Does anyone... support the war in Iraq at this point?

[mdh]

I mean, besides politicians like Giuliani.

I can even understand having supported the idea of regime change in Iraq, but I don't think I know anyone who isn't a politician who actually supports what we have now. Quagmire is putting it lightly. Do *YOU* know anyone who does? Tell us about them!

[ratsbew]

Yes, I fully support the current war.

[mdh]

Yes, I fully support the current war.

OK, then I'd like to pose a few questions at you.

1> Personally, I wasn't vocally against the war when things got started, either. I assumed, wrongly, that we had a plan to effect change in Iraq and leave within a short time, having another Egypt-esque nation in the region, instead of one run by a neurotic dictator and his coke-head sons. How long would it take of day after day, the same troop levels in Iraq, before you get fed up with the situation?

2> How do you feel we should really deal with the Iraqi government? I'm not sure if they're lazy, stupid, both, or just fed up with trying to deal with one another, but things are moving slowly over there.

3> Most logical people can agree that the insurgents are getting loads of support from Iran and Syria. If we can't fix our own border, what makes anyone think we can help fix Iraq's borders, which seems to be a prerequisite to stability?

And finally, 4> It's a known fact that Hussein opposed UN inspections specifically so that it would not be discovered that he did not have NBCWs, since he feared an Iranian invasion should this become public knowledge. That said, his strong-arm kept radical Islam in check in Iraq. Whether you agree with the means or not, have you considered that the outcome may end up being worse for the US and our allies than just leaving Hussein cowering in the corner of his palace, in terms of radical Islamic power in the middle east?

[CurtisLow]

I know our Vice President does. He's well vested in Halliburton and from what I hear will make about $30 Million from them when he's done in office.

Talking about war profiteering. I know long ago this was against the law?

[mdh]

Conflicts of interest are so common in politics today that no one considers it to be a big deal inside the beltway.

[mrapathy]

troops need to be redeployed to Afganistan

[Brandybuck]

Neal Boortz still supports the war. He's a libertarian that agrees with Ron Paul on virtually every issue... but this one. Boortz's rationale is that he would rather fight "them" over there than over here. In short, he considers it a defensive war.

Ron Paul stirred up a hornet's nest, and I think a lot of good people are starting to take a hard look at their own pro-occupation opinions. When you hear the same mantra day after day in the media, from both the left and the right, you start to believe it. Ron Paul just told the crowd that the emperor has no clothes.

[mdh]

Neal Boortz still supports the war. He's a libertarian that agrees with Ron Paul on virtually every issue... but this one. Boortz's rationale is that he would rather fight "them" over there than over here. In short, he considers it a defensive war.

Ron Paul stirred up a hornet's nest, and I think a lot of good people are starting to take a hard look at their own pro-occupation opinions. When you hear the same mantra day after day in the media, from both the left and the right, you start to believe it. Ron Paul just told the crowd that the emperor has no clothes.

I like the idea of fighting *them* over *there* instead of *here*, too... If them means terrorists, though, I'm not sure how Iraq factors in. Hussein always kept radical Islam in check in Iraq, he hated/feared Iran more than anything, and saw radical Islamism as a tool of Iranian power in the region. He was right about that. I think it can be said that this is true for most Americans, too. At this point, though, we can defend our country without commiting to any long-term occupations. We pay how many billions each year into the UN? Why aren't they taking a heavier role in reconstruction. (Well, the answer is that the UN is hopelessly corrupt and useless, but you get my point.) If the real terrorists in the US can be caught and executed, and new ones can't get in, I don't really see how they can mount an effective attack against us, even if we did let them keep their Taliban base in Afghanistan. Apparently the current administration saw invading and occupying Afghanistan as an easier route than securing our borders and tracking down terrorists already inside the country. :mad:

The main problem we have now is that political correctness prevents us from being effective in the region militarily. Case in point; following WWII and the fall of the nazi regime, German "Werewolves" were often summarily executed as non-uniformed illegal combatants.

[mrapathy]

Fort Dix? did you see the hypocricy in the debate.

fight over there so we dont fight them here?
oh btw they are here. caught before they could attack Fort Dix

well they are not Al Qaeda or linked to any terrorist groups.
they were propped up by 2 paid government informants.
entrapment is tough case to prove many windup in prison.

not the only incident either.

15 arrested in St Louis,Mo first 8 second 7 more. buying machine guns and claymores.
www.homelandsecurityus.com (not to be confused with DHS or government. its northeast intelligence thinktank website)

muslims in US are pissed off with all the hatred against them and the crusade in the middleeast.
you got propaganda talking about islamofascism and the propaganda dunces and sheep are assimilating that info
and going out and brownshirting them.

map of US naming muslim extremist groups. but not sure of how solid or what backs the map up research wise. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/UN_Images/Terrorist.network.map.gif


Ron Paul just told the crowd that the emperor has no clothes
I think You mean EMPIRE

[Bob Cochran]

Yes, I fully support the current war.
Gosh, why would ya?

Somewhere around $1T and 3,300 lives spent, and for what?

[Bob Cochran]

Boortz's rationale is that he would rather fight "them" over there than over here. In short, he considers it a defensive war.

This is flawed rationale. Just because some of "them" are blowing us up over there, doesn't mean there aren't some others who will be able to blow us up some more "over here".

I can't believe how muddled people's thinking is these days.:(