"Attack them over there" mentality

[boomer13]

I'm having the hardest time convincing my dead that Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't isolationism, and that we don't need to be over there fighting anymore. Here's his last email response to me:

I haven't seen anything to change my resolve that it's better to confront them in their backyard rather than on our soil. No they are not all radicals over there. And we're not fighting everyone over there. Just the ones that aspire to a radical form of Islam that want to change the world, including the US to a Islamic country. And their God says it's ok to kill to do that. In fact you're honored to do that. Do you not believe there are Islamic radicals that feel that way. Was there not terrorist actions prior to 9-11. Were they all staged? Plus, I don't buy into the notion that our military are a bunch of killers that are killing innocent children and women. Yes stuff happens. It's a war. But at the same time we are going out of our way to minimize casualties. At the expense of some of our own men.

Well, I could go on, but I have to go sit with Ralph. I'll call you later.

Love,
Your Father The Neocon

Any ideas? He doesn't understand the concept that they're attacking us BECause we're over there. He refuses to believe that. I need better arguments I guess.

[TVMH]

I suggest approaching it from a tactical standpoint.

Necessarily, they know their backyard better than we do because they live there, just as I know the woods behind my house better than Al Qaida does.

We are sitting ducks over there, and they would be fools to invade a well-armed country.

[boomer13]

Good points. What about the "nuclear threat" in Iran? I tried using the cold war as an example of why some all out nuclear war wouldn't happen, but he thinks there are some third world countries out there that would be willing to use them against us if Iran gave them the ability. I personally think preemptive strikes against Iran would be the worst possible thing in the world right now.

[Primbs]

We are fighting them over here. Our border is wide open and we read about all the muslim groups getting arrested and convicted in the US.

Read Diana West, antiwar.com, Arnaud Deborchgrave and others who talk about different war strategies.

Does the surge even make sense? Is Iraq vital to US national interests?

Will there be a bloodbath if we leave? Are we obligated to to stop one?

There are more important world affairs to worry about.

Here is Diana West from Sept. 2007

The worst possible outcome of next week's congressional hearings on Iraq --
already dubbed "Petraeus Week" after Gen. David Petraeus's dramatically anticipated testimony on whether "the surge" is working in Iraq -- would be a political haggle over whether the surge is working in Iraq.

Let's just say the surge -- defined as a military plan to enhance security in targeted sections of Iraq -- is working. As even The Washington Post owned up, "If there is one indisputable truth regarding the current offensive, it is this: When large numbers of U.S. troops are funneled into areas, security improves." No one needs four years at West Point or even two hours watching "Battleground" to figure that out. The cavalry rides in, things get better.

But there are other, more significant questions to hash out: namely, whether the strategy behind the surge still makes national security sense for the United States. That is, should a functioning state of Iraq -- the ultimate goal of the surge (aside from the president's mirage-like vision of Iraq as a "friend" and "ally") -- remain the overriding objective of U.S. foreign policy?

I have long argued no, and not only because majority-Shiite Iraq is likely to end up a client-state of Shiite Iran, although that's a huge reason. There's also the fact that our gargantuan efforts to build an Iraqi society that never before existed do nothing whatsoever to ward off jihadist state threats -- Iran, for instance -- in the wider region.

This is the deepest chink in the president's Iraqi-centric policy. As we minutely focus on Iraq, sect by sect, tribe by tribe, and now, literally, retina by retina, we have lost sight of the big bad world beyond, not to mention what's in it for us. And "tunnel vision" doesn't begin to describe the microscopic range of debate we can expect between proponents of "surge" and "withdrawal."

In a recent interview, Michael Ledeen, author of the new book, "The Iranian Time Bomb" (Truman Talley Books) identifies the main problem with the conventional wisdom: "What drives me crazy is that even our most brilliant analysts -- among whom I count some very close friends -- still aren't talking about the regional war. They still talk about Iraq alone. And down that road only misery lies." As for Congress, he adds: "They're debating the wrong question. We have to win the war, but the real war, not the battle for Iraq. And what is that "real war"?

Jed Babbin, author of the book, "In the Words of Our Enemies" (Regnery Publishing), has written this formulation: "Let's be very clear: whether Iraq becomes a democracy is not determinative of our success or defeat in this war.

Iraq is only one campaign in the war against the nations that sponsor terrorism. Victory isn't an Iraq that can defend and govern itself. Victory is defined as the end of state sponsorship of Islamic terrorism, which means forcing Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others out of that business. Nothing more is needed, and nothing less will defeat an existential threat to America."

Daniel Pipes writes in terms of losing the occupation but winning the war by keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, but removing them from the deadly cities -- perhaps to a base in Kurdistan, I would add, the closest thing to democracy in Mesopotamia -- "to influence developments in the world's most volatile theater." These include, Pipes writes, containing Iran and Syria; assuring the flow of oil; fighting international terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.


Such a proposition is always undone by the word "bloodbath," as though Americans are eternally obligated to serve as buffers between the warring Islamic tribes of Iraq -- which is both cracked and a good way to tie up American forces for the next several centuries.

"Peace in Iraq has to be built on a Shiite-Sunni consensus, not a constant balancing act by us," Thomas Friedman writes. This begs the question: Should we stand on one foot until Iraq finds equilibrium? Surge architect Frederick Kagan apparently thinks so. The United States, he writes, should continue to serve as "the bridge between Sunni and Shia" in Iraq. Why? "If we remove this bridge now, it is unlikely that the Iraqis will be able to continue on a path to real reconciliation."

Maybe the United States needs to get out of the real reconciliation business, and fast. There's a world of trouble outside Iraq. At the very least, it's debatable whether building bridges between Sunnis and Shiites inside Iraq should remain American Priority No. 1. So let's debate it.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/09/07/iraqs_only_a_battle_in_the_war?page=1

[DrNoZone]

Ok, if this doesn't convince him (in addition to your other arguments), then nothing will. Make him watch this video now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12oy7L3-v8k

[micahnelson]

So we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here.

In other words, we are turning Iraq into a battlefield so America doesn't have to be one.

In other words, we are fighting our war with terrorism in another country, so her civilians die instead of our own.

Now, how does that jive with the idea that we are fighting to save Iraq.Fighting them over there means, using them as human shields. I don't think this will ever allow us to "win their hearts and minds."

The middle east has been fighting over religious and ethnic reasons since ancient times. Even if our intentions were completely noble and selfless, it is no longer the will of the American people, and it is naive to think that we can end hundreds of years worth of fighting.

[boomer13]

Thanks for the responses. His email I posted is actually a response to that video you told me to show him :/ So that didn't work. I think I get so friggin frustrated that he can't see it my way that I get angry and can't argue well. Makes me either want to give up or slap him :)

[DrNoZone]

Thanks for the responses. His email I posted is actually a response to that video you told me to show him :/ So that didn't work. I think I get so friggin frustrated that he can't see it my way that I get angry and can't argue well. Makes me either want to give up or slap him :)

So he won't even agree with the statement "they attack us because we're over there" even after having heard it from the terrorists themselves? Yeah, getting him to support RP is a lost cause then.

[micahnelson]

So he won't even agree with the statement "they attack us because we're over there" even after having heard it from the terrorists themselves? Yeah, getting him to support RP is a lost cause then.

They believe they are attacking us because we are free.

One satirical way of approaching this is pointing out that we are losing our constitutional rights at home- so soon they won't hate us anymore.

In seriousness, don't even try to debate them on that issue. The fear of islam is almost paranoid in their circles. Approach it from a logistical point of view. Terrorist groups do not often unite. As we see in Iraq they are just as likely to kill each other. If we leave, yes, there will be sectarian violence just like there is now. This is not a threat to national security. There are civil wars being fought around the world. Yes, it is sad. We shouldn't have gone in. If your dad knows a way to remove the homicidal hate from the political entities in Iraq then he is the only one in the world who does. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon citing "The Irrationality of mideast politics." Our next president would be wise to follow Reagan's example.

Israel is in the best place to prevent an Iranian nuke.

We have no national security needs to occupy land in the middle east, none of those nations have global reach to attack us at home. By being there, we expose ourselves to the only form of attacks they can muster- suicide bombers.

If we disengage from the region it will narrow the amount of people we are fighting specifically to international terrorists, as opposed to Iraqi's fighting an occupying army and Iranian backed mercenaries.

The money we save can be used to provide more reasonable methods of defense such as border and port security- a constitutional approach to combating enemy combatants. Airline and transit security should be left the the companies themselves, as the government screens are doing a terrible job.

Only Ron Paul has this whole package.

Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter are the only ones serious about closing the border.

The rest are not even conservatives.

[boomer13]

Thanks for your insight micahnelson. I enjoy your writings on your page also :) I think my dad also believes we are stuck over there because of our dependence on mideastern oil. Aren't we only getting like 18% of our oil from the middle east now? I think we get the most from Canada now.

[micahnelson]

Thanks for your insight micahnelson. I enjoy your writings on your page also :) I think my dad also believes we are stuck over there because of our dependence on mideastern oil. Aren't we only getting like 18% of our oil from the middle east now? I think we get the most from Canada now.


Thanks, I appreciate that.


As far as oil. Yes, we are there for oil. This has much more to do with our dollar than it does with our fuel usage. Have a look at Ron Paul's writing about petrodollars called

"The end of the dollar hegemony"

This may be your chance to open your dad's eyes. It worked for me, for my parents, and it silences people who will just refuse to believe it.

To sum it up, our dollar is effectively worthless. Originally it represented a silver dollar, and was exchangeable for real money. Now, it is pure fiat money- or money by decree. This system has worked because of our status as a world superpower. Other countries accepted and traded with our money because we established a gold standard internationally, even though we did not have one at home.

When governments began losing faith in the dollar, they began trading in their dollars for gold. We stopped this program in what was known as the "Nixon Shock", or the disestablishment of the Bretton Woods system. This act was what brought Ron Paul into American politics.

Oil became the next thing to back our currency. We are allied with Saudi Arabia because they control OPEC. Oil is only sold in US Dollars, therefore a demand for dollars exists internationally.

We continue to inflate our currency and carry massive debt, but because people are forced to buy oil on the US Dollar, people still want and need dollars. Certain countries have taken their oil off the dollar- Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela.

If oil was ever out of the Saudi's control, or out of our control by Proxy, it would be traded on the Euro and there would be no market to sop up the massive inflation generated by Washington.

Corporate Bailouts, Military Expenditures, Disaster Relief, and Welfare are not being paid for by taxes, they are being paid for through inflation. The world knows this and when the Dollar Bubble breaks, our economy is sunk.

That is why the fight for Iraq is the fight for American freedom- it is really the fight for the dollar.

We could, of course, just change our economic policy- but that would leave our elected officials in a position to live within their means. They have refused to.

We cannot afford the government programs and military efforts we currently have. Ron Paul is the only one who can save us from an economic collapse, by reforming our monetary, welfare, and foreign policy.

Ron Paul isn't just for the anti war crowd- his message is one of hope.

If you vote for anyone else, you are gambling that your pick will be able to make a fiat currency system last for more than a few decades. This is something that no one in history has ever been able to do.

When faced with the task of sustaining an overspending fiat monetary system, calming thousands of years of sectarian violence seems a lot easier.

The answer is Ron Paul and a new course for American liberty.

[boomer13]

Good stuff. I'll keep plugging away. I remember my Dad arguing with my Granddad about politics growing up. I always though my granddad was the stubborn one...

[TVMH]

Good stuff. I'll keep plugging away. I remember my Dad arguing with my Granddad about politics growing up. I always though my granddad was the stubborn one...

Here's a zinger: ask him what right do we have to invade a sovereign nation and appropriate it's property without a formal declaration of war against said sovereign nation.

[DrNoZone]

Here's a zinger: ask him what right do we have to invade a sovereign nation and appropriate it's property without a formal declaration of war against said sovereign nation.

Well, it's not like we have the right to invade and appropriate another nations property even WITH a formal declaration.

[filmmaker58]

Here's an example that I used on some family members who are convinced that if we don't fight them over there, we're doomed. Would anyone ever consider attacking China? China does not have the worldwide empire that we do, but they have a strong national defense. If our military was here, and our borders were secure, there would be no attacks here.

[Gimme Some Truth]

I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.
Dwight D. Eisenhower


Going around the world forcing our way of life onto other countries and cultures is not going to last , even if it does take ..which from evidence so far , is not.


Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq had nothin to do with 911. Iraq has never attacked the US . Al Qaeda has.
Why get bogged down in Iraq when the man who murdered 3000+ US civilians is gallivanting around the Middle East making videos and dying his beard?
It is not the leaving Iraq that makes the US look weak as shit. Its Bin Laden beating the US from the mountains of Afghanistan.

All this "weve got to fight them over there so we dont have to fight them over here" is absurd. Bin Laden fought the US from over there and got away with it! Infact Bin Laden could quite easily walk over the boarder himself. You cant be serious about this doctrine if you leave your front door wide open. Only Ron Paul and Tancredo are serious about real border control - and its not just a stupid fence.

Pre-emptive war is the dominion of dictators. Hitler used the same arguments the neocons use today. As soon as you use nazi propaganda (not to mention torture) your way of life - at best- is not exportable around the world - at worst - no longer something worth fighting for .
With the neocons (and democrats) in charge the US has lost its moral high ground all around the world. Only Ron Paul can bring that back now.

[J Free]

Attack WHOM over there? Reality is that our military is an exceedingly blunt object; we have virtually no human intelligence inside Al Qaeda; very few people in government even speak Arabic - much less the classical Arabic that would allow them to infiltrate Al Qaeda; the main Al Qaeda guy - Adnan Shukrijumah(?) - who has been rumored to have either nukes/radioactive stuff is ALREADY in the US (via Cocaine Alley on the Mexican border).

So WHOM are we attacking over there? Fact is that, in general, we are attacking nationalist Iraqis who are pissed at our presence. Which does nothing positive for us and simply pushes them into viewing Al Qaeda as an ally.

In principle, I agree with the basic idea that its better to kill them there. But it is ludicrous to believe that we can kill them there if we can't even identify them there. They don't have tatoos on their forehead saying Al Qaeda or terrorist.

And if the goal is just to kill Muslims; then turn that around on them. How exactly is making 1.3 billion people our enemies gonna help in getting rid of the XX,ooo who are truly implacable enemies? Have they ever heard of the Arab proverb - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."?

[J4ck]

'I haven't seen anything to change my resolve that it's better to confront them in their backyard rather than on our soil.'

-The neocons are not confronting them, they are producing advertising material for terrorist organisations and hate preachers. / according to the CIA and common sense.


'No they are not all radicals over there. And we're not fighting everyone over there.'

-new studies say that the invasion caused about a million deaths, or in Al-Qaeda terms, millions worth of public relations.


'Just the ones that aspire to a radical form of Islam that want to change the world, including the US to a Islamic country.'

-And we are helping these otherwise marginal groups with neocon policy.


'Plus, I don't buy into the notion that our military are a bunch of killers that are killing innocent children and women. Yes stuff happens. '

-There are more american civilians in Iraq then soldiers. And 'civilians' means mercenaries.


'It's a war. But at the same time we are going out of our way to minimize casualties. At the expense of some of our own men.'

-Yes, some are good some bad. But remember Vietnam, at some point soldiers step beyond that image of good and evil, they just kill.



I strongly recommend the Ron Paul reading list, after reading those books he will change his mind.

Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape

Blowback, Second Edition: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson

[Bradley in DC]

I'm having the hardest time convincing my dead that Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't isolationism

The "dead" are notoriously difficult to convince to switch positions. ;)

[J Free]

The "dead" are notoriously difficult to convince to switch positions. ;)

Doesn't mean they can't vote though.

[filmmaker58]

The pro-war crowd baffles me. How they buy into the propaganda, and refuse to be swayed by historical facts, and common sense. Another thing is that they cannot describe what winning means. I have however gotten a couple of them to see the light with some of the following arguments.


We were told the same lies back in Vietnam, that the communists hated us and were bent on our destruction, and we must fight them over there or we will be fighting them on our own shores. History has proven otherwise. Ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by exactly what is now happening to us. They couldn't afford to maintain the empire, and they were fighting an unwinnable war in Afganistan. If we stop interfering in the middle east, they will go back to fighting amongst themselves until one of them gives credence to human rights and becomes an example to the region like we are supposed to be an example for the rest of the world. Government propaganda spawns hatred, and people who refuse to believe that governments are capable of such things blindly go along with it.

How can anyone possibly believe that our government is serious about the war on terror when our borders are unprotected, and our military is being abused?

And how would one even win this war on terror? Would you annihilate all Moslems? Is that even possible? Do you think it would be possible for them to come here and annihilate freedom loving Americans? Or would any intervention over here just create more rebels for our cause? How long would such a war take, and how many lives, and how much money would it cost? Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to learn to get along with our enemies, as we have done with the Vietnamese? If it is the latter, do you think this can be accomplished at gunpoint?

What would you think if a foreign power supported a dictatorial regime in our country, and took our natural resources for decades, only making sure that the people who were already very rich in our country benefited from it. Would you be upset? Would you plot against them until they left?

Another point. Do you think anyone in their right mind would attack China? They don't have bases all over the world, they trade with everyone, and if attacked, have the forces needed to immediately turn the attacking country to rubble. We would be in this same bracket if we closed all of our bases, brought our troops home, and protected our borders.

They usually respond with the argument that 9/11 was an attack on our shores, and refuse to believe that the attack was a response to our occupation and interference in the Middle East, and that with certanty Iraq had nothing to do with it.



Isolationism= no talks, and no trade with foreign nations, which is what we have now with any country that doesn't conform with our government's wishes. Do people think that non-isolationism=bombing and invasion? Isolationism is the exact opposite of what Ron Paul supports. Commerce with all, alliances with none. This was the founding fathers idea, and it is also Ron Paul's. Good ideas have no time limit.

Like I said, most of them are run by their fears, and won't listen to logic, but it's fun to see one wake up on that rare occasion when it happens.

[barcop]

I'm having the hardest time convincing my dead that Ron Paul's foreign policy isn't isolationism, and that we don't need to be over there fighting anymore. Here's his last email response to me:

I haven't seen anything to change my resolve that it's better to confront them in their backyard rather than on our soil. No they are not all radicals over there. And we're not fighting everyone over there. Just the ones that aspire to a radical form of Islam that want to change the world, including the US to a Islamic country. And their God says it's ok to kill to do that. In fact you're honored to do that. Do you not believe there are Islamic radicals that feel that way. Was there not terrorist actions prior to 9-11. Were they all staged? Plus, I don't buy into the notion that our military are a bunch of killers that are killing innocent children and women. Yes stuff happens. It's a war. But at the same time we are going out of our way to minimize casualties. At the expense of some of our own men.

Well, I could go on, but I have to go sit with Ralph. I'll call you later.

Love,
Your Father The Neocon

Any ideas? He doesn't understand the concept that they're attacking us BECause we're over there. He refuses to believe that. I need better arguments I guess.


Just tell him that once the dollar crashes.... oil prices skyrocket... recession drives domestic prices through the roof and we can't borrow any more money to fund this endless war or our defenses here at home (including securing our borders, that won't get done anyway with one of the other canidates) ... he'll have more to worry about than what a third world country that's 5000 miles away is doing.

I guess my point is.... the war is a big issue.... but something else might hit home with him.

[J Free]

Speaking as someone who did support the war in Iraq (and still think that it was the only way out of the hole we dug by not finishing Gulf War 1), I'm now convinced it is unwise for anyone who was anti-war to try to do any convincing/selling about it.

Emphasize points that create cognitive dissonance. We have already achieved the mission we went in there for - to get rid of Saddam and see whether or not there were WMD's. Everything now is mission creep.

Ask the most simple questions that most every pro-war person already has. What is victory? When will we know it is achieved? What is the end-game? The true neo-cons (whose dream is worldwide democracy and whatever) are basically non-existent outside DC.

That's it. Other than referring them on to read Ron Paul himself.

The more an anti-war person talks the more likely you are to make a FATAL statement. Pretending that Iraq is Vietnam. Pretending that withdrawal is a solution to Iraqi issues. Pretending that you know the real Islam. Pretending that we are the bad guys. Every single one of those statements tags you as either a Democrat or someone on the wrong side of the "culture war". And all of a sudden, you've created hostility and no one is talking about Iraq anymore. And Ron Paul is then going to dragged into this by association.

95% of pro-war folks who end up supporting Ron Paul are going to do so DESPITE his position on the war. Accept that. By arguing about the war, you miss the opportunity to make all the other connections about all the other issues -- and indeed you most likely poison that voter. Let cognitive dissonance and future-oriented questions work themselves out in the voter's own mind. Respect their freedom to have an opinion that isn't the same as yours. And they will be more likely to respect and listen to your opinions about a Presidential candidate.

[boomer13]

Good stuff. Thanks for all the responses.

[shadowhooch]

I'd attack it from a fiscal point of view.....

Is it worth 1 Trillion dollars a year to keep a perpetual war and presence overseas? Is there a more fiscally responsible and effective way to deal with terrorism?

Ron Paul offers a much more fiscally responsible solution to terrorism by fixing the US's main weakness - our loose borders. How can we stop terrorists if anyone can sneak into the country?

If we simply did this and saved all that money overseas, Ron Paul could deal with our growing deficit and drastically lower your taxes below the level they are currently at. Can you imagine how much stronger our economy would be if the Income Tax were drastically reduced and people had that much more money in their pocket?

So the choice is yours, would you like to pay 35% taxes to the FED so they can keep this perpetual war going? Or would you rather keep that money yourself, see our economy boosted, and still secure our safety at the same time with better border protection? You have that choice with Ron Paul.

To address Iran, simply state that it is more of an Israeli issue and they are more than capable of dealing with the situation themselves if we'd just let them. Let's pick our battles instead of fighting every single fight because it is impossible to afford fiscally.

[filmmaker58]

I don't think pro-war people care about the cost. any price for safety. Tell them to contact some combat soldiers who were there. I would like to talk to some people who were there. I have not been there, and I try to be sensitive to propaganda from either side, but from what I've researched so far, the missions in Iraq seem to be to ride around until someone shoots at you, and then shoot back. Or to bring people in and interrogate them, to try and get them to tell you where the insurgents are, and then go ride around until someone shoots at you. There is no real Al Queda organization, they just call anyone who fights back Al Queda. All of this seems to be going on soleley to keep the military there long enough for Haliburton and the other private contracting firms to steal another several billion from the American people, while putting our brave military members in harms way. If someone who has been there knows otherwise, please tell me where I can learn about it. I've watched "Iraq for sale: the war profiteers", and "The Ground truth" in the last two days. this is not what they're telling us on Fox news, and I would urge all of the pro war candidates to watch these programs and explain how that's no really what is going on. Maybe we can get some of these RP supporters from the military to post some "War stories" that we can tell the pro-war crowd to study.

[filmmaker58]

Something else on this subject that I liked.

AS I SEE IT
by ROBERT D. FORD
End scare tactics and bring troops home
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

I'd rather fight them over here. Think about it. They certainly would
be
a lot easier to spot. And just where would they get all their vehicles
and artillery shells for their suicide bombs? And how would they
purchase, prepare and supply several meals a day? And how would they
safely communicate with one another? And where would they hide when
they
are not fighting?

But my big question is: how are they going to get over here in the
first
place? And here is a good place for another question. Don't you think
that if they really could get here to attack us whenever they wish,
they
would have done so long ago? And how about this: if you believe they
really could just "follow us here" if we brought our troops home,
aren't
you then admitting that despite all the casualties, and all the
billions
spent, we cannot even protect our borders?

Am I the only one who just doesn't get this whole "war on terror"
thing?
We were originally attacked by a squad of Saudi Arabians who were
allowed to roam around the country at their leisure, a successful
attack
causing death and destruction on a scale that surely even they could
never had imagined, but one nevertheless carried out by a mere handful
of religious fanatics, and then only successful because the hundreds of
people aboard were largely unaware of their impending fate.

As we saw over Pennsylvania, those who eventually learned of their
intentions took steps to deny them. Does anyone believe there will ever
be another similar hijacking of an American plane? I certainly don't.
Now that everyone is aware of what we are dealing with, no matter how
many people aboard, there will be more than enough who will never allow
another airliner to be used as an instrument of attack. If you don't
believe that, you shouldn't be flying.

And of course we had to go wherever it took to bring those responsible
to justice. That is what everyone, including the majority of the rest
of
the world, fully supported. But what has been the result? And what have
we done to ourselves in the process? We attacked and occupied a country
that had nothing to do with 9/11, and now are mired in a civil war
between warring tribes which began over a thousand years ago.

I recently wrote that the idea of democracy in Iraq was one of the
dumbest things ever to come out of Washington, and that still holds.
But
the ever-persistent notion by those who want this war to continue that
somehow, if we leave Iraq, "they will follow us home" is the most
ridiculous segment of the propaganda effort to keep the public
frightened enough to not question why, and for what purpose, are we
still spending $2 billion a week, and sacrificing our bravest citizens
every day?

After five years of war, the government recently reported we now
control
less than half of the city of Baghdad, and the general who seemingly is
the only person who now can determine success or failure in this war is
the same general during whose first tour in Iraq was responsible for
training and equipping the Iraqi army to take over the fight. How did
that work out?

As an old rodeo bull-rider, I know that bravery and competency are two
different things. One doesn't equal the other, any more than smearing
the questioner answers a question. THE PRESIDENT has already proven
"you
can fool some of the people all the time," but the rest of us have
every
right to demand an end to the double-talk "scare-tactics" about this
war. Let them follow us here. We will squash them like a bug! And
maybe,
just maybe, some of those who are so fond of this war could actually
see
some of their family and friends participate. The fact is, neither will
ever happen.

My auto inspector told me recently that his son, an infantryman in the
Pennsylvania National Guard, has orders for Afghanistan before
Christmas. Their joy over his return from his tour in Iraq was
short-lived. They don't care who follows him home. They just want him
to
come home. And so do I -- the sooner the better.


ROBERT D. FORD of Perry County served as director of Selective Service
in Pennsylvania from 1971 to 1974.

[filmmaker58]

If you run into some pro-war people, just try and get them to do a little research. here's an interview with some soldiers who were there, http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3215, and there are a million other things out there. the problem is that they are so closed minded, that they refuse to even seek out information that might change their Fox news infected minds.

[F3d]

....

[Zarxrax]

You were lied to purposely about Iraq's WMD. It was obvious they had nothing.

A lot of war supporters still tow the line that Bush didn't lie, because he really believed they had WMD, because all the intelligence was saying that they had WMD. They usually also say most other countries' intelligence also agreed that Iraq had WMD, and sometimes they even point to examples where we finally found some WMD in Iraq.

Can anyone provide me with some sources to refute this?

[F3d]

....

[klamath]

A lot of war supporters still tow the line that Bush didn't lie, because he really believed they had WMD, because all the intelligence was saying that they had WMD. They usually also say most other countries' intelligence also agreed that Iraq had WMD, and sometimes they even point to examples where we finally found some WMD in Iraq.

Can anyone provide me with some sources to refute this?
It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't now. He didn't use them on us when we attacked and he knew his country and life was on the line, so if he didn't use the wmd's then he sure as hell wouldn't have used them over here.

[klamath]

I read every post in this thread. I agree that you do not want to use the typical anti war lines to convince your Dad. When they use clips of US soldiers doing evil things and figures the body counts of dead Iraqis by figuring the amount of ammo the US soldiers have expended, it shows that they have no clue of reality of war and are only putting out an arguments to fit their preconceptions.

Many good arguments for not fighting over there have been presented but I don't believe I saw any about tactical reasons.

The terrorists are not stupid.
If they are really trying to destroy America, they would know that in order to do the most damage for the lives expended, fighting M1A1 Abrams tanks, apache AH64 20mm chain guns and F16e smart bombs is a poor ecomomy of manpower and it would be far better for those fighters in Iraq to fly to Mexico and walk across the border blow up buildings and people in the US. 911 took a trillion dollars out of our economy just with the psychologcal effect and they know this. If those fighters in Iraq could or wanted to get here to destroy America they would abandon fighting 120mm canons with AK47s fight and come here now.

PS this is from a Iraqi war veteran.

[nigh_eve]

My situation is a little different in that I hadn't previously tried to convince my dad to vote Ron Paul. You know, he's older and wiser and he's the one that should be giving me political advice. Instead, I had only been dropping subtle hints of RP's views on topics, trying not to appear on the fringe.

BTW -- My dad is Catholic, retired CMSgt USAF, lifelong Republican, really GOOD man, the only hero I ever had before Ron Paul came along!

I recently sent him an email with a link to "Ron Paul Strikes Back -- CNN Late Edition..."

Subject: Will you watch this?

My message to him was simply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4hsH5DO-Wk

Take a look at this clip – it’s a good one!

He answered back:

Very interesting. He'll certainly get my vote. He appears to be the candidate with the most common sense of them all. Dad

and to think I was afraid to approach him with political "advice"... :o

I realize that your dad has some specific concerns, but if he can't be persuaded by what Ron Paul says, he can't be persuaded by anything YOU tell him. Good luck -- It feels great to be on the same political page as your Dad!!! Woo- hoo!!

[RonPaulIsGood]

I suggest reading Ron Paul's book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom"

[Primbs]

"The incongruity between President George Bush’s “war on terror” rhetoric and his administration’s lax immigration enforcement is maddening.

How can a country that fails to maintain control over its borders fight an effective war against terrorism?

If people are illegally entering the U.S. by the millions to “work,” it follows that people are illegally entering the U.S. to terrorize.

In this age of terrorism, where a group of Muslim terrorists has already used our shoddy immigration enforcement against us to murder thousands of Americans, USCIS is more concerned about backlog elimination than keeping out those who threaten our national security. USCIS was created for this purpose, but Maxwell’s testimony uncloaks a bureaucracy whose policies run counter to that purpose.

A flawed security strategy.

http://www.examiner.com/a-191298~La_Shawn_Barber__The_trouble_with_U_S__immi gration_policy.html