What the Republicans need to do

[PubliusInfinitum]

You say we don't have an interventionist foreign policy and then you go and defend certain facets of an interventionist foreign policy.

So you feel that the US troops stationed in Germany is interventionist?

ROFLMNAO... it becomes clear at this point why you're hesitant 'to argue over words.'

The cost of stationing troops in at least 130 different countries, the two wars we're fighting, and the economic aid we give to nations such as Israel is going to bankrupt our nation.

The US is not fighting two wars... we're fighting one war in dozens of countries; most of which you've never nor will you likely EVER hear a word about.

As to the costs of stationing those troops, one needs to set costs next to the benefits they provide. For instance, how much will it cost to have to free Europe and Asia again?

Interventionism isn't keeping our country safe.

Americans do not advocate for intervening into the internal affairs of ohr nations... we DO however advocate for protecting US interests and we're not really concerned with how leftist 'feel' about it. For Christ sake you people just elected a MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS AND IS PRESENTLY AT WAR WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THAT EVIL BEAST.

What right do we have to force Democracy on other nations at the point of a gun?

The right of self defense... Free nations aren't as likely to allow their government to advance policy wherein they use terrorist proxies to attack those who will kick the living shit of of those that do...

It's not guarantee of course, but it's a fair bet.

It simply makes these people resent us even more than they already do, and helps terrorists such as Osama bin-Laden recruit new members to his organization.

False... you're perpetuating a myth. The US is not encouraging terrorists,
we're hunting them down and killing them where we find them; a policy with a 100% efficacy...

Now we're prepared to kill as many as it takes... and while we'd like to see them see the light and cease their evil acts today, our pursuit of them will not end until the Marxists takes office and begins to undermine US security in earnest. But again... we're a patient people and we've no problem waiting for you idiots to load that camel up, certain that you'll never be held accountable for your treason. Keep loadin'...

Osama has stated that he wants us over there, we've played right into his hands.

It is FASCINATING to me, to see you place SO MUCH stock on what Osama says... Hmmm.... what CAN WE MAKE OF THAT?

Isn't cool how these people NEVER FAIL to give the terrorists the benefit of their flaccid little doubts?

What possible reason could we have for stationing troops in Germany? Last I checked the Nazis were no longer in power.

So ya feel that the US stationed troops in Germany to stop the Nazis?

ROFLMNAO...

The Nazis were no longer in power when the US permanently stationed troops in Germany; which are there to provide the US with the means to project force in the pursuit of the protection of US interests in that region.

In 1953 we helped Great Britain restore a military dictator to power in Iran, by removing a popularly elected official.

A communists... Well if it makes you feel any better, the US just elected a communist.

Why did we do this?

He was a communist...

The Prime Minister wanted to nationalize Iran's oil fields which Great Britain had an interest in. Is this the type of interest we have in foreign countries that we need to protect?

Yeah... that's what I said; he was a communist.

Thomas Jefferson said, ""Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." It's about time we began adhering to this sensible advice.

Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things; most of which is taken out of context, with this being no exception. Perhaps you'll find where Jefferson explained how the US could avoid that which comes with honest friendship by default: Entangling alliance.

It should be noted that Jefferson came to power in the wake of John Adam's refusal to go to war with France... who you may or may not recall was 'bestest good friend' of the US in our Revolution... The quote you're citing was stated during Jefferson's inaguaral address, after he aand his supporters had blundgeoned Adam's with Adam's isolationist policies wherein he refused to go to war with France. What's more the foundation of the United States rests on nothing BUT interventionaist policy... wherein the founders of the US intervened into the government of Great Britain.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Are you saying that I'm the fool trying to project Republicans as protectionists? You're incorrect if you are. It's true that it was the Republicans in the 1820's that enacted the tariffs that crippled the southern economy, but the Republican Party of that time had much more in common with modern Democrats than Republicans. Though I don't believe either modern party as a whole advocates protectionist tariffs, I could be wrong though.

I was simply responding to editec's post about tariffs, and giving reasons as to why they're not good ideas.

I'm referring to the Editec...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you feel that the US troops stationed in Germany is interventionist?

ROFLMNAO... it becomes clear at this point why you're hesitant 'to argue over words.'



The US is not fighting two wars... we're fighting one war in dozens of countries; most of which you've never nor will you likely EVER hear a word about.

As to the costs of stationing those troops, one needs to set costs next to the benefits they provide. For instance, how much will it cost to have to free Europe and Asia again?



Americans do not advocate for intervening into the internal affairs of ohr nations... we DO however advocate for protecting US interests and we're not really concerned with how leftist 'feel' about it. For Christ sake you people just elected a MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS AND IS PRESENTLY AT WAR WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THAT EVIL BEAST.





The right of self defense... Free nations aren't as likely to allow their government to advance policy wherein they use terrorist proxies to attack those who will kick the living shit of of those that do...

It's not guarantee of course, but it's a fair bet.




False... you're perpetuating a myth. The US is not encouraging terrorists,
we're hunting them down and killing them where we find them; a policy with a 100% efficacy...

Now we're prepared to kill as many as it takes... and while we'd like to see them see the light and cease their evil acts today, our pursuit of them will not end until the Marxists takes office and begins to undermine US security in earnest. But again... we're a patient people and we've no problem waiting for you idiots to load that camel up, certain that you'll never be held accountable for your treason. Keep loadin'...



It is FASCINATING to me, to see you place SO MUCH stock on what Osama says... Hmmm.... what CAN WE MAKE OF THAT?

Isn't cool how these people NEVER FAIL to give the terrorists the benefit of their flaccid little doubts?




So ya feel that the US stationed troops in Germany to stop the Nazis?

ROFLMNAO...

The Nazis were no longer in power when the US permanently stationed troops in Germany; which are there to provide the US with the means to project force in the pursuit of the protection of US interests in that region.



A communists... Well if it makes you feel any better, the US just elected a communist.


He was a communist...



Yeah... that's what I said; he was a communist.



Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things; most of which is taken out of context, with this being no exception. Perhaps you'll find where Jefferson explained how the US could avoid that which comes with honest friendship by default: Entangling alliance.

It should be noted that Jefferson came to power in the wake of John Adam's refusal to go to war with France... who you may or may not recall was 'bestest good friend' of the US in our Revolution... The quote you're citing was stated during Jefferson's inaguaral address, after he aand his supporters had blundgeoned Adam's with Adam's isolationist policies wherein he refused to go to war with France. What's more the foundation of the United States rests on nothing BUT interventionaist policy... wherein the founders of the US intervened into the government of Great Britain.

My "not arguing over words" comment was in retaliation to your statement that government has power not rights. Nothing more. Yes, I do feel that American troops in Germany is interventionism. Americans would not stand for German troops stationed on American soil, so what makes us so damn special?

We're fighting a "war on terror" that has no defined enemy, and can thusly go on for as long as the ruling administration sees fit. The quote by James Madison in my signature applies to this situation quite well.

How much will it cost to free Europe and Asia? I'm sorry, this is not a bill I think American taxpayers should have to pay for at all.

I did not support and did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a liberal.

The right of self defense? Is that what Iraq was? Preventative war is an absurdity, and we have no right to invade sovereign nations that have done nothing to us.

I never said that the United States is supporting terrorists. I said that by invading these nations and attacking them we've created more resentment and helped Osama's cause. What could it mean that I'm listening to what Osama says as to why he attacked us, and why he wanted to us to attack and invade them? Well allow me to counter with, what could it mean that a detective looks for the motive behind a murder? Is he sympathizing with the murderer? I don't think so.

The Prime Minister was a communist because he wanted to nationalize oil fields in his own country? Interesting.

Honest friendship with all would not lead to entangling alliances; showing favoritism towards certain nations and hostility towards others on the other hand...

Thomas Jefferson did not want to go to war with France, he condemned Adams' signing into law the Alien and Sedition Acts and his creation of a standing army. Jefferson was sympathetic to the French cause.

The Revolutionary War was an act of self defense, not an act of interventionism. The British imposed the Intolerable Acts, began to send in more troops, and tried to confiscate the colonists firearms.

When war broke out between France and Great Britain, both President Washington and Adams maintained American neutrality in the conflict. This would be an example of "entangling alliances with none."

 

[Old Rocks]

Publius;


Americans do not advocate for intervening into the internal affairs of ohr nations... we DO however advocate for protecting US interests and we're not really concerned with how leftist 'feel' about it. For Christ sake you people just elected a MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS AND IS PRESENTLY AT WAR WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THAT EVIL BEAST.

LOL! Well you just established yourself as a person of no substance or importance, in my opinion, with that kind of lying statement.

 

[Annie]

Publius;


Americans do not advocate for intervening into the internal affairs of ohr nations... we DO however advocate for protecting US interests and we're not really concerned with how leftist 'feel' about it. For Christ sake you people just elected a MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS AND IS PRESENTLY AT WAR WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THAT EVIL BEAST.

LOL! Well you just established yourself as a person of no substance or importance, in my opinion, with that kind of lying statement.

In many ways I agree with you. However, reality needs to shine. Most of our fellow citizens that voted, disagree with the current path about American interests, or at least how to address them. It's their turn now, we can criticize, bitch, moan, but their way will prevail for at least 4 years.

 

[elvis]

So you feel that the US troops stationed in Germany is interventionist?

ROFLMNAO... it becomes clear at this point why you're hesitant 'to argue over words.'



The US is not fighting two wars... we're fighting one war in dozens of countries; most of which you've never nor will you likely EVER hear a word about.

As to the costs of stationing those troops, one needs to set costs next to the benefits they provide. For instance, how much will it cost to have to free Europe and Asia again?



Americans do not advocate for intervening into the internal affairs of ohr nations... we DO however advocate for protecting US interests and we're not really concerned with how leftist 'feel' about it. For Christ sake you people just elected a MARXIST MUSLIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE US, ONLY 7 YEARS AFTER THE US WAS ATTACKED BY MARXIST MUSLIMS AND IS PRESENTLY AT WAR WITH A LARGE SEGMENT OF THAT EVIL BEAST.





The right of self defense... Free nations aren't as likely to allow their government to advance policy wherein they use terrorist proxies to attack those who will kick the living shit of of those that do...

It's not guarantee of course, but it's a fair bet.




False... you're perpetuating a myth. The US is not encouraging terrorists,
we're hunting them down and killing them where we find them; a policy with a 100% efficacy...

Now we're prepared to kill as many as it takes... and while we'd like to see them see the light and cease their evil acts today, our pursuit of them will not end until the Marxists takes office and begins to undermine US security in earnest. But again... we're a patient people and we've no problem waiting for you idiots to load that camel up, certain that you'll never be held accountable for your treason. Keep loadin'...



It is FASCINATING to me, to see you place SO MUCH stock on what Osama says... Hmmm.... what CAN WE MAKE OF THAT?

Isn't cool how these people NEVER FAIL to give the terrorists the benefit of their flaccid little doubts?




So ya feel that the US stationed troops in Germany to stop the Nazis?

ROFLMNAO...

The Nazis were no longer in power when the US permanently stationed troops in Germany; which are there to provide the US with the means to project force in the pursuit of the protection of US interests in that region.



A communists... Well if it makes you feel any better, the US just elected a communist.


He was a communist...



Yeah... that's what I said; he was a communist.



Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things; most of which is taken out of context, with this being no exception. Perhaps you'll find where Jefferson explained how the US could avoid that which comes with honest friendship by default: Entangling alliance.

It should be noted that Jefferson came to power in the wake of John Adam's refusal to go to war with France... who you may or may not recall was 'bestest good friend' of the US in our Revolution... The quote you're citing was stated during Jefferson's inaguaral address, after he aand his supporters had blundgeoned Adam's with Adam's isolationist policies wherein he refused to go to war with France. What's more the foundation of the United States rests on nothing BUT interventionaist policy... wherein the founders of the US intervened into the government of Great Britain.

Who did we replace the "communist" with? The Shah, who killed and tortured everyone who disagreed with him.......with US help. Then the Shah was overthrown and they took our hostages. We promised we would leave them alone if they let the hostages go. The hostages were freed. Instead of keeping our word, we supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons of Mass Destruction to shoot at Iran.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The right of self defense? Is that what Iraq was? Preventative war is an absurdity, and we have no right to invade sovereign nations that have done nothing to us.

Even if they harbor and/or aid terrorists?


My take on terrorism and the war is . . . it is global and wherever that takes us to destroy terrorists, then we must go. It was, is and will be costly both in life and dollars . . . but freedom isn't free. It may never end . . . . this is not a matter of cutting off the head and you've destroyed the beast . . . all bits remaining of the body must also be destroyed or they will simply reassemble and become stronger with each mutation. If we do not destroy them, they will find a way to destroy us.

Alot of people say the Iraq war was/is a mistake and we should just pull out. When GW declared war on Iraq I was like 'huh'? How's that? The next thought was . . . is this payback for dad? But I believed about the WMD so . . .for two years I waited. No WMD. Was it all a crock or, perhaps, just an excuse because we do not know what is really going on? I often wonder . . . what type of intel is the president privledged to that we simply do not, will not, and should not know? I can't answer that; no one here can. I do know that we've not had an attack on American soil since 9/11 . . . don't think they haven't been trying . . . and I have to have faith that those who deal with this intel and terrorism know far more that I do. War is awful but . . . it is necessary. If we do nothing then . . . just imagine what they would do to us. I'd give anything to go back to 'before', wouldn't you?

 

[Turboswede]

Even if they harbor and/or aid terrorists?


My take on terrorism and the war is . . . it is global and wherever that takes us to destroy terrorists, then we must go. It was, is and will be costly both in life and dollars . . . but freedom isn't free.

Zoom,
2003 called to let you know Iraq & Saddam Husain had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the PLO, Taliban, IRA, MPLA, Shining Path, Asian Dawn or any other Terrorist organization.

It’s a fact, so you can bring up the Iraq war for ousting a brutal dictator if you want, but NOT for fighting terrorism.

Saddam was many things, all of them bad, but his regime would have been a staunch supporter in any operation against Islamic fundamentalists. Iraq was a secular military dictatorship (basically) not a sponsor of terrorism.

Here is a list of some known sponsors of terrorism we have NOT invaded:

Ireland
Libya
Cuba
Indonesia
Iran
Algeria
Syria

So get off the war on terror as a reason to invade Iraq because it has been proven completely false.

It may never end . . . . This is not a matter of cutting off the head and you've destroyed the beast . . . all bits remaining of the body must also be destroyed or they will simply reassemble and become stronger with each mutation. If we do not destroy them, they will find a way to destroy us.

They absolutely can’t “destroy” us, and does “. . . all bits remaining of the body must also be destroyed” mean that we need to kill everyone who opposes our world view? It’s hard to kill an ideology through the use of military force, at least as far as the United States is able to go.

For 50 years the US used Islamic fundamentalists to counter the Soviets and then dropped them like a hot potato as soon as we no longer needed them to do our dirty work.

The thing is we supported fundamentalism until the early 90’s so it seems pretty fc'd up that we can’t deal with them now. Oh, and if was Regan BTW that started this whole love fest with Islamic fundamentalism with the October Surprise, Iran Contra and supporting the Mujahedin (Taliban) against the Soviets. For Christ sake Regan and North gave those guys Stinger missiles without thinking they may someday be aimed at us.

A lot of people say the Iraq war was/is a mistake and we should just pull out. When GW declared war on Iraq I was like 'huh'? How's that? The next thought was . . . is this payback for dad?

George H Bush was former head of the CIA and did a remarkable job of forming a true alliance to restore the status quo and stability to the Middle East. He was smart enough to know there needed to be a strong secular Iraq to counter Iran. HW Bush must have called W at some point to ask "what the hell are you thinking?"

But I believed about the WMD so . . .for two years I waited. No WMD. Was it all a crock or, perhaps, just an excuse because we do not know what is really going on?

Why, every nuclear watchdog group in the world including the USEA said Iraq was at least 30 years from producing fissionable material.

I often wonder . . . what type of intel is the president privledged to that we simply do not, will not, and should not know? I can't answer that; no one here can.

Actually, if you look at the role of the NSA (Set up by Kennedy BTW) you can see what kinds of intelligence the president is privy too, what worried me was how many people were being forced out in the 2001-2003 period from the NSA, CIA and State Department due to disagreements with the administration. If your professional analysis did not tow the party line, you either shut up or were shuffled off into the private sector.

I do know that we've not had an attack on American soil since 9/11 . . . don't think they haven't been trying . . . and I have to have faith that those who deal with this intel and terrorism know far more that I do. War is awful but . . . it is necessary.

We didn’t have an attack on American soil from 1990 to 2000 either and our national security was a hell of a lot less expensive. Oh, right, we did have one in Oklahoma City.

Anti-terrorism is a job for police and intelligence organizations and people who speak fluent Arabic, not the military.

It’s like slicing an apple with a jackhammer, it’s not the correct tool for the job and makes onlookers question your sanity.

If we do nothing then . . . just imagine what they would do to us. I'd give anything to go back to 'before', wouldn't you?

Of course we should so something, find some brutal douche bag ex-Republican Guard Cornell, give them like 1,000 M60 tanks and all the 5.56N they can carry and tell him he can have the country if he can secure it.

No more American Deaths
5 Billion per year in military aid tops
Much fewer Iraqi Civilian deaths
Respect for America again on the world stage
Strong Ally against Iran

In fact, if we can get our new puppet to invade Iran (like we had Saddam do) all the better.

Folks, the rabble in Iraq are not the NVA and their super weapon has the word “improvised” in it, any decently equipped dictator should be able to keep them in line doing things that America and American troops can’t and shouldn’t do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even if they harbor and/or aid terrorists?


My take on terrorism and the war is . . . it is global and wherever that takes us to destroy terrorists, then we must go. It was, is and will be costly both in life and dollars . . . but freedom isn't free. It may never end . . . . this is not a matter of cutting off the head and you've destroyed the beast . . . all bits remaining of the body must also be destroyed or they will simply reassemble and become stronger with each mutation. If we do not destroy them, they will find a way to destroy us.

Alot of people say the Iraq war was/is a mistake and we should just pull out. When GW declared war on Iraq I was like 'huh'? How's that? The next thought was . . . is this payback for dad? But I believed about the WMD so . . .for two years I waited. No WMD. Was it all a crock or, perhaps, just an excuse because we do not know what is really going on? I often wonder . . . what type of intel is the president privledged to that we simply do not, will not, and should not know? I can't answer that; no one here can. I do know that we've not had an attack on American soil since 9/11 . . . don't think they haven't been trying . . . and I have to have faith that those who deal with this intel and terrorism know far more that I do. War is awful but . . . it is necessary. If we do nothing then . . . just imagine what they would do to us. I'd give anything to go back to 'before', wouldn't you?

Who harbored and aided terrorists? Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein were far from allies. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, there were after we invaded. I say again that you can never win a war against terrorism, because terrorism is an ideology. There is no defined enemy, and it's simply an excuse for the administration to keep us in a perpetual state of war. Freedom isn't free, but it shouldn't be the responsibility of the United States to pay for the rest of the worlds freedom. It's time we let the rest of the world govern themselves and began by simply showing them a positive example of what they could aspire to be, rather than forcing our ideals on them at the point of a gun.

 

[jillian]

Who harbored and aided terrorists? Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein were far from allies. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, there were after we invaded. I say again that you can never win a war against terrorism, because terrorism is an ideology. There is no defined enemy, and it's simply an excuse for the administration to keep us in a perpetual state of war. Freedom isn't free, but it shouldn't be the responsibility of the United States to pay for the rest of the worlds freedom. It's time we let the rest of the world govern themselves and began by simply showing them a positive example of what they could aspire to be, rather than forcing our ideals on them at the point of a gun.

I don't think we should abdicate from the world stage, either. But the truth is that if we fought a "war on fascism" instead of fighting Germany in WWII, that war would still be going on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think we should abdicate from the world stage, either. But the truth is that if we fought a "war on fascism" instead of fighting Germany in WWII, that war would still be going on.

I'm not saying that we should go in our bubble and completely disappear from the world stage; I'm simply saying no more policing the world, no more nation building, no more preventative war, and no more getting sucked into the affairs of other nations.

 

[jillian]

I'm not saying that we should go in our bubble and completely disappear from the world stage; I'm simply saying no more policing the world, no more nation building, no more preventative war, and no more getting sucked into the affairs of other nations.

I understand what you're saying. And fiscally, it's clear that we can't be everywhere. It's one of the problems with not having our economic house in order.

But I think we need to look at each case, individually. Should we go into a country because we don't like the leader? No. Are there situations where it is appropriate for us to go in from a humanitarian perspective? Yes. But we have to assess the costs and benefits of each instance. This, of course, might be a particular sensitivity of mine to the fact that had we entered WWII a lot earlier, a lot of people wouldn't have been killed.

 

[mightypeon]

I am neither American nor really conservative, but I would regard the following as important:

1: Emphasis on personal freedoms
2: Small state, more rights to individual states (what was that shit about Bush prohibiting California from enacting Enviromental protection laws? Do that stuff in Bavaria and they might secede from Germany)
3: Emphasis on Policies that work, I yet have to see a good argument for the current American Health system
4: In my eyes, the most important thing for your own pursuit of happiness is your available education. I am not saying that esp. Germanys education system is superior, but I would guess that each dollar invested in schools saves 2 dollars invested in social welfare or however you call it.
5: Pragmatism, just political pragmatism. As opposed to "theatralic micromilitarism" on the international and "intransparent pseudosocialism" on the economical politics.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Zoom,
2003 called to let you know Iraq & Saddam Husain had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the PLO, Taliban, IRA, MPLA, Shining Path, Asian Dawn or any other Terrorist organization.

WHAT?

See how annoying that is?

It’s a fact, so you can bring up the Iraq war for ousting a brutal dictator if you want, but NOT for fighting terrorism.

Saddam was many things, all of them bad, but his regime would have been a staunch supporter in any operation against Islamic fundamentalists. Iraq was a secular military dictatorship (basically) not a sponsor of terrorism.

I'm glad that you know everything the government knows.

So get off the war on terror as a reason to invade Iraq because it has been proven completely false.

You know, it would be nice to rewind and go back to before Iraq and not go to war . . . it would be nice to see exactly how that road would have panned out for us in terms of being attacked again. We have not had an attack on US soil since 9/11. If you want to believe that is merely a coincidence, go on believing. I don't.

They absolutely can’t “destroy” us,

You underestimate terrorists. They will do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission. You are foolish if you believe otherwise.

and does “. . . all bits remaining of the body must also be destroyed” mean that we need to kill everyone who opposes our world view?

No it means that even if we get BinLaden, there are 100 more just waiting in the wings to fill his shoes. Getting THEM is what needs to happen. Now don't quote me, but I think most of the world frowns upon terrorism.

It’s hard to kill an ideology through the use of military force, at least as far as the United States is able to go.

You're right it is hard to kill an ideology and the scores upon scores of people who believe that destroying us is what needs to be done. So because it's hard we shouldn't try?

Actually, if you look at the role of the NSA (Set up by Kennedy BTW) you can see what kinds of intelligence the president is privy too,

Please do share what intel you have acquired?

We didn’t have an attack on American soil from 1990 to 2000 either and our national security was a hell of a lot less expensive. Oh, right, we did have one in Oklahoma City.

Yeah, that 1993 attack on the WTC was just a figment of my imagination. They FAILED in '93 so they came back to finish the job on 9/11. I'd say they succeeded, wouldn't you?

Anti-terrorism is a job for police and intelligence organizations and people who speak fluent Arabic, not the military.

You keep on believing that. And while you're at it, show some gratitude for all those who have given their life for your freedom. Once again I remind you . . . freedom isn't free.

I say again that you can never win a war against terrorism, because terrorism is an ideology. There is no defined enemy, and it's simply an excuse for the administration to keep us in a perpetual state of war. Freedom isn't free, but it shouldn't be the responsibility of the United States to pay for the rest of the worlds freedom. It's time we let the rest of the world govern themselves and began by simply showing them a positive example of what they could aspire to be, rather than forcing our ideals on them at the point of a gun.

Yes let's just look after ourselves and the rest of the world be damned. Don't you get it? By ensuring freedom there, we are ensuring freedom here. Global terrorism. And again, because the task is enormous we shouldn't even bother to try?

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Iraq was that step. Was it the right one? Some believe yes, others believe no. I do know that the past seven years have been attack free here and I do not believe at all that is a coincidence.

 

[elvis]

I understand what you're saying. And fiscally, it's clear that we can't be everywhere. It's one of the problems with not having our economic house in order.

But I think we need to look at each case, individually. Should we go into a country because we don't like the leader? No. Are there situations where it is appropriate for us to go in from a humanitarian perspective? Yes. But we have to assess the costs and benefits of each instance. This, of course, might be a particular sensitivity of mine to the fact that had we entered WWII a lot earlier, a lot of people wouldn't have been killed.

Should we have followed General Patton and gone on to Moscow? We would have saved millions of lives from the worst murderer in history. It seems Stalin gets a free pass. I guess history is written by the victors.

 

[Turboswede]

WHAT?

See how annoying that is?

It is annoying and childish, sorry for that. I think I just had too much caffeine when I wrote that.

I'm glad that you know everything the government knows.

I don’t think I know everything the government knows, but 9/11/2001 convinced me I know more than the government knows (or wants to know) about the Middle East. I was hoping (along with most of congress) that the president did know more than we did on eave of the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately for the American public the president’s secret intelligence justifying the war, whether through showing an advanced Iraqi weapons program or ties to any terrorist organization, never managed to materialize.

I am now positive that if any such evidence existed the administration would have presented it to exonerate them for initiating the war. That’s why the one thing I am sure of is that the administration did not have any substantial intelligence connecting Iraq with terrorism or suggesting Iraq possessed anything more than the most basic of weapons programs.

The Analysis on Iraq that I think is correct is that the invasion was motivated by self interest on the part of the administration and a desire to distract the public from our inability to track down Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Another possible analysis of the cause of the war would be that the Administration wanted a stable Iraq friendly to the U.S. as a counter to Iran and a lynchpin at the end of the Persian Gulf. Iraq has a very strategic location and it could (and has) been argued that a friendly Iraq would be an invaluable asset to the U.S. In this view the administration was acting in the best interest of the American people, but just did a horrible job of implementing the process.

This second scenario could have worked given the Regan or HW Bush administrations, but I don’t think W was interested in listening to alternative ideas for implementation from the beginning. We should have expected a resistance movement from the beginning and planned accordingly, the CIA was great at these sorts of things from the post war period all the way through the 90’s. If we were going that route we should have had a Saddam successor in the wings ready to go on a moment’s notice rather than a (basically) a US pseudo-civilian administration. The Iraqis (like the Argentines, Chileans, Iranians, Hondurans, etc.) needed to believe that the shift was being led by Iraqis but being assisted by the U.S.

I don’t know if it was cronyism or an accelerated timeline that motivated W to take the least subtle and most invasive method to get rid of Saddam.

You know, it would be nice to rewind and go back to before Iraq and not go to war . . . it would be nice to see exactly how that road would have panned out for us in terms of being attacked again. We have not had an attack on US soil since 9/11. If you want to believe that is merely a coincidence, go on believing. I don't.

I think beefing up domestic security and initiating the war in Afghanistan have contributed to the absence of a terrorist attack. I am still convinced that the war in Iraq has not done anything to limit terrorism and has led to the perception that, in order for the U.S. to respect your nation’s sovereignty, you must possess nuclear weapons.

You underestimate terrorists. They will do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission. You are foolish if you believe otherwise.

I am sure that the terrorist will do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission, but I still can’t see how a couple thousand guys on the other side of the world with some C4 and Kalashnikovs will be able to destroy the United States. If anything their “mission” is to make the US look both heartless and feeble, if that’s the case I would say they are succeeding.

No it means that even if we get Bin Laden, there are 100 more just waiting in the wings to fill his shoes. Getting THEM is what needs to happen. Now don't quote me, but I think most of the world frowns upon terrorism.

Yes, but you forget the Axiom that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (we called Al Qaeda freedom fighters when they were shooting Russians). I think that, due to the Iraq war, there will not be 100 but more like 10,000 willing to take Bin Laden’s place. The hatred the Bush administration has fostered in the developing world will inspire terrorists for the next 100 years to take up arms against American interests.

You're right it is hard to kill an ideology and the scores upon scores of people who believe that destroying us is what needs to be done. So because it's hard we shouldn't try?

We need to understand what they want first of all, and then we need to co-opt their leadership. It’s something US Intelligence has been doing successfully for over 50 years. You can’t defeat an ideology based on martyrdom by killing its practitioners, you need to develop a means of convincing adherents to the ideology that we offer a superior idea to follow.

Yeah, that 1993 attack on the WTC was just a figment of my imagination. They FAILED in '93 so they came back to finish the job on 9/11. I'd say they succeeded, wouldn't you?

We caught the folks that did it and put them on trial, should Clinton have invaded Iraq over it?

You keep on believing that. And while you're at it, show some gratitude for all those who have given their life for your freedom. Once again I remind you . . . freedom isn't free.

Take it back…I absolutely hate this argument, my brother is a Cavalry Scout over there, my Dad is ex-Navy, my Grandfather fought the Germans in WW II and my father in law served 2 tours in Vietnam. Just because I point out that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, I get accused of pissing on American fighting men and women? “show some gratitude for all those who have given their life for your freedom” I show my gratitude by working against any foolhardy attempt to use our fighting forces to enact policies that are driven by self interest and greed.

Even though I disagree with the war in Iraq (not in Afghanistan BTW), I have nothing but admiration for our armed forces and believe that the US needs a strong defense. If regime change to ensure a friendly Iraq was the goal, W made decisions that resulted in the needless deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of American men and women.

Why do I disrespect our armed forces by asking our democratically elected leadership consider alternatives before committing our armed forces? Am I also disrespecting our troops by holding that same administration accountable when it is clear that their method of deployment was shortsighted and wasteful of American lives?

Yes let's just look after ourselves and the rest of the world be damned. Don't you get it? By ensuring freedom there, we are ensuring freedom here. Global terrorism. And again, because the task is enormous we shouldn't even bother to try?

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Iraq was that step. Was it the right one? Some believe yes, others believe no. I do know that the past seven years have been attack free here and I do not believe at all that is a coincidence.

I am in favor of the US taking an active role in global security, our nation should remain strong and maintain its place as the predominant world superpower. In many cases security and freedom are mutually exclusive goals and in we are fighting for American Security not Afghani or Iraqi freedom. It may not sound as impressive in speeches but Security is a MUCH more important goal than freedom. If I were an Iraqi I would prefer security over freedom today. In America we are truly blessed to have both security (no matter what the right say) and freedom (no matter what the left say). But freedom cannot exist without security, and my point is the Administration did an extremely poor job of securing either in Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

The GOP needs to get back to its "core" values. True conservatism. Goldwater conservatism. This is what the GOP needs to focus on:

-Low taxes with balanced budgets
-Strong national defense
-Engaged foreign policy
-Protection of the environment
-Less government interference in individual lives

You might as well be a Democrat, if that's your platform. That's broadly where most mainstream, centrist Democrats are today. I'd throw in a pro-science plank along with the pro-environment plank, for good measure.

This isn't 1972 anymore, and its not the Party of McGovern versus the Party of Nelson Rockefeller. Times have changed, and the parties have changed. Particularly for the GOP, which has become a party of religious rightwingers, and neocons. Most moderate republicans have been voted out of national office. What you have left is the party Tom Delay, Newt Gingrish, and George Bush built.

The GOP congressional leadership is saying today, that the backbone of their party's platform going forth, is going to be built on being against gay marriage.

Anti-gay marriage, overturning Roe v. Wade, and corporate deregulation appear to be the planks the GOP wants to hold onto moving forward, if you read what he says.

I have to say I agree with this. The GOP should make their platform being against gays, and for overturning Roe v. Wade.

GOP leader: Rebuild party based on 'sanctity of marriage'

Published: Sunday November 9, 2008

The Republican brand is still alive and well, Rep. Mike Pence said on Fox News Sunday.

When asked by Chris Wallace what "conservative solutions" the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like "the sanctity of marriage" will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.

"You build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage," Pence said.

The Indiana representative cited the ballot measures against gay marriage that passed on Election Day as evidence of the continuing presence of conservative values.

The Raw Story | GOP leader: Rebuild party based on 'sanctity of marriage'

 

[elvis]

Would this election have been different if McCain had pushed the anti-gay agenda and pro life platform?

 

[Annie]

Would this election have been different if McCain had pushed the anti-gay agenda and pro life platform?

No, would have been worse. It's a core to the right, but not the majority by a long shot. Would have alienated any independents and libertarians he did pick up.

 

[elvis]

No, would have been worse. It's a core to the right, but not the majority by a long shot. Would have alienated any independents and libertarians he did pick up.

some say he should have campaigned like a conservative. almost like the "Real Democrat" always wins.