budney
member
Actually, you're making his point: things were pretty bad in Iraq before the invasion. It's just that they're much worse now. Nobody's saying that life under Saddam was a bowl of cherries.
--Len.
Ron Paul PWNS! Wolf And Giuliani On CNN
- Thread starter R127
- Start date
- Status
--Len.
Yes I know that but the DC Snipers were that in name only. Most of their activity took place in MD and VA if IIRC. VA is definitely an armed populace; not sure about MD but they're not as disarmed as DC.
Maybe the media exagerated the situation but the impression I got from the stories about people not going to work, keeping their kids out of schools, retail sales decreasing led me to believe that the population were cowed if not downright cowering in fear.
I really believe that a terrorist cell with the common sense GOD gave a wooden jackass could wreak havoc and terror on any urban American population at will and there wouldn't be a thing the police could do about it.
pacodelahoya
Member
Eric t12
Thanks for your service and welcome to THR.
Dude, thats all we do here in legal and political is bitch about the constant encroachments on our civil rights and the blatant disregard for the Constitution.
Thanks for your service and welcome to THR.
Dude, thats all we do here in legal and political is bitch about the constant encroachments on our civil rights and the blatant disregard for the Constitution.
telomerase
Member
Or they could just blow up a dam and kill the populations of several small cities.
There just aren't very many real independent "terrorist cells". Most "terrorists" are run by the Paki ISI or some other state organization, and are paid for in the final analysis by the US taxpayer.
Marshall
Member
Really?
You have a democratic constitution in place, voted on by the people of Iraq. You have police and military being trained to protect their country and to hold together the democracy that has been voted into place, by the people. You have the people of Iraq who are glad we are there fighting for their freedoms and training their forces to do so. We have a country in Iraq that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists of any kind. Yes, there may be pockets at this point but they're damn sure not safe havens, and they're dwindling. There is no longer a dictatorship in place that is sponsoring $25,000 terror attacks on free nations and free innocent people. The road to freedom has always been bumpy especially when coming from vicious and evil dictatorships. But when a country and it's people want democracy and freedom and are on the road to achieving it, I am truly sorry you see that as being worse off than they were, they don't see it that way.
It's sadly ironic, the Iraqis aren't wishing we were gone. The Iraqis aren't saying things are worse than they were. The only people wishing we were gone, saying things are worse and hoping we fail are the terrorist and liberals. What a shameful pair. We that support the war in Iraq and our efforts there, want a better a safer future for us and the Iraqi people. Those apposed, could evidently give a rats butt about what happens to the Iraqi people if we were to leave. Oh yea, but the liberals care soooo much about everyone and their feelings and the conservatives are selfish bastards. Darned ironic huh.
The libs are so scared that this war will end in success, and when it does, they're scared to death of where that leaves them. The worry is so great, they would rather see a defeat. That's about as sad as it gets in my books.
Just stand in line behind Harry Reid, he's your man.
And without anybody to enforce it, see next point.
Iraq had a military, and police forces, they (after being fired and sent home, without other prospects) are now the insurgents. The "new" miltiary and police are fighting the "old" in a guerilla war. It is no wonder we have such resistance in the Sunni areas. In the Shia South, the new military and police are more loyal to their factions than the government. In the Kurd North, they want independence not tethering to the other 2, and frankly deserve it.
Except for about a third of the population, surrounding the capitol and the Kurds to the North, again, because they really would rather be left alone.
Actually, the Sunni "insurgents" I mentioned above fought AQ intervention until they now have an uneasy truce until we're gone. The most capable, local, native forces to remove AQ are no longer trying to.
Granted. Now others outside the country are offering bounties on the heads of Americans sniped, beheaded, etc. by Iraqi or "foreign" fighters/terrorists.
Let me finish your sentence with "they overthrow and hang the bums, and make their own arrangements, like early Americans did."
Poll data: http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55
Well, I find it ironic we think staying and "surging" is going to make things better, since the poll data above shows the (relative) optimism of a couple years ago is declining, not improving.
If this "ends in success" as much as Korea (or even Vietnam did), we will be very fortunate.
Marshall
Member
Too bad you're against us. You confirmed my point of view. 1/3rd? By the way, 2/3rds is a landslide.
budney
member
Um, they are. Are you getting your news from Rush again? (Antarti covered the rest of your post, so there's nothing for me to add.)
--Len.
budney
member
To an extent that's true. The "disarming" of the American people isn't just about arms, it's about rendering them powerless in their own minds. The default reaction of most Americans is "call the police and hide."
The problem in this case is that the police were aiding and abetting the "DC snipers," for example by circulating false descriptions of them.
--Len.
budney
member
Be careful with sloppy pronouns. "Us," for example. It's a good way to give condense an argumentum ad populam into a single word, but nobody, including you, actually knows who're "us."
You probably mean "America," but of course you don't mean America really, you mean the government. And you don't really mean the government, you mean the Bush administration. You identify with them, and identify them with the country as a whole, and so you say "us."
The fact is you ain't one of "them" either: you believe in lofty goals like liberating the Iraqis, and the administration doesn't. I don't pretend to know what George Bush's motivations for invading Iraq were, but he never gave a damn about "liberating" anyone. He might have believed the bad intel on WMDs, or he might not--I don't know. But at this point his every thought and action is about his own self-interest, now and in the future. The "surge" is a way to saddle the next President with the consequences of his failed policies; as long as withdrawal doesn't happen on his watch, he can blame everything on the next guy. And funneling billions to cronies at Halliburton, Kellogg and Root, etc, is good for his future, since they'll probably repay him after the fact with a pension disguised as "consulting."
Then again, it's possible he believes all the grand things he claims, which you clearly do believe. If so, he's a moron--and I don't believe he's a moron. You don't get to be President by being a moron. You get to be President by being dishonest. (Which is why, to bring it back on topic, RP doesn't really stand a chance.)
--Len.
TrybalRage
Member
Many of the Iraqi's are happy we took out Saddam. Those same people are now po'd that we didn't leave immediately afterwards.
TheOtherOne
Member
So true.budney said:
I think that is the main reason I decided shortly after the last presidential election that I'm never again going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I will keep keep voting but I prefer to give my vote to someone who actually deserves it, like Paul. I really don't care anymore if that means I'm throwing it away or inadvertently helping the more evil of the two main candidates get elected.Marshall
Member
Yes, to the point and clear. No slop, it's clear you're not "for us". Play the word however you wish, you're not part of it. It's clear to me that you have defined in your own words who're "us". You've named and included what you're against, Bush, America, the Administration & Halliburton, Kellogg and Root.
Then quit pretending, because that's all you're doing.
Again, your hatred for the man is obvious, so much so it overwhelms your emotions to the point of back handed name calling and has turned you into such a cynical person that you don't believe in lofty goals. Thank GOD America's history is filled with Presidents that had lofty goals and Presidents that didn't think like you. Thank GOD. You're scared to death of our success because of what it may mean to you and where you have allowed yourself to be positioned. Your hatred for the man has allowed him to defined you, he's made you cynical. It's obvious it hurts and obvious it scares you, it shows in your writing. I shouldn't assume that though, maybe you've always been a cynic. Regardless of which it is, I wish you the best.
Myself? Yes, I'm a moron, I believe in lofty goals and I believe we're doing the right thing. Even though I don't agree with all the ways this war has been handled, I'll keep pulling for us, not against us. Retreat is not an option.
bogie
Member
perception, campers...
The Republicans are going to nominate someone who they _perceive_ can whup Hillary. They'll iron out the weirdness later.
Welcome to the political arena.
The Republicans are going to nominate someone who they _perceive_ can whup Hillary. They'll iron out the weirdness later.
Welcome to the political arena.
Honest men always scare the hell out of dishonest people. Unfortunately, scruples have nothing to do with politics in today's climate, and I personally think Ron is our only honest candidate and it's resonating with the public. I still like RP better than any of the other talking heads. His honesty exudes quite well, I really don't care if he says things right, because it's pretty easy to tell he really cares for America, not his own agenda.
I think our founding fathers would vote for Paul, I will.
jeepmor
I think our founding fathers would vote for Paul, I will.
jeepmor
Last edited:
maasenstodt
Member
You're quite right that he comes across as more honest than most of the rest of the pack, but when some candidates can say they support the 2nd ammendment and an assault weapon ban in the same sentence, that's not too tough.
That said, I think he does care about his agenda. The difference between him and most others is that his agenda is based on constitutional principle and, just as important, it isn't paid for by wealthy special interests.
Okay, I stated that pretty poorly didn't I. I believe his agenda is worth caring for. He has an agenda for America in its purest form, the constitution and especially not the special interests as mentioned. And the medias' even seems to be scared of him. They are doing a lot of things to undermine him, but his honest demeanor, use of facts and lack of well trained fake charisma is relating well to the American people. His lack of the perfectly polished delivery is illustrating to me that he is not simply a special interest tool (spelled OIL!!!) that is so painfully evident of our current Republican administration in office. I think he's pulling the wool OFF of the peoples' eyes and I think it's working. It certainly is for me.
I see it working so well that people's true colors are coming out on this very forum. A lot of people here claiming to be true libertarians are now illustrating to me that they are LINO's. But I have no illusions on the values of my opinions. I'm not here to espouse my opinons in attempts to persuade others, simply share my point of view.
From all the other candidates we have to choose from in the GOP, I can agree that he is probably the ONLY one that will seriously undermine the liberals who really don't want to vote for Hillary.
budney
member
The current administration is against America. He's draining the treasury, weakening the military, killing the young men, and making the terrorism problem worse. If he's doing that by accident then he's stupid; if he's doing it on purpose then he's evil.
You're right, and I'm sorry. I can't stand tax-and-spend liberals. I couldn't stand the previous one, and I can't stand the current one.
--Len.
Marshall
Member
Will the real Ward Churchill please stand up.
You only confirm your lack of appreciation for what goes on over there.
That 33% isn't involved in a gentlemans disagreement.
That 33% isn't like the minority that voted for GHWB against Clinton. They aren't going to go home and say "darn, well maybe next time our guy will win"
You may want to pay attention to the polls the DoD has done on the matter (story linked from the poll page) since we can argue about who elses statistics are real all day long:
If you look at the polls, the Kurds aren't interested in the central government. That is 2/3rds of the geography and around (if not over) 40% of the population of the country. How many millions of insurgents, in the "minority" though they might be, will it take before you understand the problem?
The best line I've heard, BTW, from an Iraqi who wasn't one of the gun-toters on either side (last night on Documentary Channel):
Sounds like we're winning them over all right.
FOX News actually has a contributing writer (on the net of course) who thinks Paul is right vs. Rudy:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html
budney
member
That's not just ad hominem: it's utterly disgusting. Ward Churchill blamed the 9/11 victims. I don't blame the three thousand 9/11 victims for their deaths; and neither do I blame the tens of thousands of victims of the Iraqi occupation for their deaths.
In blaming the tens of thousands of innocent dead, you have more in common with that miserable human being than I do.
--Len.
Marshall
Member
I don't blame innocent dead. Only a fool would suggest so. Surely you're not referring to the terrorist we're fighting and killing as innocent?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
And this has drifted away freom the Big Intro...
, Art
, Art- Status
Similar threads
- Locked