Ron Paul Part II

Ron Paul is an interesting candidate and certainly has garnered some Internet support. While traditional or more scientific polls have him near the bottom of the pack the on line or unscientific polls show him near the top. This might be, as some of his supporters claim, because he has wide support among the tech savvy or it might be that those who support him vote a number of times in these polls. Whatever the reason, this second tier candidate has been mentioned more than he likely would have had it not been for his appearance in the last debate. He made a statement that upset many in the party by claiming that the reason they attacked us is because we have been bombing Iraq for ten years. This statement received a strong rebuff by Rudy Giuliani who claimed never to have heard of such a thing. Giuliani’s statement ignores the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources who claim that blow-back for our actions was one of the reasons we were attacked.

While I certainly agree that our foreign policy is likely to have ticked off those who do not agree with us I also believe that radical Islam has been looking to pick a fight with us for decades in order to beat us and impose their twisted religious views on us. Regardless of the bombing of Iraq for ten years we were likely to have been attacked anyway for nothing more than our support for Israel and its right to survive. Radical Islam believes that Israel is not legitimate and has no right to exist. That twisted ideology extends to those who support Israel and the right of its people to exist and to defend themselves against attack.

Ron Smith of WBAL had a great piece on Ron Paul and his statements. The article, Love Him or Loathe Him, Ron Paul Speaks his Mind points out:

As you might or might not know, Big Media jealously safeguards the status quo, ridiculing anyone who might, Like Dr. Paul, call into question the basic precepts of modern federal government, which include agreement by everyone who can be taken seriously that the U.S. is a special nation, a gift to the world, tasked with making sure that all other nations defer to it and, above all, do what we tell them to do, or else.

This is a true enough statement and one only needs look at Howard Dean to see it in practice. The big boys in government, regardless of party, and those in media hate when the apple cart is upset. Dean bucked the status quo and his over exuberant scream became his undoing though similar types of display by people such as Ted Kennedy have had little impact on their careers. I do not agree with Howard Dean’s politics but I do believe that the media and those running behind him at the time focused on his outburst as a means to shut him up. The left was so afraid he might actually run again that they made him the head of the DNC. If his outburst made him unsuitable as the face of the Democrats why did they make him the face of their party? They know that many people liked the freshness of Dean as he bucked conventional thinking. Ron Paul is such a candidate.

I certainly have not decided who to support in the next campaign. It is far to early to throw support behind any one person until there has been time to flesh out opinions and to separate the contenders from the also rans. I believe that Ron Paul, as Smith indicated and much like Dean before him, speaks his mind and unfortunately his thoughts run counter to the conventional thinkers in politics. I believe we need new faces and new ideas in politics. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to determine what party politicians belong to and for all the infighting those already in office seem to work together to help maintain things just as they are. Paul seems to espouse beliefs that many have but that the old boy network does not want to hear. As Smith points out in his piece:

Whatever the case, to me it’s just refreshing to see a man of principle stand tall and unafraid in the face of being called a party apostate and traitor and calmly state his case before a hostile audience. It’s uncharacteristic of modern politicians because it represents actually[sic] bravery as opposed to crowd-pleasing bravado.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul is a man of principle and that he speaks what is on his mind. He is doing it during the primaries when others save what they really think for the general election and this, like in the case of Dean, might mean he will never win any office higher than the one he holds. I do not suggest that he should not be who he is and that he should not stand on principle but his statement in the debate allowed Giuliani to go on the attack and to deflect the criticisms he has had on issues like abortion and gun control. Right now, people are talking about this and ignoring the hot topic of Giuliani and abortion that was in the limelight only a week ago. It was suggested that the focus on abortion would hurt Giuliani in the debate but Paul gave him a way out.

The establishment, consisting of both major parties and the media, does not like people who rock the boat and Paul has shown up as a Category 5 hurricane. His opinions, while researched and accurate, threaten the business as usual government and unfortunately for him, he will have to overcome the attacks from that entity as well as the others running in the race.

It has been suggested that Paul should not be allowed to attend any further debates and I think that is a terrible tact to take. What would be the uproar if Conservatives stated that Rudy Giuliani should not be allowed to attend debates because he believes in abortion rights? The purpose of debates is to allow people to put out their ideas and to let the public decide which candidate they want to represent them. If Paul is so contrary to public opinion and his ideas are so out of touch, why silence him? People are usually silenced out of fear. Is the Republican Party (and the establishment for that matter) afraid that Paul might get support? That would be the most likely reason to silence him.

Conservatives are looking for a person who espouses traditional Conservative values and Paul certainly has the credentials. As I stated, it is far too early for me to decide who to support but I want to be able to look at all the candidates and not just the ones the establishment thinks I should see. I like Fred Thompson but until he gets in the race I can not tell what kind of leader he will be and how firm he is in his Conservative beliefs. Regardless, Paul deserves to be heard and the people deserve to be able to hear him. It is the people, not the establishment, who candidates are elected to represent and the people deserve to hear the thoughts of every person interested in holding office.

To allow the establishment to decide who we may hear is un-American and smacks of Communism. I may never vote for Paul and he might not be around when the time comes but he deserves to be heard just as much as any other candidate.

Ron Smith’s show page does not have Digg. If you like his piece and want to let others read what he has to say, consider linking to his piece or Digging this one so that others might see his work.

I am interested in what you have to say so please feel free to comment as often as you like.

Big Dog



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

25 Responses to “Ron Paul Part II”

  1. Patsy says:

    Congressman Paul’s conservatism was ably conveyed during the South Carolina debate. However, ANYONE, regardless of their party affiliation or political convictions, who can logically make the case that American foreign policy and American behavior brought about the hatred that manifested itself in the attacks against us on 9/11/2001 and all the other terrorist attacks for that matter, if you follow that logic, CANNOT possibly be fit to lead this nation. Anyone, and that includes Patrick J. Buchannan, who believes that by interacting with the Arab world, trying to influence it, actually taking action to displace despots, brutal dictators & governments hostile to us and the world, somehow justifies or explains the hatred Islam demonstrates against us is in denial about how evil Islam is. We will never be free from this scourge if we elect people who think like this. We must elect leaders who believe in our goodness and our righteousness. Furthermore, we have a duty and responsibility as the most powerful nation in the world to protect not only ourselves but also those who can’t protect themselves. We have to fight evil, if not us, who will?

  2. Billy Joe says:

    Hi BD,

    We agree on something at last.

    Without Paul’s refreshing honesty, the Republican debate would have devolved into a contest to see who could pander the most successfully. “I’ll double the size of Gitmo!” “I want Jack Bower!” Or Rudy Guiliani, grabbing onto 9/11 yet again because he recognizes it’s his life saver in the the otherwise hostile waters of the Republican Presidential primary.

    The American public is hungry for candidates who do not treat them like morons. Paul treats us with respect, like adults. Candidates like that come along every once in a while and the establishment does what it can to shut them out/down, sort of like when Hannity tried minimize Paul’s views and to talk right over him (like he always does) in the post-debate interview. I certainly hope they don’t exclude Paul from future debates. Paul has shown a willingness to say something unpopular. That demonstrated courage, at least. Romney is so cowardly that he couldn’t even think of anything he didn’t like about America in the 1st debate.

    Regarding Patsy’s comment above, these events (9/11, etc.) don’t take place in a vacuum. There is even a book about it called “Blowback”. It’s very unusual for people as individuals or as groups to attack another individual or group unprovoked. And yet many people, including Guiliani and other critics of Paul, simply cannot wrap their mind around the fact that our insistence on being the world’s policeman antagonizes people who otherwise probably wouldn’t give a flying crap about us and would leave us alone. Does anyone attack the hedonistic and free Sweden, for example? Not that I’m aware of. I think it’s because Sweden doesn’t participate in military adventurism. Why did Iran take US hostages in the ’79? I think it had less to do with our freedom or their desire to impose Islamofascism on us than it did with our history in their country (overthrowing their popularly elected leader and replacing him with a corrupt despot who was subsequently overthrown by the Ayatollah). It’s really not rocket science. As Pat Buchanan said before, if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.

    We don’t need to and in fact cannot fight every evil leader/nation in the world. We have neither the money, nor the required # of forces. In the event that we actually have to fight Hitler-like evil, we should keep our powder dry in the meanwhile so that we’ll be ready to do so when the time comes. We should not be wasting our resources in a country that was boxed in and causing harm almost exclusively to itself (Iraq). Nor should we have been arming Saddam back in the 80’s when we knew he was killing his own people.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Foreign policy being what it is there is no way to tell that today’s friend will be tomorrow’s enemy. Who would have thought we would have open trade with Japan and Germany after WW II but now they are friends.

    I agree with the idea of blowback because every action has a reaction but doubt that this was the sole reason we were attacked. We still need to remember that Islam is a religion based on domination and they have a goal of imposing Islam on the world. bin Laden wanted a fight with us and while the blowback has been used as an excuse for it it is also true we would be attacked for our support of Israel. In 1979 there were a lot of things that happened but the taking of hostages IN OUR EMBASSY was an act of war. That is sovereign American Soil (it was) as an embassy and their trespassing was an act of war. There are ways to handle situations without taking innocent people hostage, though in Islam everyone is fair game. We should have said no to Kuwait and they could hammer out their own problems. Also, we gave Iraq weapons because they were fighting Iran and we considered them a buffer. We actually hoped that both sides won.

    I agree we need to stop being the world’s police and I am willing to do so as long as EVERY COUNTRY stops putting its hand out for American money. We give a lot of money to those countries and every time there is a disaster America digs deep and gives a lot. Let someone else clean up and we can keep our money. It amazes me that countries freely take our money (like Iran in the 70s) and then when we ask for concession or actions we are told to mind our own business.

    Let us just exercise trade with them and they can be on their own with regard to money. Seems that will never happen. Palestine is not too well off without our cash (that they turn around and use against us).

    More to the point though, no one has to agree with Paul but he should not be silenced. That is what the left does when they have critics (deny global warming and see what happens). We should see them all and make up our own minds.

  4. Patsy says:

    You’re right about not silencing Ron Paul, Big Dog. In fact, I agree with almost everything he stands for. I want to hear more of the views he espouses from the rest of the candidates running; like on illegal immigration, abortion, taxes, governmental regulation, the reduction of government, the elimination of several Cabinet level departments, etc. I just can’t support someone for Commander-In-Chief who analyzes our past foreign policy conduct, military actions, political decisions, etc. and concludes that all of these are what motivated Islamic terrorists to attack us. I’m not buying it. We’ve interacted with the entire rest of the world, including the so-called “hedonistic” Sweden, as the previous commenter described them, I don’t recall any of them committing mass murder against us. This isn’t about anything we did to them. This about them and their evil, sick society and what they do with the wealth they acquire from the oil they sell to the rest of the world. They make those decisions, to kill, to torture, to subjugate women, to make their own people miserable, to want to spread that misery to the rest of humanity. That is their way, not ours.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Paul has a lot of ideas and beliefs that I agree with but I also agree with this item from the Federalist Patriot:

    “It appears The Patriot is following the Leftmedia’s lead and ignoring Ron Paul. He did not even get a mention in Alexander’s essay, ‘The GOP—a party in distress’, last Friday. Why?” —Chesapeake, Virginia

    Editor’s Reply: First, you know we always follow the “Leftmedia lead”! Second, we publish Ron Paul’s excellent arguments about domestic policy issues, but we do NOT support Paul as a presidential candidate because his isolationist foreign policy and national security positions are disastrously, appallingly and potentially, catastrophically wrong. Two of the president’s most important constitutional responsibilities pertain to foreign policy and national security, and Paul’s Libertarian views earn him an F- in those departments.

    Paul has supporters and they deserve to hear what he has to say. Those of us who have not decided upon a candidate deserve to hear what he has to say. The idea that the elites can tell us who we should hear is wrong…

    Thanks for all the comments. You folks make it a better day.

  6. Billy Joe says:

    Patsy,

    This sounds like you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and simply refusing to believe anything Paul says:

    I just can’t support someone for Commander-In-Chief who analyzes our past foreign policy conduct, military actions, political decisions, etc. and concludes that all of these are what motivated Islamic terrorists to attack us. I’m not buying it. We’ve interacted with the entire rest of the world, including the so-called “hedonistic” Sweden, as the previous commenter described them, I don’t recall any of them committing mass murder against us.

    We haven’t been selling Sweden weapons to use against their own oppressed population. Hence Sweden doesn’t attack us. It’s actually quite self-explanatory. We sell weapons to a corrupt, oppressive Saudi Government, some radicals who hate that government get ticked at us for assisting in their oppression and we become their enemy. Again, self evident.

    What you’re basically saying above is that you can’t believe our government could do something so evil. Frankly it doesn’t matter if you can’t believe it. What matters is “is it actually happening?” If the answer is yes, whether or not you want to believe it is irrelevant.

    Grow up.

  7. Patsy says:

    I’m actually quite old, Billy Joe. Old enough to remember who was on the other side of those conflicts when we supplied arms to the Arabs we were supporting. And while we’re having our history lesson, son, it might be beneficial for you to remember who started all the trouble in that region to begin with. It wasn’t your generous, freedom-loving nation, the good ‘ol US of A, it was none other than that evil-empire, the Soviet Union, the Communists whose goal it was to spread its power and authority throughout the globe. The Cold War was being fought during that era. Much misery and death was inflicted on our fellow man during that struggle. We were the defenders during that war, not the aggressors. It’s amazing to me how those facts always seem to be left out when the arming of Arabs back then is brought up as an excuse for their enmity toward us. I’ll say it again; the United States is not the cause of their hatred, we were helping them with their problems with the Soviets. And to be honest with you, I think the same foes have a hand in some of what’s going on today. You might want to rethink your position about blaming your country for terrorism. There are other powers involved in this fight who are devious and fight dirty, very dirty. I’m not the one who needs to grow up.

  8. Billy Joe says:

    Patsy (what an appropriate name),

    Would you care to put a date on Soviet involvement in the region? I think you’re referring to Afganistan, but our involvement in Iran, their neighbor, extends back to at least ’53 when we overthrew their democratically elected leader and replaced him with our puppet, the Shah.

    Look how well it turned out for the Soviets, too. It basically ended their empire. Do you suppose it just might end ours, as well? we’re certainly spending a ton of money (soon it’ll be $1 trillion) and not getting much out of it, that’s for sure. Our military is breaking and our standing in the world is worse than at any time since WWII. Our President is viewed as a greater threat to world peace than bin Laden himself!

    Funny that you say the US isn’t the cause of their hatred. Do they just burn the US flag to show their anger at the Soviets? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    If we’re going to arm the next Saddam Hussein (in Uzbekistan, for example) can we kindly not turn around and spend yet more money to overthrow him in 5 or 10 years? It seems like a huge waste of resources and if it was Bill Clinton doing it, I’m sure you’d be pissed as hell. FWIW, I don’t approve of Democrats doing it either. That’s why I’m more in line with Ron Paul’s thinking.

  9. Patsy says:

    We’ll be disagreeing on this, Billy Joe. At the time the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted for 10 long years from 1980 to 1990, the support we provided Iraq was not what you could characterize as enthusiastic, minimal is more like it, perhaps regrettable in hind sight. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and stayed for the next 10 years. The Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980’s with the final dissolution of the Soviet Union coming in 1991. All this was going on simultaneously and it was all caused not by us, but by the Soviets. And yes, you’re right about the burning of our flag, the burning of our Presidents in effigy, the taking of our embassies, the bombing of our embassies, the killing of innocent Americans, and you’re right about the hatred of Americans over there, they do hate us, I agree with you. But you didn’t comprehend what I wrote, I said we weren’t responsible for that hatred and WE’RE NOT. We’ve not done anything to warrant it. The Arabs have been lied to and because they only know those lies, they believe it. What’s your excuse? We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the dangerous world we’ve lived in and continue to live in will just go away and leave us alone if we stay inside our own country. Do you honestly believe Islamic terrorism isn’t a serious threat to our way of life? I sure as heck do and I have no intention of wearing a burka.

  10. Billy Joe says:

    Patsy,

    I don’t honestly think Islamic Terrorism is a serious threat to our way of life. Osama bin Laden is not shredding the constitution. Bush is doing it for him (domestic spying, “free speech zones”, denial of habeus corpus, torture, etc.)

    The “Islamo-fascists” lack armies, navies and air forces. Their ability to force us here in North America to wear burkas is very limited in my opinion. They may carry out attacks from time-to-time but to suggest that Islam, which is currently a marginal religion in the US, will somehow end up dominating America and it’s many non-Muslim religious adherents is absurd. It probably will not happen even in our grandchildren’s lifetime and the Mormon religion (for example) will probably still have more adherents at that time.

    Regarding arming Iraq AND Iran (thank you Reagan) during the Iran-Iraq war, can we at least have an honest discussion about it in this country? If one of the reasons we invaded Iraq is going to be because “Saddam was gassing his own people (!)”, could we at least admit publicly and frequently that we supported him as he did it? That’s why Paul is a good, and important Presidential candidate. He doesn’t try to sugarcoat – or worse, hide – our support for dictators and monsters. He simply wants us to stop supporting them. I agree and think that if politicicans would be honest with us for once, the majority of Americans would agree, as well (that’s why Paul is causing such a stir, of course).

    Maybe it’s OK with you, but I suspect that if given all of the facts about our involvement with these dictators, most Americans would propose something sensible like “stop selling them weapons that they’ll use to kill their own people so that their people won’t hate us”.

    It’s basic human nature and if you can’t grasp it, it’s because you have chosen to ignore the evidence. I guess it’s too difficult for you to believe that Americans are subject the same laws of nature that everyone else is the world is subject to: action, reaction.

    we’re a great country, but we can’t defy physics or human nature.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Perhaps BT, you have never heard of the Islamic movement during the centuries from around 450-1050. They conquered many nations and converted, subjugated, or killed non Muslims. That is why we had the Crusades. It was a response to the aggressive brutality of Islam. That is in their book and they want to continue it today. You might not see the threat, but it is there.

    I guess if America knew all the facts, like you do (smile smile wink wink) they would have certain opinions. Since we do know that America was attacked in an act of war by Iran during Carter’s presidency and we did not respond we face greater challenges today.

    The Middle East is complicated and I would be just as happy if we were never there and just let them all kill each other. We could get involved when they attacked the Jews otherwise let them kill each other. We could, if we wanted, retake all their land that belonged to Christians before Mohammad invaded and seized it. We could just go take their oil. But I am all for having never been there. Since we are though, we need to finish the war.

    You might be happy with the idea that there might be some attacks here but they would be scattered about but I am not. Since you are comfortable with these scattered attacks, would you mind much giving us your address and the addresses of your family members so that the scattered attacks will only affect you? It is easy to brush something like that off until it affects you directly. So I think we should steer it your way since you are comfortable with it.

    We have been involved with many people over the years who at one time were our enemies. We fought Britain and now we our allies and they do not send planes to attack our buildings. We were enemies with Japan and Germany and now they are our allies and do not attack us. We worked with despots and proved what we have been saying to the left all along, you can not negotiate with Muslims. They will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to further Islam.

  12. Patsy says:

    Billy Joe, During war, past, present and future; violent, brutal activities and decisions to take such actions are made by our enemies. Our nation must have a President willing and able to defend us against ALL threats by ANY means necessary, because by not doing so would mean infinitely more Americans would die or our defeat. Unacceptable, sir, just plain unacceptable. You’re selling your fellow Americans short by assuming the vast majority don’t know what their nation has done to remain safe and powerful. Although I have not served personally, being a woman in my 50’s, my husband, father-in-law, uncle, two cousins, and several close friends have defended our country in armed conflicts from WWII to Iraq. Please refrain from any further condescension. We know exactly what this country has done and believe it has been worth it. Whatever you may think of the tactics, whatever criticisms you have, it is blatantly obvious all you’ve ever done for your country is exercise your right to free speech and enjoy that freedom. But that freedom isn’t free and I’m damn glad there are men with the guts to make decisions to go to war and brave men to fight it. And Big Dog is right, I am not willing to accept one terrorist act being committed against another American. How you could find that acceptable is disgusting. That is a coward’s position. These terrorists aren’t going to stop until we stop them. Treating what they’ve been doing to innocent people all over the world as though it were a mere nuisance is just going to encourage them to escalate their activities. It’s how we’ve been dealing with them for the last 20 years before George W. Bush took office. It’s just gotten progressively worse, but now we’ve taken them on and we’re winning against them and we will defeat them. The only way we’ll lose if we stop fighting and withdraw. We need to stay the course and continue this until we finish it and we will prevail. How can we not? These people use their own children as decoys for IED’s on the side of the road and in their cars at military checkpoints. You think cowards like these are going to defeat us????? No way, no how, never, never, never. You don’t want to fight? Fine, then don’t, but have the decency to, at the very least, support your country’s military, the one’s who are doing the fighting for you. And just stow all rights you think the President has taken from you, because if we don’t win this war, you won’t need them anyway, since there won’t be a USA anymore.

  13. Billy Joe says:

    BD,

    Why do I need to give you my name and address? To borrow a phrase from our own President, we’re over there fighting them so we don’t have to fight them here. Or, as Patsy would say, our troops are over there acting as decoys.

    Patsy,

    If you define “winning” as a dramatic increase in attacks on Americans since the Iraq war started, then you are talking like bin Laden.

    See the graph here illustrating the rise in attacks since we invaded Iraq and explain to me how this shows we’re “winning”:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/08/america-iraq-war-7x-more-worldwide-terror/

    Prior to the beginning of the war, we sustained terrorist attacks every year or so. Since we’ve invaded Iraq, we’re attacked by terrorists (using the President’s own definition) EVERY SINGLE DAY, MULTIPLE TIMES (3000+ dead, 20,000+ injured), in Iraq alone. Is this your definition of “winning”? If you have DATA illustrating how we’re “winning”, I’d love to see it.

    Otherwise, maybe you should look at the actual evidence.

    As they say, believing we’re winning doesn’t make it so. Ron Paul at least recognizes reality and my hat is off to him.

  14. Big Dog says:

    You were the one who said that the attacks were a minor little thing so let them happen to you. Addresses so we can tell them where to go. You were the one who said that if we left it would be some minor inconvenience every once in a while so let it happen to you.

    I told you this before and I will tell you again though you will never get it, the 3000 dead and 20,000 wounded were the result of war. Your analogy means that thousands of troops died due to terrorism at Normandy.

    Now, we can discount the military killed in attacks and we can discount the Muzzies killing each other because they were doing that before and it never counted as a terrorist attack. We are winning. We have killed more of them and we are rebuilding their country while getting shot at. We took years to rebuild Europe and it took this country years to get an established government but we expect the Iraqis to do it overnight.

    You keep telling us to look at the facts but the only thing you present is stuff from people like you who have not been there as opposed to the word we get from the folks that are or were.

    You would not know actual evidence if it smacked you in your tin foil wearing head.

  15. Patsy says:

    BD- I think this guy is hopeless. If I hear the 3,000 dead, 20,000 wounded statistic one more time I may just throw up. 52 MILLION human beings perished during WWII and all these people do is squawk about the death toll. Based on that criteria alone, this is the most successful war in the all of history. For the love of God, why aren’t these fighting men given the credit they deserve? I’ve got friends serving over there right now, some going back next month for their 2nd tour of duty, and they are so motivated and proud of their mission. They care deeply for the Iraqi people and want them to have the chance at freedom, believe they will make it to democracy. And believe we need to stay to finish our mission, and that the fighting is coming from outsiders.

  16. Billy Joe says:

    Thank you both for not answering the question. Wouldn’t Jihadi attacks be going down 4 years after we invaded if we were “winning” instead of going up? More attacks each year is a strange way of defining winning hence my comparisons of you guys to bin Laden. By your criteria, Jihadi nuclear attacks in Iraq would constitute a huge victory for the US, would it not?

    The comparisons between WWII and the Iraq war are absurd and both of you surely must know it. We were fighting actual nations and their governments in WWII. When the war ended, the shooting stopped. A more accurate analogy to Iraq would be Vietnam: We chose a side in a civil war and propped up a government that never would have survived on its own. In Vietnam people of that country kept shooting at us until the day we left, when, surprise, surprise, they stopped shooting at us.

    I guess there is no data you could share to prove your assertion that we’re “winning”? It’s a pretty simple request and if there were numbers to prove it, you can be sure the Administration would be brandishing them about instead of lamely saying “we’re winning” over and over and over.

  17. Big Dog says:

    What numbers would you like and how would YOU define winning. Perhaps, as the letters from the terrorists indicated, they are desperate and escalating attacks to break our will. In case you are unaware, they get the news. They have openly stated that they want to increase the attacks so that the Democrats will pull the troops out.

    It is a tactic and not indicative of them winning or us losing.

    But I will ask you, if you say we are not winning, then who is?

  18. Patsy says:

    We already defeated the GOVERNMENT of Iraq, or didn’t Saddam Hussein’s regime qualify as a government, Billy Joe? You have a comeback for everything. And if you want to use Viet Nam as the comparison, 53,000 Americans perished in that conflict, and American involvement lasted 16 years. It’s the only war we’ve ever lost. We lost because we quit. After we left, millions were massacred. Not our finest hour, Billy Joe, and I promise you, the United States of America will NEVER repeat such a disgraceful “withdrawal” again, no matter how much noise you whiners make.

    You want proof that we’re winning the Iraq war and the War on Terror: How about the fact that there hasn’t been another successful terror attack on American soil since 9/11/2001? How about the successful elections held, the new Iraqi government that’s been formed and is functioning, the trial, conviction, sentencing and execution of Saddam Hussein, how about the FACT that our brave soldiers continue to fight the insurgents and terrorists, killing massive numbers of them, while they pick off a few of ours at a time, and those we don’t kill we have on the run?

    How about the schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, electrical plants, phone services, judicial buildings, government buildings, DEMOCRATIC infrastructure being constructed in Iraq as we speak? Of course, when all of these successes are listed, somehow they are never quite given the proper accolades these tremendous achievements deserve.

    You people expect this to all happen and to be in place instantly. The Iraqi people have been tortured and repressed for 35 years, why don’t you give them a chance to learn how to be free? How judgmental and impatient can you be? They’re doing extremely well considering all the interference they’re dealing with from Iran, Syria and terrorists/al Qaeda-backed who knows who.

    You keep referring to the increased terror attacks every year, every day. Are you referring to the deaths in Iraq? That’s the war zone, and we’re still fighting the war, how can you possibly call those increased terror attacks? There are al Qaeda terrorists fighting in Iraq, yes, there are, but Billy Joe, THEY HAVE JOINED THE FIGHTING, they are fighting in the WAR. Your rationale is ludicrous and absolute nonsense. What is the matter with you?

    These terrorists have joined the side of our enemy, the side that supported Saddam’s regime, who want to pick up where he left off. They are further supported by an influx of fighters from Iran who want to turn Iraq into a religious fundamentalist Islamic regime like Iran. They’ve all thrown in together to defeat the majority of Iraqi citizens and us, who want freedom and democracy and peace.

    Civil war? Maybe, but there aren’t very many native Iraqi’s on their team, just former Saddam Baathist’s who have lost their perks and want them back. Have we chosen a side? Well, sure! The Iraqi citizens’ side. You would rather let Iran and al Qaeda take control of Iraq? Wake up and smell the coffee.

    This is tough stuff and requires a great deal of courage, something which seems to be in rather short supply in certain political organizations. Suck it up.

  19. Patsy says:

    BTW, Billy Joe, I visited the link you provided. I suggest you visit this US State Dept. link and read their country by country report. While there are certain media who characterize the fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan (war zones) as terrorist attacks and then conclude that both countries have large percentage increases in terrorist attacks. The rest of the world is far different. The trouble with providing a link like the one you did, is that someone might actually visit it. Good grief, is that really the best you could come up with to support your position?

  20. Patsy says:

    Here’s that State Dept. link:

    Country Reports on Terrorism

    http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82727.htm

  21. Billy Joe says:

    BD,

    Whose winning right now? It looks like Iran and, ironically (since they aren’t actually on the same side), bin Laden. Iran because they now have a friendly Shiite Islamic government in Iraq (mission accomplished, Bush!) and a dramatically enhanced ability to expand their influence in Iraq. bin Laden is looking like a winner because al Qaeda is now making money off the Iraq conflict and because he’s managed to trick the US into getting bogged down in Iraq. Bush (not the troops) is losing the war because his ever-vague and unattainable “strategy” is to “win”, whatever that means this week. You can’t even say we’re making progress because he refuses to accept such basic things as benchmarks with which we could try to determine if we’re winning or not.

    Patsy,

    How long should we have stayed in Vietnam to win there? We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we dropped in all of WWII. If that wasn’t enough to beat them, what should we have done? Just out of curiosity, you mentioned that you were in your 50’s earlier – did you serve there?

    Regarding your “proof” that we’re winning, it’s mostly baseless assertions (still no data). We haven’t been attacked in America in the past 5 years. When was the last time we were attacked in America before 9/11? Moreover, as I said earlier, by the President’s own definition (“we’re fighting al Qaeda”, terrorists, in Iraq, according to him), we’re attacked more than 100 times a day, every day in Iraq. I still don’t understand how you can call that success. We’ve actually been attacked more since we invaded than we have been attacked by terrorists under every other US president COMBINED.

  22. Patsy says:

    Billy, Just because you don’t have “any data” doesn’t mean the elections successfully held in Iraq are baseless assertions. Those are real events, they occurred. You don’t need any data to understand the meaning of FREE elections held for the 1st time in 35 years, unless you’re incapable of comprehending how tormented the Iraqi people were under Saddam. That you can so casually dismiss this monumental triumph speaks volumes about the man you are, or rather the man you are NOT.

    Strange how you pulled my age out of one of my posts, the very sentence that contained that information also stated I had NOT served personally, but my husband had, along with my father-in-law and many other close relatives and friends. Being that we’re in our 50’s, my husband is a Viet Nam veteran. There were many mistakes made during the war in Viet Nam, the biggest being the withdrawal, however, the way in which the war was conducted, with politics interferring with military strategy and decisions made for the long, protracted nature of the war. My answer is that we should have stayed in Viet Nam until we defeated North Viet Nam, but if I had been the President I would have reined in the politicians interferring with the military. I would not have been selecting bomb targets like LBJ did in the Oval Office.

    Political interference is happening today in the Iraq war. Politicians need to provide funding, logistical support and all required intelligence and coordination assistance. Then they need to step back and let the military DO THEIR JOBS: plan the war strategy, execute the strategy, fight and win the war. Iraq’s political entities interfere with its military, as well. Politicians have important roles in wartime, but those roles have limits.

    During wartime, gauging the winner at any given time is difficult; there are times when your opponents “appear” to be making headway, seem to scoring points, then our side regroups, comes up with a strategy and puts that strategy into action. Sometimes the strategy is a swift operation which resolves the problem quickly, sometimes it’s a strategy that makes a thousand small slices and “the beast” slowly bleeds to death. You making statements that bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iran all appear to be winning this war right now is …. ????

    Well, Billy, let’s just say that it demonstrates your total ignorance of the magnitude of the power this nation has, militarily (without NUKES) and economically. It also completely conflicts with one of your earlier posts, where you asserted that you didn’t think Islamic terrorism was a threat to us. These folks mean to do us harm and we do have to fight this war, but make no mistake about it, we will defeat them. They are not capable of defeating us, we are too strong, too big, too powerful.

    You need to show some backbone and faith in your country’s military. Be patient and pray for those brave soldiers fighting, both US-lead Coalition-partner forces and Iraqi forces, who are battling our enemies. This is going to be a long and protracted war. It will take however long it takes to win. Stop asking how long we should fight to achieve victory. Stop asking when it’s time to give up and admit we are defeated. Because we are not going to lose the war.

    You whiners will not convince Americans to give up on the War on Terror in Iraq; the War in Iraq is the War on Terror. Accept it, deal with it. You’ve been overruled. The majority of Americans will not pass this threat on to our children and grandchildren, we will not shirk our duty and responsibility to defend our country and the cause of freedom.

  23. Billy Joe says:

    Patsy,

    to say we’re losing the occupation in Iraq doesn’t mean they’re are going to force you to wear a burka in america. I guarantee you, that will not happen, even in your children’s lifetime.

    The majority of Americans want timetables for us to leave Iraq. I’m afraid you’re out of touch with the feelings of Americans.

    Finally, we are not a military dictatorship. In America, civilian leaders have control over the military. If you want to live in a country where the military wages wars without oversight or busy-body civilian leadership, you’d probably like North Korea, a lot. why don’t you move there?

  24. Big Dog says:

    Billy Troll,
    Patsy did not suggest that there was not supposed to be civilian oversight of the military. She said that they should do their jobs and let the military do theirs. The only civilian who has the authority to run the military is the President (and the people he appoints to do it). Congress has no authority except to stand up an Army and Navy, to provide funding for them, and to make the laws they have to follow (as in the UCMJ).

    So don’t spew this crap about how things are supposed to run because you do not know. Patsy had it right when she said that the civilains should do their job and let the military do what it is supposed to. If anyone needs to move out it is the people who are protesting this country. A majority of people want time tables? Well, to get technical, the government only listens to a majority when it suits them. A higher majority does not want the immigration reform but that has not stopped them from trying to ram it down our throats.

    Also, the majority of Americans want us to win.

  25. Patsy says:

    Billy Joe, We are not occupying Iraq, we are still engaged in fighting the war. Even if all hostilities had ceased, we’d stay there to facilitate the peace and help the Iraqi people and their government rebuild their country. We won WWII, the Korean War, and stayed to maintain the peace. We still have bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. We aren’t going anywhere when this conflict is over. The combat troops will be rotating out, but our military presence will remain. You better get used to that reality. We are going to have bases there.

    Iran poses a serious threat to our security with their nuclear weapons ambitions and the threats they’ve made against us and Israel. They will have to be dealt with very soon. Whether your isolationist butt likes it or not, Iran is coming for it and your country is going to defend it, sorry as it may be.

    And I won’t be wearing a burka, not because the threat isn’t real, but because our country’s military will protect my rights & freedom. I won’t be needing your guarantee for that, nor would I ever rely on someone like you to defend me or my country. And I never said the military didn’t have to answer to anyone or this was a military state, just that they needed to be trusted to do their jobs and given the freedom to do it.

    I want politicians to stop interferring with the military’s missions; it costs more lives, more military men are killed, more of the enemy and more innocent lives, too; because their meddling drags out the war. Their recklessness emboldens the enemy who fight harder and longer, thinking we’re growing discouraged and are going to withdraw. They need to leave the war to the men fighting it, ONCE THEY’VE AUTHORIZED THE WAR, AND THEY DID!!!! THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THE MEN UNTIL THEY WIN IT. Enough of this weakening at the knees and wimping out, taking polls and worrying about their reelection. These politicians, a large majority of them Democrats, voted in favor of this war, now want to pull the rug out from under the very men THEY SENT TO FIGHT.

    That is what I mean by politicians interferring, Billy Joe. You can stick your trip to North Korea where the sun don’t shine, you arrogant, obnoxious toad.