The Paulbearer nuttery factor for this thread is
Friggin' Berry, damnit...
Posted on 07/21/2007 5:10:41 PM PDT by neverdem
I have a question for the adults, such as yourself. How do we know when we've won? What milestone do we use as the indicator of when we can say "It's over, let's go home."? Islam is the problem. Is the goal to destroy Islam? Maybe to kill all of the Muslims in the world? Is that when we can say "The world is safe for Democracy!" and come home? Or is this Iraq thing just going to be a generations-long Romanesque occupation?
And I would put our military on our own borders.
I doubt it.
Well then, tell us who you support.
June 20, 2007
Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.
Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
A Ron Paul detractor failing to bother to read what the guy says, how typical. Or maybe you just like unending war.
Many of my relatives have served multi tours in the war and will continue to do so.
They understand be it Iraq, Iran, etc. this is the war for our lives.
Here in San Diego we have the largest concentration of military in the world. We know first hand the reality.
Have you not been following the news lately? Being a Ron Paul supporter, it wouldn’t surprise me if you were a little confused about the mission in Iraq. Let me help: The Sunni tribes of Al-Anbar (formerly “the triangle of death”) have sided with the U.S. military. Rammadi, formerly the most dangerous city in Iraq, is now secure, and its 300 cops have blossomed into a force of some 6,000 since the tribal sheiks sided with us a few weeks ago. Diyala Province, where Al-Qaida fled when they lost control of their former haven has gone the same way, with the locals choosing America over having their neighbors and families butchered.
Here’s what “victory” looks like: any situation in which Bin Laden DOESN’T get to make a video tape, distributed all over Arab media saying:
“My dear brothers, the Great Satan has been defeated and driven from the lands of the prophet (peace be upon him). They are a paper tiger, and are unable to sustain casualties due to their softness and cowardice. We may now take the fight to them in their homes, in their glittering malls, in their schools, for we know now of their incapacity to resist. May the will of Allah show them the way.”
Again, grow up and start living in the world as it is.
BTW, Flight 93 is an A&E at the moment. I’m sorry I diverted my attention from it to explain the obvious.
So, in other words, there is no way we can ever leave because bin Laden, or someone using his image, will be able to say that whenever we leave under whatever circumstances exist at the time because they lie.
Thanks for being honest about suggesting a Roman-style, unending occupation.
There fixed that for you. I tell you for a 'gadfly' such as Rep. Paul, mighty bunch of people getting upset about his campaign.
Must really upset Republicans there are conservatives that still believe limited government is more than a catch phrase from one of the media's chosen candidates.
You really don’t remember what America’s reputation was in the world after the Democrap pull-out of Vietnam in 1975, do you?
Armies are supposed to destroy things and kill people, not make friends and build schools. Especially while the shooting is still going on.
Any Pubbie who can defeat Hillary. First choices are Newt and Duncan, but neither could win, and I’m a realist. Romney talks a good game, but I worry about many of his recent epiphanies, and too many evangelicals would sit out on him. Rudy is a lib on far too many things.
I guess I’ve caught FREDMANIA!
Didn’t you say ALL the flavors had the same “nutter factor”?
Remember the paulettes will tell you that your wrong. He didnt say that, you misunderstood or are not smart enough to understand this buffoons anti American nonsense
“armed with pitchforks and blunderbusses?”
Now that’s unfair. I’m sure Pres. Paul would allow the use of the Springfield Rifle at least.
I voted for Bush twice and I’ll not be voting for another socialist big spender Republican again. If that is all the MSM and GOP offer us as an approved candidate, what’s the diff anyway?
Only if you can prove you paid for it with gold.
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.