|
Post by Paws on Mar 30, 2007 5:41:00 GMT 12.75
So what do you think? I believe Bush foresaw this when he first invaded Iraq. At present we have already won the Iraq war but nobody seems to be aware of that! We defeated the dictator and his army and put them to route and tried convicted and executed the dictator. Now we are battling AlQuaeda directly without proxies, Sunni Insurgents from the remnants of the Bathists, Shea militants provided, trained, and funded by Iran and Syria and any other idiot who thinks he'll get 72 virgins for getting himself killed . So in a nutshell we are engaged with pure terrorist soldiers on a battleground that is not currently within our own borders! What in the hell is so difficult to understand about this? I say lets eradicate the vermin now where they stand in Iraq, Afghanistan and if Iran wants destroyed there as well.
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Mar 30, 2007 6:40:39 GMT 12.75
Prior to invading Afghanistan, Bush made a speech talking about the new War On Terror, which had been forced upon us by al Queida. In that speech he warned Americans that this war would be fought on many fronts and could be expected to last more than ten years. I wish I kew how to get those transcripts, so I could rub them in the face of all the idiots that still claim Bush lied and that the war's dragging on due to incompetence. I'd say, we're right on track! When Bush landed on the carrier, he announced the end of the offensive. It may have been premature, but he wasn't wrong. Afghanistan and Iraq were both secured and the government firmly in control of US forces. During that speech, he cautioned that there was still a long road head facing us in the War On Terror. The Iraqi Army had been crushed, but the terrorists were stilll a major threat to be handled. Funny how folks can just pick and choose what they want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by geiyserq on Mar 30, 2007 8:49:21 GMT 12.75
Amen to the both of you!
You dont even want to get me started on this subject.
I am so tired of the liberals and their media.
I am so tired of an ignorant public who is willing to follow whatever the next pretty face in Hollywood, TV news, and any other celeb. says to try and undermind this country. (Just the other day that bimbo Rosie O'donell who said, a day before Iran video of the British hostages was released that the Bush & Blair administrations were making it up!)
I'm just plain tired of it, and anymore i dont even try to be curtius when I hear another person, beit man or woman, talk about bring the troops home, take God out of schools & court, abortion's ok, you shouldn't be alowed to own guns, and (my favorite to laugh at),"We cant drill for Alaskan oil. We'll destroy the caribou migration!" (yeah we and the caribou are so stupid we cant figure out how to drill for oil on 1/5 of 1% of the land in question so as to not screw up a migration route.)
Nope, I just lettem have it with both barrels. If your stupid, I'm gonna be the one to tell ya.
You know, the ignorant can be educated, but the just plain brain washed stupid? Well, thats an uphill battle.
sorry for rambling.
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Mar 30, 2007 9:23:57 GMT 12.75
;D Don't hold it in GQ, it's unhealthy! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 26, 2007 3:22:22 GMT 12.75
Turn out the lights! The crap the Demos have spewed has caused an increase in insurgent attacks that won't stop until we either wipe Iraq off the map or the "DNC. I'm voting for the DNC and a good place to start is with that loud mouthed Speaker of the House. Remember she is only two heartbeats away from the presidency! Mr Reid, Senate Majority Leader, ought to be sued for his mouth and censured. If we lose Iraq, we have lost our own nation and it will be the end of the USA. MJaybe it is time to give the whole damned mess to Mexico.
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 26, 2007 5:40:09 GMT 12.75
First off Pelosi and Reid should be ran out of DC on a rail, tarred and feathered!!
It's the early seventies all over again. Too many people trying to use an unpopular war for their own political gain. Soldiers being caught in the middle and America left in the lurch.
The President needs to be more vocal. He has failed us in that regard. If he would take his case to the airwaves, I think you'd see an enormous turnaround in opinion polls and the Dem's would be exposed for what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 26, 2007 5:45:39 GMT 12.75
I don't know Toby. Moses had Aaron and Bush has Cheney. Poor George lacks the eloquence , charisma, and presentation skill needed to make the masses believe him or to get his point across. If I were Cheney though I'd certainly invite Reid quail hunting!
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Apr 26, 2007 8:00:40 GMT 12.75
Hmmm, that quail hunting idea has merit. Can San Fran Nancy come along too? Bush deasn't have to be eloquent or charismatic. He just has to be heard. He should use the media instead of run from them. He should have been outspoken against congress and their newly elected leadership. He should have spoken out during the last congresional elections and exposed the frauds for what they are. The President's office is to look after the best interest of the people. Allowing the Democraps to undermine him and exploit his weakness (willingness to fight back) does us all a great disservice!
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Apr 27, 2007 5:40:02 GMT 12.75
I have been reading Ron Paul's new book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". It is a historical compilation of his presentations to congress from 1983 to present. His consistent premise is the Constitutional standards of non-intervention.....and non-interventionism is not isolationism.
What does it take to rouse a people to war? Read the following quote out of Ron's book and then see who wrote it...:
.....Hermann Goering from his cell at the Nuremberg trials after WWII.
I have represented, more that a few times over the last couple years, that any congressional discussion on the war in Iraq should start with 'empire' - the power of state to influence the government and business of other nations. This is 'interventionism' and always leads to failure - whether applied to foreign or domestic policies.
Imagine my surprise to find Ron Paul presented the same thoughts to Congress, March 25, 1999:
Now, I do not propose to bash "Bush" - he is not the problem. The problem is the un-Constitutional, interventionist foreign policies of the last 75 - 100 years.
What President Bush followed through on was the "Iraqi Freedom Initiative" signed into law by President Clinton.
I wrote my thoughts along the lines of this post which I will follow with immediately - sorry if some of it is a repeat.....
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Apr 27, 2007 5:40:54 GMT 12.75
Posted April 24, 2007 11:59 AM
Democrats are against the war for all the wrong reasons, just as Republicans are for the war for all the wrong reasons. Government intervention does not work in foreign policy any more than it does in domestic policy: Intervention will lead to failure.
This type of (foreign) intervention has been made 'legal' but it is not constitutional. It is not a "Bush" policy, it is an interventionist policy - meddling in the governments and affairs of other nations.
President Bush fulfilled the official United States policy signed into law by the Clinton Administration: quote:
The Iraq Liberation Act October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, October 31, 1998.
Reid and today’s anti-war Democrats are not against interventionism, they are FOR making the Republicans look bad. This is not good policy.
I have, for many months, if not the last two years, emphasized that any Iraq war discussion must begin with the consideration of 'empire' - the force of state to control other sovereign nations. Is it in our best interest to pursue the interventionist policies of empire?
I was surprised to find in Ron Paul's new book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom", his address before Congress March 25, 1999 entitled 'Closer to Empire' in which he asks: quote: "...are we on the verge of empire? Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not to have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of government they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history?"
Do you think our esteemed statesmen took even one moment to consider the implications of his question?
I have also stressed a return to restricted Constitutional powers which Ron Paul addressed on February 2, 1999 "The State of The Republic or Congress Relinquishing the Power to Wage War": quote: Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who whold be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, "sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war." In the debate at the Constitutional Convention, it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British King was NOT to be "a proper guide in defining executive war powers" for the newly formed Republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the pwer to declare war, issue letters of marque and reprisal , call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy, and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The president was also to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors. Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day presidents - including the most recent episondes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan - should prompt Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers.
The real issue is interventionism. Stop foreign entanglements including acting at the behest of the United Nations. Stop foreign subsidies and meddling in the governments of other nations - often funding BOTH sides of a skirmish while we stand in the middle and take the fire. Stop 'bipartisan' solutions. 'Bipartisan' simply means government is going to interfere, one way or another and it means that no choice for liberty will be considered.
Those who are truly committed to peace will cease intervention both foreign and domestic. There is no peace without liberty.
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Apr 27, 2007 5:54:44 GMT 12.75
What proper Constitutional mission can we support for our troops?
Asked and answered in this excerpt from:
Non-intervention is stopping the government meddling (and use of force) in other countries governments and business - which would be good for our country. Isolationism is stopping private trade and interactions, which would NOT be good for our country. I advocate the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas without government intervention. That policy of freedom should be applied to ALL policies, foreign and domestic. Anything less is the wholesale failure of our Republic.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 27, 2007 8:28:06 GMT 12.75
Unfortunately G8RHED it is far too late to remember that you should have drained the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators! That's what is causing all the confusion. You find folk pointing fingers and laying blame when they don't have a clue what needs to be done. That is where we are. What does need to be done? (1) Disarm the Iraqi citizen and the so called militias. (2) Close the iraqi borders. (3) Establish a dusk to dawn cerfew on all towns. (4) Restrict mobility to foot travel and heavily guarded public conveyance. (5) Establish strike teams within every police precinct using our special forces, the best Iraqi military, and the better trained police. (6) Revise the rules of engagement to "shoot first". If possible arrest, do not detain, arrest and imprison. Put to death all insurgents of foreign nation/origin without trial. Now that I've got your attention it is time begin to build permenant bases in and around Baghdad. Time to send a new message tho those who question our resolve. Give the government a breather while the politicians can get their act together and the police and military can get trained. Free enterprise no longer works Jon because our entrapeneurs are far too greedy to concern themselves with little things like morality, or the death of a few folk caused where there might be a profit to be had. Why are we buying food from China? Why isn't our fresh food imported being inspected? Why are we not feeding ourselves ? Why has GM, Ford, and Chrysler gone tits up?
|
|
|
Post by Mars on Apr 28, 2007 0:25:29 GMT 12.75
The only solution that's going to work is to choose one side and totaly eliminate the other sides. Turn Iraq over to the Kurds.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 28, 2007 0:44:15 GMT 12.75
I was thinkinbg Sheites since they are in the majority. Maybe split Kurdistan off since they seem to be able to handle their own affairs. Might even consider segregating the Sunis and Sheites and offering Iran consolidation with part of Iraq sharing their border with Sheiteville! Lots of possibilities but first you got to get the criminals wrapped up. I mean lets face it, for now the damned place belongs to us and we are an occupying force and need to start acting like one. Sitting on our thumbs waiting for some dumbass in New York or on the Parlimentary Board to make a decision and issue orders is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Lt Colonel Bruce Reynolds on Apr 28, 2007 1:40:16 GMT 12.75
Phil, you have the right idea, I also say stay there till the jobs done! for you taking time to read my words. Bruce I was thinkinbg Sheites since they are in the majority. Maybe split Kurdistan off since they seem to be able to handle their own affairs. Might even consider segregating the Sunis and Sheites and offering Iran consolidation with part of Iraq sharing their border with Sheiteville! Lots of possibilities but first you got to get the criminals wrapped up. I mean lets face it, for now the damned place belongs to us and we are an occupying force and need to start acting like one. Sitting on our thumbs waiting for some dumbass in New York or on the Parlimentary Board to make a decision and issue orders is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Apr 28, 2007 4:49:02 GMT 12.75
This is a direct result of government intervention, not a failure of free enterprise or capitalism: PROFIT = economic gain from what you own, produce or control (capital) by free exchange. This is the prime directive of capitalism and the nature of a (true) market economy.
GREED = economic gain from what others own, produce or control by coercion. This is the prime directive of socialism and the nature of a (false) political economy.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Apr 29, 2007 3:16:50 GMT 12.75
Intervention is the appropriate word. Bush knew full well that terrorists needed a playing field and he in his wisdom chose their homeland. You don't see combat on our streets; yet. Go ahead and pull out of Iraq and see how long we are able to say that. You know nobody in Iraq messed with Hussein. That's because they all sniff the butt of the Big Dog We need to build a big bad dog house and tether our most vicious bad asses right threre in the front yard and this insurgency bull will give it a rest and move to the Philippines. Last night Frank reinded me that when he was there a hundred fifty murders a day were being done in/around Baghdad. He said that number is now down to about an average of forty. Why, he asked isn't that in the news? And you Jon quit mixing subjects and you won't confuse yourself!
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Apr 29, 2007 7:00:26 GMT 12.75
No confusion here....
Government intervention has historically proven to be flawed policy, both foreign and domestic.
None of this negates the dire NEED to stop the rampage of muslim terror. Let's see Congress stand up and call it WAR!, then. Don't concede the power to a president or the U.N. Do not be hampered by defeatist rules, resolutions and pacifist schemes. Congress offers an apathetic "harrrummmph" to true statesmen like Ron Paul who advocate a return to the principles of liberty. It is their own incompetence and un-constitutional meddling and methods that have created the foreign and domestic crises we are dealing with today.
It is deplorable for Congress to shirk it's Constitutional authority to declare war, give the President 'permission' to conduct war according to UN dictates, and then blame perceived 'failures' on the President.
A state of war existed when fanatic muslims attacked us on our own soil. Why did Congress not duly recognize that state of war?
Can successful resolution come by way of such divisive and cowardly politics? This is a political meat grinder rendering a bloody mess.
Thank God for our resolute military servants who graciously give all to preserve our liberties. Shame on the political process that perverts and inhibits their dedication and progress.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Jun 9, 2007 1:20:07 GMT 12.75
MadBuffalo reminds us: "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln
|
|