Ron Paul Correct yet again....
-
bigmanbt
Well, God has never shown me a damn thing, because he doesn't exist. I won't claim to talk to God directly, like good ole GW said he did, haha. But we'd have spared numerous American and Middle Eastern lives, saved massive amounts of money which would have kept the deficit down, and with an emphasis on a strong DEFENSE, pretty sure nothing would have happened. 2,900 civilians died in 9/11 (and it was horrible), over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since we've been there. We've had not attacks like 9/11 again, and it's not because we are fighting there, it's because we've secured our homeland better. 9/11 was a once in a century type thing.SQ_Crazies wrote:
Have you had visions from God that showed you that nothing would have happened had we not gone into the Middle East?bigmanbt wrote:
Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:jmog wrote:
If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.Footwedge wrote:
Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.
Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.
We can accomplish much more with peace than we can with war. ~Ron Paul~ We've done better with Vietnam and Korea since the wars than we ever did during the wars or shortly after. Peace works. -
Footwedge
I never said that Islamic terrorism doesn't pose a threat. But invading the Middle East has increased the threat, not reduced it. At least that is what our intelligence agencies have publicly stated. You're the one that is drinking the fruity punch.jmog wrote:
If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.Footwedge wrote:
Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.
The war started by the US in Iraq does not represent anything "conservative" at all. Nothing. True conservatives will weigh heavily options and would never, ever invade a country without doing extensive analysis and research before committing troops and hundreds of billions of dollars half way around the world.
The "ready, shoot, aim" mentality of neoconservatives flies in the face of what true conservatives believe. -
SQ_Crazies
You're totally right because what we should have done is not gone in there and allowed Iran to pull of 1930's Germany 100 times easier than they can now...and then had to go back in like Normandy once they blew up.. -
Footwedge
If you are responding to me, I have no idea what you are trying to say.SQ_Crazies wrote: You're totally right because what we should have done is not gone in there and allowed Iran to pull of 1930's Germany 100 times easier than they can now...and then had to go back in like Normandy once they blew up.. -
SQ_Crazies
Of course you don't, because like many others you don't understand the war in the Middle East. But that's fine, time will tell you all you need to know.
-
jmog
1. I didn't state one thing why they hate us.bigmanbt wrote:
Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:
Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.
2. Show me where prior to 9/11 we "occupied their land and told them what they can/can't do". If you can do that, then you have a point, if you can't then you are the one with your "eyes closed".
3. Preventative war solves nothing? You have zero proof. The middle east has been a powder keg ready to explode for years and still might into a WWIII. If the world (and the US) had got more involved with Hitler/Germany after their first attack/conquest instead of after they had taken over half of Europe, most likely WWII wouldn't have been nearly as big. -
Footwedge
Restate your babble and then I will respond in kind. I made a statement that true conservatives would never preemptively invade a country like Iraq without carefully calculating the overall benefits and the risks.... that true conservatives are highly cautious thinking people and would never implement a "shoot first ask questions later" mentality.SQ_Crazies wrote: Of course you don't, because like many others you don't understand the war in the Middle East. But that's fine, time will tell you all you need to know.
The neoconservatives, headed by scumbags William Crystal and Michael Ledeen, infested the core conservative party and values....bastardizing the principles regarding the sacredness of life in the process.
Here's a cute little phrase from yet another chickenhawk that never donned the US military uniform.
From Michael Ledeen, neocon extraordinaire....
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."
- Michael Ledeen, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen -
jmog
Coming from someone who adheres to the left wing media mantra, that is funny.BCSbunk wrote:
A country (Iraq) that folded in a couple weeks was certainly no threat at all and anyone who says they are might as well just say all countries in the world are threats then.jmog wrote:
If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.Footwedge wrote:
Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.
Afghanistan which struggles to have a central government is a threat to the US?
Yeah which mode of army navy or Air force from Afghanistan could reach the shores of the US with a serious threat?
LOL these guys will believe anything they are told to believe it is amazing.
Al Qaeda was/is a threat, if you don't believe that then stop watching Michael Moore videos and believing them as gospel. Al Qaeda was/is centered in Afghanistan with help from the Taliban.
Iraq was thought to have WMDs, not just by Bush like the left wing media would have you to believe, but by the dems in Congress as well as the UN. Everyone, at the time, thought they had them and they had even threatened to use them against allies of the US (namely Israel).
Now looking back once the war is over/won the biggest threat we can see now was the dictator Saddam and him allowing terrorism to grow inside of Iraq. However, at the time, most (even those anti-Bushers) thought Iraq had WMDs. -
Footwedge
You are unaware that the US has occupied their land? We have bases all over their land...and have occupied their land for decades. Bin Ladin stated the motives for attacking the US. This was one of the 2 primary reasons for attacking us.jmog wrote:
1. I didn't state one thing why they hate us.bigmanbt wrote:
Let me guess, they hate us because we are free, because we are different than them, they basically hate everything about us and want nothing more than to see us gone. It certainly has nothing to do with us occupying their lands and trying to tell them what they can and can't do :rolleyes:
Preventive war solves nothing, and if you haven't seen that yet you must have had your eyes closed.
2. Show me where prior to 9/11 we "occupied their land and told them what they can/can't do". If you can do that, then you have a point, if you can't then you are the one with your "eyes closed".
3. Preventative war solves nothing? You have zero proof. The middle east has been a powder keg ready to explode for years and still might into a WWIII. If the world (and the US) had got more involved with Hitler/Germany after their first attack/conquest instead of after they had taken over half of Europe, most likely WWII wouldn't have been nearly as big.
And spare me the the WWII corallary with Iraq. That is so far out in left field that it is beyond comprehension. And remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...that bin Ladin hated the secularist Saddam Hussein...that before we invaded, there were absolutly no Al Quada operatives under Saddam's jursdiction.
I cannot believe that there are still people in this country justifying that war....especially now that all the dirty laundy associated with it is all public knowledge. -
SQ_Crazies
I'm not going to argue with you, like I said, someday you will see.
-
Footwedgejmog wrote:
Iraq was thought to have WMDs, not just by Bush like the left wing media would have you to believe, but by the dems in Congress as well as the UN. Everyone, at the time, thought they had them and they had even threatened to use them against allies of the US (namely Israel).
This is absolute baloney. Look up the Office of Special Plans. Our intel did not know that Iraq had WMD's.
Inspectors on the ground confirmed this before we invaded. -
jmog
1. 100,000 is just an estimate, not a count. It is also not just civilians, it includes enemy combatants and civilians killed by Iraqi's themselves with road side bombs, etc.bigmanbt wrote:
Well, God has never shown me a damn thing, because he doesn't exist. I won't claim to talk to God directly, like good ole GW said he did, haha. But we'd have spared numerous American and Middle Eastern lives, saved massive amounts of money which would have kept the deficit down, and with an emphasis on a strong DEFENSE, pretty sure nothing would have happened. 2,900 civilians died in 9/11 (and it was horrible), over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since we've been there. We've had not attacks like 9/11 again, and it's not because we are fighting there, it's because we've secured our homeland better. 9/11 was a once in a century type thing.
We can accomplish much more with peace than we can with war. ~Ron Paul~ We've done better with Vietnam and Korea since the wars than we ever did during the wars or shortly after. Peace works.
2. One could make the argument that 100,000 Iraqi's dead is less than what would have been dead if Hussein was still in power since some estimates put his own number in his 23 years at 800,000 Iraqi's dead. -
SQ_Crazies
It's funny because Iraq DID have WMD's.
Nuke=WMD, WMD doesn't not=nuke. Sort of the like the square/rectangle thing, whatever. Either way, like I said, in due time you'll be glad we're there.
We could have obliterated that place already, literally killed everyone and had some bad pub for awhile but just like 9/11 it would have faded into the night. Now we're just sitting around there doing basically nothing? No, we're there for a big reason. You won't believe it now, so I just say wait and see. -
SQ_Crazies
Don't bother trying to convince these people that we're better for the Iraqi's than their former leader...they don't listen to things that make sense.jmog wrote:
1. 100,000 is just an estimate, not a count. It is also not just civilians, it includes enemy combatants and civilians killed by Iraqi's themselves with road side bombs, etc.bigmanbt wrote:
Well, God has never shown me a damn thing, because he doesn't exist. I won't claim to talk to God directly, like good ole GW said he did, haha. But we'd have spared numerous American and Middle Eastern lives, saved massive amounts of money which would have kept the deficit down, and with an emphasis on a strong DEFENSE, pretty sure nothing would have happened. 2,900 civilians died in 9/11 (and it was horrible), over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since we've been there. We've had not attacks like 9/11 again, and it's not because we are fighting there, it's because we've secured our homeland better. 9/11 was a once in a century type thing.
We can accomplish much more with peace than we can with war. ~Ron Paul~ We've done better with Vietnam and Korea since the wars than we ever did during the wars or shortly after. Peace works.
2. One could make the argument that 100,000 Iraqi's dead is less than what would have been dead if Hussein was still in power since some estimates put his own number in his 23 years at 800,000 Iraqi's dead. -
ptown_trojans_1
Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.SQ_Crazies wrote: It's funny because Iraq DID have WMD's.
Nuke=WMD, WMD doesn't not=nuke. Sort of the like the square/rectangle thing, whatever. Either way, like I said, in due time you'll be glad we're there.
We could have obliterated that place already, literally killed everyone and had some bad pub for awhile but just like 9/11 it would have faded into the night. Now we're just sitting around there doing basically nothing? No, we're there for a big reason. You won't believe it now, so I just say wait and see. -
jmog
Bases in their land that was given to us by each countries government.Footwedge wrote:
You are unaware that the US has occupied their land? We have bases all over their land...and have occupied their land for decades. Bin Ladin stated the motives for attacking the US. This was one of the 2 primary reasons for attacking us.
And spare me the the WWII corallary with Iraq. That is so far out in left field that it is beyond comprehension. And remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...that bin Ladin hated the secularist Saddam Hussein...that before we invaded, there were absolutly no Al Quada operatives under Saddam's jursdiction.
I cannot believe that there are still people in this country justifying that war....especially now that all the dirty laundy associated with it is all public knowledge. -
jmog
They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94. -
SQ_Crazies
Yawn.
Not going to argue. You'll all see some day and W is going to look brilliant. -
I Wear Pants
I disagree. Islamic Terrorism is a threat to people in the United States. Never was a threat to the country itself.jmog wrote:
If you don't think Afghanistan and even Iraq posed a threat to the US then you really should get off the Kool Aid.Footwedge wrote:
Remember, the conservative view encompassed a strong defense, but not until recent decades, a strong offense,
There is nothing conservative at all about initiating blood baths half way across the globe....when our country is not at risk.
Islamic Terrorism is a real threat to the US, period.
And there was never any evidence that the terrorists were coming from Iraq. So maybe you should lay off the Kool-Aid. -
ptown_trojans_1
Yes, the Scud B and Al Saddam rockets. But, there was no evidence, hard evidence, that Iraq had chemical agents to put on top of the missiles.jmog wrote:
They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.
Even then, the U.S. and Soviets decided long ago that putting chemical agents on top of rockets was a bad idea as it was not an effective military weapon. So, if Iraq had lobbed a Scud to Israel, it probably would not have killed that many people. It would be just like the first Gulf War. Then, you get into really extended deterrence issues or do you invade a country that has only killed a couple people?
What's your point? That Saddam had WMD or he was a bad dictator? Two separate arguments . Will Iraq be better in 10-15 years than it was under Saddam, yes. But, does that justify the American dead, hard to say.SQ_Crazies wrote: Yawn.
Not going to argue. You'll all see some day and W is going to look brilliant.
On another note, boy have we drifted off topic lol. -
I Wear Pants
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours " -Colin Powell February 2001jmog wrote:
They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.
"We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." -Condoleezza Rice July 2001
Iraq was not a threat to us or even its surrounding countries. -
SQ_Crazies
It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran.
-
ptown_trojans_1
So the whole reason to invade Iraq was to check Iran? Boy did we fail then. Iran has increased its influence and power in the region since 2003.SQ_Crazies wrote: It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran. -
SQ_Crazies
LOL, no...we didn't fail at all. Like I said, you'll see. I'm not going to try and convince anyone of anything but someday you'll see.ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
So the whole reason to invade Iraq was to check Iran? Boy did we fail then. Iran has increased its influence and power in the region since 2003.SQ_Crazies wrote: It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran. -
ptown_trojans_1
Whatever. You make no sense as you have no comprehension of the region or International Relations.SQ_Crazies wrote:
LOL, no...we didn't fail at all. Like I said, you'll see. I'm not going to try and convince anyone of anything but someday you'll see.ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
So the whole reason to invade Iraq was to check Iran? Boy did we fail then. Iran has increased its influence and power in the region since 2003.SQ_Crazies wrote: It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran.