related to you the other great things we have done in the foreign policy/National Security sphere.
None of that would have happened if we said “we might fail, so we better not try.”
As for abandoning our allies in the Middle East, I can’t think of anything more stupid.
History teaches us that hard fought gains are tossed away only by fools.
I’ll repeat again the paragraph from Winston Churchill’s history of the Second World War as it is clear they apply here more now than ever:
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
–Winston Churchill
And once you have abandoned our allies in the Middle East, and attempted to appease the Islamists they won’t stop there. You’ll have to leave every “Muslim land” which includes anyplace where Muslims live: Spain, parts of France, England, much of South Asia (it would include Dearborn, Michigan).
You can never satisfy evil Chubs. You either defeat it, or you are killed by it.
Go back and read the history of the 1930’s if you would like to expand your awareness on this point.
Chubs
16 years ago
“We are Americans. We never fail at anything we really want.”
This statement (along with much of the rest of what you’ve said) convinces me that our discussion is over. You are welcome to your opinion, and I am welcome to mine… and I have accepted that we will not agree on this. I am just happy that 70% of Americans do not agree with you. According to our president, the “mission” was “accomplished” 3 1/2 years ago. So we have “tried” and we have “succeeded”. I just hope you won’t be too upset when this kind of thinking is voted out of office in 2008. The only people who have a prayer of winning the presidency in a general election are a Democrat or Ron Paul… based on national sentiment. I am a hard-core conservative (as in, a supporter of limited federal power), and I hope the GOP gets its head out of its ass quickly enough to realize that they can’t beat a Democrat in this election without Ron Paul as their guy. Regardless of whether or not you personally support him, I believe this is the cold, hard fact. The 70% of Americans that disagree with you are the same ones that would consider Ron Paul over a Democrat.
Sorry Chubs, but you and your Paulistinians citing this “70%” figure is proof of either A. A lack of understanding about what poll numbers mean, or B. A deliberate and willful effort to deceive.
I’ve already recounted for your benefit the lessons of history which apparently you and your ilk ignore.
Such ignorance of history only serves the interests of those who would harm this country.
Ron Paul is NOT a viable candidate for either the Republican nomination. And should he choose to run as an independent, he would only help Hillary.
Is that what you want?
Chubs
16 years ago
So my interpretation of the polls is incorrect, then? Okay. So if the Democrats’ victories which resulted in majorities in both houses in the last election is not enough for you, let’s allow the presidential election to decide for us then. If Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, or any of the other big-government non-conservatives running for the GOP nomination are elected as president at the end of 2008, I will concede that you are right about the will of the American people. But I’ll still wonder why it is that the Republican party has forgotten what the term “conservative” even means. Good luck to your candidate, whoever he may be.
“So my interpretation of the polls is incorrect, then?”
Yes.
Take it from someone who has worked at every level of electoral politics from the Court House to the White House. And someone whose Political Science major thesis involved statistical analysis of polling data with requisite math background.
Proof that you misunderstand the dynamics here is the spurious claim that Democrats took majority control of both houses of the Congress because of Iraq. Mark Foley, one way fingerpointing over corruption scandals and “Macaca” in George Allen’s Senate race had as much or more to do with losing the majority.
I do not understand how anyone who calls themself an American could tolerate anyone supporting defeat in Iraq which would invite defeat in the larger war.
Despite your delusions, Ron Paul will never be more than a 2 percenter. Then who will you vote for in the General election? Hillary?
Earl E
16 years ago
So much talk about a war. So little we understand about survival. There was a day when children walked to school, parents never doubting for a moment their child would return home.
Today, the same thing could happen, but fear, territoriality, and aggression rule our little insignificant lives.
If we could only return to when the enemy pointed 40000 nuclear bombs at us, we knew it was mutually assured destruction.
But now, the odds are you would die on a plane crashing into a power plant than be impacted by any terrorist act.
But since the Soviet threat is gone, all of the Klingons must find another way to keep the blood flowing. And sometimes, that means stirring up things ourselves.
Ron Paul 2008 or else
To quote the great Mel Gibson in his role as William Wallace,
“I’m going to peck a fight.”
Weak, little, scared, and striking out against 3rd world civilians and talking big talk, like you are the warrior.
I strongly suggest that we make everyone who voted for the war to be drafted and sent over to Iraq to die. That will get rid of this reptilian influence within America, and allow us once again to let our kids walk to school.
Since I served in the USAF and the USN, I can say first hand that when you follow an order that is illegal, you are obligated to object.
If it comes down to it, a civil war in America may be required. The terrorist won’t have to follow us home, they will grow in your backyard.
If we don’t stop as a nation this pre-emptive war, then maybe the true patriots shall stand again and rid this country of the tyranny and murderous ways….
Chubs
16 years ago
“Then who will you vote for in the General election? Hillary?”
To be honest, it would be a very tough choice, because all I’d have to choose from would be liberals.
All I can say is this… if you honestly think any of the GOP candidates apart from Ron Paul can beat Hillary in today’s climate, I will give you great odds, and so will Vegas (look it up). Care for a wager? You are the self-proclaimed political expert, so this one should be a shoe-in victory for you.
On a side note… I find it interesting that someone who claims to be more qualified than others to fully understand the US political situation stoops to the usage of cheap insults such as calling others “Paulistinians”. That’s where you really lost me. Was that part of your thesis?
How much can you afford to lose Chubs? Give me whatever odds you like. But I imagine it’s a safe bet for you since there is no way Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee.
How’d you like to bet on his being a “2 percenter?”
P.S. My thesis examined polling data from exit polling in the 1976 Presidential election and found that 10% of voters in a handle of key states objected to Ford’s pardon of Nixon, thus handing the election to Carter.
I ran reams of data through complex cross dynamic analysis.
Earl E: You’re scaring me. Talk about fearmongering!
Chubs
16 years ago
“But I imagine it’s a safe bet for you since there is no way Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee.”
Exactly my point. The bet was… the GOP cannot win unless Ron Paul is their candidate. The reason it is a safe bet for me is because if any other Republican candidate gets the nomination, I am certain he will lose to Hillary… and in the end, it will be the fault of people like yourself that the Republican party lost the presidency. Are you confident enough in your assessment of American public sentiment to bet against that? If so… I am serious. Let’s put $100 on it.
the GOP cannot win unless Ron Paul is their candidate.
I nearly fell outta my chair with laughter on this one. Man you guys are really gone.
Fact is I am praying Hillary gets the nomination then I can guarantee a Republican will get into the White House. Her nomination would have every single republican coming out to ensure she doesn’t get in. I’m not talking about you Paulbots tho, you guys are no where near Republicans. So with or without you, if Hillary gets the nod the Republican WILL win.
And I’ll take that bet. Mark it down.
Although I have a feeling you will be hard to find once she loses but I’ll take that chance.
Flo
16 years ago
I’m not talking about you Paulbots tho, you guys are no where near Republicans. So with or without you, if Hillary gets the nod the Republican WILL win.
This is exactly why the Republicans don’t have a snowballs change in Hell of taking this election. Paulbots are voters and you would not do well to alienate them as the Republican party has tried to do. 42% call themselves indepenent of a party which to me says they will no longer
support people soely on party but will look to the issue.
Even the Value Voters are starting to disregard party.
Yeah, the 1% of Paulbot voters will turn the tide.
Sigh…..
Listen, if you were not voting for Paul you would be voting for liberals. He’s a distraction for you guys for now until he’s tossed and you can go back to Kucinich
Chubs/Flo: I remember another flash in the pan candidate called John Anderson. He was big news back in 1980 and it was thought that young people and independents would flock to his candidacy.
I was serving as Executive Director of the Ohio College Republicans at the time and was interviewed on Columbus television to get my reaction to the fad. I said, quite accurately, that it was a fad and would soon pass.
He sunk like a rock in the general election, and despite getting a fair number of votes, got no electoral votes and Reagan won anyway.
You people would do better investing your time in supporting a candidate who could WIN and stood solid on the ideals the American people care about and not some crack pot.
And anytime you want to make that bet Chubs you just let me know.
Christos
16 years ago
I can sum this up easily. Idiots made some stupid decisions and more idiots want to continue to make stupid decisions without regard for the blood or treasure of the American people. And I thought fascism was dead but apparently it’s alive and kicking with you Neo-Cons scumbags. . Even if it means we lose our freedom in the process. This is a case of the blind leading the dumb..F$%k that! ..I am a true conservative and an old scholl Republican…I am voting for Ron Paul instead!
Chubs
16 years ago
“Listen, if you were not voting for Paul you would be voting for liberals.”
You are voting for a liberal, so I don’t see your point.
Christos said: “I am a true conservative and an old scholl Republican.”
HA HA HA HA HA.
Yeah….. sure you are… and I’m the Easter Bunny!
Talk about DUMB! You must think we’re all as stupid as you are to swallow that load of crap.
Do I really need to list all the GOP/Conservative heavyweights I have met or worked for over the years? Or would it embarrass you being called out by someone whose conservative credentials aren’t open to question?
JohnnyB
16 years ago
Why is it that all the old school conservative institutions like the John Birch Society rate Ron Paul at 100%? Why is it that an Old School Republican like Pay Buchanan throws his support behind Ron Paul?
YOu guys need to face the fact that the Republican Paty has been hijacked, and while they remain social conservatives, they have lost all other charcateristics of the Goldwater/Reagan revolution and fullfilled none of their promioses of smaller government of the Gringrich revolution of the 90s.
If Clinton had pulled half of the shit that Bush has we would be raising hell. Bush came into office on the exact same platform that Ron Paul is running on now. You guys need to wake up to the reality that Ron Paul is not a liberal is republican clothing, but is in fact the only real conservative in the race.
taxwaxxawxat
16 years ago
Getting back to the original topic “Ron Paul Would Divide America” and the reason why I visited this blog in the first place, I just wanted to comment about the recent trip I made to South Carolina for a rally that Ron Paul had there.
There were 13 of us that left Jacksonville early that morning. Most of us had not even met before. It was an interesting group of people. We ranged from right wing abortion activists to anti-globalist anarchists. There were anti-drug war types, people that were concerned with illegal immigration, constitutionalists and even a few “regular folk” that were just interested in seeing the man for themselves.
From my experience I would have to say that Ron Paul actually brought us together. He didn’t divide us. Isn’t that how Ronald Reagan won, with the Reagan Democrats?
Johnnyb
16 years ago
Yeah, Ron Paul would not divide America, he is dividing the Republican Party, but lets face it, Bush did that. Ron Paul is the least offensive of all the Republican candidates to most Americans. Thats why he is the only Republican that has a chance of winning.
mike
16 years ago
You guys seem to forget that we have helped create the problem of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden in the first place. We recruited these guys and encouraged and fostered these radical views in order to exploit them for our own aims.
Does it seem odd to any of you that somehow this guy who is supposed to be a descipable villain, manages to get himself on the major news networks at the exact same time they are holding a candlelight vigil at Ground Zero?? They are not his tool, CNN, FOX, whoever.. they could decide to show that “new” tape whenever they want to. They played the tape and the memorial side by side! It’s deliberate, and its disgusting.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Osama Bin Laden is at one time a friend and business partner to the family of our very own president and is at the same time the most evil man on Earth. Have any of you heard about who was really responsible for the bombings on 7/7 in London?? It was pulled off by an admitted MI5/Al Queda agent!!! This is admitted in the mainstream news! They killed an innocent guy in response to it and that is also admitted! The double agent is still at large!
Its unfair also to lump all of the combat we see in Iraq as coming from Al-Queda, when the Sunnis and Shias don’t like Al-Queda just as much as we do. Depending on who is talking at any given time they will call them Al-Queda, and if you’re lucky they call them insurgents. There is a nationalist movement going on in Iraq that really does want its freedom, but what it doesn’t want is a US occupation and/or puppet government. Its a no brainer. How would you feel if some foreign government just waltzed in on false pretenses and started building military bases the size of the Vatican??
Now you guys want to go to war with Iran. You want to war on the whole religion of Islam. You want to bring on f@#$ing world war 3 and the end of days or something. You’re ready to drop nuclear weapons on them and let god sort them out. Some people have even suggesting attacking the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Are you out of your f#@$ing minds or what?!?
How many of you have actually read about the creation of Israel? How many actually know that Palestine was once a sovereign nation, until the British and the rest of the world imposed the creation of Israel there. It has been a battle there ever since and it has been done intentionally knowing this kind of conflict would arise.
Its not about not assisting our allies, its about meddling in these people’s affairs for our interest. They know we installed the Shah, they know we supported Saddam, they know we created Al-Queda, they know we sold Saddam chemical weapons… it goes on.
Sorry boys but you’re ALL boring me. Nearly without exception,not one of you has responded in any meaningful way to the thoughtful and original comments and reflections I have provided over the course of these exchanges.
I really do hate repeating myself and it appears you don’t read or consider ANYTHING anyone else has to say.
You’re living in some fantasy world disconnected from reality where you talk amongst yourselves somehow convinced THAT is reality.
Well it is NOT!
And all this tin foil hat nonsense about Osama bin Laden proves it.
I realize that some of you are suffering from such a high level of sublimated fear over a range of issues that you are desperate to keep the lid on that boiling pot lest reality explode in on you like a dirty bomb in a subway.
Again, the bottom line is that Ron Paul will never be more than a marginal candidate. Despite all your efforts, you will never see him get more than a handful of votes in primary states. I live in South Carolina and I can tell you there is no Ron Paul groundswell.
For those of you who claim *cough* to be “real conservatives” *cough* are you prepared to just sit by and watch Hillary Clinton become President because the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul?
If you care about ANY of the so-called “conservative” issues, surely you know as well as I do that they won’t get advanced by Hillary Clinton. Even a socially liberal candidate like Rudy would do a better job.
Prior to the 2006 Congressional election I warned repeatedly against dividing the GOP. The perfect had become the enemy of the good and look what happened: we’re stuck with the BAD!
Ron Paul and his followers would divide the GOP again and hand the Democrats a victory.
Is that what you want? I’m beginning to think you might.
mike
16 years ago
I’m sorry man but unity over this war with _IRAQ_ is not something I can support consider I was one of millions who participated in _the_ largest world-wide pre-emptive protest ever recorded. We tried to tell you there were no WMDs, we tried to tell you about the policy of pre-emptive war, we didn’t have UN approval, we didn’t have a declaration of war, we had was a president who asserted his right to put our troops in harms way should he want to.
They were drawing up plans for martial law and occupation of Iraq before Bush even went to the Congress for approval. Bush had congress by the balls and no one would dare commit political suicide, and they all voted for the authorization of force despite the fact that it was widely discussed that Iraq was no threat to us. There is no need for I told you so’s, because everyone has known it all along.
Sorry I jumped straight on Osama, because most of the time if you start to point out the fallacies of the war in Iraq, the pro-war camp will say it is part of the larger war. The larger war on what? At this point now that we are getting closer to attacking Iran, you guys are getting to the point to say that the enemy is simply Islam.
That is the common argument being espoused by even Bill Maher! Watch out! They have the Qu’Ran which calls for all of this violence and hatred. Well most of Islam is not like that, unless of course you are talking about Al-Queda and the jihadis – to which I say – we undeniably fostered and helped create that movement. And our continued presence and occupation of Iraq helps fuel that movement.
Why not pick up a Bible and see some of the violence that Moses commits against his enemies. It is not pretty, its brutal.
Johnnyb
16 years ago
Dude Mike’s America,
We have already won the war in Iraq. We have accomplished all of our objectives there. WE proved there were no WMDs, we got rid of Saddam, we imposed the UN sanctions, we even established a democracy there. WE won! We kicked their ass! So what the F are we still doing there?
Leaving now is a win win situation for everyone. We get our boys back home, we get to quit wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that does NOTHING to improve our national security. The Iraqis get their country back free of an evil dictator.
Our country will be safer because we will not be over there any more pissing them off, which motivates them to be terrorists.
Then we can finally get back to the business of focusing on small government conservatism, just like GWB promised back in 2000.
Yeah, the terrorists might still try to hit us, but thats what the NSA is for, and they will never be able to pull of something like 911 ever again. So the calculus seems pretty simple to me.
We lost in 2006 because we deserved to get our asses kicked! We got off message, which has always been NO NATION BUILDING, small government fiscal conservatism, freemaket capitalism, individual liberty. Trying to run a Big Government pro-useless expensive war, pro-BigBrother candidate is going to get our asses kicked AGAIN! And we will deserve it AGAIN.
In Ron Paul we have a guy who has the exact same values of our Nations founders, and he has a record that proves he follows the constitution to the letter, unlike Bush who said, “Quit waving The Constitution in my face, its just a goddamned piece of Paper!” As a party we need Ron Paul.
Johnnyb: Anyone who addresses another person with “dude” simply illuminates the lack of maturity and understanding you Paulbots are famous for.
Every single one of the canards that you and “mike” continue to repeat has been answered time and time and time again. You simply ignore the thoughtful, well considered replies of others and repeat the same tired shopworn talking points that substitute for reason and logic in your world.
I feel sorry for all of you who choose to nurse your delusions, prejudices and fundamentally flawed outlook rather than engage in an intellectually honest discussion of ideas.
But then, you follow a fringe candidate who will never amount to anything and he simply feeds those same character flaws which you clearly demonstrate in every comment.
if we were to leave completely (while maintaining diplomatic ties), I believe the long term result would be a radical Islamic movement that has no motivation to attack the US. Radical Islam is fueled by hatred… and when you take away it’s fuel, it tends to dissapate. Our continued presence has been a rallying cry for Al Qaeda… and our absence would likely be their doom.
Chub, I don’t believe you are correct on this. Radical Islam is indeed fueled by hatred; but when you speak of “taking away their fuel”, what exactly is the fuel? The fuel is modernity, western civilization, and anything that does not embrace Islam and government under Sharia Law.
Chubs
16 years ago
“Nearly without exception,not one of you has responded in any meaningful way to the thoughtful and original comments and reflections I have provided over the course of these exchanges.”
Oh… you mean the thoughtful and original comments such as “dumb,” “stupid,” and “Paulistinians”? Stop patting yourself on the back if you ever want to be taken seriously.
I find it interesting that someone who claims to be more qualified than others to fully understand the US political situation stoops to the usage of cheap insults such as calling others “Paulistinians”.
Chubs, I thought it was cute. Would you rather pay for an expensive insult?
Unless they’re really hateful and over the top, I’d just take such nicknames in stride. Just ignore them and address the substance of the comment.
Chubs
16 years ago
“I understand you don’t like it, but what is illegal about this war?”
Yeah Chubs! Nice job cherry picking! I bet that helps you continue to indulge your prejudices and willful ignorance rather than deal with what else I have said.
So be it. I concluded a long time ago that you folks were time wasters. You waste your time following a doomed candidate and waste everyone else’s time responding to your circular arguments with their endless supply of flawed talking points.
The consequences of all of your efforts are threefold:
A. To benefit Hillary Clinton
and
B. Weaken America’s resolve to fight and win this war we are in.
and
C. Enable, encourage and appease the evil men who would kill us by the thousands if the adults were not in charge.
The bet was… the GOP cannot win unless Ron Paul is their candidate. The reason it is a safe bet for me is because if any other Republican candidate gets the nomination, I am certain he will lose to Hillary… and in the end, it will be the fault of people like yourself that the Republican party lost the presidency. Are you confident enough in your assessment of American public sentiment to bet against that? If so… I am serious. Let’s put $100 on it.
Chubs, that cannot possibly be a serious bet, since Ron Paul won’t win the GOP nomination, and therefore there’s no way to prove he’d win against Hillary.
That would certainly be an interesting race, and a frightening one, at that.
He’s a distraction for you guys for now until he’s tossed and you can go back to Kucinich
Curt, maybe if Paul and Kucinich were to “combine forces” and choose each other as running mates, America would enter into a new golden age of peace and prosperity.
And I thought fascism was dead but apparently it’s alive and kicking with you Neo-Cons scumbags. . Even if it means we lose our freedom in the process. This is a case of the blind leading the dumb..F$%k that! ..I am a true conservative and an old scholl Republican…I am voting for Ron Paul instead!
How are you possibly going to do that when he won’t be the GOP presidential candidate?
From my experience I would have to say that Ron Paul actually brought us together. He didn’t divide us.
He’s dividing us, here in the Republican Party, taxwaxxawxat
JohnnyB:
Yeah, Ron Paul would not divide America, he is dividing the Republican Party,
See?
but lets face it, Bush did that. Ron Paul is the least offensive of all the Republican candidates to most Americans. Thats why he is the only Republican that has a chance of winning.
I want my Republican candidate to offend leftist liberals.
You guys seem to forget that we have helped create the problem of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden in the first place. We recruited these guys and encouraged and fostered these radical views in order to exploit them for our own aims.
Did my RP posts just get ignored?! I’m sure I’ve addressed this ad nauseam.
We did not “create” al-Qaeda, bin Laden, or Saddam, Mike.
Does it seem odd to any of you that somehow this guy who is supposed to be a descipable villain, manages to get himself on the major news networks at the exact same time they are holding a candlelight vigil at Ground Zero?? They are not his tool, CNN, FOX, whoever.. they could decide to show that “new” tape whenever they want to. They played the tape and the memorial side by side! It’s deliberate, and its disgusting.
Well, who’s responsible for that? Who are you laying the blame with?
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Osama Bin Laden is at one time a friend and business partner to the family of our very own president and is at the same time the most evil man on Earth.
So are we still “friends” with Osama? Or just with family members? What President hasn’t had “ties” to the Saudi royal families?
Should we follow Jimmy Carter’s sanctimonious example, and never have any dealings whatsoever with leaders and people who do not live up to our estimation and expectations of human rights and morality?
Have any of you heard about who was really responsible for the bombings on 7/7 in London?? It was pulled off by an admitted MI5/Al Queda agent!!! This is admitted in the mainstream news! They killed an innocent guy in response to it and that is also admitted! The double agent is still at large!
Is there a point you’re making here? Because I don’t see what it is you’re trying to get at.
Its unfair also to lump all of the combat we see in Iraq as coming from Al-Queda, when the Sunnis and Shias don’t like Al-Queda just as much as we do.
Who is doing that? Lumping all the combat to al-Qaeda?
Depending on who is talking at any given time they will call them Al-Queda, and if you’re lucky they call them insurgents. There is a nationalist movement going on in Iraq that really does want its freedom, but what it doesn’t want is a US occupation and/or puppet government.
Anyone who thinks the Maliki government is a “puppet” of the U.S. is really, really off his rocker. I hope that’s not you, Mike.
Its a no brainer. How would you feel if some foreign government just waltzed in on false pretenses and started building military bases the size of the Vatican??
Aaaaah…the “what if China invaded the U.S. and built bases in California” line of RP reasoning.
I’ve addressed that already in one of my many posts.
It’s quite simple, really.
Now you guys want to go to war with Iran.
Who says that?!
Isn’t it the other way around?
Where has President Bush said that he wanted war with Iran? And how many speeches from ahmadinajad talks belligerently? Which theocracy talks of the 12th Imam and the coming of a worldwide Caliphate?
You want to war on the whole religion of Islam. You want to bring on f@#$ing world war 3 and the end of days or something.
Quit generalizing and lumping us in with the fringe.
How many more times does President Bush have to stress that we are not warring with Islam before folks like you “get it”?
Are we killing more Muslims than Muslims killing Muslims?
You’re ready to drop nuclear weapons on them and let god sort them out. Some people have even suggesting attacking the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Are you out of your f#@$ing minds or what?!?
I don’t support Tancredo.
How many of you have actually read about the creation of Israel?
Which version? The Ward Churchill version, or reality?
How many actually know that Palestine was once a sovereign nation, until the British and the rest of the world imposed the creation of Israel there.
There was never a Palestinian state. There was never an Arab-Palestinian national movement until around 1964.
Its not about not assisting our allies, its about meddling in these people’s affairs for our interest. They know we installed the Shah, they know we supported Saddam, they know we created Al-Queda, they know we sold Saddam chemical weapons… it goes on.
Thank you for the Noam Chomsky version of American history! I hear Osama bin Laden’s a big fan.
We did not create Al-Qaeda.
The CIA did not fund Osama bin Laden. I’ve heard Lawrence Wright put this forth recently as well, that it is a myth; and he’s written the definitive history to date, on Al-Qaeda.
Tell me which countries supplied Saddam with 99.8% of his arsenal? Hint: Not the U.S.
I’ve addressed this one too elsewhere. Maybe I should dig and cut-and-paste my responses from now on.
Kind of like some of the Paulspambots do.
JohnnyB
16 years ago
Has any Politician ever fulfilled the promise of smaller Government? NO, not even the Great and Wonderful Ronald Reagan was able to accomplish that. But no President has ever come in promising smaller government and then proceded to double its size! Come on. Bush has been worse than LBJ!
Reagan was awsome, but Ron Paul might just be better. He’s got to be the most honest guy on the campaign trail, he’s the only one with a proven history of always following the constitution. After Bush, I want a guy that I can trust will not run as a Republican, but turn into a democrat as soon as he gets into office.
He is also the least socialist, if you are worried about not pissing off any liberals, go to some of the leftwinger blogs, they are pissing their pants over this guy.
I’m thinking that you guys are just one issue voters, and all you care about is continuing the war. Its like you guys have a mental block and think that if you go against the war you will be joining the commie leftwingers. I think that by moving against Bush and the war, we are stealing all the socialists thunder so independent voters will have to decide the election on other issues. And if ther only choice is between freedom and socialism, how can we lose?
I’m sorry man but unity over this war with _IRAQ_ is not something I can support consider I was one of millions who participated in _the_ largest world-wide pre-emptive protest ever recorded.
Congratulations for being on the wrong side of history, Mike.
We tried to tell you there were no WMDs,
Some of you, maybe. But the majority of the peace fascists out there making a spectacle of themselves with Halloween outfits in a Mardi Gras parade, protested DESPITE what international intell was warning us regarding Saddam and wmd capabilities. It’s a dishonest hindsight argument for the anti-war movement to make. They were against this war simply for the fact that they are anti-war peace fascists who don’t support war under any circumstances. That’s what the bulk of the professional “peace” protestors do.
we tried to tell you about the policy of pre-emptive war, we didn’t have UN approval, we didn’t have a declaration of war, we had was a president who asserted his right to put our troops in harms way should he want to.
Sheesh. Now you’re depressing me.
Because now it’s back to fighting today’s problem with yesterday’s arguments.
How many more times do we need to rehash this stuff?
They were drawing up plans for martial law and occupation of Iraq before Bush even went to the Congress for approval. Bush had congress by the balls and no one would dare commit political suicide,
Gee….so President Bush really is the “decider” and not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? Whoa…learned something new.
and they all voted for the authorization of force despite the fact that it was widely discussed that Iraq was no threat to us. There is no need for I told you so’s, because everyone has known it all along.
Given that Congress gave its approval, how is this an “illegal” war?
In another post, I’ve already discussed as well, the issue of war declarations. Another RP fixation.
Sorry I jumped straight on Osama, because most of the time if you start to point out the fallacies of the war in Iraq, the pro-war camp will say it is part of the larger war. The larger war on what? At this point now that we are getting closer to attacking Iran, you guys are getting to the point to say that the enemy is simply Islam.
From the very beginning, wasn’t it obvious that we were at war with RADICAL Islamic terror? At the time, it was too sensitive and non-PC to specify “Islamists”/Islamic fascists.
That is the common argument being espoused by even Bill Maher! Watch out!
OMG! How scary!
you listening to Bill Maher….
They have the Qu’Ran which calls for all of this violence and hatred. Well most of Islam is not like that,
You’re speaking to a “pro-war” conservative who understands that, and who tries to promote distinguishing the difference between “jihad” and “hirabah”.
unless of course you are talking about Al-Queda and the jihadis – to which I say – we undeniably fostered and helped create that movement. And our continued presence and occupation of Iraq helps fuel that movement.
Are you so sure? How does American foreign policy explain away the terror attacks all over the world by Islamic militants? France and Germany were against the Iraq War. Yet they have their problems with Muslim radicals, and just recently, as you know, there was a foiled major terror attack on Germany. Do we blame German foreign policy, or hold radical Islam responsible?
Many people are critical of American foreign policy. But only one group of people are destructive enough to strap on a bomb vest to express that dissatisfaction.
And it’s one of perception, not necessarily reality, when criticizing American foreign policy. There is criticism to be made; but it needs to be balanced with fair perspective and not a lopsided view.
Why not pick up a Bible and see some of the violence that Moses commits against his enemies. It is not pretty, its brutal.
When you see a mass movement of crusaders strapping on bombs and blowing up innocents, let me know.
If you cite Timothy McVeigh, I swear to Allah, I will laugh out loud to my computer screen.
To_Rule_is_2_Destroy
16 years ago
Mike’s America:
The man with the answers, but doesn’t 4th Gen War from 4th Grade. Show us your resume, chickenhawk. WE ARE NOT going to win in Iraq, because we CAN’T! And your songs and dances about “patriotism, cut and run, and stay the course” Have nothing to do with it. If you and your neo-con screwballs knew anything about the history of warfare, they would have figured that out about 20 years ago.
Heres your test.
Are you willing to keep American troops in Iraq for the next 10-20 years?
Are you willing to see them shot at, bombed and maimed, during that whole period?
Are you willing to risk the Army we have in Iraq, to strike out at Iran?
Are you willing to spend another 2-3 trillion dollars to continue this war?
Money that is loaned to us by China?
Are you willing to pay more taxes to continue this policy?
Are you willing to risk the American economy, hyper-inflation, depression that will be brought on by the borrow and spend policies of the Federal Gov’t?
You remember the great economic period from 1977-1983 don’t ya? 20% Interest rates, 15% inflation, 8% unemployment?
Finally, are you willing to have your son and/or daughter drafted, to go fight?
Now I know your going to give me some mumbo-gumbo about being defeatist, unpatriotic, blah, blah, blah. Of course when you were out spreading the war of “ideas” and working for Congressman Fancypants. I was out running shit over in my M-60A1. One thing I do know is you will not answer the questions, honestly.
Curt, maybe if Paul and Kucinich were to “combine forces” and choose each other as running mates, America would enter into a new golden age of peace and prosperity.
They are made for each other actually, and believe me the Paulbots would love the teaming of those two.
You guys seem to forget that we have helped create the problem of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden in the first place. We recruited these guys and encouraged and fostered these radical views in order to exploit them for our own aims.
To_Rule_is_2_Destroy: Thanks for summarizing the kook fringe intellectually dishonest and left wing scaremonger talking points>
Michael Moore would be proud.
I’d get more honesty in the latest Moveon.org ad than I would in any of the lies you spread above.
I realize that you and many like you would like nothing better than to hide in your mother’s basement furiously typing away on your keyboards denying the reality that the adults see around them every day.
History teaches us painful lessons and it’s abundantly clear that so many of you wish to have those lessons repeated.
There are great movements afoot in the world. Either we succeed or we fail. Should we fail, even your Mommies basement won’t provide adequate protection from the storm.
Since it’s also clear you Paulbots aren’t reading the many thoughtful and well-considered lessons I have cited above, I am going to repeat two:
First, From Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 speech “A House Divided Cannot Stand:”
“Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.”
And from Winston Churchill’s six volume history of the Second World War:
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. –Winston Churchill
If you don’t know who Winston Churchill is, go ask your mother!
By the same token, are you willing to accept the possibility that we may not succeed in Iraq? If not, then I suppose you would view any withdrawal at any time to be “premature”. So I would ask you… what specific set of circumstances would have you convinced that our best course of action would be to leave and accept that we cannot succeed? As a reasonable human being, there must be some line you can draw. I’m curious what that is.
Stepping back from the immediate issues, however… I support a massive change to our Middle East foreign policy. The presence of our troops in the region is often our response to a problem we created or helped escalate in the first place. What we seem to be blind to is the irrationality of much of that part of the world. This is why allies that we’ve propped up and armed often become huge problems and ultimately our enemies. We’ve been involved militarily in the Middle East for a -very- long time, and when you step back and look at the result, there certainly has been no improvement to the overall state of affairs for the region. It is, in fact, probably worse off now than it has been for the past 50 years.
I don’t believe our Constitution supports us being there militarily… and if we were to leave completely (while maintaining diplomatic ties), I believe the long term result would be a radical Islamic movement that has no motivation to attack the US. Radical Islam is fueled by hatred… and when you take away it’s fuel, it tends to dissapate. Our continued presence has been a rallying cry for Al Qaeda… and our absence would likely be their doom.
You are correct… the ball -is- in my court, and I intend to vote for a presidential candidate who believes in conservative (as in less) Federal government, and a conservative foreign policy. The idea that we are somehow obligated to use our military in a constant attempt to stabilize the world constitutes a liberal (as in, a liberal use of federal power and world influence) agenda to me. As a conservative, I must reject that approach.
“I may not agree with this war, but, my God I will support the decisions that both sides approved to invade that country.”
If everyone took up the same attitude, boy, what a boring country we would live in. Dissent is the spark for change. Without it, we would still be a British colony.
Believe it or not, it is okay, and recommended, to disagree even with your elected representatives. If you disagree with the war (as you stated), then as an American, you should try to do something about it. Voting in a president who shares your negative position on the war is absolutely your right. Changing your mind about the war based on the current evidence is absolutely your right. We do -not- have an obligation to remain in Iraq. The only obligations we have are to the Constitution and to the will of the people. If the people vote for an end to the war in the 2008 presidential election, then that absolutely what should happen.
Chubs: We only fail if we give up. You would give up. You would have us fail.
We are Americans. We never fail at anything we really want.
We went to the moon despite numerous setbacks. And I’ve already related to you the other great things we have done in the foreign policy/National Security sphere.
None of that would have happened if we said “we might fail, so we better not try.”
As for abandoning our allies in the Middle East, I can’t think of anything more stupid.
History teaches us that hard fought gains are tossed away only by fools.
I’ll repeat again the paragraph from Winston Churchill’s history of the Second World War as it is clear they apply here more now than ever:
And once you have abandoned our allies in the Middle East, and attempted to appease the Islamists they won’t stop there. You’ll have to leave every “Muslim land” which includes anyplace where Muslims live: Spain, parts of France, England, much of South Asia (it would include Dearborn, Michigan).
You can never satisfy evil Chubs. You either defeat it, or you are killed by it.
Go back and read the history of the 1930’s if you would like to expand your awareness on this point.
“We are Americans. We never fail at anything we really want.”
This statement (along with much of the rest of what you’ve said) convinces me that our discussion is over. You are welcome to your opinion, and I am welcome to mine… and I have accepted that we will not agree on this. I am just happy that 70% of Americans do not agree with you. According to our president, the “mission” was “accomplished” 3 1/2 years ago. So we have “tried” and we have “succeeded”. I just hope you won’t be too upset when this kind of thinking is voted out of office in 2008. The only people who have a prayer of winning the presidency in a general election are a Democrat or Ron Paul… based on national sentiment. I am a hard-core conservative (as in, a supporter of limited federal power), and I hope the GOP gets its head out of its ass quickly enough to realize that they can’t beat a Democrat in this election without Ron Paul as their guy. Regardless of whether or not you personally support him, I believe this is the cold, hard fact. The 70% of Americans that disagree with you are the same ones that would consider Ron Paul over a Democrat.
Sorry Chubs, but you and your Paulistinians citing this “70%” figure is proof of either A. A lack of understanding about what poll numbers mean, or B. A deliberate and willful effort to deceive.
I’ve already recounted for your benefit the lessons of history which apparently you and your ilk ignore.
Such ignorance of history only serves the interests of those who would harm this country.
Ron Paul is NOT a viable candidate for either the Republican nomination. And should he choose to run as an independent, he would only help Hillary.
Is that what you want?
So my interpretation of the polls is incorrect, then? Okay. So if the Democrats’ victories which resulted in majorities in both houses in the last election is not enough for you, let’s allow the presidential election to decide for us then. If Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, or any of the other big-government non-conservatives running for the GOP nomination are elected as president at the end of 2008, I will concede that you are right about the will of the American people. But I’ll still wonder why it is that the Republican party has forgotten what the term “conservative” even means. Good luck to your candidate, whoever he may be.
“So my interpretation of the polls is incorrect, then?”
Yes.
Take it from someone who has worked at every level of electoral politics from the Court House to the White House. And someone whose Political Science major thesis involved statistical analysis of polling data with requisite math background.
Proof that you misunderstand the dynamics here is the spurious claim that Democrats took majority control of both houses of the Congress because of Iraq. Mark Foley, one way fingerpointing over corruption scandals and “Macaca” in George Allen’s Senate race had as much or more to do with losing the majority.
I do not understand how anyone who calls themself an American could tolerate anyone supporting defeat in Iraq which would invite defeat in the larger war.
Despite your delusions, Ron Paul will never be more than a 2 percenter. Then who will you vote for in the General election? Hillary?
So much talk about a war. So little we understand about survival. There was a day when children walked to school, parents never doubting for a moment their child would return home.
Today, the same thing could happen, but fear, territoriality, and aggression rule our little insignificant lives.
If we could only return to when the enemy pointed 40000 nuclear bombs at us, we knew it was mutually assured destruction.
But now, the odds are you would die on a plane crashing into a power plant than be impacted by any terrorist act.
But since the Soviet threat is gone, all of the Klingons must find another way to keep the blood flowing. And sometimes, that means stirring up things ourselves.
Ron Paul 2008 or else
To quote the great Mel Gibson in his role as William Wallace,
“I’m going to peck a fight.”
Weak, little, scared, and striking out against 3rd world civilians and talking big talk, like you are the warrior.
I strongly suggest that we make everyone who voted for the war to be drafted and sent over to Iraq to die. That will get rid of this reptilian influence within America, and allow us once again to let our kids walk to school.
Since I served in the USAF and the USN, I can say first hand that when you follow an order that is illegal, you are obligated to object.
If it comes down to it, a civil war in America may be required. The terrorist won’t have to follow us home, they will grow in your backyard.
If we don’t stop as a nation this pre-emptive war, then maybe the true patriots shall stand again and rid this country of the tyranny and murderous ways….
“Then who will you vote for in the General election? Hillary?”
To be honest, it would be a very tough choice, because all I’d have to choose from would be liberals.
All I can say is this… if you honestly think any of the GOP candidates apart from Ron Paul can beat Hillary in today’s climate, I will give you great odds, and so will Vegas (look it up). Care for a wager? You are the self-proclaimed political expert, so this one should be a shoe-in victory for you.
On a side note… I find it interesting that someone who claims to be more qualified than others to fully understand the US political situation stoops to the usage of cheap insults such as calling others “Paulistinians”. That’s where you really lost me. Was that part of your thesis?
How much can you afford to lose Chubs? Give me whatever odds you like. But I imagine it’s a safe bet for you since there is no way Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee.
How’d you like to bet on his being a “2 percenter?”
P.S. My thesis examined polling data from exit polling in the 1976 Presidential election and found that 10% of voters in a handle of key states objected to Ford’s pardon of Nixon, thus handing the election to Carter.
I ran reams of data through complex cross dynamic analysis.
And I’ve been doing the same ever since.
Your “70%” figure is DEEPLY FLAWED!
Earl E: You’re scaring me. Talk about fearmongering!
“But I imagine it’s a safe bet for you since there is no way Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee.”
Exactly my point. The bet was… the GOP cannot win unless Ron Paul is their candidate. The reason it is a safe bet for me is because if any other Republican candidate gets the nomination, I am certain he will lose to Hillary… and in the end, it will be the fault of people like yourself that the Republican party lost the presidency. Are you confident enough in your assessment of American public sentiment to bet against that? If so… I am serious. Let’s put $100 on it.
I nearly fell outta my chair with laughter on this one. Man you guys are really gone.
Fact is I am praying Hillary gets the nomination then I can guarantee a Republican will get into the White House. Her nomination would have every single republican coming out to ensure she doesn’t get in. I’m not talking about you Paulbots tho, you guys are no where near Republicans. So with or without you, if Hillary gets the nod the Republican WILL win.
And I’ll take that bet. Mark it down.
Although I have a feeling you will be hard to find once she loses but I’ll take that chance.
I’m not talking about you Paulbots tho, you guys are no where near Republicans. So with or without you, if Hillary gets the nod the Republican WILL win.
This is exactly why the Republicans don’t have a snowballs change in Hell of taking this election. Paulbots are voters and you would not do well to alienate them as the Republican party has tried to do. 42% call themselves indepenent of a party which to me says they will no longer
support people soely on party but will look to the issue.
Even the Value Voters are starting to disregard party.
Yeah, the 1% of Paulbot voters will turn the tide.
Sigh…..
Listen, if you were not voting for Paul you would be voting for liberals. He’s a distraction for you guys for now until he’s tossed and you can go back to Kucinich
Ron Paul has a screw loose. So do his minions who troll Technorati 24/7 in order to spam blogs with cut and paste messages.
Chubs/Flo: I remember another flash in the pan candidate called John Anderson. He was big news back in 1980 and it was thought that young people and independents would flock to his candidacy.
I was serving as Executive Director of the Ohio College Republicans at the time and was interviewed on Columbus television to get my reaction to the fad. I said, quite accurately, that it was a fad and would soon pass.
He sunk like a rock in the general election, and despite getting a fair number of votes, got no electoral votes and Reagan won anyway.
You people would do better investing your time in supporting a candidate who could WIN and stood solid on the ideals the American people care about and not some crack pot.
And anytime you want to make that bet Chubs you just let me know.
I can sum this up easily. Idiots made some stupid decisions and more idiots want to continue to make stupid decisions without regard for the blood or treasure of the American people. And I thought fascism was dead but apparently it’s alive and kicking with you Neo-Cons scumbags. . Even if it means we lose our freedom in the process. This is a case of the blind leading the dumb..F$%k that! ..I am a true conservative and an old scholl Republican…I am voting for Ron Paul instead!
“Listen, if you were not voting for Paul you would be voting for liberals.”
You are voting for a liberal, so I don’t see your point.
Christos said: “I am a true conservative and an old scholl Republican.”
HA HA HA HA HA.
Yeah….. sure you are… and I’m the Easter Bunny!
Talk about DUMB! You must think we’re all as stupid as you are to swallow that load of crap.
Do I really need to list all the GOP/Conservative heavyweights I have met or worked for over the years? Or would it embarrass you being called out by someone whose conservative credentials aren’t open to question?
Why is it that all the old school conservative institutions like the John Birch Society rate Ron Paul at 100%? Why is it that an Old School Republican like Pay Buchanan throws his support behind Ron Paul?
YOu guys need to face the fact that the Republican Paty has been hijacked, and while they remain social conservatives, they have lost all other charcateristics of the Goldwater/Reagan revolution and fullfilled none of their promioses of smaller government of the Gringrich revolution of the 90s.
If Clinton had pulled half of the shit that Bush has we would be raising hell. Bush came into office on the exact same platform that Ron Paul is running on now. You guys need to wake up to the reality that Ron Paul is not a liberal is republican clothing, but is in fact the only real conservative in the race.
Getting back to the original topic “Ron Paul Would Divide America” and the reason why I visited this blog in the first place, I just wanted to comment about the recent trip I made to South Carolina for a rally that Ron Paul had there.
There were 13 of us that left Jacksonville early that morning. Most of us had not even met before. It was an interesting group of people. We ranged from right wing abortion activists to anti-globalist anarchists. There were anti-drug war types, people that were concerned with illegal immigration, constitutionalists and even a few “regular folk” that were just interested in seeing the man for themselves.
From my experience I would have to say that Ron Paul actually brought us together. He didn’t divide us. Isn’t that how Ronald Reagan won, with the Reagan Democrats?
Yeah, Ron Paul would not divide America, he is dividing the Republican Party, but lets face it, Bush did that. Ron Paul is the least offensive of all the Republican candidates to most Americans. Thats why he is the only Republican that has a chance of winning.
You guys seem to forget that we have helped create the problem of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden in the first place. We recruited these guys and encouraged and fostered these radical views in order to exploit them for our own aims.
Does it seem odd to any of you that somehow this guy who is supposed to be a descipable villain, manages to get himself on the major news networks at the exact same time they are holding a candlelight vigil at Ground Zero?? They are not his tool, CNN, FOX, whoever.. they could decide to show that “new” tape whenever they want to. They played the tape and the memorial side by side! It’s deliberate, and its disgusting.
I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Osama Bin Laden is at one time a friend and business partner to the family of our very own president and is at the same time the most evil man on Earth. Have any of you heard about who was really responsible for the bombings on 7/7 in London?? It was pulled off by an admitted MI5/Al Queda agent!!! This is admitted in the mainstream news! They killed an innocent guy in response to it and that is also admitted! The double agent is still at large!
Its unfair also to lump all of the combat we see in Iraq as coming from Al-Queda, when the Sunnis and Shias don’t like Al-Queda just as much as we do. Depending on who is talking at any given time they will call them Al-Queda, and if you’re lucky they call them insurgents. There is a nationalist movement going on in Iraq that really does want its freedom, but what it doesn’t want is a US occupation and/or puppet government. Its a no brainer. How would you feel if some foreign government just waltzed in on false pretenses and started building military bases the size of the Vatican??
Now you guys want to go to war with Iran. You want to war on the whole religion of Islam. You want to bring on f@#$ing world war 3 and the end of days or something. You’re ready to drop nuclear weapons on them and let god sort them out. Some people have even suggesting attacking the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Are you out of your f#@$ing minds or what?!?
How many of you have actually read about the creation of Israel? How many actually know that Palestine was once a sovereign nation, until the British and the rest of the world imposed the creation of Israel there. It has been a battle there ever since and it has been done intentionally knowing this kind of conflict would arise.
Its not about not assisting our allies, its about meddling in these people’s affairs for our interest. They know we installed the Shah, they know we supported Saddam, they know we created Al-Queda, they know we sold Saddam chemical weapons… it goes on.
Sorry boys but you’re ALL boring me. Nearly without exception,not one of you has responded in any meaningful way to the thoughtful and original comments and reflections I have provided over the course of these exchanges.
I really do hate repeating myself and it appears you don’t read or consider ANYTHING anyone else has to say.
You’re living in some fantasy world disconnected from reality where you talk amongst yourselves somehow convinced THAT is reality.
Well it is NOT!
And all this tin foil hat nonsense about Osama bin Laden proves it.
I realize that some of you are suffering from such a high level of sublimated fear over a range of issues that you are desperate to keep the lid on that boiling pot lest reality explode in on you like a dirty bomb in a subway.
Again, the bottom line is that Ron Paul will never be more than a marginal candidate. Despite all your efforts, you will never see him get more than a handful of votes in primary states. I live in South Carolina and I can tell you there is no Ron Paul groundswell.
For those of you who claim *cough* to be “real conservatives” *cough* are you prepared to just sit by and watch Hillary Clinton become President because the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul?
If you care about ANY of the so-called “conservative” issues, surely you know as well as I do that they won’t get advanced by Hillary Clinton. Even a socially liberal candidate like Rudy would do a better job.
Prior to the 2006 Congressional election I warned repeatedly against dividing the GOP. The perfect had become the enemy of the good and look what happened: we’re stuck with the BAD!
Ron Paul and his followers would divide the GOP again and hand the Democrats a victory.
Is that what you want? I’m beginning to think you might.
I’m sorry man but unity over this war with _IRAQ_ is not something I can support consider I was one of millions who participated in _the_ largest world-wide pre-emptive protest ever recorded. We tried to tell you there were no WMDs, we tried to tell you about the policy of pre-emptive war, we didn’t have UN approval, we didn’t have a declaration of war, we had was a president who asserted his right to put our troops in harms way should he want to.
They were drawing up plans for martial law and occupation of Iraq before Bush even went to the Congress for approval. Bush had congress by the balls and no one would dare commit political suicide, and they all voted for the authorization of force despite the fact that it was widely discussed that Iraq was no threat to us. There is no need for I told you so’s, because everyone has known it all along.
Sorry I jumped straight on Osama, because most of the time if you start to point out the fallacies of the war in Iraq, the pro-war camp will say it is part of the larger war. The larger war on what? At this point now that we are getting closer to attacking Iran, you guys are getting to the point to say that the enemy is simply Islam.
That is the common argument being espoused by even Bill Maher! Watch out! They have the Qu’Ran which calls for all of this violence and hatred. Well most of Islam is not like that, unless of course you are talking about Al-Queda and the jihadis – to which I say – we undeniably fostered and helped create that movement. And our continued presence and occupation of Iraq helps fuel that movement.
Why not pick up a Bible and see some of the violence that Moses commits against his enemies. It is not pretty, its brutal.
Dude Mike’s America,
We have already won the war in Iraq. We have accomplished all of our objectives there. WE proved there were no WMDs, we got rid of Saddam, we imposed the UN sanctions, we even established a democracy there. WE won! We kicked their ass! So what the F are we still doing there?
Leaving now is a win win situation for everyone. We get our boys back home, we get to quit wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that does NOTHING to improve our national security. The Iraqis get their country back free of an evil dictator.
Our country will be safer because we will not be over there any more pissing them off, which motivates them to be terrorists.
Then we can finally get back to the business of focusing on small government conservatism, just like GWB promised back in 2000.
Yeah, the terrorists might still try to hit us, but thats what the NSA is for, and they will never be able to pull of something like 911 ever again. So the calculus seems pretty simple to me.
We lost in 2006 because we deserved to get our asses kicked! We got off message, which has always been NO NATION BUILDING, small government fiscal conservatism, freemaket capitalism, individual liberty. Trying to run a Big Government pro-useless expensive war, pro-BigBrother candidate is going to get our asses kicked AGAIN! And we will deserve it AGAIN.
In Ron Paul we have a guy who has the exact same values of our Nations founders, and he has a record that proves he follows the constitution to the letter, unlike Bush who said, “Quit waving The Constitution in my face, its just a goddamned piece of Paper!” As a party we need Ron Paul.
Johnnyb: Anyone who addresses another person with “dude” simply illuminates the lack of maturity and understanding you Paulbots are famous for.
Every single one of the canards that you and “mike” continue to repeat has been answered time and time and time again. You simply ignore the thoughtful, well considered replies of others and repeat the same tired shopworn talking points that substitute for reason and logic in your world.
I feel sorry for all of you who choose to nurse your delusions, prejudices and fundamentally flawed outlook rather than engage in an intellectually honest discussion of ideas.
But then, you follow a fringe candidate who will never amount to anything and he simply feeds those same character flaws which you clearly demonstrate in every comment.
NH, that’s an invitation if I ever saw one. You get your wish. I’ll do another post that’ll make you wet your pants as I ridicule your prophet, RP.
Chub, I don’t believe you are correct on this. Radical Islam is indeed fueled by hatred; but when you speak of “taking away their fuel”, what exactly is the fuel? The fuel is modernity, western civilization, and anything that does not embrace Islam and government under Sharia Law.
“Nearly without exception,not one of you has responded in any meaningful way to the thoughtful and original comments and reflections I have provided over the course of these exchanges.”
Oh… you mean the thoughtful and original comments such as “dumb,” “stupid,” and “Paulistinians”? Stop patting yourself on the back if you ever want to be taken seriously.
Earl E, you’re proof-positive that even those who serve in the military can have poor judgment.
I understand you don’t like it, but what is illegal about this war?
Chubs, I thought it was cute. Would you rather pay for an expensive insult?
Unless they’re really hateful and over the top, I’d just take such nicknames in stride. Just ignore them and address the substance of the comment.
“I understand you don’t like it, but what is illegal about this war?”
What war?
Yeah Chubs! Nice job cherry picking! I bet that helps you continue to indulge your prejudices and willful ignorance rather than deal with what else I have said.
So be it. I concluded a long time ago that you folks were time wasters. You waste your time following a doomed candidate and waste everyone else’s time responding to your circular arguments with their endless supply of flawed talking points.
The consequences of all of your efforts are threefold:
A. To benefit Hillary Clinton
and
B. Weaken America’s resolve to fight and win this war we are in.
and
C. Enable, encourage and appease the evil men who would kill us by the thousands if the adults were not in charge.
And you wonder why I denigrate you?
Chubs, that cannot possibly be a serious bet, since Ron Paul won’t win the GOP nomination, and therefore there’s no way to prove he’d win against Hillary.
That would certainly be an interesting race, and a frightening one, at that.
Curt, maybe if Paul and Kucinich were to “combine forces” and choose each other as running mates, America would enter into a new golden age of peace and prosperity.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How are you possibly going to do that when he won’t be the GOP presidential candidate?
How are you losing your freedom, Christos?
Oh? This is news to me, Chubs. You know who Curt‘s voting for? Well, spill the beans, pah’dner.
JohnnyB, has any politician ever fulfilled the promise of “smaller government”? It’s an honest question.
He’s dividing us, here in the Republican Party, taxwaxxawxat
JohnnyB:
See?
I want my Republican candidate to offend leftist liberals.
Did my RP posts just get ignored?! I’m sure I’ve addressed this ad nauseam.
We did not “create” al-Qaeda, bin Laden, or Saddam, Mike.
Well, who’s responsible for that? Who are you laying the blame with?
So are we still “friends” with Osama? Or just with family members? What President hasn’t had “ties” to the Saudi royal families?
Should we follow Jimmy Carter’s sanctimonious example, and never have any dealings whatsoever with leaders and people who do not live up to our estimation and expectations of human rights and morality?
Is there a point you’re making here? Because I don’t see what it is you’re trying to get at.
Who is doing that? Lumping all the combat to al-Qaeda?
Anyone who thinks the Maliki government is a “puppet” of the U.S. is really, really off his rocker. I hope that’s not you, Mike.
Aaaaah…the “what if China invaded the U.S. and built bases in California” line of RP reasoning.
I’ve addressed that already in one of my many posts.
It’s quite simple, really.
Who says that?!
Isn’t it the other way around?
Where has President Bush said that he wanted war with Iran? And how many speeches from ahmadinajad talks belligerently? Which theocracy talks of the 12th Imam and the coming of a worldwide Caliphate?
Quit generalizing and lumping us in with the fringe.
How many more times does President Bush have to stress that we are not warring with Islam before folks like you “get it”?
Are we killing more Muslims than Muslims killing Muslims?
I don’t support Tancredo.
Which version? The Ward Churchill version, or reality?
There was never a Palestinian state. There was never an Arab-Palestinian national movement until around 1964.
Thank you for the Noam Chomsky version of American history! I hear Osama bin Laden’s a big fan.
We did not create Al-Qaeda.
The CIA did not fund Osama bin Laden. I’ve heard Lawrence Wright put this forth recently as well, that it is a myth; and he’s written the definitive history to date, on Al-Qaeda.
Tell me which countries supplied Saddam with 99.8% of his arsenal? Hint: Not the U.S.
I’ve addressed this one too elsewhere. Maybe I should dig and cut-and-paste my responses from now on.
Kind of like some of the Paulspambots do.
Has any Politician ever fulfilled the promise of smaller Government? NO, not even the Great and Wonderful Ronald Reagan was able to accomplish that. But no President has ever come in promising smaller government and then proceded to double its size! Come on. Bush has been worse than LBJ!
Reagan was awsome, but Ron Paul might just be better. He’s got to be the most honest guy on the campaign trail, he’s the only one with a proven history of always following the constitution. After Bush, I want a guy that I can trust will not run as a Republican, but turn into a democrat as soon as he gets into office.
He is also the least socialist, if you are worried about not pissing off any liberals, go to some of the leftwinger blogs, they are pissing their pants over this guy.
I’m thinking that you guys are just one issue voters, and all you care about is continuing the war. Its like you guys have a mental block and think that if you go against the war you will be joining the commie leftwingers. I think that by moving against Bush and the war, we are stealing all the socialists thunder so independent voters will have to decide the election on other issues. And if ther only choice is between freedom and socialism, how can we lose?
Congratulations for being on the wrong side of history, Mike.
Some of you, maybe. But the majority of the peace fascists out there making a spectacle of themselves with Halloween outfits in a Mardi Gras parade, protested DESPITE what international intell was warning us regarding Saddam and wmd capabilities. It’s a dishonest hindsight argument for the anti-war movement to make. They were against this war simply for the fact that they are anti-war peace fascists who don’t support war under any circumstances. That’s what the bulk of the professional “peace” protestors do.
Sheesh. Now you’re depressing me.
Because now it’s back to fighting today’s problem with yesterday’s arguments.
How many more times do we need to rehash this stuff?
Gee….so President Bush really is the “decider” and not Karl Rove or Dick Cheney? Whoa…learned something new.
Given that Congress gave its approval, how is this an “illegal” war?
In another post, I’ve already discussed as well, the issue of war declarations. Another RP fixation.
From the very beginning, wasn’t it obvious that we were at war with RADICAL Islamic terror? At the time, it was too sensitive and non-PC to specify “Islamists”/Islamic fascists.
OMG! How scary!
you listening to Bill Maher….
You’re speaking to a “pro-war” conservative who understands that, and who tries to promote distinguishing the difference between “jihad” and “hirabah”.
Are you so sure? How does American foreign policy explain away the terror attacks all over the world by Islamic militants? France and Germany were against the Iraq War. Yet they have their problems with Muslim radicals, and just recently, as you know, there was a foiled major terror attack on Germany. Do we blame German foreign policy, or hold radical Islam responsible?
Many people are critical of American foreign policy. But only one group of people are destructive enough to strap on a bomb vest to express that dissatisfaction.
And it’s one of perception, not necessarily reality, when criticizing American foreign policy. There is criticism to be made; but it needs to be balanced with fair perspective and not a lopsided view.
When you see a mass movement of crusaders strapping on bombs and blowing up innocents, let me know.
If you cite Timothy McVeigh, I swear to Allah, I will laugh out loud to my computer screen.
Mike’s America:
The man with the answers, but doesn’t 4th Gen War from 4th Grade. Show us your resume, chickenhawk. WE ARE NOT going to win in Iraq, because we CAN’T! And your songs and dances about “patriotism, cut and run, and stay the course” Have nothing to do with it. If you and your neo-con screwballs knew anything about the history of warfare, they would have figured that out about 20 years ago.
Heres your test.
Are you willing to keep American troops in Iraq for the next 10-20 years?
Are you willing to see them shot at, bombed and maimed, during that whole period?
Are you willing to risk the Army we have in Iraq, to strike out at Iran?
Are you willing to spend another 2-3 trillion dollars to continue this war?
Money that is loaned to us by China?
Are you willing to pay more taxes to continue this policy?
Are you willing to risk the American economy, hyper-inflation, depression that will be brought on by the borrow and spend policies of the Federal Gov’t?
You remember the great economic period from 1977-1983 don’t ya? 20% Interest rates, 15% inflation, 8% unemployment?
Finally, are you willing to have your son and/or daughter drafted, to go fight?
Now I know your going to give me some mumbo-gumbo about being defeatist, unpatriotic, blah, blah, blah. Of course when you were out spreading the war of “ideas” and working for Congressman Fancypants. I was out running shit over in my M-60A1. One thing I do know is you will not answer the questions, honestly.
They are made for each other actually, and believe me the Paulbots would love the teaming of those two.
How naive.
http://www.floppingaces.net/war-on-terror/the-looming-tower/
KOS kiddies coming out to play.
Says it all I think.
Oh Oh, it sounds like Newt is coming out for Ron Paul too! So that makes the John Birch Society, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter AND NEWT!!
SOunds to me like the paleocons are taking the party back!
To_Rule_is_2_Destroy: Thanks for summarizing the kook fringe intellectually dishonest and left wing scaremonger talking points>
Michael Moore would be proud.
I’d get more honesty in the latest Moveon.org ad than I would in any of the lies you spread above.
I realize that you and many like you would like nothing better than to hide in your mother’s basement furiously typing away on your keyboards denying the reality that the adults see around them every day.
History teaches us painful lessons and it’s abundantly clear that so many of you wish to have those lessons repeated.
There are great movements afoot in the world. Either we succeed or we fail. Should we fail, even your Mommies basement won’t provide adequate protection from the storm.
Since it’s also clear you Paulbots aren’t reading the many thoughtful and well-considered lessons I have cited above, I am going to repeat two:
First, From Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 speech “A House Divided Cannot Stand:”
And from Winston Churchill’s six volume history of the Second World War:
If you don’t know who Winston Churchill is, go ask your mother!
Whoo-hoo comment #100!
What do I get, Mike’s America?