Paul Vs. Thompson

[Dravur]

**The People** want us in Iraq

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

hmmmm, budney, and you know they don't why? Because Micheal Moore says so? Seems to be circular logic there.

The truth is... There are some who want us there, some who don't, some who are islamists, some who are just the dudes down the street. We are there to whack the ones who take it to the extreme.

We try and keep collateral damage to a minimum and we don't decapitate prisoners with dull butter knives. We do not want to see a state where the stoning of women is applauded or the honor killings go unpunished. We are trying to bring this group out of the 7th century. Unlike the jihadist, we dont actively target civilians. It just happens during war.

I am relatively sure there was collateral damage in France during WWII. I am curious if you asked the french what they preferred, living under Hitler or the damage done to their country setting them free. Makes an interesting dilemma.

As to the reason's we went to war. There were 21 resolutions and none of them mentioned 9/11 and only 7 mentioned WMDs. <By the way, at the time, all the Dems thought he had WMDs as well.. shhhh, don't tell Micheal Moore that> but, that doesnt lend itself to bumper stickers.

Saddam brought this on himself. He started an earlier war, was rebuked and was ordered to perform certain functions. He did not follow through on any of the resolutions from the UN, so I have no sympathy for him. Germany and Japan had certain things they had to follow after that war as well. to the Victor goes the terms. He didnt follow those terms and got whacked.

So, you may blame the US for anything you like, you can even hate GW Bush. You can even hold your breath till you turn blue....but, we are the good guys in this. Nothing racist about it Just the facts.

 

[Jamie C.]

Oh look... Fred Thompson is winning.... by a large margin.



J.C.

 

[budney]

Kentucky,

Lets look at how we originally got in this...

You're starting in the '90s? Are you nuts? The relevant history of middle-east policy goes back to the early twentieth century, and CERTAINLY includes the '70s.

--Len.

 

[R127]

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.

Kentucky, you left out some important facts like how the US backed Saddam in the first place since the Iran/Iraq War and how Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire and assembled from disparate pieces after WWI by people who forgot to give the Kurds a country thus fating Iraq to civil unrest. We didn't get it right the first time, we didn't get it right the second time and we aren't getting it right the third time. Iraq is an Iraqi problem and Americans shouldn't be dying for them.

If you want to talk about agendas "guerilla" is a more honest term than "terrorist." Nobody's even really talking about justification, only what do you really expect their reaction would be? If you want to flatly disbelieve that you will ever encounter opposition then you have no mind for strategy. So far I see a lot of guerillas in Iraq blowing up American soldiers who are not being used to defend the US Constitution or the American people. They sure are making some choice politicians and the military industrial complex rich, though. I don't see Iraqi terrorists in America blowing up American citizens. If you want to support the troops, bring them home alive because nobody needs this B.S. If you want to be a hero try restoring a Constitutional form of government here at home. Iraq ain't my priority, Israel ain't my priority, America is my priority.

 

[GoRon]

You're starting in the '90s? Are you nuts? The relevant history of middle-east policy goes back to the early twentieth century, and CERTAINLY includes the '70s.

Providing an opportunity for freedom and self rule goes a long way toward making right historic injustices in the region.

 

[budney]

hmmmm, budney, and you know they don't why? Because Micheal Moore says so? Seems to be circular logic there.

Please don't associate me in any way with Michael Moore. Thanks.

The reason I say "facts suggest otherwise," is that the insurgency is growing, not shrinking. Bush himself said "we're not winning," which was an amazing admission. The "surge" strategy of dividing Baghdad into small, locked-down zones, with checkpoints between each, indicates the lack of control even within the "green zone." The decision to confine the "surge" to Baghdad is a good indication how bad things are elsewhere. And so on.

We are there to whack the ones who take it to the extreme.

Generally speaking, we have no right to "whack" people who want the occupation to end. We have no right to be running their country in the first place, so we have no right to punish those who resist our rule.

By the way, at the time, all the Dems thought he had WMDs as well.. shhhh, don't tell Micheal Moore that...

Liberals love to lie and say, "I used to be a conservative, until..." but in my case it's true: I was an absolutely rabid right-winger since at least Reagan's day. Specifically, I admired Reagan's handling of Libya, supported the first Gulf War, and strongly supported the invasion of Iraq until we were about two years into it... and I can assure you that WMDs were THE reason that mattered to me. "You gonna let Saddam get the bomb?" Hell no!

Well, fool me once, shame... shame on me; fool me tw-you can't git fooled agin.

--Len.

 

[Dravur]

I am waiting with baited breath.....

on the link to these facts you present.....

facts suggest otherwise," is that the insurgency is growing, not shrinking. Bush himself said "we're not winning,"

My guess is that is taken WAY out of context, but I await your link to where he said this.

Generally speaking, we have no right to "whack" people who want the occupation to end

Generally speaking, the French, Belgians, et al wanted us to whack the Germans in their country. I guess the run-of-the-mill Iraqi should be a slave to the islamists.

and I can assure you that WMDs were THE reason that mattered to me

Well, stop the presses. I thought we were there for all 21 resolutions, not just the ones YOU get to handpick. You see how that works? You do not get to set those policies. oh, and budney, why do you think we found centrifuges in Iraq? Kid's birthday Parties?

If you want to talk about agendas "guerilla" is a more honest term than "terrorist."

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

Yep, that seems to fit. I shall continue to use the term for these dudes. thanks.

Sorry, we are still the good guys here.

 

[foob]

Raindrops keep fallin' on my head
And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed
Nothin' seems to fit
Those raindrops are fallin' on my head, they keep fallin'

<looks around furtively>
Am I lost?

 

[Dravur]

Foob,

You poor man. You have found your way to the darkest depths of the site. You must flee before its too late! You shall be corrupted!

 

[GoRon]

Paul Vs. Thompson

Had to look to see what thread I was in, lol.

 

[R127]

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants".

Yep, that seems to fit. I shall continue to use the term for these dudes. thanks.

So the US Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, National Guard, etc are all terrorists then in your book? They certainly work on violence and threats of violence. For that matter what was "shock and awe" about? By the standard you have put forth it sure sounds like more terrorism to me.

Sorry, we are still the good guys here.

I don't believe there has ever been a time I would have described the federal government as "good guys."

Paul Vs. Thompson

Had to look to see what thread I was in, lol.

We are discussing foreign policy. The Thompson camp has decided to try and confuse non-intervention with pacifism and does not believe that for every action there is a reaction.

 

[GoRon]

We are discussing foreign policy. The Thompson camp has decided to try and confuse non-intervention with pacifism and does not believe that for every action there is a reaction.

Meanwhile the Paul camp thinks we can walk away from the last 50-60 years of agreements, alliances and other assorted foreign entanglements with no repercussions.

You have to start your foreign policy where we are at, not where you wish we were.

 

[Kentucky]

Generally speaking, we have no right to "whack" people who want the occupation to end.

Our troops are only defending themselves. This is not an occupation! This is us propping up the government of an ally.

This is not about whether or not I want us to be over there. Frankly, a big part of me would just like to say let them fight it out, not our problem. For selfish reasons I would like to see the war end just because I hope ammo would go down.

But that is not the issue. Whether or not I WANT us to be doing the Iraqi people a favor, the fact is that is what we are doing. We are not occupying their land for our own benefit. We are over there helping them at our own expense. If you dont want to pay the price and want to get out that is fine, but justifying the actions of terrorist is not the right way to go about it. But this isnt even about that. This whole argument started because one member has an EXTREME sympathy with the people and culture that are orchestrating this worldwide terrorism, and chooses to take the side of that people over our own forces.

I hate big government as much as anyone on here. I distrust our government as much as anyone on here. But sympathizing with terrorist is WAY over the line.

Edited to add: Let me be clear. I am not here disagreeing with those who want us out of Iraq because of the cost, lives, etc... What I am STRONGLY opposed to are those who sympathize with THE ENEMY and accuse those who dont of racism. These are the same people who want to run America down and say we are the reason for the worlds problems. Let me tell you, if it werent for America this world wouldnt really be worth living in.

 

[R127]

Meanwhile the Paul camp thinks we can walk away from the last 50-60 years of agreements, alliances and other assorted foreign entanglements with no repercussions.

You have to start your foreign policy where we are at, not where you wish we were.

That sounds a little like trying to fix illegal immigration by rounding up the illegals but leaving the borders wide open. You're treating symptoms, not the disease. We haven't fixed anything in the near century or so we've been meddling in the Middle East, we aren't going to make things any better by staying there and continuing to fumble around in the dark. It's their problem, not ours. If one of them starts feeling froggy and comes and attacks America we should come down on him like the hammer of God but the reality is we don't. Bin Laden is still free and living easy and we're still wasting lives and resources on things we shouldn't be involved in.

 

[budney]

It's no use.

 

[RealGun]

At what point does a snappy comeback become good, old fashioned trolling?

 

[NickEllis]

GUYS GUYS GUYS.....

Its just INFANTILE to harp on something that isn't even on topic. Bush killing 30,000 Iraqis? What the heck!? Start a thread or something. Don't get this one killed. Unless that's your intent....

Adult behavior = highroad

 

[Dravur]

So the US Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, National Guard, etc are all terrorists then in your book? They certainly work on violence and threats of violence. For that matter what was "shock and awe" about? By the standard you have put forth it sure sounds like more terrorism to me

R, what part of "and deliberately target "non-combatants" did you not understand? Did you read the whole thing, or just skim it over meanwhile thinking of a rebuttal?

 

[Marshall]

Just so you all won't worry, I left work, kicked a few Muslim folk and b*tch slapped a terrorist sympathizer so I'm all better now. You know, a good old fashioned Arab azz whoopin just does wonders for us racist.

We haven't fixed anything in the near century or so we've been meddling in the Middle East, we aren't going to make things any better by staying there and continuing to fumble around in the dark. It's their problem, not ours.

There's the difference. I believe we can make a difference, a positive difference. Matter of fact, I believe we've already done so and will continue to do more. We've done that country a lot of good! Unless of course, enough people spread enough smear to politically get us to quit. It's clear that's the tactic. Some actually believe we're doing no good or doing harm, others hate Bush enough step over the line and still some others just flat want the terrorist to win. Each knows who they are.

If one of them starts feeling froggy and comes and attacks America we should come down on him like the hammer of God but the reality is we don't. Bin Laden is still free and living easy and we're still wasting lives and resources on things we shouldn't be involved in.

There's the other difference. Wait first to get pummeled and take more terrorist attacks on American soil or, strike on those that threaten us and have proven they want us dead. Fighting in Iraq, we have uncovered many terrorist plots to kill Americans, on our own soil. We have captured Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq, or killed them, and taken information found and given to uncover plots to kill us, thus allowing us to prevent them. I would rather see us take it to the terrorist than see Len get blown up at the mall.

Now Len will say, Iraqi's weren't the terrorist. No, Iraqi's weren't Al Qaeda. But there were plenty of terrorist there. Saddam being the largest. We tried Clintons way, sit and wait and do nuthing, boy that worked well. Now we're trying another way. I prefer this way much better. So far, I haven't seen another 9-11 happen on American soil. Wonder why? They still want us dead, hell they want everyone dead, not just Americans. Italians, Brit's, German's, Lebanese, etc. But wait, isn't it because of our "so called occupation"? Why these other countries? Why kill them? They're not "bad Americans". Hell, they're killing fellow Muslims and fellow Arabs. Maybe that argument doesn't hold water, maybe it's just convenient? Maybe Len likes that excuse best because it's unhelpful to the US, the terrorist toughest opponent and largest threat against speading evil and ruling the world? To me, this is working best. And at the same time, we're helping Iraq be the free democracy their people voted for.

I could go on but there's the difference. Some just fundamental differences and beliefs. Some just pulling for the wrong side.

 

[budney]

There's the difference. I believe we can make a difference, a positive difference.

All we have to do is shoot enough of them that the rest will get it through their thick skulls? Sigh. The idea that we can forcibly better another person is unbelievable hubris. God couldn't do it in 6,000 years, why the hell do you think you're better at this than He is?

Now we're trying another way. I prefer this way much better.

False choice. There are other options between "doing nothing," and "slaughtering them until they become a stable western democracy." For example, to stop meddling in things that we have no right to, and instead adopt a defensive posture that includes deploying troops at home and arming the populace, would be a much better approach all around.

--Len.

 

[Marshall]

The idea that we can forcibly better another person is unbelievable hubris. God couldn't do it in 6,000 years, why the hell do you think you're better at this than He is?

Well Len, if we can't better them, and they want to kill us dead, we better shoot as many as we can. You're right.

For example, to stop meddling in things that we have no right to, and instead adopt a defensive posture that includes deploying troops at home and arming the populace, would be a much better approach all around.

Yea, lets all sit around with our guns and have the miltary and miltias roaming the streets just waiting for hammer to fall. Maybe we can all pick off a few at the mall or at the drive in. Sounds fun. Maybe we let this country become a place of war. Boy I like your ideas.

 

[budney]

Maybe we let this country become a place of war.

Yeah, THAT'S really likely. Don't wet your pants, Marshall.

 

[Marshall]

Well that's your idea Len. Let's just wait for em to come here. Don't blame me, you're the one inviting it.

 

[Kentucky]

They still want us dead, hell they want everyone dead, not just Americans. Italians, Brit's, German's, Lebanese, etc. But wait, isn't it because of our "so called occupation"? Why these other countries? Why kill them? They're not "bad Americans". Hell, they're killing fellow Muslims and fellow Arabs.

This really shoots holes in Len's argument. The jihadist arent jsut targeting Americans, they target EVERYONE who is not a muslim. Period! They dont hate us because we are over there, they hate us because of who we are.

 

[Marshall]

This really shoots holes in Len's argument. The jihadist arent jsut targeting Americans, they target EVERYONE who is not a muslim. Period! They dont hate us because we are over there, they hate us because of who we are.

Correctamundo! But more precisely, they hate because of who we're not.

But yet, we're the racist. (rolling my eyes)