Coworker says "RP wants the U.S. to fail in Iraq."

[Starks]

I promptly slammed him with this:

"RP is anti-war, we don't even belong there."

[Mr. White]

He's not anti-war.

You should have said that RP understands the mistakes that got us into it, and continuing the war will perpetuate those mistakes.

[hard@work]

He wants us to succeed in the world, not fail in one country we've already destroyed.

[Starks]

I assume the good doctor wants things to go well in Iraq, but wouldn't thinking along those lines weaken his stance?

[john_anderson_ii]

If "failing" in Iraq means "succeeding" at home, I'm all for it.

[Dinomyte]

I assume the good doctor wants things to go well in Iraq, but wouldn't thinking along those lines weaken his stance?

I say no. He's a doctor and a human being. He doesn't want to see anyone die but knows that the only way to save American lives and to improve the Middle East is for the US to leave.

Butting into the politics of other countries has not worked out well for the US, it's time for a new prescription that'll actually work.

[Paulitician]

Coming home != failing in Iraq. And if Ron Paul wanted us to fail in Iraq, why didn't he vote to go into Iraq?

He opposed going there in the first place, and if he got his way, that would have precluded both "failure" or "success" in Iraq anyway. Some people can be so dense.

[Corydoras]

Pouring billions of dollars more into the Iraq conflict IS almost the definition of failure in Iraq. It's called LOSING money.

America wins when she looks after herself.

[ladyliberty]

I would point out that Ron is not anti- Iraq, but he IS anti-taliban, anti-Osama. Now just for the sake of supposing, what if an American bad guy like Billy the Kid, went to Spain and killed a bunch of people in Spain, then Spain got so angry that they decided to punish the whole entire United States for what one man, Billy the Kid, and his gang of thugs did? Would that be fair? Even though the rest of us had nothing to do with Billy the Kid, we "supported him" and somehow "helped him" so that makes us criminals in their eyes.

That is what is wrong with us being in Iraq. The Iraqi people did not destroy the Twin Towers, they did not attack the Pentagon, nor did they try to fly an airplane into the White House. We have captured or killed all but 3 of the World's Top 55 masterminds who were held personally responsible for that - those dudes on the Iraqi deck of cards. Now we have one last bad guy to get - Osama Bin Laden, and he looks into the camera and goes "neener, neener" at us - and more troops and more civilians should have to die because of that????

Let's leave Iraq, and guard our own borders from another invasion of a much more real and unsavory sort!

[mtmedlin]

ask him what is a win. I havent had a single person actually give a decent answer.

[klamath]

What is the mission? The last poll I saw showed 57% of the Iraqis believe it is ok to kill American troops. What the He!! are we doing there? They are against us because they believe we are an occupying force and they believe we are contributing to the strife in their country. Let them have their country back and however it turns out is up to them.

[nist7]

ask him what is a win. I havent had a single person actually give a decent answer.

That has been true for me as well.

How do you win the war on terrorism? You can't. It's like waging a war on crimes; it's just not possible. There are 6 billion people on earth and millions of acres of land and sea, do the neocons honestly want to send out troops to every corner of the earth to find the terrorists?

If, as Sean Hannity claimed, we are so morally obligated to free other nations from tyranny then why are we not sending troops to China to topple one of the largest and most corrupt regimes in the history of the world?

Why are we not sending troops to Cuba?

Why are we not sending troops to Laos?

Why are we not sending troops to Vietnam?

Why are we not sending troops to Africa?

Why are we not going after Malaysia? With the largest population of Muslims in the world. Surely there has to be a proportionally higher prevlance of Islam fundamentalists bent on destroying all that is good and beautiful!

Oh yes I know why we can't EFFECTIVELY conduct a war on terrorism....because it would meant a third world war....aka end of the human race.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I promptly slammed him with this:

"RP is anti-war, we don't even belong there."

We have already failed in Iraq. And to the people that say it will be a blood bath when we leave: How do you know? That's YOUR opinion. And so far your opinion has never been right.

[SeanEdwards]

The U.S. military is in the nation destroying business, not the nation building business.

[MicroBalrog]

TIf, as Sean Hannity claimed, we are so morally obligated to free other nations from tyranny then why are we not sending troops to China to topple one of the largest and most corrupt regimes in the history of the world?

That's a very good question.


Why arent we?

[SeanEdwards]

That's a very good question.


Why arent we?

Cause even hannity ain't that stupid?

[MicroBalrog]

Cause even hannity ain't that stupid?

Excuse me, Sir, are you saying that people who believe in pro-active foreign policy are idiots?

[Revolution9]

Excuse me, Sir, are you saying that people who believe in pro-active foreign policy are idiots?

When it involves sending troops into a country whose entire armed forces are more than the population of the US..yes.. So..you advocate a foreign policy of suicide and utter destruction or do you think the US is teflon coated?.. Perhaps you want the complete destruction of America's defense to occur.:confused:

Randy

[nexalacer]

Excuse me, Sir, are you saying that people who believe in pro-active foreign policy are idiots?

Yes.

[MicroBalrog]

When it involves sending troops into a country whose entire armed forces are more than the population of the US..yes.. So..you advocate a foreign policy of suicide and utter destruction or do you think the US is teflon coated?.. Perhaps you want the complete destruction of America's defense to occur.:confused:

Randy

Eh.

1. America doesn't need to send ground troops to China to destroy it's conventional forces. It possesses complete naval and air superiority.

2. China's armed forces number only about 2.3 million people.

3. America doesn't need to invade China to depose their government.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Eh.

1. America doesn't need to send ground troops to China to destroy it's conventional forces. It possesses complete naval and air superiority.

2. China's armed forces number only about 2.3 million people.

3. America doesn't need to invade China to depose their government.

What would be the incentive here? That would hurt our economy.. a lot lol

[MicroBalrog]

Well, yes. It was an extreme and crazy scenario. Just saying it's [i]possible.[/u]

Now, to summarize my personal beliefs about foreign policy:




ictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany, and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of it's own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society inn a conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if uncrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called "Free World" consists of various "mixed economies," it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All "mixed economies" are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule — executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses — the nationalization or expropriation of private property — and censorship. Any country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

[Tn...Andy]

ask him what is a win. I havent had a single person actually give a decent answer.


THAT is the definitive answer !

"WHAT IS A WIN ?"


You won't find ONE person or politician that can answer that in terms anyone can understand.

[Sean]

If Saddam ruled for 30 more years and we left Iraq he wouldn't have killed a single American. As for his oil he would have sold as much of it as he could on the free market there by dropping oil prices.

[SeanEdwards]

Excuse me, Sir, are you saying that people who believe in pro-active foreign policy are idiots?

No, I'm saying that people who don't live in a reality based worldview are idiots.

I am all for logical, wise foreign policy. Our leadership has no clue wtf they're doing, and they prove it daily.

Start a war, and tell the people to take a vacation and go shopping? Excuse me? :rolleyes:

[mtmedlin]

THAT is the definitive answer !

"WHAT IS A WIN ?"


You won't find ONE person or politician that can answer that in terms anyone can understand.

I always ask that and then I say sincerely, "How do you expect a soldier to win a war that is fought in the hearts and minds of men?"

[The Only Woj]

I promptly slammed him with this:

"RP is anti-war, we don't even belong there."

tell him RP wants us to succeed ... that's why he wants us out. the only way to succeed is to get out, because being there is promoting the very enemies we fight. it's giving them a reason to join Al Qaeda and hurting the country financially. therefore, winning is getting out of Iraq.

[Richandler]

George Bush failed in Iraq. There are time limits on tests and he failed. You don't get make up tests and most other candidate seem to want to cheat off of him. Except Ron Paul who would actually like to take his own test.

[michaelwise]

America wins at home by coming home!

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Alabama Supporter]

People, if we are to win votes the answers must be much more diplomatic. We need some talking points.