(PV) GOP Would be Wise to Back Ron Paul

[Judge]

We were in Germany and Japan 9 years - against honorable armies that surrendered, laid down their arms and didn't hid behind women and children or strap bombs to them. There were some jap soldiers that held out for 40 years, refusing to believe the emperor would surrender.

This is a new type of war. It will be slower, less intensive, and longer, much longer. Do we have the stomach to win it. I know our troops do, but if we lose, it will be due in the halls of Congress, not on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by ArmyGuy45

i agree 6 years is a long time... but should there be a time frame on war?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Source

I'd like to see this one.

Frank

Google is your friend. Look it up. We have maintained our stance that Syria should remain diplomaticaly isolated until they sever ties with Hamass and Hezbolah. Even though tensions seem to be rising again between Isreal and Syria.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Powerman

When we talk about pulling out, we assume that one idea is good, and the other is bad. If that were tru it would be easy. I don't believe pulling out is a good idea. We are trying to decide which is the least crapiest idea. Pulling out and stay there both suck. Which won sucks the least is what we are talking about.

Sorry, but victory, no matter how hard earned, doesn't suck anywhere near as much as losing. If you doubt, ask D-Day vets and Viet vets.

We drew Russia into the Afganistan war.

That's a bunch of hooey. CIA aid didn't start till 1979, AFTER Russia had invaded. Reagan's directive 166, where we got earnest about supporting them, wasn't till 1985.


Now you ask should we pull out of Iraq and what will happen? Sure it could get bloody, lot's of people die. How many deaths have we caused since drawing Russia into war with Afghanistan? I don't have a crystal ball, nor can I tell you exactly what will happen if we were to pull out tommorw. However, what is painfully clear to me is that we don't have a clue what we are doing in the Middle East. We have caused our own problems. Maybe things will go South a bit if we pull out, but the point is that we should stop trying to control the ME.

Again, more hooey. We didn't draw Russia, see above, and we 'caused' our own problems by being a Christian, freedom loving nation that also supported the only democracy in the ME.

Besides Al qaeda, there is a civil war raging in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people now.

This is no civil war - this is an determined effort by AQ and the Iranians to drive us out. 85% of the population voted for this gov't. There is now a huge momentum of support for US troops - look a the Anbar movement, Didiya, Ninevah.... Also, the war is not "killing hundreds of thousands", nothing like some nice hyperbole.


The only reason that war started was because we intervened and removed the government.

A government that was the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, the largest trainer, funder and one that repeatedly shot at American troops and tried to assissinate an American President.

Al Qeada and Iraq's neigbors moved in to help get it going and to fill the power vacume. If we pull out, innocents will die. What we know is that by invading Iraq 100,000 innocents have died.

That's soooo much bunk, it's not funny. You're including the killed terrorists, AQ supporters in there, which is the vast majority... Most of the civilians killed are also by AQ... and you and Paul find a way to blame us.

So do we stay and let people keep dying, or do we get out and let people keep dying. Tough choice. We have no buisness running the ME.

We do the right thing. We support those who are willing to risk all for liberty, and we kill our sworn enemies. Iraq is the place to do both at the same time.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Dhunter55

What I meant was I disagree with your suggestion that we don't still need bases in Europe like during the Cold War. I think we still do. I don't care how many times Putin visits W's ranch. I don't trust the lil bastid.

OK. You know I am no expert either. I'm not going to agree with wholesale withdrawal all over the world because Paul thinks it is a good idea. I don't know what is an apropriate force to maintain outside our borders to maintain a deterence to other countrys, therefore protecting us.

What I am interested in is a more of a stance as Paul is discussing. I don't know what the magic numbers would be, but I am interested in taking less of a position of protecting the whole world. We should do what is necessary to protect us, and help out our allies if they need it

[eric_t12]

Judge,

have you read the 9/11 commission report?

[eagpag@suddenlink.net]

Ron Paul will never get the Republican Nomination for President. Why? I don't doubt for a minute that he is a good man but he is an extremist and that alone doesn't give him the slightest chance of becoming president.
Now as for the rest of the republicans it is too early to tell but my guess is that one of the three will win the nomination and they are................

Democrats - it will be either Clinton or Obama.

The next President of the United States will be the lady who lived in the White House for eight years.

Will I vote for her? Not no but _ _ _ _ NO! And God Help us ALL.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Judge

We do the right thing. We support those who are willing to risk all for liberty, and we kill our sworn enemies. Iraq is the place to do both at the same time.

You know, you might be a very knowledgable person. However, it is lost in your irrational ranting.

Jimmy Carter signed an order directing the CIA to conduct operations to draw Russia into war with Afgahnistan. Look it up.

You talk about victory in Iraq. What exactly is victory in Iraq. The Administration has changed it's definition about 4 times. Victory was the removal of Sadam. Remember mission accomplished? Since then they keep lessening the terms and increasing the time it will take. I you can tell me what victory in Iraq is, and how we can militarily achieve it, I'm all ears. Many Generals and 4 years has not produced one. Let's see what you got.

The rest of your party line ranting does not warrent a responce. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Powerman]

OH ya, and the GOP should back Ron Paul. That is if you don't want Hillary as your president. See above article.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Powerman

You know, you might be a very knowledgable person. However, it is lost in your irrational ranting.

Jimmy Carter signed an order directing the CIA to conduct operations to draw Russia into war with Afgahnistan. Look it up.

Again, more bunk. The order was signed in July 79, for covert propaganda against the regime the soviets had installed. There is no mention of drawing the soviets into war. The first mention of it was in 89 by Brzezinski, who, as he was prone to do, over exaggerating his contributions and genius... He couldn't handle a simple ragtag group overruning a US embassy, I seriously doubt his claim he was smart enough to handle the entire Soviet empire.

You talk about victory in Iraq. What exactly is victory in Iraq. The Administration has changed it's definition about 4 times. Victory was the removal of Sadam. Remember mission accomplished? Since then they keep lessening the terms and increasing the time it will take. I you can tell me what victory in Iraq is, and how we can militarily achieve it, I'm all ears. Many Generals and 4 years has not produced one. Let's see what you got.

What is victory? It is defeating the 4th largest army in the world in 30 days. It is killing AQ by the thousands. As I mentioned, the war against AQ is a new type, it doesn't fit historical conventions. To me, victory is killing them all and Christianizing their children.



The rest of your party line ranting does not warrent a responce. Let's just agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree.... but again you're wrong. Mine ranting is not 'party-line'. If you'll note, Paul labels himself as a republican...

[ArmyGuy45]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

BACK OUT of the islamic world, as much as possible. No more intervention of other countries' business unless it is dire need of national interest, or in response to an attack. .

so 9/11 didnt happen?