'Americans are not your enemy,' Obama tells Muslims

[luckydevil]

Closing virtually ALL military bases around the world. That's what he was talking about. That IS isolationist.

What you don't understand is that there is no trade without consideration of geopolitical situations and that includes military positioned around the world to ensure peace. What you don't understand it seems is the historical lesson that peace comes through superior firepower. You don't seem to comprehend that nature abhors a vacuum and if we don't project power with bases as deterrence against aggression, then someone else who is probably much less benign is going to step in and use that position of power against us and that will influence trade, along with world and national security. The CIA doesn't lead to a military industrial complex, HISTORY does with it's lessons of what happens to large nations that do NOT have a strong military.

And what of the the crazy uncle's plan for the economy? Do you really want to take up his argument that we should dissolve the IRS and replace it with NOTHING?

Ron Paul is an imbecile who follows a crazy ideology. PERIOD. :doh:

No it's not isolationist

I understand the position, it is wrong. Global Trade was arguably freer in the 19 century, long before the days of CAFTA and the modern military. Are you suggesting that we have a weak military?

I am not sure what his "solution" is to the economy. So ask SS about that. I am not really interested in defending Paul, but I will defend some of his ideas.

[jpyaks3]

Clinton....Kosovo

Can someone please explain to me why it was ok for Clinton to bomb the **** outta kosovo, but not ok for GWB to approve our involvement in Iraq?

I've asked people that alot and never had an answer....thinking maybe somone on ES might be able to speak to it.

Well I think Clinton had an actual plan with our and NATO's involvement in Kosovo. It has become painfully obvious that the Bush Administration had no long term plan for Iraq and in reality had no idea what it was doing once Saddam was deposed. The way that the infrastructure in Iraq has been mishandled as well as a lack of coherent long term plan other then depose Saddam then freedom for all point to lack of long term strategic planning. We were willing to upset the balance of power in the Arab world without actually having a significant long term plan. I think thats the reason the Bush administration should be hammered on Iraq, if before we had gone into Iraq the Bush administration laid out our long term strategic reasoning for going into Iraq and laid out some long term plans people would probably have been more supportive longer, instead they went in with an argument based on emotion and based on fear and when those fears weren't justified people turned on them.

[ljs]

Approval?

Are you saying that you approved of Kosovo? Are you saying that I did?

Are you saying that Clinton invaded and occupied Kosovo?

Are you claiming that this somehow has some relevance to the claim that occupying Iraq was necessary?

I'm torn over the "approval" of Kosovo, and I am not saying you did. Did I say anywhere "Hey Larry approved of Kosovo?":doh:

Clinton sent troops to Kosovo...I had friends and co workers who served there and a couple who recieved purple hearts for their injuries. So maybe we have a different definition of "invaded and occupide". But then again, I don't recall ever reading where you stated that you have served in the military, so maybe you just don't understand from that perspective.

I am not claiming anything, I'm asking a question. Let me do it agian, so maybe this time you get it.

BEFORE we "invaded" Iraq, many "liberals and democrats" were totally against it. (remind yourself what we knew BEFORE we got there). However those SAME people were defending our "involvement" in Kosovo.

So again, I'm not "justifying" anything...I'm asking that given the informatino KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT...why was it ok for Clinton to approve the bombings in Kosovo, but not ok for GWB to approve us going to Iraq (or Afgahnastan for that matter).

I'm hoping, but not holding my breath that someone can give a straight answer and not say. "but we are still in Iraq"...cause that has jack **** to do with my question.

[ljs]

Well I think Clinton had an actual plan with our and NATO's involvement in Kosovo. It has become painfully obvious that the Bush Administration had no long term plan for Iraq and in reality had no idea what it was doing once Saddam was deposed. The way that the infrastructure in Iraq has been mishandled as well as a lack of coherent long term plan other then depose Saddam then freedom for all point to lack of long term strategic planning. We were willing to upset the balance of power in the Arab world without actually having a significant long term plan. I think thats the reason the Bush administration should be hammered on Iraq, if before we had gone into Iraq the Bush administration laid out our long term strategic reasoning for going into Iraq and laid out some long term plans people would probably have been more supportive longer, instead they went in with an argument based on emotion and based on fear and when those fears weren't justified people turned on them.

thank you thank you thank you...FINALLY someone with a straight and honest attempt at answering this.

[ljs]

Certainly for some people, political leanings play a role in how the two are viewed. But again, when we initially went in to Iraq, there was widespread public support for it, both in Congress and in the general public, as many often point out. The Administration made the case for war largely on the WMD rationale, and Colin Powell's UN presentation convinced a lot of people. But that rationale evaporated once we got there. So the Administraiton shifted the rationale. And that's when support for the war really started falling apart.

So really, most opposition grew not from a kneejerk dislike of Bush, but from a shifting rationale that led to a messy, seemingly endless entanglement that wasn't the deal going in.

Def another good point.thank you!

I guess for me, the question is really aimed at those who were opposed to the Iraq war from the very start, yet approved of Kosovo. Maybe they aren't on here, but I do know of some personally through work or otherwise.

[Mad Mike]

No it's not isolationist

I understand the position, it is wrong. Global Trade was arguably freer in the 19 century, long before the days of CAFTA and the modern military. Are you suggesting that we have a weak military?

I am not sure what his "solution" is to the economy. So ask SS about that. I am not really interested in defending Paul, but I will defend some of his ideas.

Let me know when we get back to the 19th century.

An no I'm not suggesting that we have a weak military. I'm telling you that the crazy uncle would have destroyed our national defense if he could have done all of the things he proposed. Those forward bases provide peace and security around the world and allow us to project force wherever and whenever it is needed. Closing them would only be second in stupidity to his suggestion of the use of Letters of Marque to hire mercenaries to fight for us.

I'm not asking SS anything. He seems like a really nice guy who has been taken in by a cult. I've tried to talk to him civilly about it but he gets bent out of shape and accuses me of some kind of anger or hatred when my only motivation is reason. His only other response is to quote Ron Paul or some other libertarian mouthpiece. I'll agree that Paul raises some interesting points here and there, but most of his positions are insanely radical and downright crazy.

[ljs]

So you don't think there's any difference in bombing a country that is committing genocide or "ethnic cleansing" on a group of people and bombing and occupying a country under the pretext of something that turns out to be totally misleading?

quite the opposite, I do think there is a difference between our Reasons for the involvement in Kosovo and the reasons for our initial involvement in Iraq.

And to answer a poster above, YES, I do believe that Iraq posed a threat to our nation. I also believe that they were supporting terrorist. I use the word support loosely. You can support someone w/ money, place to be, training or equipment or propaganda.

[luckydevil]

Let me know when we get back to the 19th century.

An no I'm not suggesting that we have a weak military. I'm telling you that the crazy uncle would have destroyed our national defense if he could have done all of the things he proposed. Those forward bases provide peace and security around the world and allow us to project force wherever and whenever it is needed. Closing them would only be second in stupidity to his suggestion of the use of Letters of Marque to hire mercenaries to fight for us.

I'm not asking SS anything. He seems like a really nice guy who has been taken in by a cult. I've tried to talk to him civilly about it but he gets bent out of shape and accuses me of some kind of anger or hatred when my only motivation is reason. His only other response is to quote Ron Paul or some other libertarian mouthpiece. I'll agree that Paul raises some interesting points here and there, but most of his positions are insanely radical and downright crazy.

I am sorry, we are just going to disagree about what should be the role of the military. Simply put, I oppose empire. I support a peace dividend, something that seemed very possible at the end of the cold war. Most of the establishment at the time supported it. Sadly, we just got bigger.

Well, I am libertarian ( a left-libertarian), so I am going to agree with many of the things Paul say. I know I am radical. I will push back, however when people like you accuse me of being crazy. Lets be honest, Mike, you have a habit of calling things crazy. Anyone who disagrees with you tends to be crazy. You have not been fair with SS at all.

[Bang]

see, that is the response I get. But where is the justification for the Beginning?

It's total double standard. I asked the same question, right as we started in Iraq because of all of the people against it from the start. They couldn't even answer it then.

But it doesn't surprise me.

the justification for Kosovo is that we as a people promised to not allow genocide to happen again.

Now, it can be argued that we have allowed it in other places, but that isn't really the point, nor a can of worms I'm trying to open.

I think people would have had a different opinion of Kosovo if any Americans came home in a box, and not one of our personnel died as a result of enemy acton during our involvement in that war.

Everyone else responding have also given some good reasons, just figured I'd add this.

~Bang

[Henry]

Mike, I was alive in 2003. I know why we went into Iraq. I supported the invasion, even though I never really bought the reasoning. I trusted Bush to carry out the invasion better than he did. And that's on me.

But I think there's probably a reason Allied Force was a NATO operation while Desert Storm was not. Bush didn't sell his plan as well as Clinton did, even though Clinton was mired in impeachment proceedings and scandal, even though Bush had the post 9-11 winds of goodwill at his back.

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Clinton had a better case for what he was trying to prove as justification to ... well, invade isn't the right word. Use military force?

The commitment Clinton was asking for with regard to Allied force was also MUCH smaller than what Bush has asked with Desert Storm. Which, by the way, is why statements like 'but we are still in Iraq' are relevant.

[greenspandan]

Def another good point.thank you!

I guess for me, the question is really aimed at those who were opposed to the Iraq war from the very start, yet approved of Kosovo. Maybe they aren't on here, but I do know of some personally through work or otherwise.

*raises hand*

Kosovo was billed as stopping an ongoing holocaust. it wasn't Americans that were at risk, but should that have stopped us from invading Germany and liberating the Jews from the concetration camps? (apologies to Godwin's Law, but i think the simliarities are too strong to ignore)

Iraq, in contrast, was billed as part of the "war on terror". which in itself i was behind and in favor of, but didn't see the connection to iraq. and after watching/reading Powell's presentation, was still not very convinced. even if iraq DID have WMD's, how would it have managed to strike the U.S., even if it wanted to? nobody was even trying to argue they had long-range ballistic capabilities (to my knowledge). besides which, it seemed like a lot of suspicion and flimsy circumstantial evidence that didn't add up to me. i'm not gloating. i just didn't see the "smoking gun" case that the administration kept saying it had.

this is outside of what you asked, but later on i became angry and felt insulted/betrayed when they kept changing the supposed goal of the war in iraq. i feel like i still don't know why we really went there. all their reasons seem like justifications for a decision that was already made. in my opinion, WHY that decision was made is still being hidden from us (i'm not pretending to know what that reason is).

[ljs]

*raises hand*

Kosovo was billed as stopping an ongoing holocaust. it wasn't Americans that were at risk, but should that have stopped us from invading Germany and liberating the Jews from the concetration camps? (apologies to Godwin's Law, but i think the simliarities are too strong to ignore)

Iraq, in contrast, was billed as part of the "war on terror". which in itself i was behind and in favor of, but didn't see the connection to iraq. and after watching/reading Powell's presentation, was still not very convinced. even if iraq DID have WMD's, how would it have managed to strike the U.S., even if it wanted to? nobody was even trying to argue they had long-range ballistic capabilities. besides which, it seemed like a lot of suspicion and flimsy circumstantial evidence that didn't add up to me. i'm not gloating. i just didn't see the "smokign gun" case that the administration kept saying it had. then i was angry and felt betrayed when they kept changing the supposed goal of the war in iraq. i feel like i still don't know why we really went there. all their reasons seem like justifications for a decision that was already made. in my opinion, WHY that decision was made is still being hidden from us (i'm not pretending to know what that reason is).

ok, I'm w. you on that...great points.

[Henry]

greenspandan, you said it a lot better than I did.

I find I'm saying that a lot lately. :twitch:

[SnyderShrugged]

Let me know when we get back to the 19th century.

An no I'm not suggesting that we have a weak military. I'm telling you that the crazy uncle would have destroyed our national defense if he could have done all of the things he proposed. Those forward bases provide peace and security around the world and allow us to project force wherever and whenever it is needed. Closing them would only be second in stupidity to his suggestion of the use of Letters of Marque to hire mercenaries to fight for us.

I'm not asking SS anything. He seems like a really nice guy who has been taken in by a cult. I've tried to talk to him civilly about it but he gets bent out of shape and accuses me of some kind of anger or hatred when my only motivation is reason. His only other response is to quote Ron Paul or some other libertarian mouthpiece. I'll agree that Paul raises some interesting points here and there, but most of his positions are insanely radical and downright crazy.

Since you had asked about the "crazy Uncle" economic ideas, he did actually have quite a few. I'll post them shortly.

Mike, you have never been "civil" with me. You throw my support for Ron Paul's ideas in my face with ad hominim attacks at every chance you get, even when no one has even mentioned him. (like in this thread for example)

My beliefs are well beyond one man and his own beliefs. I am a paleo-conservative with many libertarian beliefs. Live with it because you will never, and I mean NEVER change my mind on that. You are very welcome to believe what you like and we can certainly disagree, but your nastiness with me has gotten old.

so old, in fact that yesterday was the first day I returned to ES after a self inflicted 3 weeks off.

I prefer to have zero interaction with you in threads. I don't place any value on your opinions whatsoever and I hlod little respect for your beliefs.

I will still respect your right to speak your mind, but humbly request that you respect mine and simply don't respond to any of my posts as you will do nothing but bash regardless of topic or content.

so anywho....here is a pice of some of Paul's economic ideas. An actual conservative (unlike yourself) should appreciate at least part, if not all of them.

http://www.paulunteer.com/news-stories/unveiled-comprehensive-economic-revitalization-plan/

Introduction

America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in human history through low taxes, limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. We need to return to these principles so our economy can thrive again. When enacted, my plan will provide both short-term stimulus and lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

Other candidates talk a lot about stimulus packages, but my record stands alone. I have fought for these measures for years as a member of Congress and will make them a top priority as president.

Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican congressman from Texas’s 14th District, is currently the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. He has been named “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” for 10 consecutive years by the National Taxpayers’ Union. Ron Paul is also the author of several books on monetary policy and economics.

The Four-Point Plan

Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness with the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

1. Tax Reform

Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings. The basis of capitalism is savings, and Americans who do so should be rewarded.

Pass HJ Res. 23 to encourage savings over consumption.

Repeal the Death Tax. Attacking small businesses and breaking up family farms smothers growth and kills jobs.

Pass H.R. 2734 to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Cut Taxes for Working Seniors. Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.

Pass H.R. 191 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits.

Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. That money belongs to seniors, not the government. They paid into the system for a lifetime, and they should be free to spend every penny as they see fit.

Pass H.R. 192 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

Accelerate Depreciation on Investment. We need to help companies grow and create jobs.

Pass H.R. 4995 and amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce corporate marginal income tax rates.

Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. Investment should be embraced and rewarded.

Pass H.J. Res 23 (The “Liberty Amendment”), proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.

Eliminate Taxes on Tips.The single parents and working students who earn their income chiefly through tips deserve to keep all of their money. This tax on “estimated income” is unfair and should be ended.

Pass H.R. 3664 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

Support Mortgage Cancelation Relief Act. Working families who lost their homes should not be punished a second time with a big IRS bill.

Pass H.R. 1876 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income of individual taxpayers discharges of indebtedness attributable to certain forgiven residential mortgage obligations.

2. Spending Reform

Reduce Overseas Military Commitments. Our bases and troops should be on our soil, bolstering our economy.

It’s time to stop subsidizing our business competitors in Europe, Japan and South Korea.

Freeze Non-Defense, Non-Entitlement Spending at Current Levels

I vote against all bloated, pork laden spending bills and will veto them as president.

3. Monetary Policy Reform

Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. An institution as powerful as the Federal Reserve deserves full public scrutiny.

Expand Transparency and Accountability at the Federal Reserve

Pass H.R. 2754 to require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to continue to make available to the public on a weekly basis information on the measure of the M3 monetary aggregate and its components.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.

Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuance coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

4. Regulatory Reform

Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has seriously wounded our capital markets and helped make the UK the financial center at our expense.

Ending these misguided regulations would bring jobs flooding back to the United States

Pass H.R. 1049 to reform Sarbanes-Oxley and reduce the burden it places on small businesses.

Repeal or Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations. Neighbors know best how to help their neighbors.

We need to make it easier for community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to better serve their communities and to help people in these communities get access to credit and capital.

Pass H.R. 1869 to enhance the ability of community banks to foster economic growth and serve their communities, boost small businesses, increase individual savings, and for other purposes.

[Mad Mike]

I am sorry, we are just going to disagree about what should be the role of the military. Simply put, I oppose empire. I support a peace dividend, something that seemed very possible at the end of the cold war. Most of the establishment at the time supported it. Sadly, we just got bigger.

Well, I am libertarian ( a left-libertarian), so I am going to agree with many of the things Paul say. I know I am radical. I will push back, however when people like you accuse me of being crazy. Lets be honest, Mike, you have a habit of calling things crazy. Anyone who disagrees with you tends to be crazy. You have not been fair with SS at all.

Well it looks lie we are going to have to disagree with several things here.

But first, forward bases do NOT equal empire. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Those forward bases exist because of legitimate treaties, not subjugation.

As for the "peace dividend", the world did not get safer at the end of the cold war. The threat of nuclear war that so many rightfully feared was greatly reduced but the world got even more complex and dangers became more difficult to predict. Political uncertainty, nuclear proliferation, the rise of rogue states and terrorism... all of these things create dangers that are in many ways worse than those imposed by the cold war. Pretty much everyone WANTED the "peace dividend", the problem is that it never really existed as anything other than wishful thinking.

As for SS, I have always stayed on point by stating as I believe that Ron Paul is a few cards short of a full deck. SS, has chosen to take this personally in a way that is not always rational. Bush and Obama have had plenty of insults thrown their way around here but you don't often see their supporters take things as personally as SS does. The fact is that I kind of like SS. He seems like a really nice guy. I just honestly think he is a little misguided in his blind following of an ideology. Many times in debates he has done things like quoting Ron Paul to defend a Ron Paul position. The implication being that it must be correct because he said it. Circular logic at it's finest.

And as for Ron Paul... Yes, I view his idea that we use Letters of Marque to hire mercenaries to fight our wars to be completely and utterly, full-tilt bozo. Along with dismantling the IRS and replacing it and income taxes with nothing. Ron Paul thinks he can turn back the clock to an idealistic 1800s world that never existed. I believe that anyone who would suggest such a thing is absolutely crazy and should be recognized as such. the idea is simply insane and I will stand up and say so in defense of reason and sanity because I believe it must be done. It's not personal, it's my stand against insanity creep.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well it looks lie we are going to have to disagree with several things here.

But first, forward bases do NOT equal empire. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Those forward bases exist because of legitimate treaties, not subjugation.

As for the "peace dividend", the world did not get safer at the end of the cold war. The threat of nuclear war that so many rightfully feared was greatly reduced but the world got even more complex and dangers became more difficult to predict. Political uncertainty, nuclear proliferation, the rise of rogue states and terrorism... all of these things create dangers that are in many ways worse than those imposed by the cold war. Pretty much everyone WANTED the "peace dividend", the problem is that it never really existed as anything other than wishful thinking.

As for SS, I have always stayed on point by stating as I believe that Ron Paul is a few cards short of a full deck. SS, has chosen to take this personally in a way that is not always rational. Bush and Obama have had plenty of insults thrown their way around here but you don't often see their supporters take things as personally as SS does. The fact is that I kind of like SS. He seems like a really nice guy. I just honestly think he is a little misguided in his blind following of an ideology. Many times in debates he has done things like quoting Ron Paul to defend a Ron Paul position. The implication being that it must be correct because he said it. Circular logic at it's finest.

And as for Ron Paul... Yes, I view his idea that we use Letters of Marque to hire mercenaries to fight our wars to be completely and utterly, full-tilt bozo. Along with dismantling the IRS and replacing it and income taxes with nothing. Ron Paul thinks he can turn back the clock to an idealistic 1800s world that never existed. I believe that anyone who would suggest such a thing is absolutely crazy and should be recognized as such. the idea is simply insane and I will stand up and say so in defense of reason and sanity because I believe it must be done. It's not personal, it's my stand against insanity creep.

Too many errors to Comment on. But I would like a few examples of where I use Ron Paul quotes to prove A Ron Paul position. and I would like to see where I agreed with letters of marque to fight "wars". I believe the idea is the one in the constitutionally granted powers of the federal government to fight terrorism. The fight against terrorism isnt a war.

I understand you love to pay exhorbitent taxes to the federal government for little or no return on your investment. I choose to disagree. But thats my personal belief (as it is in most real conservatives minds as well)

[Mad Mike]

Mike, I was alive in 2003. I know why we went into Iraq. I supported the invasion, even though I never really bought the reasoning. I trusted Bush to carry out the invasion better than he did. And that's on me.

But I think there's probably a reason Allied Force was a NATO operation while Desert Storm was not. Bush didn't sell his plan as well as Clinton did, even though Clinton was mired in impeachment proceedings and scandal, even though Bush had the post 9-11 winds of goodwill at his back.

I think, and this is just my opinion, that Clinton had a better case for what he was trying to prove as justification to ... well, invade isn't the right word. Use military force?

The commitment Clinton was asking for with regard to Allied force was also MUCH smaller than what Bush has asked with Desert Storm. Which, by the way, is why statements like 'but we are still in Iraq' are relevant.

If you are trying to say Bush is a terrible communicator who blew his chance to create a coalition to get rid of Saddam, I agree 100%. On the other hand, it is wrong to view the situation without the historical perspective of the failed oil for food program and the fact that the three major dissenters to the war, France, Germany, and Russia all had HUGE monetary and political ties to Saddam and the power to veto the use of force against him. Somehow we got painted as the bad guy but they didn't disagree with us for any other reason than money and oil. It was their motives that were about oil and greed. Not Bush's and not ours.

[Predicto]

the justification for Kosovo is that we as a people promised to not allow genocide to happen again.

Now, it can be argued that we have allowed it in other places, but that isn't really the point, nor a can of worms I'm trying to open.

I think people would have had a different opinion of Kosovo if any Americans came home in a box, and not one of our personnel died as a result of enemy acton during our involvement in that war.

Everyone else responding have also given some good reasons, just figured I'd add this.

~Bang

This is correct.

Also, we carefully made sure to gather international support for our efforts in Kosovo, rather than just flipping off world opinion and charging in like we did in Iraq.

Some may argue that Kosovo is not completely different from Iraq with regards to the President's ultimate motivation to act (and others would disagree), but the two situations are hugely different in the way they were handled internationally and the predicable consequences for our standing in the world.

[GibbsFactor]

Too many errors to Comment on. But I would like a few examples of where I use Ron Paul quotes to prove A Ron Paul position. and I would like to see where I agreed with letters of marque to fight "wars". I believe the idea is the one in the constitutionally granted powers of the federal government to fight terrorism. The fight against terrorism isnt a war.

I understand you love to pay exhorbitent taxes to the federal government for little or no return on your investment. I choose to disagree. But thats my personal belief (as it is in most real conservatives minds as well)

But SS, MadMike is wiser then the founders ever could hope to be.

[Predicto]

If you are trying to say Bush is a terrible communicator who blew his chance to create a coalition to get rid of Saddam, I agree 100%. On the other hand, it is wrong to view the situation without the historical perspective of the failed oil for food program and the fact that the three major dissenters to the war, France, Germany, and Russia all had HUGE monetary and political ties to Saddam and the power to veto the use of force against him. Somehow we got painted as the bad guy but they didn't disagree with us for any other reason than money and oil. It was their motives that were about oil and greed. Not Bush's and not ours.

That analysis seems like after the fact wishful thinking and butt-covering to me.

You really thing the oil-for-food program was such a huge part of the German or French economy that they would sell out anything or anyone just to keep it going?

I think they are telling the truth that they dissented because they genuinely didn't see the need for an invasion of Iraq, certainly not an immediate one. Unfortunately, Paul Wolfowitz disagreed.

[luckydevil]

As for SS, I have always stayed on point by stating as I believe that Ron Paul is a few cards short of a full deck. SS, has chosen to take this personally in a way that is not always rational.

What you seem not to understand is that when you attack people like Paul, you attack people like SS ( and to a lesser extent people like me). Of course, he is going to take it personally.

As far as ideology, it is simply a coherent set of beliefs. You subscribe to certain set of beliefs as well, whether you realize it or not.

[Predicto]

But SS, MadMike is wiser then the founders ever could hope to be.

I loathe the idea that Ron Paul somehow channels the true intentions of the Founding Fathers and how they should be applied in a modern world.

I know Paul and his followers SAY he does that, but I myself think that if the the Founding Fathers were alive, you would not be able to find a concensus on any of these issues, and at least a few would be laughing at Ron Paul the same way as I do.

[SnyderShrugged]

I loathe the idea that Ron Paul somehow channels the true intentions of the Founding Fathers and how they should be applied in a modern world.

I know Paul and his followers SAY he does that, but I myself think that if the the Founding Fathers were alive, you would not be able to find a concensus on any of these issues, and at least a few would be laughing at Ron Paul the same way as I do.

I love the "and how they should be applied in a modern world" line.

:doh:

[Burgold]

I just love how people frequently talk about the Founding Fathers as if they could ever come to concensus on almost anything. They were almost as famous for the squabbling and contentiousness as their genius.

[SnyderShrugged]

I just love how people frequently talk about the Founding Fathers as if they could ever come to concensus on almost anything. They were almost as famous for the squabbling and contentiousness as their genius.

They did in fact come up with a concensus. It;s called the US constitution.

Yes, of course there were tons of disagreement, but in the end, they agreed to what was put in print. That document is the only reference to the founders intent as it was the founders product.:2cents: