Maybe I'm a bit off.

[THEBIRD]

I haven't posted in a while but have been reading here recently. some of what posters say make some sense and others are living in a dreamland.

I am now officially supporting Ron Paul, both with my money and my time. Many of the people on here years ago used to be his cheerleader when his name made it in the news. Now the same folks (you know who you are) are calling him a wacko. Shame.

We all know he would never raise taxes.
He would never vote for a gun control measure or regulation.
He will never increase "feel good" welfare spending.
He will close our borders and severly punish those who employ illegals.

Just that alone should make you ponder what wonderful changes could befall our country should he be elected.

That's it....its all I'm going to say. I'm supporting Paul because he is a conservative in the 1st order. I will happily be joining the tens of thousands who donate $100 on www.teaparty07.com (http://www.teaparty07.com) next month.

The alternative, is unacceptable.

http://www.missouricarry.com/rudy.jpg

[buckeyepete]

To: THEBIRD,

I just deposited $100 in my savings account. Not the best choice as far as returns go, but a better bet as far as future gains go.

[DesertFox]

Contribute to whom you will; it's your dough.

But Ron Paul's a phony. Electing him would be almost as big a disaster as electing Hillary.

[Aaron]

Contribute to whom you will; it's your dough.

But Ron Paul's a phony. Electing him would be almost as big a disaster as electing Hillary.

His record in congress says otherwise.

I may be a big supporter of this war effort against extremism, but other than that Ron Paul would have my immediate support.

Edit-http://www.blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?ID=2308
http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/
http://duggmirror.com/2008_us_elections/Military_supports_Ron_Paul_2/
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept'-of-paultards/us-military-overwhelmingly-supports--ron-paul-278891.php
http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/124/127/

Looks like you're not the only one who supports the guy, Bird.

[THEBIRD]

DesertFox, you were one of the folks I remember who used to sing Pauls praises years ago whenever his name made it in the media for this or that.

My how you have changed.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I couldn't possibly vote for a candidate who advocates surrendering to the terrorists, as Ron Paul does.

[Rhino]

DesertFox, you were one of the folks I remember who used to sing Pauls praises years ago whenever his name made it in the media for this or that.

My how you have changed.That would be before Paul decided to surrender to terrorists.

[THEBIRD]

That would be before Paul decided to surrender to terrorists.

Yeah Rhino....I distinctly remember him saying he would surrender to terrorist.:rolleyes:

More than likely, Paul would pull out the troops and then carpet bomb those muslim governments beyond all recognition....something Bush has been too big of a weak a$$ed pansy to do.

Problem solved and the message to NOT **** with America properly conveyed.

Call it what you want...but it ain't surrender. :flame:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yeah Rhino....I distinctly remember him saying he would surrender to terrorist.:rolleyes:

More than likely, Paul would pull out the troops and then carpet bomb those muslim governments beyond all recognition....something Bush has been too big of a weak a$$ed pansy to do.

Problem solved and the message to NOT **** with America properly conveyed.

Call it what you want...but it ain't surrender. :flame:
:rotflmbo: You're joking , of course. :rotflmbo:

Ron Paul claims - falsely - that World War IV - the War on Terror - is an illegal war, so after he would order the immediate withdrawal of our troops, he wouldn't even consider taking any other action, much less carpet bombing those Muslim governments beyond all recognition. In other words, Ron Paul advocates and has repeatedly voted for surrendering to the terrorists. Since he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war, he is committing treason under the definition contained in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Not only is my candidate for president, Fred Thompson, right on every issue on which Ron Paul is right, but he's also right on every issue on which Ron Paul is wrong - e.g., Ron Paul wants us to lose World War IV, while Fred Thompson wants us to win.

[Madbomber]

Not only is my candidate for president, Fred Thompson, right on every issue on which Ron Paul is right, but he's also right on every issue on which Ron Paul is wrong - e.g., Ron Paul wants us to lose World War IV, while Fred Thompson wants us to win.


Do you realize that you loose credibility every time you say "World War 4" There hasnt even been a World War 3. every time I see World War 4 I think here comes some crazy guy.

MB

[Naturalized-Texan]

Do you realize that you loose credibility every time you say "World War 4" There hasnt even been a World War 3. every time I see World War 4 I think here comes some crazy guy.

MB
The Cold War was World War III. I guess you must have flunked history.

The War on Terror is truly a World War and since we have already won World War I, World War II, and World War III, this war MUST be World War IV.

[Lazarus]

...We all know he would never raise taxes.
He would never vote for a gun control measure or regulation.
He will never increase "feel good" welfare spending.
He will close our borders and severly punish those who employ illegals....No, we all don't KNOW he would NEVER do this or that... I don't know it - You don't know it...

You WANT TO TO BELIEVE it, but you don't KNOW it will happen... No one this side of Jesus Christ can make such a statement and make it be so just because he speaks it...

Its time to grow up BIRD... This is a politician... And the very best of them cannot live up to the promises they make on the campaign trail... Presidents aren't Kings or Emperors - Their word isn't magically translated into law... They are compelled by the Constitution to work with Congress and the Courts...

And there lies the congame that Ron Paul is playing...

If anyone here on this board thinks this or any candidate for President will faithfully achieve every single promise he makes during the campaign, that person is languishing in a state of purpetual adolescence, and seriously needs a jolt of reality...

[Madbomber]

The Cold War was World War III. I guess you must have flunked history.

The War on Terror is truly a World War and since we have already won World War I, World War II, and World War III, this war MUST be World War IV.


No the cold war wasnt a war at all. The "war on terror" does not qualify as a global conflict. Just becuase you want make something sound like it is more than it is doesnt mean that that is so. Millions of people died in the first and second World Wars , To pretend that this is on the same level as a world war is assinine.

MB

[Naturalized-Texan]

No the cold war wasnt a war at all. The "war on terror" does not qualify as a global conflict. Just becuase you want make something sound like it is more than it is doesnt mean that that is so. Millions of people died in the first and second World Wars , To pretend that this is on the same level as a world war is assinine.

MB
How can you live with yourself being so ignorant of history? Millions of people were killed during World War III - the Cold War - and you claim that it wasn't a war at all.

World War IV - the War on Terror - is clearly a global war and we are fighting terrorism all over the world, not just in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops fighting terrorists in Yemen, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa, Uganda, Sudan, etc., etc. Since it's clear that you rely on the MSM for your information, it's no wonder that you are ignorant of the global nature of World War IV. For you, if the MSM doesn't report it, it isn't happening.

[Lazarus]

..Ron Paul claims that the War on Terror is an illegal war...Ya know I've never understood what that is... An Illegal War... That's a term that the Leftists love to toss around, but in fact, I really can't conceive of what such a thing could be...

Is there some WAR Court that decides which wars are legal and which are not? Do African revolutionaries fill out a form and submit it to the War Court for a license before conducting destruction, rape, and general mayhem in the name of their home team? Please educate me as to how this legalization process is conducted... I always thought sovereign nations just exercised their sovereignty at the point of a gun - the old fashioned way...:rolleyes:

When applied to this particular situation, The President went to all manner of lengths to inform and cajole everyone from Congress to the UN to give him authorization to commit troops into combat... In the case of the UN, it was a foolish waste of time, totally unnecessary, and lost him a critical strategic advantage over Saddam...

In the case of Congress, Congress had all the info that the President had - ALL OF IT... In fact most of the members of the Senate and the House had been briefed on the activities of Saddam Hussein for many more years than George Bush had been... And many (yes including those on the Left) were already calling for Saddam's demise...

As I recall, Congressman PAUL voted to authorize Mr Bush to go to war against Saddam Hussein... If this is not a true statement, would someone please correct me...! And he had exactly, precisely the same intelligence that Mr Bush had - To claim otherwise is to commit a bald-faced lie just to pander to adolescent voters..!

Now the Pauliens all want to pretend that PRESIDENT Ron Paul will have access to some secret ACCURATE intelligence that was hidden from all previous Presidents and Congresses, and will wield absolute righteousness from on high...

You Pauliens are being conned on a massive scale... But thankfully you will never know how much because Ron Paul is never going to get near the Whitehouse...

[garlicguy]

Hi Laz. No one this side of Jesus Christ can make such a statement and make it be so just because he speaks it...


Maybe you missed this:


While it is good to consider all viewpoints, the fact is that Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP candidate...

Since Rudy is a credible candidate, he merits attention, but again, injecting him into threads that are not specifically about him is becoming excessive.

Or maybe that street only runs one way?

Just trying to be helpful, ya' know. :D

gg:cowboy:

[...I says as I steps quickly behind a large boulder...]

[Lazarus]

Hi Laz.


Maybe you missed this:


Or maybe that street only runs one way?

Just trying to be helpful, ya' know. :D

gg:cowboy:

[...I says as I steps quickly behind a large boulder...]What's your point, Garlic... This IS in fact a Ron Paul thread, is it not? You're not communicating clearly - Try again...

[jayson]

Ron Paul claims - falsely - that World War IV - the War on Terror - is an illegal war, so after he would order the immediate withdrawal of our troops, he wouldn't even consider taking any other action, much less carpet bombing those Muslim governments beyond all recognition. In other words, Ron Paul advocates and has repeatedly voted for surrendering to the terrorists. Since he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a time of war, he is committing treason under the definition contained in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

The War on Terror is truly a World War and since we have already won World War I, World War II, and World War III, this war MUST be World War IV.Not only is my candidate for president, Fred Thompson, right on every issue on which Ron Paul is right, but he's also right on every issue on which Ron Paul is wrong - e.g., Ron Paul wants us to lose World War IV, while Fred Thompson wants us to win.NT, I would happily give more weight to your words if I didn't hear them repeated word-for-word so often. It's almost as if you have a word document that you bring up for every issue, then proceed to cut and paste that response.

The truth is, we were never in a World War III and we are not in a World War IV. To suggest otherwise is pure crazy talk.

Millions never died from the Cold War... millions died because Communism is a failed government mechanism that doesn't work and will never work. Nor was the Cold War even a war. We fired no shots and bombed no enemies. We had small wars by proxy and we spied on each other, sure... but that's about the extent of it. If you are trying to call THAT WWIII then I honestly don't know what to think...

[The_Elucidator]

I haven't posted in a while but have been reading here recently. some of what posters say make some sense and others are living in a dreamland.

I am now officially supporting Ron Paul, both with my money and my time. Many of the people on here years ago used to be his cheerleader when his name made it in the news. Now the same folks (you know who you are) are calling him a wacko. Shame.

We all know he would never raise taxes.
He would never vote for a gun control measure or regulation.
He will never increase "feel good" welfare spending.
He will close our borders and severly punish those who employ illegals.

Just that alone should make you ponder what wonderful changes could befall our country should he be elected.

That's it....its all I'm going to say. I'm supporting Paul because he is a conservative in the 1st order. I will happily be joining the tens of thousands who donate $100 on www.teaparty07.com (http://www.teaparty07.com) next month.

The alternative, is unacceptable.

http://www.missouricarry.com/rudy.jpg

Where is the picture of Hitlery?

I am now officially supporting Ron Paul

That's great but in case you haven't noticed the board is "officially" supporting Fred Thompson.

[garlicguy]

What's your point, Garlic... This IS in fact a Ron Paul thread, is it not? You're not communicating clearly - Try again...

Well.... let's see:

You said: "NO ONE this side of Jesus Christ could make such a statement and make it so just because he speaks it..."

I merely provided the closest counter-example I could find.

(Please note, the tone was light-hearted. The smilies you know...)

As for the rest: I know this thread is about Uncle Ron. And I will own the communication problem. My expansive and expendable wit and humor are sometimes lost when interjected inappropriately as in my last post in this thread. Sorry. :sad:

[Naturalized-Texan]

As I recall, Congressman PAUL voted to authorize Mr Bush to go to war against Saddam Hussein... If this is not a true statement, would someone please correct me...! And he had exactly, precisely the same intelligence that Mr Bush had - To claim otherwise is to commit a bald-faced lie just to pander to adolescent voters..!
Yes, Ron Paul voted to declare war on terrorism on September 14, 2001. The only dissenting vote came from some female Commie-lib from San Francisco (not Nancy Pelosi).

Now the Pauliens all want to pretend that PRESIDENT Ron Paul will have access to some secret ACCURATE intelligence that was hidden from all previous Presidents and Congresses, and will wield absolute righteousness from on high...

You Pauliens are being conned on a massive scale... But thankfully you will never know how much because Ron Paul is never going to get near the Whitehouse...
Yep. They are being lie to and they aren't well-informed enough to know it.

[Lazarus]

Well.... let's see:

You said: "NO ONE this side of Jesus Christ could make such a statement and make it so just because he speaks it..."

I merely provided the closest counter-example I could find.

(Please note, the tone was light-hearted. The smilies you know...)Oh... Referring to Doc? Ok, lighthearted jab acknowledged... :D

As for the rest: I know this thread is about Uncle Ron. And I will own the communication problem. My expansive and expendable wit and humor are sometimes lost when interjected inappropriately as in my last post in this thread. Sorry. :sad:If you really want to make it up to me, you'll put your original avatar of the garlic dude back up...:biggrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

jayson: Just when I had some hope for you, you went and proved your ignorance of the history of the Cold War - World War III.

You and Madbomber badly need some history lessons. There are dozens of books out there about the history of World War III and World War IV and I've read many of them. When I have some more time I'll list them, but for starters, I'd recommend World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism by Norman Podhoretz, Reagan's War by Peter Schweizer, Shadow War by Richard Miniter, and Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror by Richard Miniter. (BTW, Ron Paul spouts most of those 22 media myths on the campaign trail)

After you read those books, you will begin to be informed enough to talk intelligently about World War III and World War IV.

[garlicguy]

Oh... Referring to Doc? Ok, lighthearted jab acknowledged... :D

If you really want to make it up to me, you'll put your original avatar of the garlic dude back up...:biggrin:

Your wish is my command. I like it better this way myself.

:thumb:

gg

[Rhino]

Yeah Rhino....I distinctly remember him saying he would surrender to terrorist.:rolleyes:So do I.

More than likely, Paul would pull out the troops and then carpet bomb those muslim governments beyond all recognition....something Bush has been too big of a weak a$$ed pansy to do.

Problem solved and the message to NOT **** with America properly conveyed.Funny, that isn't what he's been saying at all.

Call it what you want...but it ain't surrender. :flame:Yes it is.

[Lazarus]

Your wish is my command. I like it better this way myself.

:thumb:

ggThere's hope for you yet... :biggrin:

[PrezLeefun]

The Bird... I understand you want to defend the guy you support.... God knows I do that all the time for various folks.

But the man's head is not where it needs to be for running a country especially in the middle of a war.

Ron Paul is Mr. White flag. I distinctly remember him at a debate at least a month and a half ago declaring himself the anti- war candidate. And everything he said about Iraq has only inferred that he will have the USA pull down its boxers and be spanked by terrorists. Not

"... pull out the troops and then carpet bomb those muslim governments beyond all recognition....something Bush has been too big of a weak a$$ed pansy to do."

Now I admit I dont know about RP's background but if posters here have changed their minds about the man it must have been for a good reason. I would be slow to mark any of our regulars as being flippant in any way.

I also think it is lousy that you would come on here and imply that everyone is being a hypocrite for changing their minds about a man because his current policy doesnt suit their beliefs.

[Lazarus]

Ya know Ron Paul isn't the only politician who changed suits and went from a solid conservative to the dark side... Those of us who are old enough remember when Senator Al Gore was one of the staunchest hawks in the Senate...

My own pastor, who resides in Houston, and is just slightly to the right of George Washington, at one time hailed Ron Paul as one of the very best conservative men in Congress... Somewhere along the line THAT Ron Paul left the building and this new incarnation appeared on the scene...

I believe it is good that Ron Paul is openly declaring his opinions and policies in plain view of the voters of his district... It forces them to re-assess his position as their Congressional representative...

I have a question for the Pauliens: Does Ron Paul consider himself to be a Republican? Will he remain loyal to the party when he doesn't win this nomination, or will he run off on a third party tangent after he loses this election? Will he in fact try to campaign to hold his seat in Congress as a Republican?

[jayson]

jayson: Just when I had some hope for you, you went and proved your ignorance of the history of the Cold War - World War III.

I will get a book list going on Amazon for those you mentioned. However, I will not read anything by Norman Podhoretz, who is the same man who said this:

In a new interview, Podhoretz was asked to comment on the possible fallout of the military strikes he advocates. “Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

Somehow, I don't think America's best interests are in high regards with Podhoretz.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I have a question for the Pauliens: Does Ron Paul consider himself to be a Republican? Will he remain loyal to the party when he doesn't win this nomination, or will he run off on a third party tangent after he loses this election? Will he in fact try to campaign to hold his seat in Congress as a Republican?
The only way that Ron Paul will support the Republican nominee is if he is that nominee.

He has at least one strong candidate (http://www.chrispeden.org/) running against him for his seat in Congress. I heard recently from a local conservative talk show host that the polls don't look good for him to retain his seat in Congress. His constituents are patriots who strongly support the troops AND their mission and they correctly view Ron Paul as unpatriotic.

[Naturalized-Texan]

In a new interview, Podhoretz was asked to comment on the possible fallout of the military strikes he advocates. “Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

Somehow, I don't think America's best interests are in high regards with Podhoretz.
Are you sure that was from Norman Podhoretz or was it from his son, John? It sure doesn't sound like something Norman would say. However, I do agree that we will soon have no choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons program out of existence.

BTW, From what you have been posting, you badly need to read World War IV to overcome the misinformation you are getting about the War on Terror - World War IV.

[Maggie_T]

Yeah Rhino....I distinctly remember him saying he would surrender to terrorist.:rolleyes:

Not in so many words, but, yes, he said that.

More than likely, Paul would pull out the troops and then carpet bomb those muslim governments beyond all recognition ...

*S N O R T*

Uh-huh, and I will win the lottery ... twice. Bird, you can believe anything Ron Paul says, but that does NOT mean you can come here and abuse us for not agreeing with you.

Ron Paul is a cut-&-runner, which is why he is rather popular with all those who parrot the lefty "illegal war" mantra.

Call it what you want...but it ain't surrender. :flame:

Very well. We'll call it 'cave in' then. Better?

And now you can indulge in chastizing me for not believing what Ron Paul says. :rolleyes:

[garlicguy]

There's hope for you yet... :biggrin:

And indeed for all.

Not for the feint of heart... Late breaking news. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/nh.gop.poll/index.html)

[Lazarus]

And indeed for all.

Not for the feint of heart... Late breaking news. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/nh.gop.poll/index.html)THE Conservative candidate is slipping in New Hampshire... And THIS is news?

Really, now, Garlic..............:biggrin:

Wait till the Deep South And Midwest primaries happen - All the numbers are gonna change significantly...

I know the MSM gets all orgasmic over New Hampshire and Iowa, but in truth all they are are the appetizers... There are 50 states in this nation and each one has voters... And as I understand, Mr Thompson is polling in No 2 Position nationwide... In the end, the nationwide vote is going to determine the nominees...

[Lazarus]

...He has at least one strong candidate (http://www.chrispeden.org/) running against him for his seat in Congress. I heard recently from a local conservative talk show host that the polls don't look good for him to retain his seat in Congress. His constituents are patriots who strongly support the troops AND their mission and they correctly view Ron Paul as unpatriotic.If this is the actual fact, then I predict we'll see Mr Paul indulge his ego and run as a 3rd party candidate... And he will gather in all the young, impressionable anti-war, conspiracy theorists... So much the better... They never were on the Right side of the fence anyway... His ultimate effect will be to rob votes from the Dems...

And IF Mr Paul runs as a third party candidate, one wonders what the individual Pauliens here will decide to do... They all claim to be conservatives - one and all... One wonders where their votes will go...

[Naturalized-Texan]

If this is the actual fact, then I predict we'll see Mr Paul indulge his ego and run as a 3rd party candidate... And he will gather in all the young, impressionable anti-war, conspiracy theorists... So much the better... They never were on the Right side of the fence anyway... His ultimate effect will be to rob votes from the Dems...

And IF Mr Paul runs as a third party candidate, one wonders what the individual Pauliens here will decide to do... They all claim to be conservatives - one and all... One wonders where their votes will go...
If both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader run as 3rd & 4th party candidates, they will end up in competition for 2 different leftist fringe groups - the hate-America left for Paul; the enviroNazis for Nader.

[jayson]

Are you sure that was from Norman Podhoretz or was it from his son, John? It sure doesn't sound like something Norman would say.

Here's the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGa9Ejs4_e4

[Lazarus]

If both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader run as 3rd & 4th party candidates, they will end up in competition for 2 different leftist fringe groups - the hate-America left for Paul; the enviroNazis for Nader.Sounds better everytime I hear it... :D

[MarlinsFan]

If both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader run as 3rd & 4th party candidates, they will end up in competition for 2 different leftist fringe groups - the hate-America left for Paul; the enviroNazis for Nader.

The hate-America left is still voting for Hitlery Clinton.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Here's the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGa9Ejs4_e4
After watching the video I see that you quoted him out of context. He immediately went on to accurately state that many in the Middle East and Europe would secretly applaud such bombing. I agree wholeheartedly with all of his statements in the proper context. His analyses are brilliant, as usual! :claps::claps::claps::claps:

With your out of context quote you remind me of Hitlery's Media matters quoting Rush Limbaugh out of context. Shame on you!

[Naturalized-Texan]

The hate-America left is still voting for Hitlery Clinton.
If she gets the nomination, she will backtrack on surrendering to the terrorists and the hate-America left will switch to Paul.

[jayson]

After watching the video I see that you quoted him out of context. He immediately went on to accurately state that many in the Middle East and Europe would secretly applaud such bombing. I agree wholeheartedly with all of his statements in the proper context. His analyses are brilliant, as usual!

So you are saying that when he "prays we bomb Iran" and that it will undoubtedly unleash a wave of anti-Americanism the likes of which we have never seen yet, that that is a GOOD thing? One country in the middle east will be applauding us alright, and that is Israel.

Do you remember when Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor? It turned Saddam's nuclear race from an idea to an obsession. It sped up his nuclear program post-bombing, while making Israel look like the aggressors to the entire region.

God help us if we bomb Iran. That's all I will say.

[Madbomber]

I have a question for the Pauliens: Does Ron Paul consider himself to be a Republican? Will he remain loyal to the party when he doesn't win this nomination, or will he run off on a third party tangent after he loses this election? Will he in fact try to campaign to hold his seat in Congress as a Republican?


Yes, Ron Paul is a republican circa pre 1988. This new bastardized idea of a Repulican party I find myself in is not what it used to be. Maybe he is just stuck in the past.


MB

[Madbomber]

And IF Mr Paul runs as a third party candidate, one wonders what the individual Pauliens here will decide to do... They all claim to be conservatives - one and all... One wonders where their votes will go...


I guess Ill have no choince and vote for the conservative, rather than the Liberal and Liberal light, and vote for Ron Paul naturally.

[Naturalized-Texan]

So you are saying that when he "prays we bomb Iran" and that it will undoubtedly unleash a wave of anti-Americanism the likes of which we have never seen yet, that that is a GOOD thing? One country in the middle east will be applauding us alright, and that is Israel.
Once again you egregiously quote him out of context. That is reprehensible. However, I don't give a diddly squat about world opinion, and neither should you. All I care about is the safety and security of the United States and so should you. If it takes bombing Iran's nuclear capability to preserve the safety and security of the United States, then I'm all for it and so should you be.

Do you remember when Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor? It turned Saddam's nuclear race from an idea to an obsession. It sped up his nuclear program post-bombing, while making Israel look like the aggressors to the entire region.

God help us if we bomb Iran. That's all I will say.
You just made the case for winning World War IV, no matter where it takes us, no matter how long it takes.

God help us if we DON'T bomb Iran to destroy it's nuclear capability before they can use nuclear weapons against us.

[THEBIRD]

And IF Mr Paul runs as a third party candidate, one wonders what the individual Pauliens here will decide to do... They all claim to be conservatives - one and all... One wonders where their votes will go...


If Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him and so will millions of other conservatives who will not vote for Rudy. I won't vote for a globablist pig anymore. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have voted for Bush this last time either. I wanted a conservative cowboy and instead got a globalist care bear.


Not going to do it again.

Real conservatives will not vote for Rudy. For those of you thinking that Thompson has a chance...you're living in a dreamworld. Paul may not have a chance either but if he runs third party and draws enough votes away from Rudy to put Hillary in the WH, it will send a clear message to the GOP and that liberal piece of sh*t Martinez that we won't vote for RINO's.

AS a gun owner, I'm voting for Ron Paul. As a Christian, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

The lesser of two evils will never again get my vote.

[jayson]

However, I don't give a diddly squat about world opinion, and neither should you.

I care about world opinion because they are our neighbors... and God knows there is nothing worse than having a neighbor that doesn't like you.

All I care about is the safety and security of the United States and so should you.

I do every waking minute of the day. That's why I advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and trying to talk things out before resorting to killing. It's the morally right way and it is the Christian way.

If it takes bombing Iran's nuclear capability to preserve the safety and security of the United States, then I'm all for it and so should you be.

If I actually thought it would do more good than bad, I would be for it. You bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and you will only strengthen their resolve to build nukes, while making a whole region of people finally have a greater target than themselves. You want to rally anti-American sentiment as fast as possible, go through with military options. This isn't just a population's opinion of the US... you would be ingraining those same sentiments in several whole generations of Iranian and Muslim kids, who will only grow up to hate us.

You just made the case for winning World War IV, no matter where it takes us, no matter how long it takes.

Despite the fact that our dollar will be worthless when we are finished if we keep spending the way we are... if we even ever manage to finish? The WoT has now cost the American taxpayers $1,600,000,000,000 and we haven't even scratched the surface of the terrorist dilemma. How many lives do we have to go through and how many dollars do we have spend to conquer terrorism? Add to the fact that wars like these are not wars of attrition and are nearly if not impossible to win. Look at the Russians and Chechnya, they have no moral scruples and even THEY haven't been able to beat down the rebel uprising for years now.

God help us if we DON'T bomb Iran to destroy it's nuclear capability before they can use nuclear weapons against us.

But they won't, as I have already said before. We live with a nuclear North Korea, India, China, and even Pakistan. I really don't think adding another to the pile is going to cause such pandemonium as we are being told.

[Rhino]

Paul may not have a chance either but if he runs third party and draws enough votes away from Rudy to put Hillary in the WH, it will send a clear message to the GOP and that liberal piece of sh*t Martinez that we won't vote for RINO's.I don't think Paul would have any effect whatsoever, but you just outlined my reasons for not voting for Rudy if he wins the nomination. The GOP desperately needs to get that message.

[Aaron]

If Paul runs third party, I'll vote for him and so will millions of other conservatives who will not vote for Rudy. I won't vote for a globablist pig anymore. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't have voted for Bush this last time either. I wanted a conservative cowboy and instead got a globalist care bear.


Not going to do it again.

Real conservatives will not vote for Rudy. For those of you thinking that Thompson has a chance...you're living in a dreamworld. Paul may not have a chance either but if he runs third party and draws enough votes away from Rudy to put Hillary in the WH, it will send a clear message to the GOP and that liberal piece of sh*t Martinez that we won't vote for RINO's.

AS a gun owner, I'm voting for Ron Paul. As a Christian, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

The lesser of two evils will never again get my vote.

Completely agree. I am no longer thinking my dream candidate will win the primaries, unfortunetely. It is unfortunate because I think he has qualities that most of the conservatives running do not have.

If only Gingrich would run.

[Madbomber]

Completely agree. I am no longer thinking my dream candidate will win the primaries, unfortunetely. It is unfortunate because I think he has qualities that most of the conservatives running do not have.

If only Gingrich would run.

I could get behind that. Ive always liked Newt.

[THEBIRD]

I don't think Paul would have any effect whatsoever, but you just outlined my reasons for not voting for Rudy if he wins the nomination. The GOP desperately needs to get that message.

None whatsoever??? You don't raise that kind of money and have no effect whatsoever.

The biggest part of the reason I'm backing Paul is because he has that ability to send that message to the GOP. They need a good licking. He is going to draw much of the conservative base....and yes some liberal fringe groups as well but mostly ardent Christian gun owners who will never vote for Rudy.

We can wait and see.

[The_Elucidator]

For those of you thinking that Thompson has a chance...you're living in a dreamworld.

Care to explain yourself???

[TeenageRepublican]

For those of you thinking that Thompson has a chance...you're living in a dreamworld.

Thompson has more of a chance than that lunatic Ron Paul does. He's one of the best two canidates, I think, in the GOP. Tancredo is the second, he doesn't have any chances of winning. But, he's an excellent conservative and he has the guts to get the job done. Those are qualities I want in a republican.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I care about world opinion because they are our neighbors... and God knows there is nothing worse than having a neighbor that doesn't like you.
But when our enemies, the terrorists, are out to kill us, we have no choice but to take all necessary measures to protect the American people no matter what other nations think. I suppose you would rather turn over the responsibility for protecting the American people to the UN.

I do every waking minute of the day. That's why I advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy and trying to talk things out before resorting to killing. It's the morally right way and it is the Christian way.
So you're saying that you'd be willing to just sit back and let our enemies kill us all. Thanks for making that clear. It wouldn't be very Christian of you to do do nothing to stop our enemies from slaughtering millions, if not tens of millions, of innocent American men, women. and children. You must have a death wish.

If I actually thought it would do more good than bad, I would be for it. You bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and you will only strengthen their resolve to build nukes, while making a whole region of people finally have a greater target than themselves. You want to rally anti-American sentiment as fast as possible, go through with military options. This isn't just a population's opinion of the US... you would be ingraining those same sentiments in several whole generations of Iranian and Muslim kids, who will only grow up to hate us.
That's about the nuttiest statement I have ever seen. It's no wonder you want a traitor to be our president.

Despite the fact that our dollar will be worthless when we are finished if we keep spending the way we are... if we even ever manage to finish? The WoT has now cost the American taxpayers $1,600,000,000,000 and we haven't even scratched the surface of the terrorist dilemma. How many lives do we have to go through and how many dollars do we have spend to conquer terrorism? Add to the fact that wars like these are not wars of attrition and are nearly if not impossible to win. Look at the Russians and Chechnya, they have no moral scruples and even THEY haven't been able to beat down the rebel uprising for years now.
Again, you obviously don't care a diddly squat if millions or tens of millions of Americans are slaughtered by the terrorists. You just want to take the cowards way out and surrender.

But they won't, as I have already said before. We live with a nuclear North Korea, India, China, and even Pakistan. I really don't think adding another to the pile is going to cause such pandemonium as we are being told.
You'd rather surrender than fight. I'm glad you made that clear.

[Aaron]

Texan, not that I don't agree with you about the terrorists, but I think we are in the wrong war at the right time, unfortunetely. I would much rather have Saddam in power, who was a secularist (not a true Muslim by any stance of the word) than the current regime of Shi'ites. If you didn't know, as I'm sure others don't, the difference between the Shi'ites and the Sunni's is a small but large one. Shi'ites believe that only successors and relatives of Muhammid can become ruler, and that government should be infused between Muslim law (Sharia Law) and politics. Sunni's believe neither one, that Islam should be practiced in the home and that anyone who is of pure Muslim faith can become ruler.

I'd rather have the Sunni backed government anyday, I don't care how oppressive they are. North Korea's government is oppressive, I don't see us invading them. I can name countless African countries with oppressive dictators.

Oppression is not the point. I don't care about these people to be quite honest, they need to fight for themselves and eliminate oppressive governments, just as countless European countries have in the past.

What I do care about is allowing these Shi'ites to control governments. We have it in Iran, and look at the cluster fukc going on over there right now. We have a nut in office who believes in destroying every non-Muslim. I believe Iraq, with a Shi'ite backed government, will quickly turn in this direction once we leave. We are wasting our time with them. It seems as though our government doesn't learn from history.

What we need to do is eradicate Shi'ite Islam. They are the perpetrators of terrorism, and they want to see all of us who don't believe in their religion dead. Either that, or paying heavy, oppressive taxes.

If I agree with one thing on Ron Paul the most, it is that Iraq is pointless. Our men and women deserve better than Iraq, where the only thing being accomplished is that we are creating a bigger mess than before.

What I disagree with him on is that he just wants to quit after Iraq, that the Iranian problem will go away if we just hold our ears and scream LA LA LA LA LALALLALALAA!!!!!! They will not go away, they will continue to develop weapons, and at some point in the near future, within the next two decades, I believe they will try to destroy our ally Israel. I believe this because their leader has expressed his desire to accomplish this. I believe this because I believe extremist Islam is a big threat in our world. And I believe this because I believe history has a tendency to repeat itself, and everything that can go wrong will.

We are facing a danger. I don't think the danger will be so much to us, as it will be for our ally Israel. We can, by beefing up our own borders, and making our own country more secure, avoid terrorist activity. What we can't do with someone weak on international defense, is prevent our allies from being attacked.

[Madbomber]

Thompson has more of a chance than that lunatic Ron Paul does. He's one of the best two canidates, I think, in the GOP. Tancredo is the second, he doesn't have any chances of winning. But, he's an excellent conservative and he has the guts to get the job done. Those are qualities I want in a republican.


Fred is a good guy and all. He just doesnt seem to want it all that bad. I mean he wont go on O'Reilly and thats the most friendly show to his possition you can get. If he had to stay in Iraq and was willing to cut enough out of the federal budget to make us have a surplus rather than a deficit Id vote for him. but thats a bit of a stretch.


MB

[Rhino]

None whatsoever??? You don't raise that kind of money and have no effect whatsoever.Maybe if you're buying votes, but money doesn't simply translate into votes. Paul might have some miniscule effect, but nothing that would really affect the outcome. Far more likely is that many conservatives simply won't vote.

He is going to draw much of the conservative base....and yes some liberal fringe groups as well but mostly ardent Christian gun owners who will never vote for Rudy.I wouldn't vote for either one, and I fit that voter description.

We can wait and see.Yep.

[Rhino]

Fred is a good guy and all. He just doesnt seem to want it all that bad. I mean he wont go on O'Reilly and thats the most friendly show to his possition you can get.Who says he won't? Has every candidate been on every show, even every one that supports them? Not even close. Fred has never refused to go on The Factor. He probably just hasn't had the time. Jeri has been on it though, so it's not like they have something against the show. O'Reilly isn't exactly the quintessential conservative anyway. I disagree with him on several issues, though I agree with him on most, and find him very entertaining. I think an appearance there would be good for Fred, but I'm getting tired of people falsely claiming that he has refused to go on the show. That simply is a lie.

[Madbomber]

Who says he won't? Has every candidate been on every show, even every one that supports them? Not even close. Fred has never refused to go on The Factor. He probably just hasn't had the time. Jeri has been on it though, so it's not like they have something against the show. O'Reilly isn't exactly the quintessential conservative anyway. I disagree with him on several issues, though I agree with him on most, and find him very entertaining. I think an appearance there would be good for Fred, but I'm getting tired of people falsely claiming that he has refused to go on the show. That simply is a lie.


Well Fox has been calling him out all afternoon, even had his wife on. He will probably show up now though. The thing is that if you have a chance at free publicity you jump at it. That he hasnt jumped at it is somewhat telling.

Have to agree with you on O'Reilly though, he was good in the begining but Ive gotten the feeling that he has become really full of himself over the past year or so.

MB

[Rhino]

You only jump at a chance if you have the time and opportunity to. Presidential candidates typically have very little of both. I'd be happy to see it though.

[Madbomber]

What else has he been doing though? I donno. Havent seen him much though. (But the MSM could be giving him the cold shoulder too)

[Rhino]

Beats me. No candidate gives out their entire schedule. And as you note, it may well be more a matter of media coverage rather than the level of activity.

[TeenageRepublican]

Fred is a good guy and all. He just doesnt seem to want it all that bad. I mean he wont go on O'Reilly and thats the most friendly show to his possition you can get. If he had to stay in Iraq and was willing to cut enough out of the federal budget to make us have a surplus rather than a deficit Id vote for him. but thats a bit of a stretch.


MB

Well, this might go in to a thread drift, but oh well. I think Hannity's the nicest Conservative talkshow host. Wasn't O'Reilly the one that told one of the people he was interviewing to shut up? Hannity is a lot more nicer and you can really tell that he has a good character.

[Madbomber]

Well, this might go in to a thread drift, but oh well. I think Hannity's the nicest Conservative talkshow host. Wasn't O'Reilly the one that told one of the people he was interviewing to shut up? Hannity is a lot more nicer and you can really tell that he has a good character.


Yah Hannity is good too. I doubt O'reilly would give Fred much of a hard time though. I was just saying that O'reilly has been letting his ego go to his head lately, he was much better in his earlier years IMHO.

[TeenageRepublican]

Yah Hannity is good too. I doubt O'reilly would give Fred much of a hard time though. I was just saying that O'reilly has been letting his ego go to his head lately, he was much better in his earlier years IMHO.

Well, sorry, I wouldn't have an opinion about O'Reilly's earlier years for obvious reasons. I like the local talkshow hosts here. Gunny Bob is a good one. But, nationally, my favorite three have to be Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage. Savage is insane, but in a fun conservative way. One of my favorite lines of his is: "SHUT UP YOU LIBERAL SCUM!"

[jayson]

Savage is insane, but in a fun conservative way. One of my favorite lines of his is: "SHUT UP YOU LIBERAL SCUM!"

I love when he goes off on those yelling tangents... you are usually so glued to what he is saying you find yourself practically screaming out with him. Fun radio host.

[Madbomber]

I must be missing out. Dont get much talk radio down here.

[TeenageRepublican]

I love when he goes off on those yelling tangents... you are usually so glued to what he is saying you find yourself practically screaming out with him. Fun radio host.

Best Show Ever: Hillary Clinton vs. Michael Savage :munch::overkill:

[TeenageRepublican]

Madbomber, here's Savage's website:
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

[Madbomber]

Ill check it out, but Illl be honest my blood pressure is too high just from coming here. LOL

[Seabee]

Some interesting facts about Paul on a link I found. I apologize for the length, but the information is very interesting and worth reading if you were not totally aware of Ru-Paul's contirbution and fund raising tactics.


At first, I assumed, and had even written, that Ron Paul’s financial support was coming from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Then I was corrected by former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric Dondero, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live.

In an interview with Dondero, he emphatically complained; “Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”

Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”

These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.


As I have stated over and over, Ron Paul is no Libertarian and he is no Conservative.


Where Is All That Money Coming From?

Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans.
Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms. But it turns out that he has very little support from mainstream Libertarians either. As Dondero pointed out, “Ron Paul is only attracting support from the leftwing side of the libertarian spectrum, virtually none of whom are Republicans.”

According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at www.opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/), Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008). Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=9MYKD&txtState=(all states)&txtEmploy=google&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N), with the exception of Ron Paul.
Other tech giants like Microsoft and Verizon top his donors list as well.

Among Ron Paul’s top donor zip codes (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/geog.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008) are of course parts of Texas, but also heavily liberal districts in Chicago (60614), San Francisco (94117), more than 80% of which supports Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, and Los Angeles – Long Beach, which is his second largest donor area after Dallas.

Love this quote towards the end of the OP-ED.

There’s really no need to write another word about Ron Paul. If you can know all of these facts, follow the money and the links provided for their campaign tactics and still support him, you’re no Republican, much less a conservative or constitutionalist.

Link to full story if you are interested:

http://www.therant.us/staff/williams/11122007.htm

[The_Elucidator]

I must be missing out. Dont get much talk radio down here.

Hell?

[Lazarus]

Hell?:rotflmbo::roar::biglaugh:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Texan, not that I don't agree with you about the terrorists, but I think we are in the wrong war at the right time, unfortunetely. I would much rather have Saddam in power, who was a secularist (not a true Muslim by any stance of the word) than the current regime of Shi'ites. If you didn't know, as I'm sure others don't, the difference between the Shi'ites and the Sunni's is a small but large one. Shi'ites believe that only successors and relatives of Muhammid can become ruler, and that government should be infused between Muslim law (Sharia Law) and politics. Sunni's believe neither one, that Islam should be practiced in the home and that anyone who is of pure Muslim faith can become ruler.

I'd rather have the Sunni backed government anyday, I don't care how oppressive they are. North Korea's government is oppressive, I don't see us invading them. I can name countless African countries with oppressive dictators.
Why am I not surprised that you would rather have Saddam in power? After all, he harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists, and there is powerful circumstantial evidence that at least some of the 9/11 al Qaeda terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, about 25 miles south of Baghdad. The head of the Saddam's intelligence agency was present at the planning meeting in the Philippines when the final plans for the 9/11 attacks were formulated. In addition, according to the 9/11 Commission, there was cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda dating back to at least 1993.

[Jack_Savage]

Some interesting facts about Paul on a link I found. I apologize for the length, but the information is very interesting and worth reading if you were not totally aware of Ru-Paul's contirbution and fund raising tactics.



As I have stated over and over, Ron Paul is no Libertarian and he is no Conservative.



Love this quote towards the end of the OP-ED.



Link to full story if you are interested:

http://www.therant.us/staff/williams/11122007.htm


I knew it was bad, just didn't know it was this bad. Wow. Ron Paul is a hired Coward. Paid to put on the yellow stripe down his back.

[Madbomber]

Hell?


Well since I dont live near you it cant be hell can it.

MB

[Aaron]

Why am I not surprised that you would rather have Saddam in power? After all, he harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda terrorists, and there is powerful circumstantial evidence that at least some of the 9/11 al Qaeda terrorists were trained at Salman Pak, about 25 miles south of Baghdad. The head of the Saddam's intelligence agency was present at the planning meeting in the Philippines when the final plans for the 9/11 attacks were formulated. In addition, according to the 9/11 Commission, there was cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda dating back to at least 1993.

If you will provide proof for this statement, I will gladly retract my opinions on Saddam being better off in power. However, you think we are better off with fundamentalist Muslims in power?

Again, you have to look at who we put into power. Secularists are better than fundamentalists, any day of the week. The regimes in Iran and Syria are fundamentalists. Those in some of our Arab ally countries are secularists, like Egypt.

I SUPPORT the ongoing war on terror. I don't think it will be over for decades. You have my word on that. Islamo-extremism is the greatest threat to world peace today.

[Jack_Savage]

If you will provide proof for this statement, I will gladly retract my opinions on Saddam being better off in power. However, you think we are better off with fundamentalist Muslims in power?

Again, you have to look at who we put into power. Secularists are better than fundamentalists, any day of the week. The regimes in Iran and Syria are fundamentalists. Those in some of our Arab ally countries are secularists, like Egypt.

I SUPPORT the ongoing war on terror. I don't think it will be over for decades. You have my word on that. Islamo-extremism is the greatest threat to world peace today.


Your head is filled to the brim with so many dichotomy's, your going to burst a blood vessel sorting it out.

[Madbomber]

Some interesting facts about Paul on a link I found. I apologize for the length, but the information is very interesting and worth reading if you were not totally aware of Ru-Paul's contirbution and fund raising tactics.



According to your own source Ron Paul only got $10,500 from businesses. 10,500 from google at most out of $8,229,811. Yah hes really over a barrel to them.:claps:


Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/pacind.asp))
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/pie.asp?type=s&dat1=8229811&dat2=10799&dat3=0&dat4=0&dat5=27843 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend1.GIFIndividual contributions
$8,229,811
100%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend2.GIFPAC contributions
$10,799
0%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend3.GIFCandidate self-financing
$0
0%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend4.GIFFederal Funds
$0
0%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend5.GIFOther
$27,843
0%
PAC Contribution Breakdown:
(How to read this chart / methodology (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bli.asp))
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/pie.asp?type=p&dat1=10500&dat2=0&dat3=3153 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend1.GIFBusiness
$10,500
77%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend2.GIFLabor
$0
0%
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/img/legend3.GIFIdeological/Single Issue
$3,153
23%



Look at all those individual contributors though. 99+%. Also, Its not surprizing that he would get a lot of donations from Texas, New Mexico, Arazona, and California considering his stance on illegal immigrants and closing the borbers as those are the states most affected.

Does Ron Paul get donations from Democrats? Yes he does. His message resonates with all stripes. His message isnt the traditional us against them. Its about getting America back on the right track, and that interests a wide array of people who have the capacity to think logically.


MB

[Maggie_T]

I would much rather have Saddam in power ...

What the ...?! :eek:

Oh, well of course. You're not the one who got shredded (literally), raped, tortured, killed, etc., by Saddam and his unspeakable thugs and sons. Neither was your family, I may add. Including the baby.

I'm sorry, Aaron, but that is the stupidest, most selfish, neo-colonialist, arrogant thing I have ever heard. I thought only liberals could say a thing like that.

It would've been nice if you'd taken a moment to think about the people who suffered under Saddam's brutal, terrifying dictatorship, instead of just speculating about Shi'ites and the rest.


Good grief.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If you will provide proof for this statement, I will gladly retract my opinions on Saddam being better off in power. However, you think we are better off with fundamentalist Muslims in power?
I realize that you are a relative newcomer, so you couldn't know that I've posted such proof here at least a dozen times. However, here it is again:

Please read The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered AMERICA by Stephen F. Hayes. It started me thinking about some history of the past 7 or 8 years.

First a little history lesson:

In 1998, when Bill Clinton requested and received authorization from Congress to invade Iraq, Richard Clarke built the case for the invasion on two main points:

1) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the United States.

2) There was evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to before the first WTC bombing. (Note: Richard Clarke must have forgotten about that evidence when he wrote in his book, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.")

Unfortunately, Clinton never acted, thanks to Monica, hence the 9/11 attacks.

The Iraq operation of the War on Terrorism:

As Stephen Hayes points out, President Bush made a three-part case for the Iraq operation:

1) Saddam Hussein's brutality against his fellow Iraqis;

2) Saddam's failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction;

3) Iraq's connections with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

There was no controversy about the first two parts. Everyone in the world agreed that Saddam had been slaughtering the Iraqi people and everyone in the world, including virtually every intelligence agency in the world, knew that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Which brings me to an aside: Hans Blix declared in his final report to the UN that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN Resolution 1441 because Saddam had not declared his weapons of mass destruction and that he had not provided proof that he had destroyed them.

Here is an interesting fact that I had forgotten about until Stephen Hayes reminded me: Until the very last minute before the Iraq operation actually began, Saddam could have stopped the invasion by merely complying with UN Resolution 1441. Why didn't he? I'm sure that Saddam thought about that a lot in his tiny cell before he was executed.

More about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection:

However, there was controversy about the third part above - whether there were connections between Iraq and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda despite the fact that Clinton had built the case for those connections in 1998. It's important to note that prior to the Iraq operation NO ONE ever claimed that Iraq and al Qaeda collaborated on the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

However we are now seeing evidence, documented by Stephen Hayes, that there may very well have been collaboration between the Iraq Intelligence Service (IIS) and the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11.

Lt. Col. Ahmed Hikmat Shakir of IIS was assigned by the Iraq Embassy as a greeter at the Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia, airport. In January 2000, Shakir escorted Khalid al Mihdhar, one of the 9/11 "pilots" (American Airlines Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon), through Customs and then accompanied him to a three-day 9/11 planning meeting at a condominium owned by Yazid Sufaat, an American educated al Qaeda terrorist. After the meeting, Mihdhar flew to Bangkok and eventually to Los Angeles. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(For more details, see The Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp))

Recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report both confirmed that there were Iraq-al Qaeda connections dating back to before the first WTC bombing.

Case Closed Part 2 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2)

And then there is the alleged contact between lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. The reporting on those links suggests not one meeting, but as many as four. What's more, the [DOD] memo [dated October 27, 2003] reveals potential financing of Atta's activities by Iraqi intelligence.

The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office.

And the commentary:

CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information.


FYI, here are some additional links to articles by Stephen Hayes and others:

Case Closed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)

The Missing Link (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/339finwc.asp)

More Connections (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp)

The 9/11 Commission and the Connection (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/327igxby.asp)

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp)

Saddam's Files: New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133)

[Aaron]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe trading in one enemy for another is a positive thing. I am not saying Saddam didn't deserve to hang. I watched the video, I, like many others, laughed at the miserable and weak way he died.

But again, it comes down to WHO we put INTO power, not who we take out. That is the problem in Iraq.

I am not saying Saddam wasn't a bastard, he was. But in all honesty, I see an alliance forming between Shi'ite backed Iraq and Shi'ite backed Iran. It is only natural that two countries with similar interests bond together. And in this case, we have an even bigger problem than we had before.

[Madbomber]

I reread your story Seebee and this is what stood out to me most:

I hate wasting this much press time on Ron Paul. But the Paul campaign is becoming a real threat to the Republican primary process and if allowed to continue, he will take votes away from the most conservative Republican candidates in the party, not the most liberal. This is bad for the party and the country.


If Ron Paul is a liberal crackpot how exactly is it that he will garner the support of the *most conservative* republicans insted of the most liberal.


MB

[Aaron]

I realize that you are a relative newcomer, so you couldn't know that I've posted such proof here at least a dozen times. However, here it is again:

Okay, I believe you. And I retract my statements. I never really looked much into Saddam's role as a terrorist threat, because he was a secular leader. But it is blind to say he wasn't involved. Crooked people are always involved in crooked activities.

I think it is too late to look back, we need to look at how we can fix things in Iraq. And then we need to take preventive steps with Iran. Iran with the bomb is the greatest threat to international stability that we will ever face.

And THAT, is why I don't support Ron Paul. :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Okay, I believe you. And I retract my statements. I never really looked much into Saddam's role as a terrorist threat, because he was a secular leader. But it is blind to say he wasn't involved. Crooked people are always involved in crooked activities.
Yep.

I think it is too late to look back, we need to look at how we can fix things in Iraq.
With the surge we are well on our way to fixing things in Iraq. That's why we have no choice but to persevere there.

And then we need to take preventive steps with Iran. Iran with the bomb is the greatest threat to international stability that we will ever face.
Absolutely!

And THAT, is why I don't support Ron Paul. :thumb:
Ron Paul and the supporters he leads around by their noses are blind to the threat to the American people posed by terrorism and Iran's nuclear program.

[Seabee]

Does Ron Paul get donations from Democrats? Yes he does. His message resonates with all stripes. His message isnt the traditional us against them. Its about getting America back on the right track, and that interests a wide array of people who have the capacity to think logically.


One thing I have noticed about Ron Paul supporters is you try and excuse support from people who are fringe elements, groups who have been proven not to have America's best interests at heart, and what I would consider traitors. Then wrap it up in a nice little package that he appeals to a wide array of people and therefore must be logical. Guess what, lunatic truthers, neo-Nazis, Igore, liberals, greenies, isolationists, etc, are not representative of the fabric of this nation nor are they logical. You have been duped and do not even realize it. You make no logical claim about Paul's stances, it is as if all of you read from a script that he wrote on his website or literature passed out at some meeting in someone's basement. Educate yourself on isolationism(i.e. Britan and America, post-WW 1), educate yourself on radical bureaucratic change (i.e Communist revolutions), educate yoruself on what Liberty with responsibility truly means (i.e. true Libertarians). Paul is at best a charleton designed to disrupt and that is it.

[jayson]

Oh, well of course. You're not the one who got shredded (literally), raped, tortured, killed, etc., by Saddam and his unspeakable thugs and sons. Neither was your family, I may add. Including the baby.

I can appreciate your capacity for compassion, Maggie, but it all comes back to money. We can't afford to depose every despot on the face of the Earth. Look at Sudan and the Darfur Genocide. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at Southern America. Look at China and North Korea and now Burma. Look at all those ex-Soviet satellite countries that are still barbaric in their practices.

Saddam was a terrible man, yes. But when was it our job to try and depose all these terrible men? It never was. We can't afford it in lives and cash... and that's not even acknowledging the fact that we now look like the aggressors with an us vs. the world attitude.

[Maggie_T]

Oh, I see. So let's just allow the Islamofascist to take over, shall we? Fighting them is too expensive. Better save that money for when we have to tranlsate every single written word to Arabic, demolish our monuments to put up figures of Mohammed and Allah.

Yep. That's the ticket.

Sorry, Jayson. We'll just have to disagree on this one. I hate wars as much as the next one (no, relly, I do). But I understand that sometimes wars are necessary. Let's just leave it at that.

[Maggie_T]

Incidentally, you're right about South America. It's overridden by leftist dictators, ex-terrorists, and all that. The Hugo Chavez type. But hey, that's their problem, innit?

[oldcoastie]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Seabee]

According to your own source Ron Paul only got $10,500 from businesses. 10,500 from google at most out of $8,229,811. Yah hes really over a barrel to them.

Okay, so how many of his contributers were actually Conservative Republicans? How many were Lie-berals, truthers, neo nazis, conspiracy theorists, greenies, anti-warers, etc.? Most of the lunatic fringe hangs out on the internet donating to the likes of Alex Jones and MoveOn.org. I do not doubt that Paul has gained much of their hard earned money. The left's fringe movement proved they were willing to part with their money to Howard Dean in 2004. All Paul did was perfect what Dean started. It still does not change the fact that Paul is trying to ride the conspiracy wave straight into the White House.

Aww Shucks I almost forgot this: Nice little link for some contributions from the "Individual Americans" who donated to Ru-Paul.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html

This is a link to the Federal Election Committee. Intersting to note that some Americans are named Raytheon, Ford Motor Company, Google, Microsoft. Strange names for people don't you think?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Okay, so how many of his contibuters were actually Conservative Republicans? How many were Lie-berals, truthers, neo nazis, conspiracy theorists, greenies, anti-warers, etc. Most of the lunatic fringe hangs out on the internet donating to the likes of Alex Jones and MoveOn.org. I do not doubt that Paul has gained much of their hard earned money. The left's fringe movement proved they were willing to part with their money to Howard Dean in 2004. All Paul did was perfect what Dean started. It still does not change the fact that Paul is trying to ride the conspiracy wave straight into the White House.
It's highly likely that many of his contributions come from hate-America groups like MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Code Pink, et al. Since Ron Paul and those groups are in total agreement about surrendering to the terrorists, it's only logical that those groups would prop up his campaign.

[Aaron]

DailyKOS hates Ron Paul. Don't know much about the others.

[DesertFox]

Do you realize that you loose credibility every time you say "World War 4" There hasnt even been a World War 3. To those who read the best political analysis out there, he gains credibility when he says WW4. Contrarily, you lose credibility by taking potshots at N-T over it.

Ever hear of Commentary magazine? That's where Norm Podhoretz first set down the idea of WW3 being the Cold War and the war on terror being WW4. Podhoretz subsequently published a well-received book on the subject.

[Aaron]

I do find it funny though that N-T believes we won WW3. In my opinion, WW3 is taking a breather. The Cold War with Russia still exists, and is gaining more momentum year after year. That country grows more unstable everyday. I believe that Vladimir Pootin will run for an 'illegal' third consecutive term. That will confirm my, and others suspicions.

Edit-Our world is full of cluster fukcs and problems, when will we ever get a break from it all? So many fronts to fight, so many silent wars, will it ever end in our lifetime?

[DesertFox]

I do find it funny though that N-T believes we won WW3. I don't, cuz we did. The threat from the Soviets was that of annihilation. They can no longer annihilate us because they're gone. The Cold War with Russia still exists, and is gaining more momentum year after year Nope. The Russians pose no military threat to us.

You're mixing together the ideological challenge (of words and ideas) that the Soviets presented, and the far more serious military challenge. The latter was the crux of the Cold War.

Our world is full of cluster fukcs and problems, when will we ever get a break from it all? So many fronts to fight, so many silent wars, will it ever end in our lifetime? Always has been and always will be until JayCee comes back.

[Aaron]

we did. The threat from the Soviets was that of annihilation. They can no longer annihilate us because they're gone. Nope. The Russians pose no military threat to us.

You're mixing together the ideological challenge (of words and ideas) that the Soviets presented, and the far more serious military challenge. The latter was the crux of the Cold War.

In the news yesturday, Putin announced that he had nuclear weapons readily available if needed be, if 'anyone' threatens their interests. I believe the threat still exists on a much smaller scale, and is getting bigger each year.

How many more years until we see mega-Russia sabre rattling again?

[DesertFox]

You haven't been keeping up with the serious commentary.

[Rhino]

Several countries have nuclear weapons readily available, and some of them have significant policy differences with us. That does not a cold war make. The possibility of a new cold war with Russia can't be ruled out, but it would be just that, a new cold war, not an extension of the old one. But since they are only a fraction of the danger to us that they used to pose, it wouldn't be much of a war. If we assumed that any new war would simply be an extension of the old one, then we would have never had World War II. It would have just been World War I revisited.

[garlicguy]

Aww Shucks I almost forgot this: Nice little link for some contributions from the "Individual Americans" who donated to Ru-Paul.

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914/A_EMPLOYER_C00432914.html

This is a link to the Federal Election Committee. Intersting to note that some Americans are named Raytheon, Ford Motor Company, Google, Microsoft. Strange names for people don't you think?

That is indeed a link to the FEC site. What those who've never given to a political campaign may be unaware of is the fact that, unless self-employed, you must provide specific name, address and other details of your employment. Then the FEC can monitor the coombined contributions originating from the EMPLOYEES of that employer (the page which you linked to is that page) in an attempt to assure that no employers are coercing their workers to make specific campaign contributions. It is only natural then, that large employers having many workers will show larger combined contributions.

Just in case you wanted the truth...:D

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since Ron Paul and his supporters oppose the use of our military to defend the American people from terrorist attacks, who would they want to trust to defend us? Mexico? Canada? France? Britain? Germany? The UN? Yeah, the UN. That must be their plan.

[garlicguy]

Unh..Tex:

Who're you asking? We've told you often enough: It is not DEFENSE of our nation that's in question. It's OFFENSE against other nations.

Try to pay attention please. It saves on bandwidth.:biggrin:

gg:cowboy:

[Rhino]

We've told you often enough: The DEFENSE of our nation sometimes requires a good OFFENSE. Its much better to fight them over there than over here.

Try to pay attention please. It saves on bandwidth.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Unh..Tex:

Who're you asking? We've told you often enough: It is not DEFENSE of our nation that's in question. It's OFFENSE against other nations.
And therein lies YOUR problem. If we don't stop terrorism at its source, there can be no way to defend of the American people. The best defense is a great OFFENSE.

You clearly are blind to the threat of terrorism. The 9/11 attacks should have opened your eyes to that threat, but it's obvious that it didn't. Get yourself educated to that threat before it's too late or someday you will be as much a victim of a terrorist attack as the nearly 3,000 who were slaughtered on 9/11/2001.

[garlicguy]

And therein lies YOUR problem. If we don't stop terrorism at its source, there can be no way to defend of the American people. The best defense is a great OFFENSE.

You clearly are blind to the threat of terrorism. The 9/11 attacks should have opened your eyes to that threat, but it's obvious that it didn't. Get yourself educated to that threat before it's too late or someday you will be as much a victim of a terrorist attack as the nearly 3,000 who were slaughtered on 9/11/2001.

In all seriousness, Tex, I understand your passion and repect your position. It is simply that I disagree with you and others who conclude that the 9/11 attacks require this ongoing "War on Terror".

I don't like certain passages from the Q'ran any better than you do.

But look at the Holy Writ (Scriptures) of Christendom, The Bible. Heck, we cannot even agree on the canon of Scripture, let alone the meaning of the 66 books we DO agree on. If it were not so, how could there be over 40,000 denominations of Protestantism?

My point being, there are extremists in every religion and, yes they can be scary and violent people. That does not make every adherent of that 'religion' violent. I am a Christian meaning I follow Christ's teachings as best I can. But I abhor this war. You are a Christian, yet you believe this is a just war and that it needs to continue. So the fact is there are differences of opinion and practice within Christianity. Similarly in other faiths. Not all Islamists are terrorists any more than all Irish Catholics or Irish Protestants are terrorists. It is a minority of over-revved people insisting on having their own way.

FWIW.

gg:cowboy:

[Timberwolf]

Unh..Tex:

Who're you asking? We've told you often enough: It is not DEFENSE of our nation that's in question. It's OFFENSE against other nations.

Try to pay attention please. It saves on bandwidth.:biggrin:

gg:cowboy:
Lemme guess...you'd treat your lung cancer by by discontinuing your chemotherapy, just as it was starting to work and waiting for it to spread to your lymphatic system, pancreas, liver and brain before "getting OFFENSIVE" with it again, right?

Terrorists/ism is a cancer on the world and must be eradicated at ITS SOURCE...which presently is the ME. You think the job is tough now? Just wait until we're dealing with it on a daily basis in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, London, Marseilles, The Hague, Prague, and a dozen other cities 'round the world.

Should we follow in the footsteps of the Spanish and "cave-in" to the islamofascist terrorists, we will experience this malignancy BIG TIME...and then, it will be FAR too late to do anything about it.

[Timberwolf]

gg...show where in the NT we are directed to make holy war against those who won't bow a knee to Christ/God.

That is the difference. Those who wage war in the name of allah are doing what their holy book tells 'em to do. Those who wage holy war in the name of God, aren't.

Sam Adams said it best:
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm

Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5] (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm#F5)
I think most of us could handle that kind of "extremism".

[Wolfcounsel]

"Not all Islamists are terrorists any more than all Irish Catholics or Irish Protestants are terrorists. It is a minority of over-revved people insisting on having their own way." --garlicguy

If you are a Muslim who minds his own business, regards women as equal to men in matters of law and inheritance, allows women to dress in ordinary everyday clothing like Western women and European women do, accepts people of other faiths, it will make no difference, if you are eventually surrounded by a huge Muslim majority and most of your non-Muslim neighbors have left your area, and the Muslim majority now around you are the fanatical type, eh? You can continue to allow your wife and daughters to sunbathe in swimsuits in your backyard, eh? Your remaining Christian neighbors will be allowed to barbecue pork in their backyard and you will defend them because this is America and the Koran be damned. Right? You will not follow the way of the fanatics, but you and your neighbors will continue to live in peace with the fanatics. Am I correct?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Lemme guess...you'd treat your lung cancer by by discontinuing your chemotherapy, just as it was starting to work and waiting for it to spread to your lymphatic system, pancreas, liver and brain before "getting OFFENSIVE" with it again, right?

Terrorists/ism is a cancer on the world and must be eradicated at ITS SOURCE...which presently is the ME. You think the job is tough now? Just wait until we're dealing with it on a daily basis in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, London, Marseilles, The Hague, Prague, and a dozen other cities 'round the world.

Should we follow in the footsteps of the Spanish and "cave-in" to the islamofascist terrorists, we will experience this malignancy BIG TIME...and then, it will be FAR too late to do anything about it.

:yeahthat: :claps::thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

In all seriousness, Tex, I understand your passion and repect your position. It is simply that I disagree with you and others who conclude that the 9/11 attacks require this ongoing "War on Terror".
The 9/11 attacks were the culmination of many acts of war against the United States going back at least to 1979 when Iranian IslamoFascists took American Embassy employees hostage. On another thread Timberwolf listed all of them. Maybe he could list them again to refresh your memory.

There were at least 5 acts of war committed by IslamoFascists against the US during the 1990s and Osama bin Laden declared war against the US at least 5 times that we know of during the 1990s.

We know from several sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report and Joint Intelligence Committee Report that Saddam was collaborating with al Qaeda since before the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

We know that both Syria and Iran have infiltrated terrorists into Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our troops as well as innocent Iraqi citizens.

So, to pretend, as you do, that there is no justification for an ongoing War on Terror - World War IV - is ludicrous, at best, and criminal, at worst.

I don't like certain passages from the Q'ran any better than you do.
What does that have to do with anything?

But look at the Holy Writ (Scriptures) of Christendom, The Bible. Heck, we cannot even agree on the canon of Scripture, let alone the meaning of the 66 books we DO agree on. If it were not so, how could there be over 40,000 denominations of Protestantism?

My point being, there are extremists in every religion and, yes they can be scary and violent people. That does not make every adherent of that 'religion' violent. I am a Christian meaning I follow Christ's teachings as best I can. But I abhor this war. You are a Christian, yet you believe this is a just war and that it needs to continue. So the fact is there are differences of opinion and practice within Christianity. Similarly in other faiths. Not all Islamists are terrorists any more than all Irish Catholics or Irish Protestants are terrorists. It is a minority of over-revved people insisting on having their own way.
So now you're using the typical leftist argument that Christianity and Islam are morally equivalent. That is a reprehensible lie and you know it.

BTW, I have never stated or even hinted that all Muslims are terrorists. However Islamists, i.e., IslamoFascists, ARE. That's why I'm always careful to describe the terrorists as IslamoFascists. IslamoFascists are the modern-day equivalent to Hitler's Nazis and must be defeated, no matter where it takes us or how long it takes.

[Madbomber]

We've told you often enough: The DEFENSE of our nation sometimes requires a good OFFENSE. Its much better to fight them over there than over here.

Try to pay attention please. It saves on bandwidth.


The real problem is that No defence and all offence isnt going to work either. What we need is some offence and a good defence. Close off the borders first. The use whatever means nessecay to kill the people who supported the attacks on us. KILL THEM, then be done with it. We have killed Saddam we have found no WMDs. There is no reason to babysit those people. But if youve just got to have it your way, at least compromise in so far as we have done our jobs in Germany, Japan and Korea and we should at least use the troops stationed in those countries to secure our borders.

Two generations is more than enough time to allow a country to stand up and take care of itself.


MB

[Madbomber]

Terrorists/ism is a cancer on the world and must be eradicated at ITS SOURCE...which presently is the ME. You think the job is tough now? Just wait until we're dealing with it on a daily basis in NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Dallas, London, Marseilles, The Hague, Prague, and a dozen other cities 'round the world.



WEll considering that the Majority of the terrorist on 911 were Saudi Arabian does that mean we should invade there insted of Iran? Really, what Iraq served as was an example that if the leaders in the ME keep letting thier subjects do things like 911 that we would come and kill them. They got the message.

[Rhino]

The real problem is that No defence and all offence isnt going to work either.So it's a good thing we aren't doing that.

What we need is some offence and a good defence. Close off the borders first.I'd love to have the borders secured.

The use whatever means nessecay to kill the people who supported the attacks on us. KILL THEM, then be done with it.We're doing that.

We have killed Saddam we have found no WMDs. There is no reason to babysit those people.Yes, there is.

But if youve just got to have it your way, at least compromise in so far as we have done our jobs in Germany, Japan and Korea and we should at least use the troops stationed in those countries to secure our borders.We have vital interests that are served by having troops there.

Two generations is more than enough time to allow a country to stand up and take care of itself.Nobody would be happier that I if we could bring those troops home. But if you think it's really that simple for them to protect themselves, you're living in a dream world.

[Madbomber]

So it's a good thing we aren't doing that.

Oh really? Guess thats why no more mexicans can make it through our borders now. Oh wait... nm....

I'd love to have the borders secured.

But you dont care enough to stop protecting other countries so that we can protect our own. It almost sounds like you people want an A-bomb to slip through.


We have vital interests that are served by having troops there.

What vital interests do we have that they dont have themselves? And why wouldn't they be better served by protecting themselves rather than by a country that is ready to go belly up financially?

Nobody would be happier that I if we could bring those troops home. But if you think it's really that simple for them to protect themselves, you're living in a dream world.

In the case of Germany and Japan, what exactly are we protecting them from? Theirselves? Both countries have more than enough fight in them to look out for thier own best interests. In Korea Kim Jong might be nutty enough to try something, but that still doesnt justify us putting our troop in harms way for them. They have had over 40 years to build an army capable of protecting themselves.

Also, I dont believe you when you say no one would be happier to bring our troops home than you. If you ment it you would see the situations that are no longer nesseccary and want to cut troop levels at the very least in those countries.


MB

[The_Elucidator]

Also, I dont believe you when you say no one would be happier to bring our troops home than you. If you ment it you would see the situations that are no longer nesseccary and want to cut troop levels at the very least in those countries.


Calling the site owner (prior military site owner) a liar? Brilliant Scooter!

P.S. Please use the spell check occasionally as this forum is not a text message feature of the internet. At least write intelligent! I know, ad hominim attacks, blah, blah, blah.... Attack the poster when you can't refute the message... blah, blah, blah... Save it Scooter!

[Madbomber]

Calling the site owner (prior military site owner) a liar? Brilliant Scooter!


Well, when you are more interested in keeping the troops abroad for selfish reasons than you are in seeing them come home then Ill call a spade a spade. I feel sad for all you people who are so afraid of what *might* happen that you are willing to see our troops suffer for it.


MB

[garlicguy]

Just simple questions here asking for simple answers:

How will we know when to stop warring against the "terrorists"?

Will they surrender? Sign a truce?

What do they look like? Where are they? How do we know who they are?

If Osama is such a major target, why haven't we pursued his capture with all necessary dispatch?

---------------------------------

No really. No need to flame here. I wonder about these things, and sometimes the Government answers are less than re-assuring. You know, the "patriot act"? Or the current Senate Bill S.1959 (This one's a doozy folks. They want to throw your butt in the brig with no due process for disagreeing with the Feds.) (http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z)

[Seabee]

Just simple questions here asking for simple answers:

How will we know when to stop warring against the "terrorists"?
Hmm probably when they aren't blowing up innocent people in the name of that Godforsaken cult they try an pass off as a religion. This is not some uniformed foreign military we are dealing with. This is a group of intelligent, power hungry, deluded, sociopaths who want everyone to convert to Islam because then they can control people easier. How many ways do you need it sliced up for you? This is not some fantastic government concoction to draw your attention from some hidden agenda. The Muslims have been doing this for almost 1300 years. The only difference is now they have met someone who has more firepower than they have. That has not always been the case.

Will they surrender? Sign a truce?

No, they will die. Dead men cannot sign truces.

What do they look like? Where are they? How do we know who they are?

Exactly, who are they (could be your neighboor), where are they, (could be living right next to you or someone you love), how do we know where they are (we do not know where every single living breathing enemy is at, but I guarantee we have a good idea where the highest concentration is located).

If Osama is such a major target, why haven't we pursued his capture with all necessary dispatch?

If he is hiding in Pakastan's tribal region, what do you suggest we do? Bomb the living hell out of an "ally?" Put troops on their soil? Now, do not get me wrong, I am all for it, but the intellectual reality is that we would come out on the losing end of that one.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Just simple questions here asking for simple answers:

How will we know when to stop warring against the "terrorists"?
When we kill them all.

Will they surrender? Sign a truce?
They won't be able to do either because they will be dead.

What do they look like? Where are they? How do we know who they are?
They are IslamoFascists. They are scattered all over the world, so that is why this is a world war - World War IV. If they are Muslims who try to attack us, they must be killed.

If Osama is such a major target, why haven't we pursued his capture with all necessary dispatch?
He is no longer a target because he is either dead or incapacitated. He is inconsequential.

No really. No need to flame here. I wonder about these things, and sometimes the Government answers are less than re-assuring. You know, the "patriot act"? Or the current Senate Bill S.1959 (This one's a doozy folks. They want to throw your butt in the brig with no due process for disagreeing with the Feds.) (http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z)
Under the Patriot Act, warrants are required IAW the 4th Amendment. If you aren't a terrorist or if you're not communicating with terrorists in foreign countries, you have nothing to be concerned about.

[Madbomber]

Sounds like a bunch of fear mongering as an excuse to do whatever the hell you want.

[Rhino]

What do they look like?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg/160px-Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Harry_Reid_official_portrait.jpg/199px-Harry_Reid_official_portrait.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Nancy_Pelosi.jpeg/160px-Nancy_Pelosi.jpeg

Where are they? How do we know who they are?Just look for their symbol.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:JaHh8IxazQ-EBM:webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/Democrats/Democrats%20logo.png

[The_Elucidator]

Sounds like a bunch of fear mongering as an excuse to do whatever the hell you want.

Sure could have used a little fear mongering on Sep 10 2001....

Oh, nevermind, we had it coming!

[Rhino]

Oh really? Guess thats why no more mexicans can make it through our borders now. Oh wait... nm....I wasn't talking about the border.

But you dont care enough to stop protecting other countries so that we can protect our own. It almost sounds like you people want an A-bomb to slip through.It might sound like that to you, since you obviously haven't read my posts about the border. Ignorance can make things sound quite strange.

What vital interests do we have that they dont have themselves? And why wouldn't they be better served by protecting themselves rather than by a country that is ready to go belly up financially?Maybe because they aren't able to. What country is ready to go belly up financially?

In the case of Germany and Japan, what exactly are we protecting them from? Theirselves? Both countries have more than enough fight in them to look out for thier own best interests.If you really are that ignorant of world affairs, perhaps you should study them more. I'm certainly not going to try and teach courses to you here.

In Korea Kim Jong might be nutty enough to try something, but that still doesnt justify us putting our troop in harms way for them.I never said his being nutty was a justification.

They have had over 40 years to build an army capable of protecting themselves.It takes more than time to build an army.

Also, I dont believe you when you say no one would be happier to bring our troops home than you. If you ment it you would see the situations that are no longer nesseccary and want to cut troop levels at the very least in those countries.Now you're the expert on what I think? :lol: I've seen some good posts from you, but you sometimes seem to have a knack for stupid arrogance. Try not to look so ridiculous.

You are hardly the one to lecture on the applicable situations, since you seem to be pretty much clueless about them. Just because you think we can safely stick our heads in the sand, does not mean that situations and events in the rest of the world do not affect us. Simply wishing it so does not make it so. You need to try to start separating fantasy from reality.

EDIT: You know what, just disregard all of this. I'm tired of dealing with this Ron Paul, isolationist lunacy stuff, and I'm going to wipe my hands of this thread. This exchange just reminds me of why I already wiped my hands of the other threads in this forum. In the words of Ron White, you can't fix stupid.

[garlicguy]

When we kill them all.

As in everybody? Everywhere? You can't war with an enemy you cannot define.


They won't be able to do either because they will be dead.That is a fairly TERRIFYING goal. Who are the TERRORISTS again?


They are IslamoFascists. They are scattered all over the world, so that is why this is a world war - World War IV. If they are Muslims who try to attack us, they must be killed. Islamofacist is a relatively new MediaSpeak term. You know, the folks who brought us Red and Blue states instead of THE UNITED States? Soon they'll be referring to the religious right as Christofacists in an attempt to malign and control them. It won't be accurate, but that's never slowed them down before.

Seems like most of the violence against our troops is being done by folks defending themselves from the perceived threat that our troops must appear to them to be.



Under the Patriot Act, warrants are required IAW the 4th Amendment. If you aren't a terrorist or if you're not communicating with terrorists in foreign countries, you have nothing to be concerned about. That's wonderful thinking but please, re-read that nasty little piece of legislation written and enacted in the name of National Security. Better still, read the one I linked to above. The definitions of Homegrown Terrorist in it would certainly include any who wish to hang on to their guns in defiance of a government decree. You know, all us 2nd Amendment types? How do you like being officially and legally branded a Terrorist by your own Federal Government? The very government that so many think will do no wrong against its own citizens. REALLY! Go ahead. Read it. I'm not making this stuff up.

Respectfully,

gg:cowboy:

[Naturalized-Texan]

So, gg, you don't think that we should kill the terrorists. Why am I not surprised? I'm sure that you would rather surrender to them so that they will have free rein to conduct terrorist attacks on our cities.

[garlicguy]

So, gg, you don't think that we should kill the terrorists.

I don't find anywhere that I wrote such nonsense. Are you euphoric?

Why am I not surprised?You might want to go ahead and answer that one yourself so that you don't come off looking brain dead.

I'm sure that you would rather surrender to them so that they will have free rein to conduct terrorist attacks on our cities.You seem to be particularly sure of all sorts of nutty stuff tonite, Tex. Talk to your pharmacist soon before your meds mixup gets really serious, eh?

gg :rotflmbo:

PS - Tex, if the news media see your postings in this thread they may label you an Islamophobic Christofacist! Careful dude! Big Brother is watching.

[Naturalized-Texan]

PS - Tex, if the news media see your postings in this thread they may label you an Islamophobic Christofacist! Careful dude! Big Brother is watching.
Yeah, you do love the liberal media. You and the other Paul-heads, as well as Ron Paul himself, have shown that all of you have been brainwashed by left-wing media Big Lie Propaganda about World War IV - the War on Terror - since you all parrot the leftist lies about that war.

[Wolfcounsel]

My question was quite simple, yet I see nobody replying.

It's perfectly okay to say that ALL Muslims are the bad guys. I would not trust any of them with taking care of my grandkids, and much less, be their teacher.

[Seabee]

My question was quite simple, yet I see nobody replying.

It's perfectly okay to say that ALL Muslims are the bad guys. I would not trust any of them with taking care of my grandkids, and much less, be their teacher.

Well Wolfie, I didn't see your question posted but I will gladly respond. I do not think it is perfectly okay to say that all Msulims are the bad guys, that t