No we have not. That is like saying we gave Japan what they wanted after Pearl Harbor.
[/quote]
But Japan was a country that attacked us and Iraq didn’t. A lot of these terrorists that we’re fighting against are actually coming into Iraq and will probably stop once we leave. If Iran thinks they’ll have an easier time taking over Iraq than we did - I say let them have a crack at it. I think they’ll fail miserably and eventually the people of Iraq will have to work something out.
[quote]
They want us to withdraw from the middle east and specifically Saudi Arabia so they can try to take over.[/quote]
I don’t know if this is a legitimate threat or not. I’m not saying it’s stupid or unrealistic, I just really can’t see one of these half assed terrorist groups taking over an entire country. I think we should be more afraid of the Sicilian Mafia taking over Iraq than Al Qaeda. I’m not trying to be a smart ass, I just think the mob is a little more organized and connected. Bombing and spraying bullets will only go so far and the tribal leaders of Iraq will eventually have to step up and come to some sort of agreement.
The other thing is - what is so special about Iraq? Their government is in shambles, they have a broken military, and there’s sectarian strife. Why are we so concerned with that country? There’s no proof that there will be any more or less violence if we left so that’s not a very strong argument for staying. If we’re just there for the oil then I say fuck the people who want the oil - they can go get it themselves but quit using our troops to secure it for them.
I’m not in any way calling people that want to stay in Iraq dumbasses or any of that bullshit. I just think we’ve given it a try and I’d much rather give Ron Paul’s method a try of getting us out there and letting that country work out their own problems. I have serious doubts that the Bush administration is remaining because they are concerned about a civil war.
Now, as for my thoughts on Iraq, they are many. Firstly, I don’t understand this talk of possibly losing the war. WE WON THE WAR! It’s over baby. We steamrolled in and kicked some ass. Put another notch in the belt for American military prowess. As Fred Thompson rightly claimed, “No one has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than Americans.”
mike[/quote]
I agree that we won the war. The 3rd ID dismantled the entire Iraqi military in three weeks. That’s why I don’t see the huge concern with Iran. Our military has no problem defeating other militaries - it’s the guerilla warfare and unorthodox wars that always kick our ass. There’s just no point to engage in these type of battles if we don’t need to.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Yes, they’ll just go away and never bother us again. [/quote]
That’s not gonna happen. The indoctrinated ones will keep coming after the US. However, such groups will get out of Iraq once you leave. This much is almost certain. Iraqis will not stand there letting Al-Qaeda breed chaos, and Al-Qaeda doesn’t stand a chance in Iraq unless it’s backed up by the Iraqis, which as long as you’re occupying their land, will continue to happen.
You are creating terrorists by the day. Common sense would suggest that you stop making them.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I really hate talking about world affairs because I’m smart enough to know that I don’t fully understand them. Unlike you and some of the other self professed “experts” on this board I like to actually debate what I fully understand on the political threads.
But, logic demands an explanation to where these terrorists are going to go?
We were not in Iraq in 2001, yet 3000 American civilians died.
[/quote]
We have been meddling in ME political affairs since oil was discovered there – and we have been using our military for mercantile practices ever since.
And yes, we were bombing Iraq daily since 1991 with operation Northern and Southern Watch. I have direct links to this operation; however, as you pointed out, I am no expert in ME foreign policy either. I just know what makes sense to me. I don’t piss on my neighbors lawn because I know they might retaliate with something more horrific.
This is a fallible argument. How are “they” going to get into the US en masse. We need to be vigilant here–bring our military home and defend OUR borders. Doesn’t this make more sense? How are we defending our country from attack by fighting in an other country–a country that was, up until our invasion, secular and a non-threat?
If we secured our borders we would have nothing to worry about. It is impossible to get into this country unless US Customs agents lets one in.
They move into Iraq and Iraq will put them down without our help. If the strongest military in the world cannot tame that place neither will a rag-tag group of insurgents and terrorists. Let them try to make Iraq a caliphate under sharia law. It will never happen in a million years because the Iraqi people have had a taste of secular rule and prefer it. Iran will have no success either. It isn’t our responsibility to nation build–especially, in an area of the world where we do not understand the politics.
We are going to be facing this problem for years to come because of our actions and policy over there. More reason to fortify our own country and mind our own business, don’t you think?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… More reason to fortify our own country and mind our own business, don’t you think?
How do we fortify our country? You aready complain about the Patriot Act.[/quote]
The USA Patriot Act only allows our government to behave subversively. It does not make us safer. It made our government larger and more bureaucratic–and less efficient.
I do not want the government to protect me with new laws–that is not protection. Protection is a military, a police force, and border guards. A strong rule of law based on liberty will fortify us.
We were not in Iraq in 2001, yet 3000 American civilians died.
[/quote]
Nobody in Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.
If China invaded the USA would you lob a few grenades at them when a convoy drove by? Now are you going to follow them back to China? There was not a terrorist problem in Iraq until we got there.
Maybe they’ll go back to their own countries and quit coming into Iraq. They might keep fighting each other but they’ll stop killing American soldiers. Eventually they’ll either fight against or fall in line with the tribal leaders.
Well considering there was no suicide bombings in Iraq before we arrived we can only hope the foreigners quit coming into Iraq and blowing things up just to undermine our efforts.
Will who leave us alone? Nobody in Iraq attacked us in the first place. Did the terrorists leave us alone when we exited Lebanon and Somalia?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is the best quote I read regarding Ron Paul’s supporters:
“We may be very quiet. But we are everywhere, we cantankerous, contrarian members of the Leave Me Alone Coalition.”[/quote]
Unfortunately, I think they’re more alone than they think.
The internet, I believe, gives and inflated sense of their real numbers. A large majority of regular voters are not “on the net” and don’t participate in the various make-believe polls and votes we see daily on Digg and similar news aggregators.
Hopefully, I’m wrong and Paul really gets a chance at the presidency, but right now, I would not put money on that.
I do not want the government to protect me with new laws–that is not protection. Protection is a military, a police force, and border guards. A strong rule of law based on liberty will fortify us.[/quote]
military = government
police force = government
border guards = government
strong rule of law = government
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… More reason to fortify our own country and mind our own business, don’t you think?
How do we fortify our country? You aready complain about the Patriot Act. [/quote]
Secure your ports and airports; control your borders, pass and enforce a sane immigration policy that doesn’t make it impossible for people to enter legally.
Don’t sacrifice your citizen’s civil rights because of corporate pressure; don’t let fear dictate your foreign policy. Fighting your enemies can also be done effectively by creating less of them.
Most importantly, don’t let your government grab so much power that it becomes the enemy you, or your children, will have to fight.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is the best quote I read regarding Ron Paul’s supporters:
“We may be very quiet. But we are everywhere, we cantankerous, contrarian members of the Leave Me Alone Coalition.”
Unfortunately, I think they’re more alone than they think.
The internet, I believe, gives and inflated sense of their real numbers. A large majority of regular voters are not “on the net” and don’t participate in the various make-believe polls and votes we see daily on Digg and similar news aggregators.
Hopefully, I’m wrong and Paul really gets a chance at the presidency, but right now, I would not put money on that.
[/quote]
When RP goes around the country to speak, it is standing room only sized crowds. When media hyped guys like Fred Thompson go around only like 4 people show up
I do not want the government to protect me with new laws–that is not protection. Protection is a military, a police force, and border guards. A strong rule of law based on liberty will fortify us.
military = government
police force = government
border guards = government
strong rule of law = government
[/quote]
Yes, Zap, these things already exist. They cannot be improved by adding to the size of the government. The only thing a larger government does is eat up more resources and efficiency. It does not add to our protection.
I would argue that “rule of law” can exist without government. People have a way of ordering themselves without the presence of a governing body. I know how to behave because I was taught how…not because my government writes laws. The law exists to punish people not to protect them.
It is the threat of punishment that might deter normal people from acting in atrocious ways but societies have dealt with atrocity before the invention of government. I’m sure in the absence of government the gap would be filled by a moral majority. Same thing with protecting property, borders, and defense–it can be done by the private citizen.