Paul Vs. Thompson

[Marshall]

Thanks Len,

Sorry, first you say innocents then you say Iraqi's. I have trouble keeping it clear.

There's more terrorists fighting us than I thought. We must be doing a better job than the media is reporting.

Too bad the statistic don't break out how many of them are killed by our enemy. I imagine the vast majority. They bomb their own innocent countrymen, on purpose just to get guys like you to voice your dissent against the US. It works evidently. Why are you not charging the enemy with the killings of innocents? We try our best not to kill innocents. But stuff happens in war. It's America's fault, huh Len? We're the bad guys?

You know, if Saddam would have allowed the inspectors in, honored no fly zones and didn't blow off UN resolutions right and left, we wouldn't be here today. We would have no case. If he wouldn't have tried to take over his neighbor, none of this would have come up to begin with. Well, maybe it would have, chances are he would have done something else to provoke anyway. Maybe not? Well, the Clinton Administration said he had WMD's so we may have hooked up anyway.

Me? I think we had no choice with the info we had and the actions of Saddam. He was a danger, congress said so too by their vote on the same info Bush had.

There are always casualties of wars and battles. I wish you would spend time condemning the folks deserving of condemning though, the enemy. Maybe to you, we are the enemy?

 

[budney]

There's more terrorists fighting us than I thought. We must be doing a better job than the media is reporting.

That's essentially the same as saying that Iraqis == terrorists. What jingoistic claptrap.

We try our best not to kill innocents. But stuff happens in war. It's America's fault, huh Len? We're the bad guys?

There are no heroes in this story. The US has been doing stuff it had no business doing, for nearly a century. The blowback was inevitable, but the perpetrators of the retaliation are guilty of great evil. Both sides are guilty of great evil. Unlike in fairy tales and old westerns, the real world doesn't split neatly into black hats and white hats.

You know, if Saddam would have allowed the inspectors in, honored no fly zones and didn't blow off UN resolutions right and left, we wouldn't be here today.

You mean, if he gave in to the forcible demands that other nations had no right to make in the first place? If I break into my neighbors house and then kill him, can I say, "If only he'd let me in when I demanded it, we wouldn't be here"?

Maybe to you, we are the enemy?

As in, "You're either with me, or you're my enemy"? Puh-lease. Your willingness to dismiss tens of thousands of dead by saying, "Huh--that's a whole lotta terrorists!" certainly does you no credit, but you aren't my "enemy." Unless you attempt to initiate force against me, in which case I'll defend myself. Rest assured, I will never initiate force against you.


--Len.

 

[foob]

So about 60% conservatives and 40% libertarians on THR then hehe... good estimate?

 

[obxned]

I'm surprised. I'm for Thompson, but thought the majority would be for Paul.

 

[Zen21Tao]

So about 60% conservatives and 40% libertarians on THR then hehe... good estimate?

That's actually not accurate.

1. I have seen quite a few pro-gun liberals on THR over the few years I've been a member. They would most likely also vote for Paul over Thompson based on his social views. So you have them included in your "40% libertarians"

2. The Republican party has many moderates and RHINOS in the party that may agree with Thompson and Paul on firearms but find Thompson to be too conservative for their tastes on other issues. Such people here on THR would be more likely to vote for Paul and also be included in you "40% libertarians."

3. I have met many (l)ibertarians that are much more conservative in their beliefs than most Republican moderates. Many of them feel the current (L)ibertarian party is two liberal on social issues. Most of these people, while considering themselves "true" (l)ibertarians, would vote for Thompon given the two choices and would be included within your "60% conservatives" number.

4. The poll also doesn't take into account the numbers of "conservatives" and "libertarians" that would rather vote for someone else or even abstain from voting all together than to vote for either of these two candidates. Such individuals while members of THR community wouldn't be included in the polling numbers making those numbers less representative of the actual THR community.

 

[GoRon]

I'm surprised. I'm for Thompson, but thought the majority would be for Paul.

Pauls backers are just a little more prolific in their posting habits and they also discovered how to change the font size.

 

[TT]

budney: I can't, but that's OK: I never claimed they were. That's something you made up.

I concur that you never said that directly- you implied it as a preemptive smear against anyone who would disagree with you.

budney: I can prove that a great many of them are, however. If you really feel it's necessary for me to quote Rush, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Quinn, et nauseating cetera.

6= a great many. Quite a case you have there.

 

[Marshall]

Quote:
budney: I can prove that a great many of them are, however. If you really feel it's necessary for me to quote Rush, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Quinn, et nauseating cetera.

Well, if that qualifies them as racists to you, I guess I am too.

Who are the bad guys in this war Len? Us or them? Whose side are you on in this war? Us or them? Are you a them? Forget the past, we're at war now and Iraq is full of terrorist fighting against us. It's a hot bed. If we loose, we have a terrorist haven for planning and launching attacks against the USA and other countries while being in control of the oil and embolden Iran who is making Nukes. Leaving is loosing, it's retreat. Are you for us or against us?

 

[budney]

6 == a great many. Quite a case you have there.

If that's the best you could do, why would you even bother replying? After all, it's not as if each of them has millions of fans who generally agree with them.

--Len.

 

[budney]

Who are the bad guys in this war Len? Us or them? Whose side are you on in this war? Us or them?

Read up on the "fallacy of the false choice." If you like reading the Bible, read the book of Judges. The US government and the terrorists are both guilty of crimes. I'm for the American people, which is why I'm against its enemies foreign and domestic.

Forget the past...

THAT, sir, is your whole problem.

--Len.

 

[TT]

budney: If that's the best you could do, why would you even bother replying?

In the future I’ll make sure I check with you prior to posting to make sure my contribution meets your high standards. Please hold your breath until the arrival of my first submission.

 

[budney]

In the future I’ll make sure I check with you prior to posting to make sure my contribution meets your high standards.

No need. I'm only pointing out that such risible replies expose you unnecessarily to ridicule. Like this.

--Len.

 

[GoSlash27]

Forget the past, we're at war now and Iraq is full of terrorist fighting against us. It's a hot bed. If we loose, we have a terrorist haven for planning and launching attacks against the USA and other countries while being in control of the oil and embolden Iran who is making Nukes. Leaving is loosing, it's retreat.

Let me just trim this down to size by tossing the falsehoods...

Forget the past, we're at war now

Much more streamlined

 

[Marshall]

The US government and the terrorists are both guilty of crimes.

So you're equating the US Government to the terrorist. Fine job Len.

I'm for the American people, which is why I'm against its enemies foreign and domestic.

Yea, my dog is too. He's better at sniffing out domestic home grown enemies than I am.

Maybe I can get a real answer this time? Do you want America to with the war in Iraq by defeating our enemies? Yes or no?

 

[budney]

So you're equating the US Government to the terrorist. Fine job Len.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Both guilty of crimes" hardly "equates" them.

Do you want America to with the war in Iraq by defeating our enemies?

You've moved on from "false choice" to the fallacy of "begging the question big time." Your question assumes that we really are fighting "our enemies" at this time in Iraq, and it also assumes "victory" is even possible--though naturally you don't define "victory."

The best thing the United States could possibly do to protect its citizens against every type of threat out there in the world today is to bring the army home immediately from all 131 counties we currently occupy, station many of them along the US border, and discharge the rest.

Staying in Iraq will make everything worse, at ruinous cost to the USA, with no prospect of ever creating a stable, pro-western, secular democracy there. I'm pretty sure I've said that more than once.

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

we're at war now and Iraq is full of terrorist fighting against us. It's a hot bed. If we loose, we have a terrorist haven for planning and launching attacks against the USA and other countries while being in control of the oil and embolden Iran who is making Nukes. Leaving is loosing, it's retreat.

Here's the filler........what's not fact?

 

[budney]

Iraq is full of terrorist fighting against us.

You've already copped to racism above, but it should be pointed out again. Terrorists are a small fraction of the population.

It's a hot bed.

Ignoring the fact that we MADE it a hot bed.

If we loose, we have a terrorist haven...

You don't know that, but more importantly: no matter WHAT we do, "we have a terrorist haven." Iraq will be unstable for a long time to come, and even if it achieves stability, its people will harbor anger over the occupation for generations.

...while being in control of the oil...

We've already demonstrated incompetence at taking control of their oil supply--even though one of Bush's primary goals was undoubtedly to get American oil companies into Iraq. The way to get at the oil isn't to flatten the place; it's through free trade.

and embolden Iran who is making Nukes.

That's the same stuff you swallowed in the run-up to Iraq. Is that already so long ago that you'll swallow the same crap all over again to justify yet another invasion? Iraq has every right, by international treaty, to generate nuclear power. The US has unilaterally declared that, treaties notwithstanding, they shall not be allowed ANY access to nuclear technology. Another improper US meddling in other nations' affairs.

Leaving is loosing, it's retreat.

It's already lost. The only question is whether we're fool enough to throw good money after bad, and continue racking up the American deaths for no purpose at all.

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

Your question assumes that we really are fighting "our enemies" at this time in Iraq,

You're right Len, I guess them old Eeslamick Geehadist shootin at us and kidknappin civilians, beheadin them, and setting of them thar IED's or UID's or DUI's are our friends. Hell, lets invite 'em to dinner on our way out of there. Then, when we're standing on our borders protecting ourselves, we can watch them nukes fly over the ocean and sing the Star Spangled Banner before we croak.

 

[budney]

You're right Len, I guess them old Eeslamick Geehadist shootin...

Let's pretend Saddam definitely did mastermind 9/11. Then going after him WAS "fighting our enemies." However, he's dead, and we're still killing people. Some of them might be fighting us, but many of them are not--they're what we like to call euphemistically "collateral damage."

And increasingly many of the "insurgents" are Iraqis who had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States, but who want the occupation to end. Guess what? It's THEIR country. They have every right to want it over, and to defend themselves inside their own borders.

So many of the people we're "fighting" are not "the enemy." Instead, at least part of the time, we're the aggressor.

You actually know that very well, because you own and train with a firearm. If you shoot a man who is threatening you with death, that's self-defense. He's the aggressor. You're guilty of nothing. But if he breaks off his attack and THEN you shoot him, YOU'RE the aggressor, and if he dies, YOU'RE a murderer.

That's the situation in Iraq now. Some of the kills over there today are probably "good shoots," but many are not. Our hands are not clean.

--Len.

 

[BGlaze250]

You guys really are fixing to get this thread closed, aren't you?

 

[Marshall]

Len, your whole premise is flawed.

**The People** want us in Iraq. The Government begs us to stay. They elected their Government, freely. We are helping them have a democracy. It's what they wanted. They cheered us when we came and toppled Saddam's regime. They held free elections, on their own.

But you, you take the Eeslamic Geehadist and paint them as Gandhi. That's nuts dude. You want us to believe that the people fighting against our troops, the Iraqi military and Iraqi police forces are who constitutes and defines Iraq. Maybe they're who you want to define Iraq. So don't give me this BS that we're not helping them have a better place to live. Personally, I think you are a sympathizer for our enemy and try your best to bash the American Gov't to further your desired outcome. It makes me wonder why your really want us out of there so badly. Maybe it's not wholly for the reasons your stating, maybe there's more to it. Maybe not? But you have me wondering.

Respectfully

 

[budney]

**The People** want us in Iraq.

And you know this... how? Because Hannity says so? Evidence on the ground suggests otherwise.

The [puppet] Government begs us to stay.

And? If they didn't beg us to stay, they would be replaced.

But you, you take the Eeslamic Geehadist and paint them as Gandhi.

That's just not honest. No I don't. Terrorists are vile. I'm simply pointing out that there's a difference between terrorism and self-defense. It's their country, and we're occupiers. They have every right to try and get us out, just as we would do if they occupied the US.


--Len.

 

[Marshall]

Len, at this point, I'm leaving it alone. It's too obvious. I'm out, before I get booted.

 

[budney]

Maybe I haven't been here long enough, but I don't see any danger of either of us being booted.

--Len.

 

[Kentucky]

This is so simple, any attempt to portray it otherwise reeks of an agenda.

Lets look at how we originally got in this. In the early 90's Sadaam was torturing and killing Hundreds of thousands of innocent people unopposed. He was also threatening our main ally in the Middle East, and launched attacks against Israel. The US stepped in and defeated his army. Sadaam surrendered and asked us to quit. One of our conditions was that inspectors be allowed to visit his country and "keep an eye on things."

Sadaam adhered to these rules until he thought it had been long enough that he thought he could get away with breaking them. He began violating the terms of the cease-fire that he had agreed to. This in and of itself was enough reason to go back in and remove him. Around the same time though, we were attacked with the worst terrorist attack in our nations history. Sadaam was known to be a bitter enemy of the US, and known to be wanting WMD's. This was another factor that made it appear important to remove him from power.

So we did. In a few short months his government was removed from power, and Sadaam himself was gone. Now, if the US were only involved in self-interest we would have left after defeating our primary enemy in THAT fight. However, being the good guys that we are, we decided to help the Iraqi people put their country back together after SADAAM had wrecked it. THIS IS NOT THE ACTION OF A CONQUERING NATION.

The terrorist in the Middle East have used the massed forces of our troops as an opportunity to attack us. They have come in from other countries to attack our troops with IED's and car bombs, and THEY have created a civil war in the process.

Now, the easy thing for us to do would be cut and run. However, our government has for the most part tried to give it another chance to help the people of Iraq set up a FREE COUNTRY whereby they can vote for their own leaders.

You say that the government asks us to stay because otherwise they would be removed. But by whom? FREE ELECTIONS were held and every Iraqi was given the chance to vote, and the government that exists there today are elected representatives. They ask us to help them because without us the terrorists and extremist will overthrow the government that the people voted for.

The fighting that is currently going on is primarily caused by outsides coming in to the country and fighting our troops. Not native Iraqi's.

Our troops are only fighting in self-defense, against mainly outsiders on a "jihad", not against Iraqi's fighting for national pride.

Our troops are not assaulting anyone at this point, merely defending themselves while building infra structure, schools, hospitals, and training Iraqi's.

Basically the native Iraqis and their freely elected government are our allies in this scenario. Our enemies are the jihadist that come and try to stir up chaos and create trouble merely to attack us. Now, you may not wish to support this "ally", but there is no real question that at this point we are only helping the actual Iraqis who the country belongs to.

Any attempt to justify the actions of terrorist and paint them as "freedom fighters" reflects an agenda that is not truthful, and is frankly un-American. Now I know that one of the favorite tactics of an out-classed debater is to twist the words of his opponent so I am going to re-state my last sentence in a way that cannot be misunderstood. I am not saying that you have to want to support this ally, I am saying that justifying terrorist actions by attempting to portray the US as a selfish conquering empire is not only insane, but speaks about the true loyalties of a person.