Posted on 02/20/2007 8:59:49 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
I didn't say "diehard", however that is ambiguously defined. I just observed that you are a Rudy supporter.
Is it true or not? Did he slam Bush about the war? Why avoid my question....?
You didn't ask a question in your post.
Now that you actually have -- Yes, Ron Paul does oppose continued Military and Financial support for an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists -- in their Ruling Coalition!
So, now I have a question for you: Do you believe that the Federal Government should provide Military and Financial support to an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition?
Would you like to be on the Ron Paul GOP primary supporter list, and be pinged to future Ron Paul campaign news and articles?
"Without Al-Hakim's support, the government you praise would collapse."
Don't make up lies about what I have said!
I have praised one Iraqi MP and those who think like him, not the whole goverment.
How do you know the government would collapse without Al-Hakim's support??
Let's hear it.
Mea culpa, I guess "He slammd Bush on the war right?" was a question. I thought you were making a statement, as in a rhetorical question. But, if it was an interrogative question, see my #541. Thanks.
"as your argument that Militarily and Financially supporting the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq somehow helps their minority political rivals!"
That is not my argument at all, it's yours. I thought the coalition was supporting an environment in which the principles of Democratic Freedom could take hold. This means supporting Iraq (not just the government, I never said that) so the political debate can take place.
Supporting an environment that will foster a political debate towards Democratic Freedom is not the same thing as "supporting the Terrorist-Harboring Majority Government of Iraq". You must look at it this way to advocate removing all military and financial support from Iraq. It is your choice to view it that way but that is a simplistic and wrong way to look at it in my opinion. Our financial and military support covers a whole lot more more than just the Iraqi government, I think it is dishonest to imply it doesn't.
I'm with you.
You're entitled to your view. (I appreciate the fact that your tone seems more civil today; at least that is my impression and thought I'd say so).
However, my view is that the Majority Government of Iraq is violating the anti-terrorist Foreign Policy principles laid out in the State of the Union address, 2002: the Majority Government of Iraq IS harboring self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists -- in their own Ruling Coalition!
You may think that such a Terrorist-harboring Government is worthy of our continued Military and Financial support, for whatever extraneous reasons. I do not. We disagree; but at the end of the day, I think that Ron Paul can hardly be called "treasonous" for making the argument that the Federal Government should NOT provide Military and Financial support to an Iraqi Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed, and even convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition. You may disagree with that argument, but it's hardly "treason".
I'm a Christian Zionist...who strongly believes that the US should support Israel no matter what....well Mr Paul doesn't support that view.
Thats why he gets scratched off my list.
Yes I do. We need to support the many despite the few.
I'm a Christian Zionist. What about Mr. Paul's support of Israel disturbs you?
The anti-American Islamic Terrorists being harbored by the Government of Iraq are in the MAJORITY Coalition, NOT the Minority.
It was the MAJORITY of Iraqis who elected these self-confessed anti-American Islamic Terrorist and Terrorist-harboring Parties to Power, NOT the Minority.
I do not believe that the people in power in Iraq now are anti-American Islamic Terrorists.
It wasn't me that called Ron Paul "treasonous", I can't spell the word, I have to cut and paste it and I'd remember doing that.
Then why are they harboring self-confessed, and even Convicted, anti-American Islamic Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition?
Isn't that a violation of the anti-terrorist Foreign Policy principles laid out in the 2002 SOTU?
I understand your position. I do not deny that our Troops are doing the best job they can in a bad situation.
My position is that our support nonetheless does flow to the Terrorist and Terrorist-harboring Ruling Coalition, whatever crumbs fall to that *one* Iraqi MP with whom you're quite pleased -- who, I admit, seems like a nice enough fellow in his YouTube, other than his parliamentary electoral alliance with the Iraqi Communist Party.
Though, IMHO, it's a pretty good measure of just how unworthy of our support is the Government of Iraq, that the alleged "good guys" are the Allies of the Iraqi Communists!! Egads...
Okay. I wasn't actually accusing you, merely making an observation as regards some of the anti-Paul posters on this thread. I happened to be talking to you, about that charge, but I wasn't accusing in that instance.
Are you absolutely sure Iyad Jamal Al-Din is a member of the Iraqi Communist Party?
Whoa, no, I didn't say that! Honestly, I *suspect* from his YouTube that he is not!
His Iraqi National List includes the Iraqi Communists. That's the extent of my observation.
One thing is for certain in my mind. Had Reagan taken us there Iraq would not have been spared as Bush has done. Like Gilligan's Island "No phones, no lights no motor cars, not a single luxury." Bush went in to Iraq for the purpose of nation building as was obvious by the second night of bombings. We left critical targets most sane leaders in war would taken out first. Bush didn't even have the good brains to order TV stations and communications systems destroyed. Remember Bagdad Bobs daily show?
The R.O.E.'s are insane had we used them in WW we would be under German rule today. Instead the Iraqi's are using them to have such things as Marines, sailors, and soldiers put on trial. Not theirs OURS. Thank you Mr Bush. That is what the Bush is Never Ever Wrong Oh We Must Praise him or be a traitor crowd can not comprehend.
I believe if Reagan had sent troops in on this scale it would have been a formal Declaration of War for starters. He would do that to obligate congress to it's support and conclusion. Our forces under Reagan would have likely took out their critical infrastructure, Saddam and sons and thenleft Iraq with a mess to deal with rather than having the U.S. at taxpayer expense build a new improved haven for their soon to come next thug dictator. Next would have came Mission Accomplished, bringing them home two years ago to a Hero's Welcome and the nations thanks.
The Radical Islamic Clerics who stir the pot or terrorism will NEVER ALLOW a free Iraq. NEVER! There will never be peace in Iraq. Our best option is to let them go at each other and hopefully another nation just as bad if not worse. Gee didn't Reagan do that? Oh No Bush wants to be Mr NWO. If he would keep Condi home for a rew months and out of Israels hair maybe they could do some cleaning up for us as well. Israel can't even deal with terrorist because the U.S. State Dept comes to Israels enemies rescue. Bush Foreign Policy is NUTS! Just like Clintons, just like Poppy's.
Option #2. Rescind the RINO POTUS Ford's E.O. that got us into this mess to start with and start using Covert Ops ran by the Pentagon to deal with them. Cut off the head of the snake.
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.