One Informed person's Reasoning for our presence in Iraq

[Andy A.]

This a good read and great food for thought.

No matter your politics, you owe it to yourself to read and pass on so we

all are informed of what's going on in our world!



Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East

problems, this one is from the guy who had his finger on the nuclear

trigger for three years as head of our defense and response complex buried

under Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs . He was the only person who

could initiate a nuclear attack after advising the sitting president of a

missile launch by our enemies and our need to respond. No political or

civilian type in the US had more knowledge about day to day military actions

around the world. Everyone should find quiet time to read this. As far as I

am concerned, it is exactly the direction we should go and the consequences

of not doing so are well thought out.



John R. (Jack) Farrington Major General, USAF (Retired)



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

----



Middle East Imperative



BY: JIM CASH, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.



I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical

Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in

proper perspective.



Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just

Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our

kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond. Radical Islam

has been attacking the West since the seventh century. They have been

defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years

to recover. But they can never be totally defeated. Their birth rates are

so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to

dominate again.



There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to

the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from

the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really

going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They

both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win.

We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to

the Democrats.



The other six, Afghanistan , Iraq , Iran , Syria , North Korea and Libya

will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more

closely.



Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by

outsiders from Syria and Iran . We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he

has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a

threat.



North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying

them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a

frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger

side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be

forced to confront Iran , and it better be before they gain nuclear

capability.



In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex

located in Colorado Springs , Colorado for almost three years. My job there

was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the

world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada . If any shot was

threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as

he had only minutes to respond. I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at

each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of

thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the

Middle East and that enormous oil supply.



At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could

care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we

could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have

done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one

of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East,

since Iraq is no longer a threat to them. They have turned their attention

to the only other threat to their dominance, they are convinced they will

win, because the US is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control

Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are

pulling out.



Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their

support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not

the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE to

this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential

candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to

bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.



Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that

Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It

will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the 'good-old-days'. The

bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting

in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.



One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global

community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face

a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age.

I urge you to read the book 'END GAME' by two of our best Middle East

experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely

and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their

assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can

be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen

soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that

book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us

or www.rightalk.com.



On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who

evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and

raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by

giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their

anti-war claims.



You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to

support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that

level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is

right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through

government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost

30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The

human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to

protect itself, it deserves the consequences. Nuff-said!!!



Now, my last comments will get to the nerve. They will be on politics. I am

not a Republican. And, George Bush has made enough mistakes as President to

insure my feelings about that for the rest of my life. However, the

Democratic Party has moved so far left, they have made me support those

farther to the right. I am a conservative who totally supports the

Constitution of this country. The only difference between the United States

and the South American, third world, dictator infested and ever-changing

South American governments, is our US Constitution.



This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the

world has ever known, but it is vulnerable. It would take so little to

change it through economic upheaval. There was a time when politicians

could disagree, but still work together. We are past that time, and that is

the initial step toward the downfall of our form of government.



I think that many view Bush-hating as payback time. The Republicans hated

the Clinton 's and now the Democrats hate Bush. So, both parties are

putting their hate toward willingness to do anything for political dominance

to include lying and always taking the opposite stand just for the sake of

being opposed. JUST HOW GOOD IS THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY?



In my lifetime, after serving in uniform for President's Kennedy, Johnson,

Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I have a pretty good feel for which

party supported our military, and what military life was like under each of

their terms. And, let me assure you that times were best under the

Republicans.



Service under Jimmy Carter was devastating for all branches of the military.

And, Ronald Regan was truly a salvation. You can choose to listen to

enriched newscasters, and foolish people like John Murtha (he is no war

hero), Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda , Harry Reid,

Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and on-and-on to include the

true fools in Hollywood if you like. If you do, your conclusions will be

totally wrong.



The reason that I write, appear on radio talk shows, and do everything I can

to denounce those people is simple. THEY ARE PUTTING THEIR THIRST FOR

POLITICAL POWER AND QUEST FOR VICTORY IN 2008 ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS

COUNTRY. I cannot abide that. Pelosi clearly defied the Logan Act by going

to Syria , which should have lead to imprisonment of three years and a heavy

fine. Jane Fonda did more to prolong the Vietnam war longer than any other

human being (as acknowledged by Ho Chi Minh in his writing before he died).

She truly should have been indicted for treason, along with her radical

husband, Tom Hayden, and forced to pay the consequences.



This country has started to soften by not enforcing its laws, which is

another indication of a Republic about to fall. All Democrats, along with

the Hollywood elite, are sending us headlong into a total defeat in the

Middle East, which will finally give Iran total dominance in the region. A

lack of oil in the near future will be the final straw that dooms this

Republic. However, if we refuse to let this happen and really get serious

about an energy self-sufficiency program, this can be avoided. I am afraid,

however, that we are going in the opposite direction. If we elect Hillary

Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress, and they carry through with

allowing Iran to take control of the Middle East, continue to refuse

development of nuclear energy, refuse to allow drilling for new oil, and

continue to do nothing but oppose everything Bush, it will be over in terms

of what we view as the good life in the USA .



Now, do I think that all who do not support the war are un-American -- of

course not. They just do not understand the importance of total victory in

that region.



Another failure of George Bush is his inability to explain to the American

people why we are there, and why we MUST win. By the way, it is not a war.

The war was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by

Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.



So, what do I believe? What is the bottom line? I will simply say that the

Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self

absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime. Our

educational system is partially to blame for allowing the mass of America to

be taken in by this group. George Bush has done the best he can with the

disabilities that he possesses.



A President must communicate with the people.And, I would tell you that

Desert Storm spoiled the people. Bush Senior's 100-hour war convinced the

people that technology has progressed to the point that wars could be fought

with no casualties and won in very short periods of time. I remember

feeling at the time, that this was a tragedy for the US military. To win

wars, you must put boots on the ground. When you put boots on the ground,

soldiers are going to die. A President must make the war decision wisely,

and insure that the cause is right before using his last political option.

However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY

CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.



Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Lakeside , Montana 59922



'I'll tell you what war is all about, you've got to kill people, and when

you've killed enough they stop fighting.' Gen. Curtis LeMay

[Smiling JOe]

very interesting. I agree that we need to start putting pressure on manufacturers, getting them to increase efficiency,and I also think the gov't should perhaps give grants or tax incentives to explore and develop known and new alternative energy sources and engine technology, so that we can become energy independent in the very near future. Unfortunately, Congress has their heads shoved so far up oil company lobbyists' butts that they cannot see the potential money which could be generated by new technologies and alternative energy sources. Today's scientists are geniuses. They are making cars which can operate without a human driver, and even parallel park itself, which is more than most human drivers can do. There is no good reason why our automobiles are still operating on a combustion engine, the only exception being if they were much more energy efficient than they were 30 years ago.

[Uncle Timmy]

Andy A., I hardly know where to begin here.

You berated me, and others, in another thread because of our ‘utter stupidity and lack of common sense” and felt inclined to explain to us that you really only listen to the opinions of people who agree with your views “because their slant on most things is usually more intelligent than that of those don't share my opinion.” (your words).

And now we get this “informed’ person’s opinion on Iraq. Let’s look at just how intelligent this opinion is, ok?

“There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to
the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from
the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really
going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple.”
– These countries just need a little what? Firm pressure to make reforms? Apparently Jim Cash, Brig Gen USAF Ret,. is shockingly ignorant of what happened in Iran during the Shah’s reign. Too much reform too fast = revolution. Not good. I’m afraid the situation is far more complex than he understands. Evidently, sitting in a mountain in Wyoming does not adequately expose one to the complex world of mid-east politics.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by
outsiders from Syria and Iran .
-Uh no. Actually the Talliban are home grown Afghanis and the Shia-Sunni divide fueling problems in Iraq has been around oh, since the 8th century. Outsiders are not the problem, sorry.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their
support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out?
-Which mid-east is he talking about? Does he even understand the difference between an Arab and a Persian? Sunni and Shia? The Sunni countries in the middle east are not going to rally around Iran.

“If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over”
– Right. Hundreds of years of Sunni –Shia strife will merely evaporate if Iran is just brought to heal.



Andy, I’m glad you’ve given us insight into the ‘intelligent slant’ that helps form your opinions on these subjects.

I must say, I’m not impressed.

[scooterbug44]

1) Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger than just

Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our

kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.

2) By the way, it is not a war.

The war (in Iraq) was won four years ago. It is martial law that is under attack by

Iranian and Syrian outside influences, and there is a difference.

3) However, CONTROLLING IRAN AND DEMOCRATIZING THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE ONLY

CHOICE IF WE ARE HELL-BENT ON DEPENDING ON THEM FOR OUR FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

4) Political infighting is currently of more importance than any policy decisions.



I thought this post had some good points, but shows how we are still missing the general point.

I'm not against our involvement in Iraq & Afganistan and attempts to get into Iran because I am anti-war and some bleeding heart. I'm a realist - sometimes military solutions are necessary and when that happens there will be death - not just for soldiers, but for civilians involved. Collateral damage is a reality and something I give quite a bit of leeway on as it is far too easy to second guess field decisions after the fact in an office somewhere.

The political, economic, and religious clusterf--- that we have created and continue to feed in the Middle East is quite different. When are we going to figure out we are losing a propaganda war because we aren't fighting it?

1) The Sunni vs. Shia conflict started in the 7th century - we're not going to fix it, the best we can hope for is a cease fire. Muslims are the 2nd largest religious group in the world and only 20% of them live in Muslim countries. We need a policy that doesn't demonize an entire religion and have the hubris of thinking we can solve CENTURIES of conflict when we don't even understand their religion (and haven't had any success reconciling varying sects of our own religions BTW). How we deal with the Middle East and its subsequent mistakes will haunt us for generations.

2) :clap:

3) We're fighting for oil. We will KEEP fighting for oil until we reduce our consumption or find alternate sources of energy.

4) I paraphrased, but obviously we need a priority shift and to effectively communicate that to our elected officials.

[Smiling JOe]

Who knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money the US has spent thus far on this "war?" If instead of spending it on investing in other countries (and that is really what we are doing), we could create a real defense system to eliminate any nuc-s headed our way, or toward our allies. In addition, our homes would be powered by something other than coal and hydro power, and our autos would be getting over 100 miles per gallon of gas, or maybe even better by using something other than gasoline. Our wasteful product packaging could be reduced as well. Why not spend the money on our own country?

Here's some crack. I'll give it to you free this time, but you have to buy the next dose.

[fisher]

Andy A., I hardly know where to begin here.

You berated me, and others, in another thread because of our ‘utter stupidity and lack of common sense” and felt inclined to explain to us that you really only listen to the opinions of people who agree with your views “because their slant on most things is usually more intelligent than that of those don't share my opinion.” (your words).

And now we get this “informed’ person’s opinion on Iraq. Let’s look at just how intelligent this opinion is, ok?

“There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to
the West. Two , Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , just need firm pressure from
the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really
going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple.”
– These countries just need a little what? Firm pressure to make reforms? Apparently Jim Cash, Brig Gen USAF Ret,. is shockingly ignorant of what happened in Iran during the Shah’s reign. Too much reform too fast = revolution. Not good. I’m afraid the situation is far more complex than he understands. Evidently, sitting in a mountain in Wyoming does not adequately expose one to the complex world of mid-east politics.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by
outsiders from Syria and Iran .
-Uh no. Actually the Talliban are home grown Afghanis and the Shia-Sunni divide fueling problems in Iraq has been around oh, since the 8th century. Outsiders are not the problem, sorry.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their
support to Iran , which they will obviously do if we pull out?
-Which mid-east is he talking about? Does he even understand the difference between an Arab and a Persian? Sunni and Shia? The Sunni countries in the middle east are not going to rally around Iran.

“If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over”
– Right. Hundreds of years of Sunni –Shia strife will merely evaporate if Iran is just brought to heal.



Andy, I’m glad you’ve given us insight into the ‘intelligent slant’ that helps form your opinions on these subjects.

I must say, I’m not impressed.



And where do you get all your knowledge of things middle eastern. From reading the New York Times or listening to NPR?? I'm more likely to listen to a retired General for intel on the Middle East than your weak rebuttal/analysis of his take on the situation.

[Andy A.]

Uncle Timmy, I wasn't berating you personally but as I said on the other thread, if the shoe fits... You read what you want into every post you respond to and use the internet to valididate your opinions. The worst thing the U.S. ever did was support removal of the Shah. I don't know if that is your opinion or not, but history since that point has done nothing but confirm the fact. I am not going to debate you and your "facts" and your eight years "experience" in the Middle East. Obviously, you don't feel anyone else who has spent their life travelling and living elsewhere in the world has learned anything. So be it. It is just as useless for me to argue with you as it is for you to do so with me. This thread was posted so all could see what one very esteemed gentleman's take on the Iraq situation was. As noted, it is backed up by another individual, a Major General. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your expectations or beliefs.

[Andy A.]

UT, by the way, the mountain is Cheyenne Mt. very near Colo. Springs, Colo.

[InletBchDweller]

Thanks Andy for posting this....

[Here4Good]

Uncle Timmy, I wasn't berating you personally but as I said on the other thread, if the shoe fits... You read what you want into every post you respond to and use the internet to valididate your opinions. The worst thing the U.S. ever did was support removal of the Shah. I don't know if that is your opinion or not, but history since that point has done nothing but confirm the fact. I am not going to debate you and your "facts" and your eight years "experience" in the Middle East. Obviously, you don't feel anyone else who has spent their life travelling and living elsewhere in the world has learned anything. So be it. It is just as useless for me to argue with you as it is for you to do so with me. This thread was posted so all could see what one very esteemed gentleman's take on the Iraq situation was. As noted, it is backed up by another individual, a Major General. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your expectations or beliefs.

I do not think that the US supported the removal of the Shah.

[John R]

And where do you get all your knowledge of things middle eastern. From reading the New York Times or listening to NPR?? I'm more likely to listen to a retired General for intel on the Middle East than your weak rebuttal/analysis of his take on the situation.


this should be fun.

[Uncle Timmy]

And where do you get all your knowledge of things middle eastern. From reading the New York Times or listening to NPR?? I'm more likely to listen to a retired General for intel on the Middle East than your weak rebuttal/analysis of his take on the situation.

Well since you are so impressed by Generals let me direct you here:

US Army Combined Arms Center, Ft. Leavenworth –the Army’s premier thinktank:

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec07/indexengnovdec07.asp (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec07/indexengnovdec07.asp)

You will have to look thru the archives for an article entitled Surrounded: Seeing the World from Iran’s Point of View, July-August Issue of the CAC Journal.

Some of you need to be taught a serious lesson in the difference between what is in effect a piece of propaganda (as Andy A. posted) and what a real scholarly, well researched document looks like.

Plot spoiler:: the CAC Journal article does not share the views of the “one informed person’s” rantings.

[Uncle Timmy]

this should be fun.

Actually John, all my info on the Mid-East comes from a children’s book written by Jane Fonda.:lolabove:

[Uncle Timmy]

Uncle Timmy, I wasn't berating you personally but as I said on the other thread, if the shoe fits... You read what you want into every post you respond to and use the internet to valididate your opinions. The worst thing the U.S. ever did was support removal of the Shah. I don't know if that is your opinion or not, but history since that point has done nothing but confirm the fact. I am not going to debate you and your "facts" and your eight years "experience" in the Middle East. Obviously, you don't feel anyone else who has spent their life travelling and living elsewhere in the world has learned anything. So be it. It is just as useless for me to argue with you as it is for you to do so with me. This thread was posted so all could see what one very esteemed gentleman's take on the Iraq situation was. As noted, it is backed up by another individual, a Major General. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your expectations or beliefs.

At least I’m not ‘validating’ my opinions with articles laced with such political propaganda as the following zinger -“I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime.”

Or, best of all, ends with a quote by (“nuke ‘em back to the stone age”) Curtis LeMay. http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/ (http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/)

Please restore my faith in people’s ability to learn and grow and admit that you agree that such propaganda does not constitute a “well researched” or “well documented” article. Unlike you, I actually enjoy talking to people who disagree with my viewpoints, because not only can you learn, but you can also teach.

Let’s hope you’ve broadened your mind a bit here today.

[Bob]

That post Andy A is precisely the mindset that has put us on the highway to moral and fiscal bankruptcy. A retired war-hawk general with visions of the end of the world. The world according to Jimmy Cash. Jane Fonda can be blamed for Vietnam. Yeehaw! Another round for the fellas who skipped history class to go read Playboy. We will control the Middle East through never ending intervention. Cue the the military please. Deficit....what deficit? This is WWIII, right GW?

[Mango]

Another assessment of where the US stands in relation to the Middle East......
John R. (Jack) Farrington Major General, USAF (Retired) (from above)
__________________________________________________ _______

Just curious. Since when are North Korea, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan part of the Middle East?

[Andy A.]

At least I’m not ‘validating’ my opinions with articles laced with such political propaganda as the following zinger -“I will simply say that the Democratic Party has fielded the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals that I have observed in my lifetime.”

Or, best of all, ends with a quote by (“nuke ‘em back to the stone age”) Curtis LeMay. http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/ (http://www.geocities.com/lemaycurtis/)

Please restore my faith in people’s ability to learn and grow and admit that you agree that such propaganda does not constitute a “well researched” or “well documented” article. Unlike you, I actually enjoy talking to people who disagree with my viewpoints, because not only can you learn, but you can also teach.

Let’s hope you’ve broadened your mind a bit here today.
Uncle Timmy, debating the Iraq war with you is an exercise in futility. In thefirst place, it is only propaganda to some. To others, it is one man's opinion and that is how it was presented. As far as Curtis LeMay goes, he was a bombastic hard nose. But then he was the head of SAC and I was waaaaaay down the ladder so guess who got press. If Gen. Cash feel as he is quoted about the present Democratic leadership, he is entitled to that opinion. You have made it very clear you disagree and that is your prerogative. Please don't consider your opinion to be the only one on this board that may be worth a damn.

[Uncle Timmy]

Please don't consider your opinion to be the only one on this board that may be worth a damn.

Actually, I consider any opinion not based on an op-ed or propagandistic article as worth a damn.

Just stick to the facts and I’ll be far more impressed. Until then, you may continue to find this “an exercise in futility”.

[rehdrahk]

I hate to say it, but this post is ridiculous ... it is war propaganda at its best.

If you truly believe this General's opinions, then your are highly misinformed ...

The war is about about natural resources, economics and occupation, all which can be solved much easier with industry, treaties and trade.

But for a minute let's dismiss this common sense and agree that War is the answer ... what becomes of our image and presence in the Middle East ... an improvement in our lives as US citizens or a guarantee that we remain in this war for the rest of our god given lives along with our children and their children ...

Wake up ... we the people are not profiting in any way from this war ...

It is in no way securing our freedoms nor is it increasing our security, I think we can all agree we are losing our freedoms one Act and Law at a time ...

It is not helping us out financially or our country fiscally, I think we can agree that we are plummeting into what appears to be a possible recession and our dollar is being devalued at an alarming rate ...

So I would like to ask, how is it that propaganda like this war profiteering article are in any way beneficial to anyone else other than those who are benefiting from the war ....

And this non-sense about Saudi Arabia .... this war = profits for them and they are not being shy about spending them as quickly as they can ...

In case you missed this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/business/deals.php

[Bob]

I hate to say it, but this post is ridiculous ... it is war propaganda at its best.

If you truly believe this General's opinions, then your are highly misinformed ...

The war is about about natural resources, economics and occupation, all which can be solved much easier with industry, treaties and trade.

But for a minute let's dismiss this common sense and agree that War is the answer ... what becomes of our image and presence in the Middle East ... an improvement in our lives as US citizens or a guarantee that we remain in this war for the rest of our god given lives along with our children and their children ...

Wake up ... we the people are not profiting in any way from this war ...

It is in no way securing our freedoms nor is it increasing our security, I think we can all agree we are losing our freedoms one Act and Law at a time ...

It is not helping us out financially or our country fiscally, I think we can agree that we are plummeting into what appears to be a possible recession and our dollar is being devalued at an alarming rate ...

So I would like to ask, how is it that propaganda like this war profiteering article are in any way beneficial to anyone else other than those who are benefiting from the war ....

And this non-sense about Saudi Arabia .... this war = profits for them and they are not being shy about spending them as quickly as they can ...

In case you missed this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/business/deals.phpoooooh, the eye of wisdom speaks.......your phone is going to be tapped by the very people afraid to serve our country when it was their turn.

[rehdrahk]

oooooh, the eye of wisdom speaks.......your phone is going to be tapped by the very people afraid to serve our country when it was their turn.

Just being a realist .... it seems that some folks intellects are being befuddled with some ridiculously inane arguments that convince them that war is the answer to all of our current world wide issues ... we have abused and dehumanized the word war to the point that is does not imply its true meaning anymore ... and simply does not create the visuals in our mind that it should ...

:idontno:

[fisher]

Well since you are so impressed by Generals let me direct you here:

US Army Combined Arms Center, Ft. Leavenworth –the Army’s premier thinktank:

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec07/indexengnovdec07.asp (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec07/indexengnovdec07.asp)

You will have to look thru the archives for an article entitled Surrounded: Seeing the World from Iran’s Point of View, July-August Issue of the CAC Journal.

Some of you need to be taught a serious lesson in the difference between what is in effect a piece of propaganda (as Andy A. posted) and what a real scholarly, well researched document looks like.

Plot spoiler:: the CAC Journal article does not share the views of the “one informed person’s” rantings.


Uncle T--

Sorry, looked hard but couldn't find the single article BURIED in the archives.

So, your point was what? An article written by a retired general is less believable that an article you found buried in the archives of the military review? Don't think so. It's just another article written by another "expert" on the subject.

There are two different points of view here. Both have credible people stating their case. You have very little knowledge of what's going on in the Middle East just like the rest of us debating here on the SoWal board. We read and form our own opinions.

You try to speak with authority, but you aren't an authority on the subject. You have an opinion based on what you read and that's about all it is. You can cut an paste all you like, it doesn't mean that what others cut and paste is less credible than what you cut and paste.

[Bob]

Just being a realist .... it seems that some folks intellects are being befuddled with some ridiculously inane arguments that convince them that war is the answer to all of our current world wide issues ... we have abused and dehumanized the word war to the point that is does not imply its true meaning anymore ... and simply does not create the visuals in our mind that it should ...

:idontno:This is Sunbelt politics pure and simple. Take oil and all their interests out of the equation, and you've got idiots arguing over the sand pit. We've got an antagonistic, uneducated element out there that have hijacked my own political party. It's why ex-Baptist ministers like Huckabee and fear mongers like Gulliani do well in the primaries. With the cowboy West and the redneck South, candidates like Romney do not stand a chance. These nutjobs think God has appointed the United States to micro manage the world, and fight every government that opposes our viewpoint.....as long as they're weak enough to pick on.

[rehdrahk]

This is Sunbelt politics pure and simple. Take oil and all their interests out of the equation, and you've got idiots arguing over the sand pit. We've got an antagonistic, uneducated element out there that have hijacked my own political party. It's why ex-Baptist ministers like Huckabee and fear mongers like Gulliani do well in the primaries. With the cowboy West and the redneck South, candidates like Romney do not stand a chance. These nutjobs think God has appointed the United States to micro manage the world, and fight every government that opposes our viewpoint.....as long as they're weak enough to pick on.

Agree, Cheers .... but I think there is a sleeper out there for the primaries :D

[scooterbug44]

Agree, Cheers .... but I think there is a sleeper out there for the primaries :D

I'm REALLY hoping so! Not liking my current options all that much. :(

[jdarg]

I'm REALLY hoping so! Not liking my current options all that much. :(

I think he means Ron Paul.

[scooterbug44]

I think he means Ron Paul.

You mean Santa ISN'T going to bring me a viable candidate w/ integrity and a closet that isn't chock full o' skeletons and lobbyists pulling their strings? :idontno:

[jdarg]

You mean Santa ISN'T going to bring me a viable candidate w/ integrity and a closet that isn't chock full o' skeletons and lobbyists pulling their strings? :idontno:

Sorry sweetie, I don't think so. We'll just have to settle for eggnog, whcih isn't a terrible alternative.

[scooterbug44]

My liver won't last through another clusterf*** presidency. :drink:

Santa, I BELIEVE!!!:bow:

[Uncle Timmy]

Uncle T--

Sorry, looked hard but couldn't find the single article BURIED in the archives.

So, your point was what? An article written by a retired general is less believable that an article you found buried in the archives of the military review? Don't think so. It's just another article written by another "expert" on the subject.

There are two different points of view here. Both have credible people stating their case. You have very little knowledge of what's going on in the Middle East just like the rest of us debating here on the SoWal board. We read and form our own opinions.

You try to speak with authority, but you aren't an authority on the subject. You have an opinion based on what you read and that's about all it is. You can cut an paste all you like, it doesn't mean that what others cut and paste is less credible than what you cut and paste.

No, Fisher you couldn’t be more wrong.

Opinions are not created equal. The opinions of the Army’s top think-tank do indeed outrank the rantings of a Curtis LeMay wanna-be.

Just like the opinions of someone who spend 8 years in the Mid-East are going to weight a lot more than someone who is getting their first glimpse into the complexities of the situation in that region.

I doubt most reading this post have failed to notice that while you have spent a great deal of effort to attack me personally, you haven’t made the slightest attempt to refute or challenge any of the facts I brought to light in my original rebuttal of AndyA.’s post.

Time to put your money where your mouth is Fisher.

-What reforms are you asking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to institute? Compare and contrast this with the ‘reforms’ brought to Iran under the Shah and explain to us why these 2 countries will experience a different outcome than in Iran.

-Explain how the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan is being fueled primarily by Syria and Iran and not from internal forces, as was my assertion.

-Explain by what dynamic the mid-east is going to overcome centuries of Arab-Persian and Sunni-Shia animosity and rally around Iran.

-Explain how regime change in Iran will end all of the problems in Iraq.

Personal attacks sure are easier than having to go thru this effort, now aren’t they Fisher? Probably why you choose the former. And also why I will speak with a hellof a lot more authority on this subject than you ever will.

[scooterbug44]

Can you post the article from the archive? I would like to read it.

[Uncle Timmy]

Can you post the article from the archive? I would like to read it.

I’ve tried but it is a pdf file plus it is out 10 pages long (scholarly articles tend to drag on longer than propaganda –hence they are inherently more difficult to ‘cut and paste’)

I’ll try and link it below

I would encourage everybody who wants to learn more about the complex situation we are facing in the Mid-East to read ALL of the articles published by Ft. Leavenworth’s CAC think-tank. In so many respects, the military is light years ahead of US politicians and the general public about understanding the situation there.

http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE[CGI]=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Wed%20Dec%2012%2009%3A31%3A00%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE[GIFs]=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=99099057&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE[CPU]=Intel&CQ_SAVE[Browser]=W3C&CQ_SAVE[BrowserVersion]=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE[Base]=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE[Home]=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html (http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE%5bCGI%5d=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Wed%20Dec%2012%2009%3A31%3A00%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE%5bGIFs%5d=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=99099057&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE%5bCPU%5d=Intel&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowser%5d=W3C&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowserVersion%5d=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE%5bBase%5d=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE%5bHome%5d=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html)

[scooterbug44]

Could it possibly be that Radical Islam doesn't hate us because they have been bent on world domination since the 7th century, but because we keep playing an incredibly poor chess game with their region, helping topple their governments, and keep giving their enemies weaponry? :idontno:

[seacrestkristi]

Very interesting, scooterbuggy! I agree. We should try to listen more. Why can't we all be friends. Just because of oil? :idontno: We are too modern for that, aren't we?
aLTERNATIVE ENERGY, LET'S GET IT!:D

[Bob]

Could it possibly be that Radical Islam doesn't hate us because they have been bent on world domination since the 7th century, but because we keep playing an incredibly poor chess game with their region, helping topple their governments, and keep giving their enemies weaponry? :idontno:No......we want to give them democracy so that they will then want Wendy's and cable TV and major league baseball and the chia pet.....it's has nothing to do with oil or money. Move along please.

[rehdrahk]

scooterbug and seacrest ....

did you know :)

"They don't attack us because we're rich and we're free, they attack us because we're over there" - Ron Paul

"It's time American soldiers quit being killed and it's time for us to quit killing a lot of other people who have not attacked us" - Ron Paul

[scooterbug44]

I know, I am just having a difficult time getting past his gun control (or complete lack thereof), abortion, and several other positions.

[jdarg]

I know, I am just having a difficult time getting past his gun control (or complete lack thereof), abortion, and several other positions.

Don't worry Scooterbug, Ron Paul wants us to go back to state control for all those pesky little issues. Maybe you will be lucky enough to live in a state that shares your views.

[rehdrahk]

Or even more importantly you can become an activist in the state you choose to reside and help influence the state laws to reflect your views and therefore disassociate yourself from federal governance :)

[scooterbug44]

I think letting the states decide so many issues is going to be a bureaucratic and law enforcement nightmare and a lawbreaker's dream come true!

[jdarg]

I think letting the states decide so many issues is going to be a bureaucratic and law enforcement nightmare and a lawbreaker's dream come true!

Yup.

[rehdrahk]

Well, I can kinda of see where you are coming from, but remember that the states will not be able to pass laws that infringe on our constitutional rights, this what the federal government to is supposed to enforce .... not its own set of laws on the nation as a whole.

I do have to disagree though, because if you look at the reality of the situation, for the most part, law is already upheld at the local level. The local precincts or counties of each state have to abide by their state law, but that does not mean each judge will give the same sentencing for similar crimes ... A DUI sentence in Massachusetts is not the same as one in Florida, much less a DUI in Walton County is not enforced the same as one in Okaloosa county ...

[scooterbug44]

Well since he wants all of us (even the mentally ill) to have guns, we can hash it out at our respective state borders whenever someone needs an abortion. :yikes:

[fisher]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Time to put your money where your mouth is Fisher.

[

Your intellectual and moral superiority has overwhelmed me. You are obviously a Rhodes Scholar, a card carrying member of Mensa and probably a brain surgeon or CEO of one of the largest most complex corporations on earth. So, you first.

Not that any of us has the answer to such a complex situation but please enlighten us with your vast knowledge on how the US (and the rest of the West) should deal with the problem of radical Islam's desire to eradicate modern civilization as we know it. I, along with probably the rest of the civilized world, am waiting for your answers to the big questions. Start with what happens when we pull out of Iraq.

[Bob]

Your intellectual and moral superiority has overwhelmed me. You are obviously a Rhodes Scholar, a card carrying member of Mensa and probably a brain surgeon or CEO of one of the largest most complex corporations on earth. So, you first.

Not that any of us has the answer to such a complex situation but please enlighten us with your vast knowledge on how the US (and the rest of the West) should deal with the problem of radical Islam's desire to eradicate modern civilization as we know it. I, along with probably the rest of the civilized world, am waiting for your answers to the big questions. Start with what happens when we pull out of Iraq.Turn Fox News off and stop insulting your Uncle. You may learn something from him if you park your pride.

[User 3]

Your intellectual and moral superiority has overwhelmed me. You are obviously a Rhodes Scholar, a card carrying member of Mensa and probably a brain surgeon or CEO of one of the largest most complex corporations on earth. So, you first.

Not that any of us has the answer to such a complex situation but please enlighten us with your vast knowledge on how the US (and the rest of the West) should deal with the problem of radical Islam's desire to eradicate modern civilization as we know it. I, along with probably the rest of the civilized world, am waiting for your answers to the big questions. Start with what happens when we pull out of Iraq.


I'm sensing a bit sarcasm in the first paragraph. I am not of the credentials listed, but I felt like answering the question asked.

1. Troops come home.
a. Troops happy
b. Spouses of troops happy
c. Children of troops happy
d. Parents of troops happy
e. The rest of the family members of troops happy

2. Less spending.
a. No more spending on a war we already won.
1. Eliminanate WMDs — Done. (objective one)
2. Regime Change — Done. (objective two)
3. Install Democracy — Done. (objective three)
*I am still waiting for congress to declare this war though*
b. Only spend money on a small task force to find Osama
*Isn't that what were supposed to be doing?*
c. Start saving all of the billions of dollars spent on the war

3. Get out of debt.
a. Start paying China back.
*A good start at restoring the value of our dollar*
*Realize our economy may be back on the rise*
b. Apologize to Iraq for the mess we made
*They may not hear the apology with the whole civil war thing going on*
*But at least with us out of the way they can fight in peace right?*

4. Cut more foreign occupation by our military
a. Start saving more billions of dollars

5. Start securing the borders of OUR country
a. Build more bases along our borders
1. Creating jobs for displaced foreign military members
2. Creating more individual feeling of security
b. Build a wall or two along the borders
1. Creating jobs for the American People
*Having the illegals build the wall that will keep them out would be fun but...*
2. Preventing people who should not be here from getting here
3. Creating more individual feeling of security

6. Opening up jobs for more American workers
a. No more illegal workers doesn't me less jobs
b. Companies would be forced to pay workers proper wages
1. American workers would be happy
2. Americans have more money
c. Creation of more American businesses/industries

7. Economy starts to get better
a. Americans spend money on American products
1. American companies start succeeding
2. American companies give better wages and benefits to employees

8. American people feel more secure
a. American people have more money, health coverage, and savings.

9. Dollar regains its value in the world economy
a. America lifts sanctions on all countries and opens trade dialog
b. American suppliers can supply all that American needs
1. America only needs to export
a. American companies become even bigger and stronger
b. New jobs
c. Increased wages
d. More benefits
2. Dollar becomes more powerful than all other currencies

10. Government realizes their only role is to protect the American citizens
a. Less spending than ever before
1. Abolishes the income tax/war tax because there is no more war
a. American people happy

11. Americans spend more on their Education
a. Better wages for teachers
1. Increasing desire to teach
b. Better facilities to learn in
1. Increasing the desire to learn
a. Better grades and more educated students
1. Producing better employees/employers
b. Foreign students flock to American schools for better education
1. Better wages for teachers
a.Increasing desire to teach
*And so on*

11.Creation of the "We have arrived" America
a. More secure
b. Well educated
c. Prosperous
d. More Liberties
e. And everyone is Happier

*All because we left Iraq*

[Bob]

I'm sensing a bit sarcasm in the first paragraph. I am not of the credentials listed, but I felt like answering the question asked.

1. Troops come home.
a. Troops happy
b. Spouses of troops happy
c. Children of troops happy
d. Parents of troops happy
e. The rest of the family members of troops happy

2. Less spending.
a. No more spending on a war we already won.
1. Eliminanate WMDs — Done. (objective one)
2. Regime Change — Done. (objective two)
3. Install Democracy — Done. (objective three)
*I am still waiting for congress to declare this war though*
b. Only spend money on a small task force to find Osama
*Isn't that what were supposed to be doing?*
c. Start saving all of the billions of dollars spent on the war

3. Get out of debt.
a. Start paying China back.
*A good start at restoring the value of our dollar*
*Realize our economy may be back on the rise*
b. Apologize to Iraq for the mess we made
*They may not hear the apology with the whole civil war thing going on*
*But at least with us out of the way they can fight in peace right?*

4. Cut more foreign occupation by our military
a. Start saving more billions of dollars

5. Start securing the borders of OUR country
a. Build more bases along our borders
1. Creating jobs for displaced foreign military members
2. Creating more individual feeling of security
b. Build a wall or two along the borders
1. Creating jobs for the American People
*Having the illegals build the wall that will keep them out would be fun but...*
2. Preventing people who should not be here from getting here
3. Creating more individual feeling of security

6. Opening up jobs for more American workers
a. No more illegal workers doesn't me less jobs
b. Companies would be forced to pay workers proper wages
1. American workers would be happy
2. Americans have more money
c. Creation of more American businesses/industries

7. Economy starts to get better
a. Americans spend money on American products
1. American companies start succeeding
2. American companies give better wages and benefits to employees

8. American people feel more secure
a. American people have more money, health coverage, and savings.

9. Dollar regains its value in the world economy
a. America lifts sanctions on all countries and opens trade dialog
b. American suppliers can supply all that American needs
1. America only needs to export
a. American companies become even bigger and stronger
b. New jobs
c. Increased wages
d. More benefits
2. Dollar becomes more powerful than all other currencies

10. Government realizes their only role is to protect the American citizens
a. Less spending than ever before
1. Abolishes the income tax/war tax because there is no more war
a. American people happy

11. Americans spend more on their Education
a. Better wages for teachers
1. Increasing desire to teach
b. Better facilities to learn in
1. Increasing the desire to learn
a. Better grades and more educated students
1. Producing better employees/employers
b. Foreign students flock to American schools for better education
1. Better wages for teachers
a.Increasing desire to teach
*And so on*

11.Creation of the "We have arrived" America
a. More secure
b. Well educated
c. Prosperous
d. More Liberties
e. And everyone is Happier

*All because we left Iraq*no, no.....they're coming to get us and it's World War Three......We are not happy, because we are under attack and they ain't Christians. Kill them, veto children's health care, and then lecture us that we are all addicted to oil whilst sitting with the great Presidential thumb up the colon.

[rehdrahk]

Well since he wants all of us (even the mentally ill) to have guns, we can hash it out at our respective state borders whenever someone needs an abortion. :yikes:

Ouch, he has never stated he wants all of us to have guns .... this is the overwhelming misconception of his platform ... he wants all of us to know we have the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution and will protect our right to do so ...

There are always two sides to every coin. I can see how important this issue is to you and I applaud you for being so straight forward in regards to how you feel.

I just want to get the message across that you are not going to get everything you want out of one politician, even though there are many that will pander and say whatever it is going to take in order to secure your vote.

I would just keep in mind that RP actually has an agenda he plans on sticking with and it begins with you regaining some of the rights you have lost in last 7 years so that we can insure that our children will be able to have these educated debates in a forum such as this one :)

All the other candidates are "federal business as usual" selections.

[Uncle Timmy]

Your intellectual and moral superiority has overwhelmed me. You are obviously a Rhodes Scholar, a card carrying member of Mensa and probably a brain surgeon or CEO of one of the largest most complex corporations on earth. So, you first.

Not that any of us has the answer to such a complex situation but please enlighten us with your vast knowledge on how the US (and the rest of the West) should deal with the problem of radical Islam's desire to eradicate modern civilization as we know it. I, along with probably the rest of the civilized world, am waiting for your answers to the big questions. Start with what happens when we pull out of Iraq.

Now why would I do that when I have spent the past 6 or 8 months posting that we should not unilaterally pull out of Iraq?

Welcome to the party, late comer. Let me suggest you simply go back and read what I have already said here.

For me to address the other issue you presented, namely ‘radical Islam’s desire to eradicate modern civilization’ I would first have to believe that modern civilization is indeed threatened with extermination at the hands of some wild eyed mullahs. It is not.

Terrorism, as we are experiencing in the 21st century, does not come anywhere near the dual economic and military threat to ‘modern civilization’ as were posed by the Great Depression combined with the Second World War- and we overcame those just fine.

Besides this thread is about muscling our way into the Mid-East and Iran in particular, no? Why don’t you stop dithering around and explain to us why my challenges to the original article are incorrect.

I’ll make it easy for you –why not just look at one assertion: Explain the dynamic under which the Sunni-Arab countries will rally to and support Persian-Shia Iran. This is one of the core reasons presented in the article to justify action against Iran, after all. If you can’t back this up then you are really losing traction on the whole argument. Get busy.

[jdarg]

I'm sensing a bit sarcasm in the first paragraph. I am not of the credentials listed, but I felt like answering the question asked.

1. Troops come home.
a. Troops happy
b. Spouses of troops happy
c. Children of troops happy
d. Parents of troops happy
e. The rest of the family members of troops happy

2. Less spending.
a. No more spending on a war we already won.
1. Eliminanate WMDs — Done. (objective one)
2. Regime Change — Done. (objective two)
3. Install Democracy — Done. (objective three)
*I am still waiting for congress to declare this war though*
b. Only spend money on a small task force to find Osama
*Isn't that what were supposed to be doing?*
c. Start saving all of the billions of dollars spent on the war

3. Get out of debt.
a. Start paying China back.
*A good start at restoring the value of our dollar*
*Realize our economy may be back on the rise*
b. Apologize to Iraq for the mess we made
*They may not hear the apology with the whole civil war thing going on*
*But at least with us out of the way they can fight in peace right?*

4. Cut more foreign occupation by our military
a. Start saving more billions of dollars

5. Start securing the borders of OUR country
a. Build more bases along our borders
1. Creating jobs for displaced foreign military members
2. Creating more individual feeling of security
b. Build a wall or two along the borders
1. Creating jobs for the American People
*Having the illegals build the wall that will keep them out would be fun but...*
2. Preventing people who should not be here from getting here
3. Creating more individual feeling of security

6. Opening up jobs for more American workers
a. No more illegal workers doesn't me less jobs
b. Companies would be forced to pay workers proper wages
1. American workers would be happy
2. Americans have more money
c. Creation of more American businesses/industries

7. Economy starts to get better
a. Americans spend money on American products
1. American companies start succeeding
2. American companies give better wages and benefits to employees

8. American people feel more secure
a. American people have more money, health coverage, and savings.

9. Dollar regains its value in the world economy
a. America lifts sanctions on all countries and opens trade dialog
b. American suppliers can supply all that American needs
1. America only needs to export
a. American companies become even bigger and stronger
b. New jobs
c. Increased wages
d. More benefits
2. Dollar becomes more powerful than all other currencies

10. Government realizes their only role is to protect the American citizens
a. Less spending than ever before
1. Abolishes the income tax/war tax because there is no more war
a. American people happy

11. Americans spend more on their Education
a. Better wages for teachers
1. Increasing desire to teach
b. Better facilities to learn in
1. Increasing the desire to learn
a. Better grades and more educated students
1. Producing better employees/employers
b. Foreign students flock to American schools for better education
1. Better wages for teachers
a.Increasing desire to teach
*And so on*

11.Creation of the "We have arrived" America
a. More secure
b. Well educated
c. Prosperous
d. More Liberties
e. And everyone is Happier

*All because we left Iraq*

You can't possibly believe that if Ron Paul is elected President that all of this will just happen.

[User 3]

You can't possibly believe that if Ron Paul is elected President that all of this will just happen.

I was being a bit sarcastic. I believe, if Ron Paul is elected, he will pull the troops out, and I believe we would see our national debt start to decrease.

After that it's up to us. If the people of this nation really want a change to occur, then we the people need to start the movement. Our elected officials are supposed to listen to the people. But, if we the people aren't talking to the elected officials, they'll continue making decisions for us. And if we don't like the decisions being made, then who do we blame?

[Bob]

Fischer, stop the pasting in the Gore thread, and come on over for some knowledge. Learning something new won't hurt. Your Uncle asked you a straight up question.

[fisher]

UT,

We ain’t living in the 1800’s anymore when it took an armada and huge numbers of combatants to launch an attack on the US mainland. The oceans no longer provide the barrier they once did and we no longer fight with swords, guns and cannons that could individually kill a few folks at a time. No, we live in the nuclear age where one (or a few) well financed, smart, radical muslim (s) (or a radical Chinese, Korean, Canadian…) could carry a small nuclear device into downtown DC or New York (or both plus a few others) could send this country and the rest of the world into total meltdown. A few well financed “wild eyed mullahs” could actually create unbelievable worldwide chaos in this day and age. You are extremely naïve if you think otherwise.

The Sunni-Shia tug of war won’t be fixed during our lifetimes just like the Catholic-Protestant issues in Northern Ireland. However, here is what I think we need to do to ensure the survival of our nation.

Overall, the American people need to develop a backbone again. We need people to take responsibility for their own lives and not count on others to take care of them. We need to reembrace a sense of morality in this nation versus an anything goes kind of attitude. We are fat and lazy as a country. If we don’t turn things around very quickly, we will go the way of other great civilizations (Greeks, Romans, etc) that collapsed under their own excesses.

Specifically,

1. Develop total energy independence in the US and then help the rest of the world to do the same. This will cut off the flow of oil money to the middle east and limit the ability of well financed nut cases to develop nuclear options. Why won’t this happen? Because we are fat, lazy and to caught up in keeping everyone happy. Why not put up a small wind turbine at every new home built? Why not put a solar panel on every new home built? Why not put up huge wind farms of the coast of New England and the gulf coast? Because they aren’t pretty and someone always complains that it blocks their idyllic views. Why not drill in Anwar and off the panhandle of Florida? Because we are more worried about caribou and no ugly rigs in the gulf than we are about protecting our country. We need this domestic oil to cut our reliance on ME oil while we develop cheap hydrogen fuel cells cars, wind farms, and other alternative sources of energy. Do we have the intestinal fortitude to make these difficult decisions?

2. Keep a heavy military presence in the ME. Keep Al Qaeda sending “troops” to Iraq to fight our soldiers rather than sending them to the US. Keep Iran and Syria guessing by remaining strong in Iraq. Secure our interest in ME oil reserves (only important until we can become self sufficient per #1 above) by remaining in Iraq.

3. Throw out every sitting senator and representative and replace them with newly elected officials with term limits. We are spending ourselves into oblivion and catering to every special interest group in the world. Dems and Repubs are jointly responsible for the fiscal mess our country is in. We must reduce spending by the federal government. Why can’t we stop the overspending—because most people in this country have a sense of entitlement. Entitled to have a very nice place to live, two cars in the garage, steak for dinner every night, four weeks of vacation every year, 36 hour workweeks, etc, etc. If you can’t get it yourself, well the government should provide it. A large portion of our citizenry doesn’t want to work hard in school or in a career. Everyone in this country cannot live a middle class life—it’s an impossibility. Trying to bring to bring every citizen of the US into a middle class existence is breaking the back of our nation.

4. Fix social security (yes, this means reducing benefits—no two ways about it). We cannot provide for everyone’s needs in retirement. People need to save for their own retirement and work as long as necessary. Family needs to take care of family as they do in other parts of the world. Sons and daughters need to take care of their parents in their old age. Why doesn’t this happen more often—because we are too wrapped up in our own self fulfillment to use our time and money to care for our aging parents.

5. Fix our healthcare system. This starts with reducing the role of big pharma and leading healthier lifestyles. We are over medicated to the nth degree. The resulting deaths and disabilities caused by this overmedication are unbelievably taxing our healthcare system. For example, vioxx and other heavy hitting antiinflammatories and the statin drugs for cholesterol have caused reactions in vast numbers of people including heart attacks, liver damage, kidney damage, etc. Treating these reactions has huge costs. How do we solve some of these problems with over medication. Again, we start with the individual and self responsibility. Instead of taking the stating to lower the cholesterol try this—forego the eggs and bacon for breakfast and eat oatmeal and wheat toast, for lunch forego the big mac and fries for lunch and eat some veggie fajitas, then before dinner, jog three miles or ride your bike for 10 miles and do some light weights, then for dinner, forego the fried chicken and fried veggies and eat a lean cut of beef and some sautéed veggies. Taking personal responsibility for our own health would fix the healthcare system in a very short period of time.

6. Enforce harsher sentences on criminals and enforce the death penalty. No more waiting 25 years before we pull the switch on convicted killers. Make would be criminals think before they act. We’ve gone totally soft in this country. I’m not saying we should enact Sharia law where we cut off hands for shoplifting, but criminals don’t feel threatened by the justice system as they used to.


I could go on and on, but don’t have the time. I am clearly politically incorrect. But, the problem with our country IS our “political correctness”. We are afraid to offend anyone, hurt anyone’s feelings, make anyone work hard if they don’t want to, etc.

It’s all about personal responsibility. It’s a principle our nation was founded on, but one that we’ve gotten away from.

[Bob]

uh oh, I got what I asked for.... a mini neo-con manifesto. Did paragraphs 1 and 2 answer Uncle Timmy's question? Did you take personal responsibility and address his question?

[Uncle Timmy]

I could go on and on, ........

Please don’t.

I agree with Bob on this one.

Focus Fisher. I am here in a thread about future US Policy in the Mid-East and Iran and have no idea where a discussion about Vioxx (among other things) fits into this. So I’m really only going to address the primary point of this thread.

It ain’t a lack of backbone that’s the problem here -we simply do not have the ability, manpower, money or capability to invade, or physically intimidate every single country, group, or individual that may potentially threaten the US.

2 primary points to address from your rambling post:

1) Can’t fail to notice you’re dropped the ridiculous notion that someone is going to ‘exterminate modern civilization’. A bit extreme, no? Yes a nuclear attack on Washington or NY would be devastating; but, unfortunately for your assertion there are many excellent reasons why a more robust US presence in the mid-east only heightens the tension, and siphons off our resources, thereby making such an attack more likely.

2) If your primary concern here is essentially the ability of a small group or individual to harm US interests then I would encourage you to pull your nose out of the Neo-Con playbook for a second and study the actual news from the past few years. Police action and the coordinated work of various international security and intelligence agencies have had remarkable success in thwarting a number of attacks. Diverting more resources towards these entities is the best response to the threat of terrorism.

Most importantly, you have addressed the idea of a more aggressive, robust US presence in the Mid-East with a lot of fear mongering –do you have any scholarly or rational thoughts on this subject?

If this debate comes down to fear versus reason, I’m going with the rational assessment and plan.

[Uncle Timmy]

UT,


The Sunni-Shia tug of war won’t be fixed during our lifetimes just like the Catholic-Protestant issues in Northern Ireland.

Good, we agree on this point.

So why then are you supporting an article that simply brushes over this complex and enduring issue and makes the blind leap into the assessment that “The Mid-East will rally to Iran”? It won’t.

It is a poorly made assertion in what we can all conclude is a poorly thought out article on US Policy in the Mid-East.

[Uncle Timmy]

UT,

We ain’t living in the 1800’s anymore when it took an armada and huge numbers of combatants to launch an attack on the US mainland. The oceans no longer provide the barrier they once did and we no longer fight with swords, guns and cannons that could individually kill a few folks at a time. No, we live in the nuclear age where one (or a few) well financed, smart, radical muslim (s) (or a radical Chinese, Korean, Canadian…) could carry a small nuclear device into downtown DC or New York (or both plus a few others) could send this country and the rest of the world into total meltdown. A few well financed “wild eyed mullahs” could actually create unbelievable worldwide chaos in this day and age. You are extremely naïve if you think otherwise.



2. Keep a heavy military presence in the ME. Keep Al Qaeda sending “troops” to Iraq to fight our soldiers rather than sending them to the US. Keep Iran and Syria guessing by remaining strong in Iraq. Secure our interest in ME oil reserves (only important until we can become self sufficient per #1 above) by remaining in Iraq.

.

Re-read your own post. You contradict your own point.

Massed armies and troops don’t matter anymore because all it takes is one individual to ‘destroy us’; and yet we must keep their armies and troops busy in Iraq because somehow this will prevent an individual from coming here.

What?

[destindreamer]

"It ain’t a lack of backbone that’s the problem here -we simply do not have the ability, manpower, money or capability to invade, or physically intimidate every single country, group, or individual that may potentially threaten the US.


If I recall, we sure had the ability, manpower, money, and capability in WW2. We've just forgotten how to win in an effort to please. A fraction of sacrifice by the American people would enable this country to start and finish any endeavor it undertook. It's a lack of backbone. Bread and Circus. Fisher for President.

[Uncle Timmy]

If I recall, we sure had the ability, manpower, money, and capability in WW2. We've just forgotten how to win in an effort to please. A fraction of sacrifice by the American people would enable this country to start and finish any endeavor it undertook. It's a lack of backbone. Bread and Circus. Fisher for President.

Does your recollection go back enough to remember the huge number of allies we had in WWII?

If you are interested in why the US is doing so poorly in the current conflicts maybe you should check out what the Army’s CAC think-tank has to say on the subject:

http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE[CGI]=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Fri%20Dec%2014%2011%3A23%3A11%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE[GIFs]=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=20756517&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE[CPU]=Intel&CQ_SAVE[Browser]=W3C&CQ_SAVE[BrowserVersion]=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE[Base]=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE[Home]=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html (http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE%5bCGI%5d=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Fri%20Dec%2014%2011%3A23%3A11%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE%5bGIFs%5d=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=20756517&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE%5bCPU%5d=Intel&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowser%5d=W3C&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowserVersion%5d=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE%5bBase%5d=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE%5bHome%5d=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html)



Interesting article, you’ll note they aren’t blaming ‘a lack of backbone’ as the problem.

Oh, and I think we’ve had enough damage done by Neo-Con influenced Presidents, thank you.

[destindreamer]

Does your recollection go back enough to remember the huge number of allies we had in WWII?

Please, it's called an atomic bomb. Use it sparingly but when needed. It keeps the doors of freedom, that we all love, swinging wide. The bomb and "no lack of backbone to use it" was our success, not a band of allies. We've always had allies, always will.

If you are interested in why the US is doing so poorly in the current conflicts maybe you should check out what the Army’s CAC think-tank has to say on the subject:

http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE[CGI]=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Fri%20Dec%2014%2011%3A23%3A11%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE[GIFs]=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=20756517&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE[CPU]=Intel&CQ_SAVE[Browser]=W3C&CQ_SAVE[BrowserVersion]=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE[Base]=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE[Home]=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html (http://calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env?CQ_SAVE%5bCGI%5d=/scripts/cqcgi.exe/@ss_prod.env&CQ_MAIN=YES&CQ_LOGIN=YES&CQDC=Fri%20Dec%2014%2011%3A23%3A11%20CST%202007&CQ_SAVE%5bGIFs%5d=/rware/gif8&CQ_USER_NAME=20756517&CQ_PASSWORD=xxx&CQ_SAVE%5bCPU%5d=Intel&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowser%5d=W3C&CQ_SAVE%5bBrowserVersion%5d=ie5_5up&CQ_SAVE%5bBase%5d=calldp.leavenworth.army.mil&CQ_SAVE%5bHome%5d=http%3A//calldp.leavenworth.army.mil/call_pub.html)


Interesting article, you’ll note they aren’t blaming ‘a lack of backbone’ as the problem.

Maybe the CAC think-thank should take a close look at why we use to do so well in conflicts. We removed the threat totally. We had no "feelings" for our enemies. We were a country protecting our own interests. It's actually quiet simple. Think-Tanks only complicate problems. There is an article by a think tank for every position. If you look at history and the conflicts we won and repeat that behavior, we will win again.

Oh, and I think we’ve had enough damage done by Neo-Con influenced Presidents, thank you.

If enough damage was really done, we would be out of the middle east.

[Bob]

"It ain’t a lack of backbone that’s the problem here -we simply do not have the ability, manpower, money or capability to invade, or physically intimidate every single country, group, or individual that may potentially threaten the US.


If I recall, we sure had the ability, manpower, money, and capability in WW2. We've just forgotten how to win in an effort to please. A fraction of sacrifice by the American people would enable this country to start and finish any endeavor it undertook. It's a lack of backbone. Bread and Circus. Fisher for President.he's been president for 7 long years.....what is there to win? where's your ww2-like war?

[destindreamer]

he's been president for 7 long years.....what is there to win? where's your ww2-like war?

My point exactly - no backbone, we're soft. Our dignity as a nation is one thing that comes to mind when I think of "what is there to win." A nuclear weapon will always leave the wanna be's and radicals with something to ponder in addition to annihilating their resources. Unless I stand corrected, Japan had pretty big ambitions.

I realize that there are a million ways to dissect this problem. I also realize that we have not taken a serious military approach to finishing the task as we did in WW2.


Sounding smart is one thing, doing something smart before it is to late is another.

[Bob]

My point exactly - no backbone, we're soft. Our dignity as a nation is one thing that comes to mind when I think of "what is there to win." A nuclear weapon will always leave the wanna be's and radicals with something to ponder in addition to annihilating their resources. Unless I stand corrected, Japan had pretty big ambitions.

I realize that there are a million ways to dissect this problem. I also realize that we have not taken a serious military approach to finishing the task as we did in WW2.


Sounding smart is one thing, doing something smart before it is to late is another.you want to do what we fear terrorists may do? who would you kill with your bomb?

[destindreamer]

you want to do what we fear terrorists may do? who would you kill with your bomb?

I would kill the problem and be willing to say we would be problem free for an extended period. If you don't protect your own interest who will? It is us or them when you get right down to it, sure I would prefer a civilized out but we know that there isn't. This situation is not one that will ever find negotiable peace. This enemy doesn't negotiate, they kill. We have succeeded in the past in complex conflicts. If we look at our overwhelming victories it becomes obvious what needs to be done.

War is inevitable and present, there will be a winner, it might as well be us.

[User 3]

"The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration's perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty's terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.

Are we to think that Iran hasn't noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn't they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.

Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country's economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity."

[destindreamer]

I realize it is Christmas but we're talking about Iran, right? Look at their track record on human rights alone and trust is not something I would recommend.

[Fishfood]

The General who wrote this piece makes a very good case for why the U.S. should continue to be a profit juggernaut for the military industrial complex and should wage immoral war without regard to human life or threat level for profit all the while ignoring the concerns of Americans here at home.

That's about it. Iran is not a threat to the U.S. We are the instigators here. And the Democrats aren't interested in changing things either.

One of my favorite pieces of television irony happened a few months ago on Bill Maher's show. His panel included Democratic congressman Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel went on and on bashing the war mongering Bush and then had the stones to defend the notion (and his vote) that part of Iran's legal military should be labeled a terrorist group. Either he isn't very smart or he is simply certain that the American public is even less so.

The same congress that voted for the Iraq War because they were "fooled by the Bush administration" is being "fooled into" taking the country in the same direction with Iran. One can hope that this new intellignce report will squash the drum beat of war a bit, but it wouldn't be a shock to see something coveniently reverse this new information sometime in the not so distant future.

If there is anything more sickening than politicians who play dumb while signing up the nation's poor to go kill innocents overseas unprovoked, it's listening to politicians who do this in the name of their corporate paymasters tell me as a taxpayer I'm going to have to "make some sacrifices" in the future if I want a better America. We outspend the next 14 highest nations combined on military and yet I need to pay higher taxes if I want sick kids without insurance to be able to see a doctor.

I'm actually for Ron Paul and a libertarian, but I'd rather have my money wasted keeping kids alive than blowing up people who did nothing to us. If we want to be safer we need to quit imposing our will on nations, clean up our internal messes and focus on doing business with the rest of the world. A bloody Middle east rampage is not only morally wrong, it's also strategically futile and financially irresponsible.

[Fishfood]

From the article:

"This Republic (note I did not say Democracy) is the longest standing the
world has ever known, but it is vulnerable."

I guess this guy never heard of the Roman Republic. Anyone who claims to be an authority on geo-political strategy and says things like this is a dubious source at best. At least he got the Democracy part right.

[Bob]

I realize it is Christmas but we're talking about Iran, right? Look at their track record on human rights alone and trust is not something I would recommend.Well you can not trust a country all the time[ see Libya ], but that does not mean you attack them, does it? Is Iran an eminent threat? Would it surprise you to know there are Russian subs stoked with nukes still patrolling just outside our waters. Will we dig up the body of Curtis LeMay and start bombing Putin and company? Our problems with Iran started when we helped the Shah become dictator. They're still not happy that the United States forced a government on them. Sound familiar?......Iraq?????? How about leave people alone, and profit through trade and mutual harmony[ see Vietnam ].

[destindreamer]

Well you can not trust a country all the time[ see Libya ], but that does not mean you attack them, does it?

No.

Is Iran an eminent threat?

Time will tell. I am not advocating an unprovoked-unjustified strike.

Would it surprise you to know there are Russian subs stoked with nukes still patrolling just outside our waters. Will we dig up the body of Curtis LeMay and start bombing Putin and company? Our problems with Iran started when we helped the Shah become dictator. They're still not happy that the United States forced a government on them. Sound familiar?......Iraq??????

How about leave people alone, and profit through trade and mutual harmony[ see Vietnam ].

Sounds like the perfect plan for a perfect world and I welcome it. Everyone has to be on board, hence the problem. When that world exist so will peace. Until that day, I prefer to be one step ahead of them.


.

[User 3]

I realize it is Christmas but we're talking about Iran, right? Look at their track record on human rights alone and trust is not something I would recommend.

Actually, I was talking about the National Intelligence Estimate. And you should look into their track record. I am not discounting that the Iranian's human rights are well below sub par. What I am saying is that they are no eminent threat and we should not be involved in a war with them. I don't agree with President Bush's statement that the Constitution is just a d**n piece of paper. I believe we should follow the instructions it gives us as country. I believe it says to quit trying to build up other nations and reinforce your own.

But then I was confused with the next thing you said...

I am not advocating an unprovoked-unjustified strike.

And then you said...

I prefer to be one step ahead of them.

I am curious to what it is you want to do? First you said don't attack them, but then you said attack them. Will you please explain?

[destindreamer]

I prefer to be one step ahead of my adversary whomever it is with whatever means are necessary. I do not mean that it always be an attack, although I am not opposed to one if it is warranted. An attack, imo, should be the final option.

I believe the board has plugged Iran into this equation.

[6thGen]

Ron Paul supporters remind me a lot of Nena. They come in with a catchy beat and story about a trip to the toy shop to purchase a bag of balloons, and the beautiful sight of letting them all go like Paul’s positions on Social Security, lower taxes and less spending, health care and property rights. You think to yourself, “Self, that’s really something I can get behind. Good to see these ideas making it to the mainstream.” Then you get the hint that he’s a wee bit off -“Something’s out there” – is his protectionist policy on trade. Then the catchy beat picks back up, he supports the Second Amendment, and actually GETS the argument against abortion. Then, before you know it, you realize they've Trojan Horsed their moonbat crazy M&I conspiracies and the immoral war rhetoric while you were just humming along to a catchy tune. Before you know it they are telling people that a few balloons triggered worldwide nuclear annihilation.

[elgordoboy]

HA! That's pretty good.

[rehdrahk]

Ron Paul supporters remind me a lot of Nena. They come in with a catchy beat and story about a trip to the toy shop to purchase a bag of balloons, and the beautiful sight of letting them all go like Paul’s positions on Social Security, lower taxes and less spending, health care and property rights. You think to yourself, “Self, that’s really something I can get behind. Good to see these ideas making it to the mainstream.” Then you get the hint that he’s a wee bit off -“Something’s out there” – is his protectionist policy on trade. Then the catchy beat picks back up, he supports the Second Amendment, and actually GETS the argument against abortion. Then, before you know it, you realize they've Trojan Horsed their moonbat crazy M&I conspiracies and the immoral war rhetoric while you were just humming along to a catchy tune. Before you know it they are telling people that a few balloons triggered worldwide nuclear annihilation.

What ... do some research ... this post is nothing but rhetoric ... Ron Paul is speaking from an educated position, the kind you get when you pick up books, you know the things with a front and back bind with a bunch of paper in between ... contrary to present opinion they still hold a substantial value to our society.

[Bob]

Ron Paul supporters remind me a lot of Nena. They come in with a catchy beat and story about a trip to the toy shop to purchase a bag of balloons, and the beautiful sight of letting them all go like Paul’s positions on Social Security, lower taxes and less spending, health care and property rights. You think to yourself, “Self, that’s really something I can get behind. Good to see these ideas making it to the mainstream.” Then you get the hint that he’s a wee bit off -“Something’s out there” – is his protectionist policy on trade. Then the catchy beat picks back up, he supports the Second Amendment, and actually GETS the argument against abortion. Then, before you know it, you realize they've Trojan Horsed their moonbat crazy M&I conspiracies and the immoral war rhetoric while you were just humming along to a catchy tune. Before you know it they are telling people that a few balloons triggered worldwide nuclear annihilation.you would do well to match his resume...i'll spot you 30 years

[User 3]

Ron Paul supporters remind me a lot of Nena. They come in with a catchy beat and story about a trip to the toy shop to purchase a bag of balloons, and the beautiful sight of letting them all go like Paul’s positions on Social Security, lower taxes and less spending, health care and property rights. You think to yourself, “Self, that’s really something I can get behind. Good to see these ideas making it to the mainstream.”

I'm not sure where you see the mainstream media picking up on these ideas?

Then you get the hint that he’s a wee bit off -“Something’s out there” – is his protectionist policy on trade.

If you look at the lyrics, you would notice it was "bugs in the software" that actually caused them to say "Something's out there". I would say in this analogy you are attempting to make, the media would actually be the problem because they are creating the "bugs in the software" by reporting incorrectly the things Ron Paul is saying.

Then the catchy beat picks back up, he supports the Second Amendment, and actually GETS the argument against abortion.

At no point in the lyrics do they pick back up this catchy beat after the initial oversight about the incorrect message.

Then, before you know it, you realize they've Trojan Horsed their moonbat crazy M&I conspiracies and the immoral war rhetoric while you were just humming along to a catchy tune. Before you know it they are telling people that a few balloons triggered worldwide nuclear annihilation.

So, in the end, the media with all of the attempts to keep the message of Ron Paul down has been defeated because Ron Paul is elected President.

"And "I (a Ron Paul supporter) am standing pretty
In this dust that was a city (a United States run by George W. Bush)
If I could find a souvenier
Just to prove the world was here...
And here is a red balloon (The Constitution)
I think of you and let it go."

here you go-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Isn't it cool how a single individual selling balloons could make such a dramatic difference. The media says what it will, but the people are the one's who will decide. Vote Ron Paul and buy his balloons.

[6thGen]

I’d support Paul if he hired had absolutely nothing to do with the US’ relationship with other countries or people therein and was locked away from the secret bunker that handled all foreign policy. Here is some of the stuff I have a problem with, note nothing from the black helicopter media.

“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.”

“NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.”
“We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”

[User 3]

Here is some of the stuff I have a problem with, note nothing from the black helicopter media.

“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.”

“NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.”
“We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”

Would you like to ellaborate as to why you have a problem with these quotes?

[6thGen]

Would you like to ellaborate as to why you have a problem with these quotes?

I’m a libertarian leaning Republican, but Paul is naïve to believe that if butt out, problems go away. Old Europe can testify to that. Since radical muslims have proven they don’t tend to differentiate between bombing their caves and banning headdresses in elementary schools, I’d prefer to call the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross BEFORE the Pope casts his arms abroad for agony and loss, but that’s a whole nother thread that I don’t have time for right now. I’m not for constant meddling and I’m far from a neo-con (you actually seem like someone that would know what that actually means), but I’m of the position that taking the fight to their backyard with a strong military is preferable to policing them from killing civilians.

As for the trade issue, I’m a WSJ editorial page open borders type, and I’ve read every Friedman book published and many of his articles, so rather than spelling out my problems with Paul on that and wasting both of our time, I’ll just point to where I’m coming from. I can articulate it, but I’m guessing you’ve read both positions.

[scooterbug44]

I agree that an isolationist position is unrealistic, but feel that part of the problem is of our own making.

Our hubris and need for oil/profit got us into this situation and demonizing the 2nd largest religion in the world and claiming the terrorists will kill us all in a holy war if we stop our military occupation in the region isn't the solution for getting us out.

[6thGen]

Our hubris and need for oil/profit got us into this situation

No, it didn't.


claiming the terrorists will kill us all in a holy war if we stop our military occupation in the region isn't the solution for getting us out.

Where/who said that?

[User 3]

I’m a libertarian leaning Republican, but Paul is naïve to believe that if butt out, problems go away. Old Europe can testify to that. Since radical muslims have proven they don’t tend to differentiate between bombing their caves and banning headdresses in elementary schools, I’d prefer to call the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross BEFORE the Pope casts his arms abroad for agony and loss, but that’s a whole nother thread that I don’t have time for right now.

Personally, I don't feel that all Muslim people are trying to "cast their arms abroad for agony and loss". I do feel that the Al Qaeda members are extremist looking to cause terror for the entire world. I don't feel that the US occupying Iraq is going to reverse the Al Qaeda mentality. I do feel it may increase the popularity of the Al Qaeda position against us. I feel strongly that we are involved in an unjust war against Iraq. We declared war on Al Qaeda, not on Iraq. If we really wanted to go after a specific country, based on the number of terrorists from Saudi Arabia involved in the 9/11 attacks, it would make more sense to be in Saudi Arabia. I would like to see us protect ourselves against terrorists, but I don't think our troops being policemen in another country helps defend our own. Right now it is too easy to get into our county illegally, which means it is too easy for a terrorist to get in our county.

I’m not for constant meddling and I’m far from a neo-con (you actually seem like someone that would know what that actually means), but I’m of the position that taking the fight to their backyard with a strong military is preferable to policing them from killing civilians.

At what point do we stop expanding this war? Are we really trying to eradicate the terrorists or are we trying to eradicate Muslims?

As for the trade issue, I’m a WSJ editorial page open borders type, and I’ve read every Friedman book published and many of his articles, so rather than spelling out my problems with Paul on that and wasting both of our time, I’ll just point to where I’m coming from. I can articulate it, but I’m guessing you’ve read both positions.

I'm pretty sure his statement on trade has always been "Alliance with none, and trade with all".

But here is what he says exactly:

"Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul%27s%2Bisolationism%3A%2 BUnrealistic%2Band%2Bdangerous&articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2) must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy – the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself – is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers – and soon voters – is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world."

[6thGen]

The “cast their arms abroad for agony and loss” line was a Chesterton reference, and it was referencing the Pope, not Muslims.

I debated the war here for some time and already said that I don’t wish to rehash it when I know the disagreement is fundamental. I think it is good to see Paul bring some ideas that have been in the think tanks for some time to a debate, but for him to paint himself as the only person who respects the Constitution, it is silly and insulting.

[rehdrahk]

but for him to paint himself as the only person who respects the Constitution, it is silly and insulting ...

I would like to know which of the other candidates running have demonstrated a strong commitment to our Constitution, not only through their verbiage, but through a documented string of actions.

I do not think that Ron Paul feels he is the only person who respects the Constitution, only that he is the only candidate in his field that uses the Constitution as his guide for making governmental decisions.

As far as using the war as a means to oil/profit ... I find it fascinating that you disagree ...

You come across as someone well read and I would like to know your thoughts on why we have gone to war with Iraq, not whether it is right or wrong ... just a simple why?

[Bob]

Yes, he's well read in conservative dogma, enjoys being obtuse to prove his superiority, but is woefully lacking in reasoned experience.

[User 3]

The “cast their arms abroad for agony and loss” line was a Chesterton reference, and it was referencing the Pope, not Muslims.

I’m a libertarian leaning Republican, but Paul is naïve to believe that if butt out, problems go away. Old Europe can testify to that. Since radical muslims have proven they don’t tend to differentiate between bombing their caves and banning headdresses in elementary schools, I’d prefer to call the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross BEFORE the Pope casts his arms abroad for agony and loss, but that’s a whole nother thread that I don’t have time for right now.

This seems to make the comparison that we are the kings of Christendom and the Muslims are the Pope. It seems like you're saying we should attack them before they act against us. This leads me to the same conclusion you have come to.

I debated the war here for some time and already said that I don’t wish to rehash it when I know the disagreement is fundamental.

Then you said...

I think it is good to see Paul bring some ideas that have been in the think tanks for some time to a debate, but for him to paint himself as the only person who respects the Constitution, it is silly and insulting.

Really? Who else is using the Constitution to back all of his/her political stances? If the other candidates are using the Constitution to back all of their stances, shouldn't they all be saying the same thing?