Unfortunately, they are are not questions, but rather accusations and allegations based on false information for the purposes of tearing our country down. People that resort to this, deserve to be called out for such. People want the responsibility that comes with such, taking accountability for doing such, should question whether tearing down success to portray pessimism with false "facts" is worth the trip. He is a kook and people have not stopped pointing that out. He turns out hundreds at rallies, in some place, because there are kooks there. 9/11 troofers, anti-semites, white supremacists, neo nazis and other similar undesirable groups. Take away these fringe extremist groups of people, that probably represent 5-10% of America collectively, and RP's consistent 5% nationwide poll support would have nothing left. I look forward to that day I look forward to all the kooky alex jones conspiracies that will arise from the dead. Does this mean the numbers you used to derail the success in Iraq with, are not going to be an issue now? It's a shame that some only seek to acknowledge perceived failures and pessimism, with discredited information, to quell successes. Surely that's not something Reagan would have done.
You're asking too much my friend. It is much easier for some to distort the truth than face it. Selflessness, nobility, the courage to admit when you are wrong and a true affinity for justice are more in line with traits of a true patriot rather than someone that simply touts on the sidelines terms like "You're either with us or against us" or if you do not support the government you are anti-American. Gtech and his brainwashed gang are an embarrasing trend in my view of the representation today of what America stands for.
If it's for your country. But when it's your own actions, such as stealing content from others, the standard is suddenly different. Gone, is the selflessness, the nobility and the courage to admit when YOU were wrong. Only when it's on behalf of your country. Not personally.
It would appear there are a multiple of reasons for a drop in violence in Iraq. Soldiers, reporters, natives, are all a bit mystified by the all the reasons for the drop in violence. They could include the following: 1.The surge by US troops which included 2 aspects; increasing the number of troops and actively engaging insurgent al queda in Iraq groups. 2. Aligning of sunni locals with american troops against alqueda in Iraq insurgents. 3. An overall decision by shiite militia to decrease violence, some of which was announced in early 2007, when the surge was announced. The al sadr group definitely quieted their efforts even as the surge was announced and before troop levels started to increase. 4. A fait accompli of purging many of the neighborhoods of mixed sunni/shiite populations in and around baghdad....much of what was accomplished by the time the surge came into effect. 5. A possible decision by various sects and groups to quiet things down and wait out the Americans and a withdrawal...... 6. And any number of other reasons. GTech: The British have dramatically reduced their troop levels on the ground in Iraq. There is no disputing that. They had roughly 45,000 troops as part of the initial invasion. Once that was over they roughly left 8,500 troops in the nation. They currently have about 4500-5,000 and are expected to reduce that to 2,500. They have both dramatically reduced troop levels and redeployed. Its not that I now dispute the success of the surge in quelling violence, but it does not seem to be the only reason for a reduction in violence within the nation. For whatever reasons violence has also currently decreased in the South of Iraq in areas where the surge had no presence. There are probably many reasons for the decrease in violence. Some of the reasons for the reduction in violence in the south may be related to the success in the central and north areas....but realistically who knows. The British military attribute a reduction in violence in their area to their relocation. Who really knows. I am not a pull-out of Iraq immediately person, but I'm not a just keep the same path person either. At some point, far sooner than later the US should look at dramatically reducing its presence in Iraq. Currently we don't seem to be seeing political progress in the nation among Iraqi sects. That is deeply discouraging as the nation remains a potential disaster with sects attacking one another. Even should that happen that doesn't mean that maintaining a significant expensive force in Iraq has anything to do with promoting American safety. It needs to be looked at critically.
People forget real fast. Iraq started the war back in 1991 by invading Kuwait. The US had an armistace with Iraq and we had cut them off with a no fly zone and International sanctions. The mess went on a decade. By 2001, the sanctions were crumbling because a lot of people were on the take in France and Russia. At that point, the US had no choice but to take Saddam out. Otherwise, he would have the bomb with the help of Pakistan and North Korea. There's some funny nuclear stuff going on you have to know the Iranians are involved. If we hadn't taken Saddam out he'd be up to the same thing.
Talking about 'forgetting' how about the fact that we pretty much gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait in the first place As far as nuclear goes, there is no proof of anything that Saddam would have nuclear. He was far, far from even having a small program. Taking Saddam out could clear the way for Iraq to go nuclear, ever think of that?
Kuwait was "slant drilling" into Iraqi reserves. It was a local sovereignty and border issue, the Kuwaitis thought they could mess around and got their asses smacked. American companies were also on the take. It's not always the Frenchies and Commies causing all of the corruption in the world. Also, Iraq's infrastructure was set back tremendously in the Gulf War, and throughout the 10 year no-fly period. If you fill a room with monkeys and typewriters, you will eventually get the complete works of William Shakespeare. I don't see a lot of publishers cornering the market on typewriters or monkeys. Pre-emptive war is a dangerous concept. I might know Grim, and think that one day because we had an argument, he may buy a gun and decide to shoot me. Am I justified in shooting him first? The problem with pre-emptive war is that there is rarely a timetable, a clear objective, or substantial evidence to justify such. They turn into these never ending police actions, and several destroy American domestic prosperity. So what if Saddam or Iran get nukes? We could wipe them off the face of the earth in under 4 hours. There is absolutely no reason to carry on a 6 year expedition on the ground. In light of what happened at the Bay of Tonkin, and the Yellowcake Iraq scandal, do you really trust our politicians to decide when to go to war without a declaration?
Guerilla: I finally spent some time reading a lot on Ron Paul. While I admire a lot about Paul's plain speaking he is at this point little more than a radical political philosopher/theorist than a practical problem solver. Additionally his biggest proponents are finding all sorts of ways to aggressively support all of his claims and theses. By example, while Iraq made claims and complaints about slant drilling that was no reason to start a war. That has the odor of excusing any comments, claims, or serious issues to ensure that all analyses support the universal ideas that Paul supports. There is no way in hell a war and a take over of a country is in any way justified by slant drilling. Death, destruction, the overthrow of a government, upsetting of the world order, threatening the market free availability of oil, etc. are not justified by slant drilling. Prior to that attack Saddam had started a long term war with Iran, kiled many of his own natives, suppressed all people in his land who were not Sunni's and was a well known dictator. He was a dangerous evil man with a large military that was a threat in that part of the world. Had no efforts been made to limit the threat he would have drastically changed the face of the world. This is but one small example of the efforts that the truest believers of the Ron Paul philosophy will go to support his many and varied proposals. There are many aspects of the Paul philosophy that are appealing. On the other hand it is an extreme perspective that has always had a limited appeal politically to the mainstream of America. Moreover, like any extreme, when applied in its fullest it threatens to radically change the nature of the nation and much that is good. He'd be far better as a spokesman than as a president. I'd fear the radical elements he would try and put into place. In a sense Paul's radical approach would replace the current extreme version of neoconservatism with a new radical approach. What an American nightmare. Veering from one extreme to another. In any regard, the lack of balance in trying to excuse away an attack on a nation via the claim of slant drilling is scary. If used all the time it would excuse any horrible excess by anyone anywhere simply to justify a extremist position both by Hussein and secondly by the followers of an extreme group of Americans who are radically against any kind of intervention by any American force anywhere and at any time. Boy oh boy, would Hitler and the Emperor of Japan loved that perspective in 1941.
Earl of course slant drilling was not the only reason. However if someone is drilling into the territory of a sovereign nation, stealing their natural resources. Is that not the same as coming acrossed the border and stealing from that nation? Do you think the United States would allow any nation to do that to us, no matter how they did it?
What exactly does this comment have to do with this thread? If you cannot find any more bad news in Iraq, you have to resort to finding a new place to draw bad news from? Is that your point? It's pretty apparent the surge is working..
One nuke on New York and we loose 8 million. It was a big mistake not to have taken oit Saddam in 1991.
That's great. Everyone should be informed about all of the candidates. That's how a Republic is supposed to work. Radical? How so? I'm not sure where you are coming from on this. I'm just reporting facts, Iraq claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling and that was their reason for war. I'm really big on sovereignty. Sovereignty for America, Britain, Japan, you name it. I'm not saying it was justified, I am saying what happened. Could Saddam have dealt with it better? Absolutely. But he was an asshole, sonofabitch to the core. I agree with all of this. Got a Super Bowl prediction? I'm having a hard time with laymen predicting future global political events. The administration didn't do too shit hot predicting the capture of Bin Laden, Iraqi WMDs, Iraqi 9/11 connections. I'm not even about them being wrong, I'm concerned with people thinking they are right, when I can't even find that level of confidence with a lot of soul searching. Again, I never mentioned Paul. I'm probably closest to being a Christian, in my upbringing and my morals. I believe in Just war. For defense. But I don't believe in evangelism. Jesus set an example for peace and tolerance, he never enforced it with coercion, threats or violence. I can argue with the best of them, and get heated and rude, but it would take a lot for me to pre-emptively attack you fearing you might punch first. He is a spokesman Earl. It's not the man that is driving the campaign, it's the ideas. Ideas like free markets, economic and personal liberty, sound money, state's rights, respect for the Constitution and Rule of Law, openness of government, etc. I can understand why this may not appeal to you. It doesn't appeal to a lot of people when taken in one large bite. How many years have people voted for the status quo, the lesser of two evils, or angled for the candidate who would best represent their needs specifically, even if it is at the detriment of others, like pigs at a trough? If you believe the system is broken, then maybe it's time to swing to the other extreme. But I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'll represent what I know and understand, but recruiting is not my job. You either dig it, or you don't and either way I won't think more or less of you for your position. You are aware that Japan was provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor, right? When you level economic sanctions during war time, that is classically considered an act of intervention. Not to sounds condescending, but a lot of people who think Paul is radical or crazy, simply haven't done any research or ever questioned the conventional wisdom. And I'm not talking about Alex Jones conspiracy nutism, but actually looking at things like the Bay of Tonkin, and understanding that the government used a false flag to invade Vietnam. This isn't fabricated, it's Freedom of Information, de-classified truth. If you'd like to discuss this in more depth, I'm happy to do so. But if you're going to prescribe every position I take as some kind of Ron Paul stream of consciousness, then you're not doing the argument, or myself any justice. That which I do not know, I try to learn. That which I am wrong, I admit. But that which I am right, please don't excuse as ideological fanaticism.
Maybe more. Absolutely. It was a mistake putting him in power and supporting him against Iran. But we were in bed with this moron a long time. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml
Just thought I would add, not all of the nukes known to be in existence are even accounted for in this world, and I'm not talking amongst America or her allies. When the USSR broke up, they lost track of nearly 100 suitcase nukes. So while people want to bomb Iran for considering getting a nuke 2 or 5 years from now, there are plenty of nukes which could already be in terist hands, anywhere in the world. And that's kinda what the candidate I support is about. Not getting scared, or intimidated, or reactionary. Looking at what is real, and fact and saying, "Is there a better way?" My morals suck. I feel horrible inside thinking about the dead Iraqis, Afghanis and Americans. As sick as I felt on 9/11, watching the second plane crash into the tower on CNN. The difference is, 9/11 was 6 years ago, the shock has faded somewhat. But everytime I read the BBC, or Al Jazeera English, listen to DemocracyNow or PBS, or find independent news footage on Youtube, the sickness of this war stays with me. How many soldiers, civilians, insurgents, freedom fighters, terists, bystanders should die? What is the cost of oil worth in blood? How many people have to die to make us feel secure? Ron Paul doesn't even take this position. I take it to an extreme. My conscience demands it. If you're ok with (numbers revised down for GTech's sake) tens of thousands of dead civilians to secure our geopolitical interests, so be it. But if that's the case, then you are a neo-con. You value economic/political power over human life. And it doesn't make you a whole lot better than Saddam.
What's the matter? No responses? No one want to go all Will Spencerian on me and explain how many lives their own life is worth? Sorry to have disturbed the shell of talking about surges, political progress and the anatomy of IEDs. But this isn't a video game, and real people are dying, real destruction has occurred and everyone who pays taxes and endorses the war, well you are the proud patron of this. In the words of Mike Huckabee, you broke it, you bought it. The question becomes, what are you going to do about it? Or do you not even care...
Anyone ever get the impression that Guerilla talks to himself a lot? Any reason he has to keep posting replies to his own posts? Will is one heck of a popular guy to always get a mention in threads he is not even participating in. How come Will always get's to be the poster child for all that is the opposite of reality? Sometimes I wonder if Guerilla and AnthonyCEA are not related or one in the same. Hearing the Will attacks when talking to himself has not produced the correct response is the MO of AC. The reason no one is responding Guerilla is because there is no more bad news to talk about.. Let's go back to hearing about K-Fed, OJ, Britney, and fruit loops... I think it is time for the ignore button.. I don't know how many more duplicate posts of Guerilla talking to himself I can take.
Actually, Will is the only pro-war person I have found on this forum to have the guts to stand up and say, "yeah, they should die so I should be safe, survival of the fittest" (paraphrased). I think that's a terribly immoral view, but I respect his honesty. It's a shame more people aren't willing to be honest about what support of the war actually means in human life (American and otherwise), and how they justify maintaining that position.
One more step in the Bush effort to stick America in Iraq for the long term is the Bush/al-Maliki agreement just signed by the two people that establishes a long term involvement in Iraq for the US. Doesn't smell good to me.
One other thing: reading through this thread, Guerilla, you have justified Saddam's attack on Kuwait; you justified the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; You also cited that you believe in wars of self defense; Frankly, the tone of that worries me. In fact it leads me toward a point of view somewhat (but not entirely-no never entirely) like GTech. In evaluating world events the US needs to be freer to strike out. In view of what went on over the last 6 years it seems to me to come better out of judgement and a more balanced approach in the existing forms of government than with a radical change. Radical change seems to me to have gotten us into the dilemna we are currently facing. The radical change that occurred was established with the current administration that essentially and dramatically overturned the traditional balance between branches of government and the good sense that Americans can apply. 1. This administration believes in and has applied tremendous dominance of the executive office over the legislature at a degree that has seldom been seen in US history. 2. This administration attacked all who disagreed with its policies and labeled them as traitors, etc., thereby disarming the normalcy of debate that should have been pursued with regard to the decision to attack Iraq. 3. This administration pursued both these elements with an overwhelming level of secrecy and consent from the Republican majority in the legislature that enabled both of the above 2 elements to move forward unimpeded. Frankly, IMHO, there has been a radical change in govt in the US already. I hope it is restored to a more appropriate balance in the near future with the upcoming elections next year.