Posted on 09/08/2007 10:38:25 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/08/2007 2:50:08 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.
In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can't be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.
The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.
The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn't require they surrender their liberties.
Good lord...
That's a lie.
Ron Turd is a traitor.
..crickets..
Does Paul remember Zarqawi? Does he remember the $25 million dollar bounty that the US placed on his head? Does he remember the jets dropping two five-hundred pound bombs on Zarqawi?
We don’t drop bombs on the local sheik that doesn’t claim allegiance to bin Laden.
(rolling eyes)
My wife has yelled at me for 26 years for leaving the seat up. I don’t even hear it anymore... my brain filters it right out.
Likewise, the Paulites don’t hear any reason anymore.
“should not be”?????
How about:
“must not be” or even the more sussinct
“is not” ...an option
Everyone. The Ron Paul threads are a complete trip, some of the best fun on Free Republic, but I am wondering, are we only putting embers on the the so called Ron Paul fire.
In my opinion, Ron Paul is like an internet hoax, it stays alive the more you pass it along. Paul’s newest tactic is the signs and slogans ‘Google Ron Paul’.. Every time we have a 800 post debate thread with Paul supporters only puts Ron Paul higher in Google analytics.
We know that the Paul supporters won’t be swayed, and they know we won’t be swayed. We are repeating the same things over and over.. and all this is doing is giving this third tier candidate far more attention than he deserves.
Why not crickets whenever Paul pops up here? Look what happened to all the pro-Rudy threads, they died out because all they were fed was the sound of crickets.
Why not just stop feeding the fire? Let it burn out. That’s just my thought... I’m sure others have differing opinions.
This man is a frightening kook. If he lived in my neighborhood, I would lock the doors and pull down the shades every time he walked by.
|
more waffling. “maybe surrender isnt that great but in some cases maybe we could possibly....blah blah”
Another thing:
“The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence”
Is this guy stupid?
You mean the crazy fundamentalist islamofacist homicidal truckbomber who killed 400 people and wiped out half of their village’s buildings in northern iraq doesn’t classify as a weapon of mass destruction, but our military, who are making friendships, handing out food and treats by kids who pursue them with cheerts everywhere, who open hospitals and elementary schools, who protect the informants who tell them about the real terrorists in their neighborhoods, they’re the bad guys? Our soldiers are the terrorists?
What planet does this guy live on?
Blame 9/11 on America, check.
Blame the military for homicide bombers, check.
Does Ronhammed Paulistani work for Osama? They seem to be in the same book club, and like to copy eachother’s talking points.
Ron Paul is clearly off his rocker.
Welcome to FR, how is it over at the HilaryCare War Room??
Pray for W and Our Troops
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts...these guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.
-Mitt Romney
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
lol. You might get a kick out of this: http://www.jokefrog.com/joke/0248.shtml
Welcome to about two years ago.
Take your term neocon and shove it...neocon is another word for antisemite, as Paul is....you are either conservative or not—I guess paleocons—not.
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.