Iraq War Discussion
Submitted by unknownrepublican on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 16:48I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I have to vehemently disagree with his views on Iraq.
Unfortunately, President Bush has done an absolutely horrible job of explaining things to the American people and the world, but we shouldn't let a bad salesman steer us away from a good product. We toppled one of the world's most brutal, oppressive, murderous, imperialistic, fascist dictators. That's a good thing. We are helping 25 million Iraqis set up the first democracy in their history - a democracy that they have endorsed in 3 elections with percentage turnouts greater than our elections in the USA. That's a good thing. We are fighting various Muslim extremist factions, including Al Qaeda, who want Iraq and the whole world to be ruled by a small number of fascist, Islamic clerics who will persecute women, homosexuals, and any other minorities and who will use the most horrific violence in the name of God. That's another good thing. We should be fighting these people.
If we leave Iraq now, we will simply ensure that Iraq will spiral down into one of the greatest bloodbaths in history, and the result will be the good guys (the forces of democracy, moderation, and modernity) will lose.
Please, Doctor Paul, change your mind on Iraq!
unknownrepublican
Ron Paul is RIGHT on Iraq
To all you people who think only the rural poor and minorities join the military, who think only fascist Jews can be terrorists, who think Iraq had the best dentists in the world before we invaded, who think Iraq’s neighbors didn’t feel threatened by him, who think there was a Bush ordered stand down at Tora Bora, who think Bin Laden is already dead and Bush is covering it up, who think we’re stealing all of Iraq’s oil, who think Iraq is costing us $3 billion/day, who think Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson aren’t proven liars, who think that British intelligence doesn’t still stand by their yellow cake claim, who think there was no ‘ethnic strife’ in Iraq before we invaded the first time, who think Prescott Bush had a choice about selling his shares in a NAZI company, who think... you’re all a bunch of... no. Just no. Stop latching on to every crackpot anti-Bush theory you can find on the internet. The majority of them just aren’t true. They were designed by Democrats to stir up anti-Bush sentiment.
To unknownrepublican: Saddam being a bad guy, spreading democracy, and enforcing UN resolutions are not causes for the US to go to war. The only legitimate reason was that Saddam posed a threat to the US based on evidence that Iraq had reconstituted it’s WMD program, and evidence that he was supporting Al Qaida. Whether or not the US caused that condition by previous actions was irrelevant at that point. How great a threat he posed was subject to debate. Paul didn’t think there was a threat, I happen to disagree.
Here is why Paul is still right about withdrawing.
Iraqi’s will have more appreciation for freedom if they fight for it, rather than if we give it to them. It’s just like welfare; the person who earns $1000 will have more appreciation for the money than the person who is always being given the money. Now, we have trained hundreds of thousands of troops, given them equipment and stuff, so there is no way Al-Qaida can take over the country by force. Iraqi's will only step up to take over their own security as we cut off the welfare, by stepping down. We can keep pressure on Al-Qaida in Iraq, even if we withdraw, through Ron Paul’s re-proposed Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
I doubt there will be there will be much ethnic bloodshed after we leave because the Sunni's are now severely outnumbered and no longer in control of the armed forces, the Shi'ite will be to busy rounding up Al-Qaida (who will stop entering the country since the US magnet will be gone) and the Kurds just want to be left alone.
I supported going into Iraq because I believed Saddam was backing terrorists and I thought there was a lot of evidence he had WMD’s. I still think those were moved to Syria and then Sudan. But Saddam is dead, and the CURRENT Iraqi government will never ask for them back or start supporting Al-Qaida (aside from a few rogue officials). They know we’ll be back if they do. I say our original objectives are met, we won, now let Iraq earn it’s freedom.
As late as 2005 we had plans to close 102 of our 106 bases in Iraq by this year, and we would only have a support role. The Democrats started demanding immediate withdrawl in 2006 and the Republicans got suckered and took the opposite position and started sending more troops. Now almost 70% of Americans want us out. The Republicans have 3 options if they want to win in 2008: convince a majority of Americans we should stay, withdraw and take full credit, or nominate Ron Paul. Paul has the further advantage of being able to outflank the Democrats on HillaryCare, which I have seen polls that say over half of Americans now want some form of, and he is strongly against amnesty, which has been firmly tied to the Republicans in the public’s mind thanks to McCain and Bush, but for some reason not to Democrats, and Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney have all been wishy-washy on the issue. Those three are unelectable. When Hillary is elected it will be YOUR fault for not supporting Ron Paul before the primaries when you had the chance.
Disagree on Iraq, but still like Dr. Paul
I know I said I was done posting on this topic, but since the topic Title was changed I'm off the hook...
Wow, finally a voice of reason in enoch150. I agree with almost everything you said. One of the reasons I think I can support Ron Paul is because I know that by the time he gets the nomination we'll probably already be pulling our troops out of Iraq. One thing I disagree with you on is when you say that Iraqis are not fighting for their freedom right now. That is a huge insult to the tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed by Al Qaeda in Iraq's car bombs and suicide bombs or who have had their throats slit or been summarily executed and dumped into the river for supporting the new government.
That being said, I'm glad at least there's somebody else on here that doesn't think Bush is the devil, that knows the history of this war and can see the real time-line that brought us to where we are. Unfortunately I think too many people have let the revisionists and the leftist propaganda shape their opinions. I'm no big fan of Bush. Personally, I think the guy's a moron. He made huge mistakes, diplomatically, in the lead-up to this war. But fundamentally he did the right thing and for the right reasons.
One point where I think Dr. Paul ought to walk less gently is in his talk about the causes for the 9/11 attacks. He's absolutely right when he says that it was the policies of the USA that drove so many in the Muslim world to hate us and to attack us. He shouldn't be afraid of Giuliani, he should say that right to his face. But that is exactly what I'm saying, as well. For 60 years, we supported dictators and tyrants and monarchs all over the world in the name of stability and fighting the Soviets. And that strategy worked - the Soviets are gone. BUT it created what the CIA calls "blowback". A lot of Muslims are very angry that the USA supported those oppressive governments like the Shah and the Saudi royal family and Saddam Hussein. Let's face it: we didn't care about the average Muslim citizen. We didn't care how much the average Muslim citizen suffered, as long as we were able to buy as much oil as we needed. And that is why I think Bush's policy is so significant. He has reversed that policy. If Bush was embracing the old school policy, he would have just cozied right back up to Saddam and used Saddam as a proxy to spread US control over the middle east. Now THAT would be imperialism. But Bush isn't doing that. He's encouraging the Iraqis (and Muslims throughout the middle east) to assert the power of the individual. That's what this war is about. It's about empowering the individual muslim - the theory being that dictators and monarchs are much more dangerous than the collective reasoning of millions of participating citizens.
Unfortunately, I think there is so much cynicism and paranoia and conspiratorial thinking in this country today that we often lose the ability to reason and think calmly. There is also a lot of emotion surrounding the topics of Iraq and 9/11, and to suggest that America "deserved" the 9/11 attacks in any way is deeply offensive to a lot of people. I remember going to the top of the World Trade Center with my parents and grandparents when I was a kid in the 70's, and I remember standing and watching the smoldering rubble of the WTC a few weeks after 9/11 and crying. It's emotional for me, too. But it wasn't a neo-con, zionist, military-industrial-complex conspiracy. It was the result of a long chain of events that began even before the USA existed. And if we take the time to think clearly and objectively about where we are now and where we go from here, I think that we'll see that helping 25 million Iraqis set up and firmly establish a representative government where the average citizen is empowered and the rights of minorities are reasonably protected is a wonderful thing.
And that's the kind of policy that, in the long term, will save us from any future 9/11s.
unknownrepublican
I hope we can have an intelligent conversation...
I certainly don't find many over at Newsbusters on this topic, but you're here, and maybe you're NOT who I thought you were. :)
Anyway, you seem to think Iraq is one country. Why are Sam Brownback, Joe Biden, and me (and some US military guys, it seems) wrong when we say it's actually three??
Secondly, the Soviets don't seem all that "gone" to me. They seem to be in the process of becoming an oil-power, and their air force seems to be getting frisky, too. Yeah, Putin seems like an ally at the moment on some issues, but how reliable is he in the long run??
Thirdly, I don't think he's encouraging Muslims to attack the Saudi dictatorship, but I wish they would attack those dictators, who seem more responsible for 9/11 than anything besides US government incompetence to me (no, I don't think 9/11 style incompetence took a conspiracy, sadly, but that's just me!).
Fourth, if I'm an average Muslim in a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia's, I see 0 change except for even more US militarism in the region. The US motivation seems to be all about oil-money, NOT human rights, regardless of US politicians' rhetoric. It's also bi-partisan corruption, see:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041101/klein
for details. Doesn't that look a bit shady? How come the socialist Nation is the only journalism out-there about this scandal??? This war is about one thing -- OIL. Empowering Muslims has nothing to do with it, IMO, and pretending 3 countries in the midst of a civil war with a LOT of historical scores to settle are one country is a guaranteed disaster, as we're seeing militarily right now, and we'll keep seeing it, too.
The "surge" is really whack a mole. We surged around the central capital city ("Iraq is ONE country, not three!") so the quadruple-truck-bombs moved to the north and blew up a tiny and semitolerant Muslim sect. Presumably, now US forces are trying to whack THAT mole, but the bottom line is no matter how excellent US soldiers are, and they're excellent as we all know, suicide bombers who are willing to kill children mean "rules of engagement" which preclude either effectiveness or popularity for our soldiers. Reagan saw that same thing in Lebanon, and had the courage to do the right thing when he'd made a mistake. Our soldiers are good warriors, but no soldier makes a very good cop, and that's how we're trying to use them now. It's not working.
JMR
unknownrepublican glad you support Ron Paul
Unknownrepub,
Glad you support Ron Paul, even though you disagree with him on the war.
There is no doubt, as Pat Buchanan said in the first debate, Ron Paul comes closest to a traditional conservative Republican. That is so true, all the others in the debate are so far from traditional conservative Republican values, Reagan is probably rolling in his grave -
But here is the real question, Bush has no intentions of beating Al Qaeda.
If so, he would be trying to catch or kill Bin Laden, the so called mastermind behind it all, right. Why has he just forgot about Bin Laden?
He is much more important than Iraq, there is no comparison. We won in Iraq along time ago - and don't forget as Huckabee said we broke it too.
So lets get out, and leave the peacekeeping mission to the UN or some other global group like that , thats what they do right? Our Armies are not peacekeepers, they are fighters, they fight to win, thats done, Saddam is gone. Bring in the Blue Hats or just get out.
By the way, the UN is a terrible organization
unknownrepubliCON
Am restraining myself in this forum, still, read my lips. You are a NeoCON disinformant. Your tirade could've been 'good' right after 911, but not even right before the blasphemous, despotic, irrational, criminal, deceitful, treasonous, genocist INVASION by a most powerful nation under the rule of a most stupid usurper, on another independent, sovereign, HARMLESS (to US) nation.
The only extremists in the ME are the Zionazi israeli terrorists, apartheids, tax dollar pariahs, false flag criminals of US people and army personnel, puppeteers of CONgre$$ lame ducks, and directors of the US War Department, Pentagon, and the two crazed monkeys at the Waste House.
'Al-Qaeda' was CIA spawned, now under Mossad control; Osama was a CIA asset until his death in Dec 2001, though now, post-mortem, is a scareaganda tool of Dubya the Boosh. Muslims may be driven to extremes when attacked by foreign forces, but cannot be 'fascists'. Read your dictionary. Only zionist Jews are fascists, as they are/were commies, crony capitalists, socialists, usurers, and masters of deceit.
People under the Ogre Saddam had liberty to BEAR ARMS, restricted in the 'free' US; Iraq had the best dentists in the world, but now thanks to your Commandante in Thief, they all are DU contaminated for 4.5 BILLION years. But thankfully, if you are one Dubya's mercenaries, SO ARE YOU. Enjoy the growth. And don't dare criticize a REAL American, Ron Paul. It only shows your true color, and dubious loyalty to this country.
Let us show the class of a Ron Paul
Name calling, demonizing and wasted rhetoric is no way to convince a person who found this site and is looking for debate. Even if this gentleman was here to be flame bait we should be better.
I made a pro Ron Paul blog post at redstate.com and I was treated the way this person is/was being treated here. I came away from that site with a feeling that they were a mob.
It was said that if you got one hundred Socrates' together in a room, they would be a mob.
Maybe Ron Paul IS wrong on Iraq! Listen to what this guy has to say and respond to the substance, or non-substance of his reasoning.
Here is why I believe unknownrepulican has great intentions and bad judgement. Yes, you are right that Sadaam was very bad and that he violated a cease fire, he violated UN resolutions as well. All very bad things. We could ask the question of what our role ought to be in the world. Should we force the world to be democratic by force of arms? If we should, can we? I think the answer is no on both counts.
However, let us look at this enemy that the neocons want us to cower from... We faced down a Soviet Union with thousands of deliverable nukes and won without direct war. We face a China with similar threats and they fill our happymeal toy requirments and lend us 3 billion a day to fight Iraq. Now we must fight Iran, they have no navy, army, airforce or nukes... if they get a nuke they can't deliver it... let's be brave here at home and reject the idea that we should buy our safety with our freedom.
Will Iraq fill with AlQueda when we leave Iraq? Well, consider who you get your advice from. Would you trust a broker who just lost you half of your fortune when he guarentees you the next sure thing? Maybe not... so why trust the folks who have been wrong at every turn? Ron Paul has been right, when it comes to foriegn policy he is E.F. Hutton.
Please read my blog for a more detailed look at this question www.tmiub.blogspot.com
Since unknownrepublican sounds just a little bit familiar to me
(I could be wrong -- I often am!) perhaps some of you would like to set foot in the den of Neocons I sometimes call home and try to make sense to them, usually without much result.
Requirements include no profanity, and it's a conservative blog, but I've often linked to the DailyPaul site from there, and never (until now) linked to there from here. Like all these boards, it's a good idea to read and NOT post for a few days just to see how things are done, who's who, etc.
Also, lately, things have been so-stupid over there due to the Larry Craig Waterclosetgate affair that I've temporarily given up for a few days, but I'll be back. This Onion-link is an example of what one could, with a profanity-warning, get away with (I did) but it's about the most-shocking I've gone, and I only did it because it's so-funny. :)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34118 but don't click if you're easily-offended!!
Anyway, the blog in question is www.newsbusters.org or a direct-link to some sample-stupidity can be found at:
http://newsbusters.org/forums/latest-news/second-largest-str...
(but that's just a minor forum-post by me, and I have yet to go back and debate 'em all, but I'm pretty-well outnumbered there like this guy's outnumbered here.) These guys believe in the Iraq war almost as a religion, and they're convinced the news media is engaged in an evil plot to lose Dubya's otherwise-wonderful war. (My thesis over there, since before Dr. Paul ran, is that the media is full of antilibertarian bias, so you can imagine how we all get along!)
Anyway, it's time for those of you who are capable of reasonably polite (PLEASE, no profanity even if the other side uses it, which they will if you're winning, I know from experience!) and good at debate to head over there and have some fun. The NB blog just got mentioned on "Morning Joe" this morning, in fact. :)
JMR
I was a Neocon like you!
We cannot police the whole world and besides why are we spreading Democracy and not the Republic message.
Maybe because a Republic is much harder to control if you want a one world government? The Founding fathers spoke of this very subject. Go look it up.
I was a 30 year Neocon and thanks be to Rudy G. when he jumped Ron Paul I went back and truly listened to Dr. Paul.
No More Neocon for me. Our troops are being used as pawns by our Globalist elites. Why did we benchmark the reason to go into Iraq based on UN resolutions that were ignored. We should have gone to the Constitution to decide what to do. Why abandon what has worked for so long.
The Constitution is what keeps this stuff from happening. We need to get back to the basics before we go chasing after another country.Wake Up!!!
Go Ron Paul !
unknownrepublican
I give You a list of brutal, oppressive, murderous, imperialistic, fascist dictators-
the US administations in the past got very well with!
Amin, Idi (Uganda: 1971-1979)
Arévalo, Marco (Guatemala: 1985-1991)
Bakr, Ahmad (Iraq: 1968-1979)
Banzer Suarez, Hugo (Bolivia: 1971-1978)
Bao Dai (Vietnam: 1949-1955)
Barre, Siad (Somalia: 1979-1991)
Batista, Fulgencio (Cuba: 1940-44/1952-1959)
Betancourt Bello, Rumulo (Venezuela: 1959-1964)
Bokassa, Jean-Bedel (Central African Republic: 1966-1976)
Botha, P.W. (South Africa: 1978-1989)
Branco, Humberto (Brazil: 1964-1966)
Carmona, Pedro (Venezuela: 2002)
Cedras, Raoul (Haiti: 1991)
Chamoun, Camille (Lebanon: 1952-1958)
Chiang Kai-shek (China: 1928-1949/Taiwan: 1949-1975)
Christiani, Alfredo (El Salvador: 1989-1994)
Cordova, Roberto (Honduras: 1981-1985)
Diaz, Porfirio (Mexico: 1876-1911)
Diem, Ngo Dinh (S. Vietnam: 1955-1963)
Duvalier, Francois (Haiti: 1957-1971)
Duvalier, Jean Claude (Haiti: 1971-1986)
Franco, Francisco (Spain: 1937-1975)
Habre, Hissen (Chad: 1982-1990);
Kabila, Laurent (CDR: 1997-1998)
Khan, Ayub (Pakistan: 1958-1969)
Lon Nol (Cambodia: 1970-1975)
Marcos, Ferdinand (Philippines: 1965-1986)
Martinez, Maximiliano (El Salvador: 1931-1944)
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire: 1965-1997)
Moi, Daniel (Kenya: 1978-2002)
Montt, Efrain (Guatemala: 1982-1983)
Noriega, Manuel (Panama: 1983-1989)
Odria, Manuel (Peru: 1948-1956)
Pahlevi , Rezi (Iran: 1953-1979)
Papadopoulos, George (Greece: 1967-1973)
Pastrana, Andres (Colombia: 1998-2002)
Pinilla, Gustavo (Colombia: 1953-1957)
Pinochet, Augusto (Chile: 1973-1990)
Pol Pot (Cambodia: 1975-1998)
Selassie, Halie (Ethiopia: 1941-1974)
Salazar, Antonio (Portugal: 1932-1968)
Seaga, Edward (Jamaica: 1980-1989)
Smith, Ian (Rhodesia: 1965-1979)
Somoza Sr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1936-1956)
Somoza Jr., Anastasio (Nicaragua: 1963-1979)
Stroessner, Alfredo (Paraguay: 1954-1989)
Suharto, General (Indonesia: 1966-1999)
Trujillo, Rafael (Dominican Republic: 1930-1960)
Tubman, William (Liberia: 1944-1971)
Uribe, Alvaro (Colombia: 2002)
Videla, Jorge (Argentina: 1976-1981)
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed (Pakistan: 1977-1988)
There is only one difference between THEM and SADDAM:
The last one had (and still has) a lot of oil!!!
You Are Wrong
Every single reason you cited to support intervention in Iraq is simply not the responsibility of The United States government.
Iraq is(was) a sovereign nation and posed no threat to the U.S.
How Saddam acted within his own borders was his business.
If his neighbors felt threatened by him, they would've done something about it.
The sooner we leave, the faster they can sort out there differences and set up there country the way they want without our interference.
"The only thing Necessary for evil to Triumph, is For enough Good Men to do nothing."---Edmond Burke
Regardless of the dictators we create
It doesn't matter that Saddam was a dictator who we did support and created at one time. The point is the US should not be the world's policemen or nation builders.
Americans for America first.
Nor should we be creating the future dictators that we will end up fighting one day.
We need to obey our laws and not get ourselves entangled in foreign messes.
We can't even afford to pay for the wars were in now.
Ron Paul is right to ask the question, should we keep blindly following the people who lied to us about Iraq again and again.
Not me, As for me and my house we will not go down the road of insanity to save face for dumb@$$e$ in The White House, especially when they can't owe up to their mistakes and their answer to our enemies is war and continued failed policies.
Really people it's truly a no-brainer.
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
Forum Topics
I think that people bringing other ideas to this, a pro Ron Paul site, is good in that it encourages debate, and hopefully, a friendly discourse. Everyone is entitled to their views....That being said, calling the topic "Ron Paul is Wrong on Iraq" smacks of something more than an attempt to create a discourse. Since the title shows up right on the front of the web-site, that casts Ron Paul is a bad light to any new viewers right off the bat. Wouldn't a title such as "War in Iraq" or "Views on Iraq" been more appropriate? I think it would have encouraged just as much dialogue as your title....When people start seemingly pro Ron Paul topics, they don't usual say things to the effect of "Ron Paul is right on _____" or "Ron Paul is my idol" or any other over embellished positive. I don't know if the site would remove the topic, but I'd imagine that the many other topics that occur throughout the day (and night) would quickly move it off the main screen.
...hook, line, and sinker
You may think that we’ve had bad salesmen explaining the war to the American people, but there are still many out there who have swallowed the info – hook, line, and sinker.
Iraq
I really don't give a damn about Iraq other than our troops being sacrificed. I'm interested in what Ron Paul would do for this country. Enough about Iraq!
Neocons have to make election about fear
However they tried that in 06 and lost big time.
NeoCons are like a broken LP record skipping over and over. Eventually we the people are going to get up and turn off the turntable.
I'm sick of it too.
Believe me the neocons are just beginning to pump the fear, before this election to try to create hysteria.
With our borders still unsecure I will blame the NEOCONS big time if America is attacked again.
Davy C Rockett
http://liberty-central.blogspot.com
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com
http://cystic-fibrosis-symptom.com
http://medical-definitions.com
Dr. Paul voted to go into
Dr. Paul voted to go into Afanistan after Osama Bin-Laden, and if we had stuck to that mission instead of backing off at Tora Bora and turning into Iraq, Osama most likely would be dead or captured, Al-Quida would have been hold up in Tora Bora or across the border in Pakistan. But that wasn't Bushs plan.
Now the media propaganda machine is harping on Iran. Are you for going into Iran? Have you heard of the Shanghi Cooperation Organization. Russia, China, Turkministan, Iran and others are members and will not look to kindly on us if we go into Iran. There are other nations that covet Middle Eastern Oil and they will fight us to keep us from having control.. You ready for WWIII.
We need to talk to people, trade with people, be friends with people.
Remember the Peace Corps. Thats the last time I can remember the word Peace being used for a gov. agency.
Whats wrong with Peace?
What wer're trying to do with this campaign is to get a President elected who's mentality of Peace will direct the foreign policy in that direction.
Also, in a true free trade environment oil will be available on the open market.
We've stirred up a big mess over there and need to come home and get our Republic back in order.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams
How much is the life of one American soldier worth?
That's my question for you. A "democracy" based on Islamic law. I guess you suppose it will be the same "democracy" they have in Afghanistan. Don't forget that the World Bank is pumping billions of money into Afghanistan and after Iraq gets somewhat stablilized they will do the same there. Then they will train their bankers to open "banks" that will "fall in line" with the World Bank just like they are now doing in Afghanistan. Sovereignity will be owed to the international banks. Do you not see the these big boys could only "get in" by war? Iran will be next. Oil is needed just as the heroin profits in Afghanistan. Those countries (including ours) which do not tow the "company" line will one way or another. Are you really that naive to think that after we set up a "democracy" they will somehow come to love America? My friend they will love the money that is poured in from the bankers.
And again how much is one American soldier worth?
UNDECLARED WARS ARE NOT TO BE WON !!!!!
Just as Dr. Paul has stated so many times, "Undeclared wars are not to be won."
We got rid of Hussein and found no weapons of mass destruction but yet we stay and fight not for a democracy but a lousy barrel of OIL.
All I can say in parroting Dr. Paul " JUST COME HOME."
DEBATE TOMMORROW NIGHT FELLOW SPAMMERS ON FAUX !!!!!!
"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "
Meetup groups
-unknownrepublican
One function of the meetup groups should be to help each other understand Ron Paul's position on issues. I don't know if you are a member of one or not, but that may be a good venue for you to discuss this with others. There are also segments of some videos, where he explains his thinking on this topic in more detail. Perhaps you have not seen them.
As for me, I consider Ron Paul's position to be the right one, when all the factors in the big picture are considered.
Iraq is Not a "Good Product"
"We shouldn't let a bad salesman (Bush) steer us away from a good product."
-unknownrepublican
I submit Bush is a fantastic salesman. You're completely convinced war is a "good product" that should be "sold" to every american citizen. You don't see government propaganda before we invade countries with no army, navy or airforce. You're doing Gods work by annihilating helpless people in third world countries.
At least 1,807 Iraqi civilians died in August, an increase from July. You're going to be told the surge is working next week and you'll believe it. Hes such an outstanding salesman you're unaware of what you're buying.
70%
Dear Unknown,
70% of the public is against nation building in Iraq. It is no longer a war. No pro-war republican candidate can win against a democrat. Not Fred. Not Rudy. Not McCain. The public will pick a democrat over a pro-war republican guaranteed.
If you want Hillary to be your next president then DON'T support Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who can beat Hillary.
My Final Post on the Topic
I'm not sure what a "troll" is, but the reason I'm on here is because I'm interested in Ron Paul's stances, but disturbed by his stance on Iraq.
Let me just say that I understand that the USA shouldn't go around the world toppling dictators and installing democratic governments all the time. But this time was different. Here was a dictator that we had just fought a war with. He had signed a cease-fire with us and then violated it for 12 years. He was shooting at our planes every week. He had made 2 attempts, in 1980 and 1990, to conquer and control the significant percentages of the world's oil supply and thus was trying to put his hands on the throat of the world's economy. It has always been the policy of the USA not to control the world's oil supply, but to PREVENT any one entity from controlling it - be it the Nazis, the USSR, revolutionary Iran, or Saddam Hussein. And the bottom line is that nobody really knew what Saddam Hussein was doing in there regarding WMDs. Nobody on this web site could have told me with 100% certainty that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs before we went in. We can't use evidence acquired by this war as evidence that we should not have gone to war.
Regardless, I believe that the Iraqi people are good people, and they are fighting for their lives against people who will commit unspeakable acts of terror at the drop of a hat. It is wrong to look down on them. After all, that is what we did for so long. Our policy for 60 years was to not care about the average Arab or Muslim citizen and to support ruthless monarchs and dictators in the name of stability and keeping the oil flowing. But that was wrong. We created Saddam under that policy and it was our responsibility to destroy him and fix what we had broken. That is what we are doing.
Yes, we are losing troops, but the Iraqi people are dying for their dream of democracy in far greater numbers than Americans are. And I believe that we should stay and fight against fascism, extremism, and theocracy.
I don't like George Bush, and I would have done many things differently, but I wish a candidate like Ron Paul would stand up for what is right. A free, stable Iraq with a representative government is a good cause. That is what we are fighting for, and the people we are fighting against hate representative governments. They believe that only a few Muslim scholars should rule over everybody, everywhere with an iron fist.
I'm against that.
And I wish Ron Paul was, too.
unknownrepublican
I don't apologize.
I don't apologize. War is stupid. It's a stupid waste of human intellect and compassion. It is the lowest of base. It robs so many, on so many levels, for so long. I've been to Iraq under the American flag, have you?
I apologize too
I was rude and it was uncalled for. I apologize too.
Iraq is a puppet government. It's about oil. Nothing else. The oil sharing legislation that they haven't passed? Its purpose is to give U.S. and U.K. oil majors 40-year contracts on Iraqi fields that gives them 50% of the revenue. Thou shalt not steal. Iraqis do not need U.S. help to develop or operate their fields and don't need to surrender these assets. Their fields are suitable collateral for any amount of loans for such purpose. Here's an idea - let's just BUY their oil. Oil goes on the market and it trades many places.
It doesn't matter whether people in another country, or their government, hate us. Who cares?
I'm not in the least interested in fighting for Iraqi democracy when it is financially ruinous and is at the cost also of our American freedoms. The U.S. is BROKE! The Iraq conflict alone is costing $3 billion per day and its being financed by the Chinese, Japanese and Saudis. Oh great. Focus on America! You are an American and these wars are imperiling your freedoms. You just can't see it. Read the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the Real ID Act. It's all in plain sight.
I apologize
For calling you a troll (someone who starts arguments on purpose) If you are indeed sincere. Ron Paul supporters are subjected to all kinds of mistreatment, and perhaps become a little sensitive.
IN 2002, I thought the same way you did regarding the war. I realize now that it was fear, generated by 911 that made me feel that way. The thing that made me change was talking to Iraqi war veterans. I teach at a University, and so had ample opportunity to talk to these guys. Many Veterans joined for the educational benefits, and thus come from families with only meager income. I saw their sacrifice, their dedication, and the love of family and country that they showed in keeping their obligations. Another friend in her early forties, was forced to work two Jobs, and be mother and father while her husband fufilled his National Guard obligations. More and more, It became clear that the war was requiring great sacrifice from a only few individuals, mostly from the rural poor. The tipping point was having to deal with a young man, a former ranger, racked with PTSD, thinking of suicide. And what for ?
I learned not to fear the islamists. Their third world nations, and 13th century philosopies are no threat to us. I believe The success of the 911 attacks were flukes, and evidence backs this up. Other attacks in Spain and England were very minor. Any look at real numbers shows that since 911, near 100,000 Americans were murdered by other Americans, and 300,000 died in traffic accidents. Why then fear the Islamists, they have been wholly ineffective - they haven't even tried to attack the US.
Could they carry out a serious WMD attack ? Unlikely, despite what main stream media says. In any case, the place to defend against that is at our borders, and I would guess that You and Dr. Paul would agree on the need to improve border security, and address the illegal immigration problem. Certainly, bringing freight in through Mexico to the trans texas corridor is not a good for our national security.
Just because Saddam shot at our planes is not a reason
UnknownRep
All of the reasons you give are great points. But the bottom line is none of them are reasons to go to war. Oil, Democracy, shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone, the UN, none of those are any reason to go to war.
Iraq did not attack us and Iraq never had the ability to do so.
Thanks for your perspective
While I'm sure the majority of Ron Paul supporters (including myself) would fervently disagree with unknownrepublican, no one can deny that he or she is sincere in their present beliefs. I think it takes courage to go "against the grain" and subject oneself to opposing beliefs. I would hope that people here could show a little tolerance and civility and that we wouldn't try to enforce the censorship of opposing views.
What I find interesting is that this poster still supports and respects Congressman Paul even though there is disagreement on this vital issue. Hopefully, unknownrepublican--if he or she is open-minded--will be able to digest a bit more of the anti-war argument and see that it is a much saner position. If you're reading this, unknown, check out the Richard Clarke video on 60 minutes.
I think it's also imperative to recognize that it is exactly because he is anti-war, that Ron Paul has the best chance to win against the Democrat Party nominee in 2008.
Follow me on Twitter!
unknown republican
no way. I think unknownrepublican is a shill. he / she sounds like a do-gooder evangelist trying to infiltrate the camp and "reach" someone with a presumedly influential message. the anti-war platform is a huge issue in this presidential bid and many politicians are trying to justify staying there while they promise we'll leave. "oh, the poor Iraqis want freedom." now that the US has killed over one million innocent people, far more than the Butcher of Baghdad in his heydey - remember how the benevolent people demanded Sadam be publicly and gruesomely executed and how many Iraqis volunteered for the job - anyway, I doubt the Iraqis are eager for any more of our freedom fighting. I think we should leave immediately.
I think Ron Paul is right when he quotes Reagan on his experience in Lebanon and how it led him to a wise decision: "stay out of the Middle East and its irrational politics." This idea of taming "the savages" is condescending and arrogant. True freedom is allowing the Iraqis to determine their own course.
There is a great video on youtube about Ron Paul's comments during the GOP debates about blowback. It is called 'Is Ron Paul Serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 Coup."
Our leaders are misleading the American public about the war and their ideas of ending it. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the 'Friedman Unit' or 'F U' has entered the lexicon. Most politicians will at least admit we never should have gone to Iraq. This war needs to end, and I will make no apologies for saying so.
Canada Loves Ron Paul
Canada Loves Ron Paul
Can someone please...
point out the portion of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence where it states that its our duty as a nation to export our way of life or form of government to other nations at the cost of American soldiers lives!!! It is the responsibility of a nations own people to correct the problems they find within their own government or nation. If our forefathers had used this train of thought they would still be waiting for France, Spain or one of the other powers of the day to save them.
Declaration of Independence is pretty clear on this
Def84 - You're exactly right about this. Check out what the Declaration of Independence says:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
To me, the key consideration here is that overthrowing an abusive government is, as the Founding Fathers so wisely recognized, the right of the people and of no other party. When the people of a nation have had enough of their government, they have the right to alter or abolish it.
Why have US forces in Iraq not been celebrated with parades of flowers or "greeted as liberators," as so famously predicted by Dick Cheney? It is simply because, no mater how despotic the government of Saddam Hussein was, the Iraqi people had not yet reached the point where they were willing to overthrow it? Without the spark of revolution within the country, any external force would necessarily be considered a hostile invader.
_____________________
Don't blame me! I voted for Ron Paul!