HELP! I need to educate someone on Iraq war!

[Matthew Zak]

Some nucklehead on a music forum thinks the Iraq war is compeltely justified and they have complete and utter blind faith in the bush administration. They're obvious young, and need a quick history lesson.

I am looking for that video of Cheney in like 1994 where he says that a war in Iraq would be a BIG MISTAKE. I can't find it! Please help.

[OptionsTrader]

The video you asked for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME

[Matthew Zak]

thank you :)

[OptionsTrader]

And give him this:
The head of the Bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, Michael Scheuer on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

[ChickenHawk]

I support Ron Paul and feel that the Iraq war was necessary. I've seen and heard all the arguments against it and still believe it was important. I also believe that failed foreign policy and UN influence is what made the war necessary. I understand the anti-war positions and feel that many of them are valid. I wish that more anti-war people were open minded enough to understand my position instead of just labeling me a war monger. My point is that even if you can't convince someone that the Iraq war was wrong doesn't mean that you can't get them to vote for Ron Paul.

[Delain]

And this one:


How to create an Angry American (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ)

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Well the main point of the Presidents cabinet was that their was WMD. There was not WMD, they fabricated evidence to show it, they pretended there was uranium bought with papers that most CIA agents thought were fake. They outed CIA agent Plame for her husband trying to show that there was no WMD.

They have attacked a country that was not causing any damage to other countries which is against US constitution and international standards such as the Geneva convention.

[szczebrzeszyn]

Well the main point of the Presidents cabinet was that their was WMD. There was not WMD, they fabricated evidence to show it, they pretended there was uranium bought with papers that most CIA agents thought were fake. They outed CIA agent Plame for her husband trying to show that there was no WMD.

They have a country that was not causing any damage to other countries which is against US constitution and international standards such as the Geneva convention.

Don't forget the fake Iraq-9/11 connection. They worked really hard to make it truth, I think Bush and Cheney were still using this argument in 2006. No wonder, that some people still believe it to this day, after those years of propaganda.

[lbadragan]

I support Ron Paul and feel that the Iraq war was necessary. I've seen and heard all the arguments against it and still believe it was important. I also believe that failed foreign policy and UN influence is what made the war necessary. I understand the anti-war positions and feel that many of them are valid. I wish that more anti-war people were open minded enough to understand my position instead of just labeling me a war monger. My point is that even if you can't convince someone that the Iraq war was wrong doesn't mean that you can't get them to vote for Ron Paul. Why was the Iraq war necessary?

[OptionsTrader]

I support Ron Paul and feel that the Iraq war was necessary. I've seen and heard all the arguments against it and still believe it was important. I also believe that failed foreign policy and UN influence is what made the war necessary. I understand the anti-war positions and feel that many of them are valid. I wish that more anti-war people were open minded enough to understand my position instead of just labeling me a war monger. My point is that even if you can't convince someone that the Iraq war was wrong doesn't mean that you can't get them to vote for Ron Paul.

If you support the war and Ron Paul, then you are confused and you need to read more and watch less television.

Do yourself a favor and read:
http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

And:
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888498

And the links contained in:
http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

At a minimum.

[ChickenHawk]

Well the main point of the Presidents cabinet was that their was WMD. There was not WMD, they fabricated evidence to show it, they pretended there was uranium bought with papers that most CIA agents thought were fake. They outed CIA agent Plame for her husband trying to show that there was no WMD.

They have a country that was not causing any damage to other countries which is against US constitution and international standards such as the Geneva convention.


It is real easy to destroy the Bush administrations case for war. I never agreed with the way the "sold" the war. They were trying to get the UN to go along with it so they had to play up questionable intelligence that really shouldn't have been a major consideration.

The Valarie Plame deal is a total joke. Joe Wilson has been proven to be liar. The only thing the White House did wrong was try to cover up the fact that they did nothing wrong. There are plenty of things to go after the Bush administration on and this ain't one of them.

[schmeisser]

I support Ron Paul and feel that the Iraq war was necessary. I've seen and heard all the arguments against it and still believe it was important. I also believe that failed foreign policy and UN influence is what made the war necessary. I understand the anti-war positions and feel that many of them are valid. I wish that more anti-war people were open minded enough to understand my position instead of just labeling me a war monger. My point is that even if you can't convince someone that the Iraq war was wrong doesn't mean that you can't get them to vote for Ron Paul.

I have to agree with ChickenHawk. You won't turn anybody who has made the moral judgement that the war was justified by "educating" them. There was/is still a heavy debate even among libertarians on this point. Where most of the pro-war folks can agree is on issues like:

We should have properly declared it.
Out-monger them and say we should have just leveled the place and moved on.
War-yes, nation building and occupation - no
Killing our economy
Our military is so strong we can always level the place later - why not try something novel like peace and trade?

Pro-war is not something that necessarily excludes someone from supporting RP

[ChickenHawk]

If you support the war and Ron Paul, then you are confused and you need to read more and watch less television.

Do yourself a favor and read:
http://www.mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

And:
http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888498

And the links contained in:
http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm

At a minimum.

I don't completely agree with Ron Paul. It is ridiculous to say that because I support someone that I don't %100 agree with that I am "confused". BTW, I rarely watch TV, less than a couple hours a month.

[OptionsTrader]

Pro-war is not something that necessarily excludes someone from supporting RP

Yes it is.

The dramatic scaling back of the government cannot be done while spending trillions in Iraq and soon to be the occupation of Iran. The two ideals are definitely mutually exclusive. We cannot afford this global aggressive war and fund all of this other bloat here at home.

[ChickenHawk]

Yes it is.

The dramatic scaling back of the government cannot be done while spending trillions in Iraq and soon to be the occupation of Iran. The two ideals are definitely mutually exclusive. We cannot afford this global aggressive war and fund all of this other bloat here at home.

Pro-war does not necessarily mean that you want the occupation to continue indefinitely. Didn't Ron Paul vote for war in Afghanistan? Can't really call him anti-war then can you?

[schmeisser]

Yes it is.

The dramatic scaling back of the government cannot be done while spending trillions in Iraq and soon to be the occupation of Iran. The two ideals are definitely mutually exclusive. We cannot afford this global aggressive war and fund all of this other bloat here at home.

You missed the rest of the post.

[OptionsTrader]

Schmeisser and Chickenhawk, you write much like user MicroBalrog. Do you have the same hate in your veins for Muslims that he spews here from his computer in another country? Perhaps you are the same individual even?

[ChickenHawk]

BTW, Bush isn't going to attack Iran. He doesn't want to and he is going to avoid it at all costs. Bush isn't the war mongering SOB many people make him out to be. That comes from a complete lack of understanding where he is coming from. I don't really agree with the way he is dealing with Iran but his saber rattling is just that, noise.

How do I know this? Just an educated guess, so don't ask me to prove it.;)

[Delain]

I support Ron Paul and feel that the Iraq war was necessary.

Why was it necessary in your opinion?

[OptionsTrader]

Anger does not become you.

[schmeisser]

Schmeisser and Chickenhawk, you write much like user MicroBalrog. Do you have the same hate in your veins for Muslims that he spews here from his computer in another country?

Wow! That's pretty insulting. I bet you convert a lot of Republicans to Ron Paul with that line :rolleyes:

Reported for personal attack

[ChickenHawk]

Schmeisser and Chickenhawk, you write much like user MicroBalrog. Do you have the same hate in your veins for Muslims that he spews here from his computer in another country? Perhaps you are the same individual even?


Nobody could possibly believe what we believe so we must be a single person. A super troll?:rolleyes:

I've never heard of MicroBalrog.

[ChickenHawk]

Why was it necessary in your opinion?

We never should have gone to war in 1991 without a demand for unconditional surrender. I have supported finishing that war ever since. I don't believe in nation building, preemptive war or anything other than mildly policing the world. I do think that the first gulf war was justified and needed to be finished. I believe we need to police the world but in a much more hands off sort of way. Having troops stationed in 70+ countries is totally ridiculous.

[OptionsTrader]

Neanderthals such as Chickenhawk want to "finish what we started" like war is a game of Sunday afternoon football.

[ChickenHawk]

Neandertals such as Chickenhawk want to "finish what we started" like war is a game of Sunday afternoon football.


Unfinished war has much bigger consequences than an unfinished game of football.

[ChickenHawk]

And I didn't "want" to finish the war, I felt we needed to.

[OptionsTrader]

Here's a clip for you ChickenHawk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E

[ChickenHawk]

Here's a clip for you ChickenHawk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9sA5FQfE1E


LOL! That's funny. You convinced me, I'm gunna vote for Huckey now.:rolleyes:

[OptionsTrader]

Some more books for the original poster, and some halfling neocons here, to read:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/reading-list.html

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593/lewrockwell

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/blowback.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Consequences-American-Empire-Second/dp/0805075593/lewrockwell)

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625/lewrockwell/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/hubris.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888625/lewrockwell)
written by the head of the Bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, Michael Scheuer. A video of him on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/lewrockwell/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/pape.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/lewrockwell)

[ChickenHawk]

Some more books for the original poster, and some halfling neocons here, to read:

You act like I don't know any of this stuff. Like I said before, anti-war people need to open their mind a little.

[OptionsTrader]

Some more ammo against the "fiscally conservative" Neocons:

Taxation, Inflation, and War
Imperialism: Enemy of Freedom
From the 2006 Supporters Summit: Imperialism: Enemy of Freedom, 27-28 October 2006
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/video/ss06/Salerno.wmv

[Thomas_Paine]

Even after the recent NIE report stating the Iran halted its nuclear weapons program 4 years ago, Bush is still trying to push that Iran poses the same danger as before and must be put in line.

Before the NIE Report he was saying that Iran was moving forward to create nuclear weapons and that their program must be halted, if necessary by force of arms.

Now that the word is out that the weapons program was halted he's saying this:

"The Iranians have a strategic choice to make, they can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people," Bush said.

IRAN HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ENRICH URANIUM EVEN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Bush will do whatever he can to attack Iran until he's out of the white house.

Wake up chickenhawk.


BTW, Bush isn't going to attack Iran. He doesn't want to and he is going to avoid it at all costs. Bush isn't the war mongering SOB many people make him out to be. That comes from a complete lack of understanding where he is coming from. I don't really agree with the way he is dealing with Iran but his saber rattling is just that, noise.

How do I know this? Just an educated guess, so don't ask me to prove it.;)

[ChickenHawk]

So you believe everything Bush says?

[ronpaulfollower999]

Isn't this war illegal, and if so would someone explain to me how it is?

[Goldwater Conservative]

I definitely think there's room for being pro-war and a Paul supporter, but I will agree that supporting the continued occupation of Iraq is hard to square with being a Paul supporter, given the emphasis of Paul's campaign is on how our foreign policy has to drastically change in the interests of national defense and a healthy economy.

I used to support the Iraq war, but after realizing we were not only there under false pretenses but that all we were still doing was police work for an inept government, I changed my tune. I've become convinced that the best way to convert pro-war people is to point out that the war is actually over and that all we're doing now is exporting socialism to a country in civil war while we take out loans our kids are going to have to pay back and that Red China is issuing.

[ChickenHawk]

Isn't this war illegal, and if so would someone explain to me how it is?

Congress didn't "declare" war. They gave the President authorization to use military force. Many people believe that giving the President "authorization" is tantamount to a declaration. Others don't think that it does and is a violation of the Constitution. I tend to think that it would probably be viewed as legal by the courts but is probably not exactly what the founders intended. In my view Congress should have issued a formal declaration.

[schmeisser]

I definitely think there's room for being pro-war and a Paul supporter, but I will agree that supporting the continued occupation of Iraq is hard to square with being a Paul supporter, given the emphasis of Paul's campaign is on how our foreign policy has to drastically change in the interests of national defense and a healthy economy.

I used to support the Iraq war, but after realizing we were not only there under false pretenses but that all we were still doing was police work for an inept government, I changed my tune. I've become convinced that the best way to convert pro-war people is to point out that the war is over and that all we're doing is exporting socialism while we take out loans our kids are going to have to pay back and that Red China is issuing.

This was the point of several posts in this thread - it isn't good enough for some of these guys. If only those who were against the war from the start are good enough to support RP, this will be a quick campaign.

[OptionsTrader]

Isn't this war illegal, and if so would someone explain to me how it is?

Yes the invasion and occupation is illegal since it is not a declared war. Congress did not declare the war and Congress did not have the authority to turn over the power of declaring wars to the President (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html), as Ron Paul vehemently opposed in 2002 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY). The war has been unconstitutionally (illegally) funded by extensive borrowing that has devalued the dollar in your pocket 37% since 2002. The administration illegally (lied constantly) claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons (Impeachment Article I), (http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm)Iraq was behind 9/11 and backed Al Qaeda (Impeachment Article II (http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm)), and the administration has broken international law by threatening war with Iran (Impeachment Article III (http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm)).

The list goes on and on and on.

[ChickenHawk]

Didn't Ron Paul vote to give the President "authorization to use military force" in Afghanistan? Why did he not think that was illegal?

[disciple]

Those who still believe that this contrived "war on terror" is just or that will ever succeed are not only deceived but utterly mistaken.

Two thousand years ago someone uttered the following:

"..God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail."

That person was Jesus himself.

Ron Paul is really Godsent and is America's last chance to atone for the crimes against the innocent people of Iraq and others before the upcoming righteous judgment of God ie. the fire from heaven on that "Day of the Lord" that shall engulf the whole earth and destroy the followers of the "Beast". In other words, God is separating the wheat from the chaff before the day of harvest

And if you still have your doubts, check out the Fifth Vision in the Fourth Book of Ezra of the final confrontation between the Eagle ( the last and most powerful empire) and the Lion ( the Messiah ) and the ensuing judgment . It is not a pretty picture.

[klamath]

I totally believe that someone can support RP and still be for the war. If all other issues that they support RP on, outweight RP's position on the war they could support him. They are willing to vote for him even if they know RP will withdraw the troops when elected. You can debate someone on the issue but you sure as heck shouldn't slam their support for RP.
Pro choice people have given up RoeVwade because they agree with RP on other issues. People that believe that abortions have killed 4 million people and believe it should be outlawed at the federal level have given up on that because they believe in enough of RP's othe issues.

[thehittgirl]

If I can find out how to upload an ISO file(I'm not too tech savvy) I would love to send the file to a DVD I put together. It has the clean version of the administration and the media confrontations, and the earlier news clips(proof) that the media was correct. The quality is not that great because they aren't the original YouTube Clips, but the message is pretty clear.

[szczebrzeszyn]

Didn't Ron Paul vote to give the President "authorization to use military force" in Afghanistan? Why did he not think that was illegal?
He explained that vote numerous times. It was authorization to go there and catch Osama Bin Laden and his crew, which are accused of plotting and executing 9/11, not the war or occupation. That was all what it was about back then. Now, as Osama played its role, he's not even on the target list (although I bet he's long time dead). Can you see the difference?

[OptionsTrader]

He explained that vote numerous times. It was authorization to go there and catch Osama Bin Laden and his crew, which are accused of plotting and executing 9/11, not the war or occupation. That was all what it was about back then. Now, as Osama played its role, he's not even on the target list (although I bet he's long time dead). Can you see the difference?

+1

And he put forth legislation to have a vote, up or down that he himself would vote against but to at least wage this war legally and with accountability, to declare war as the constitution demands. But the rest of Congress was blinded by the administration's war propaganda, and the idea was shunned as anachronistic. But, alas, now they want to have a debate on the war, years after it began unconstitutionally.


Also, read his bill, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to fight the ones that were believed to be directly responsible for the attacks by treating them as the thugs they are and using constitutional means to deal with them via Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Article I Section 8, one of the one of the enumerated powers of Congress: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"



FOR RELEASE:
October 11, 2001

Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden."

The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.

"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

[ChickenHawk]

He explained that vote numerous times. It was authorization to go there and catch Osama Bin Laden and his crew, which are accused of plotting and executing 9/11, not the war or occupation. That was all what it was about back then. Now, as Osama played its role, he's not even on the target list (although I bet he's long time dead). Can you see the difference?

I do see the difference to some degree. However, I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that it didn't authorize the war. Going in to get Osama pretty much required war. The occupation I can understand not being authorized though.

I agree, OBL is dead. I've thought that for a long time. I think the government knows it and isn't saying because they think people will stop caring about the GWOT. It's Just a feeling on my part so don't ask me to prove it.