This sums up how I feel about our wars

If it just hadn't been Texas in the example.

 

IMO we went into Afghanistan with our chests puffed out looking for some payback for 9-11. "We are pissed!" Our initial goal was to hunt down Bin Laden (and therefore, Al-Qaeda). When the Taliban refused to surrender him per our demands we invaded. Once we invaded we not only had to fight Al-Qaeda, but the Taliban as well. Meanwhile Bin Laden was allowed to slip away.

Pre-invasion, we had a couple opportunities to take-out Bin Laden but belayed them. If we hadn't, and had been successful in killing him, we may still have had to deal with the remaining Al-Qaeda elements in Afghanistan, but may not have had to invade the country to do it. Air-strikes and raids, using native rebels, may have been enough.

Iraq was a totally different story, and was IMO the worst decision made by our government in decades or centuries. Yeah, there are a few other blunders, but this one is in the top 5 all-time.

There was little reason to invade, yet we did. It was painfully obvious to me that the Bush administartion was lying about WMDs and other justifications for invading, and that America was falling for it (being caught in a thunderstorm of patriotism after 9-11), and that the decision to invade was already made months before the actual invasion (forces had mustered into the region well before Powell attempted to persuade the U.N.)

So yeah, I can agree with you on Iraq lol

Libya: Although your OP mentions "invading" I think here your intent was that we have meddled (attacked) in another foreign country. I can agree with that, we have, but out of the three, this is the one I support the most. IMO, to not act on the rebels behalf would have been allowing near-genocide, something we allow too often in Africa.

Iran (and Syria) are unlikely to see an invasion by the U.S. or it's allies. Not impossible, but less likely. North Korea is another country you just want to punch in the face... but won't... unless it pushes too far... like a nuclear missle attack on someone. I think that would be reason enough to invade any of those countries... if they ever were so stupid as to use nuclear weapons against anyone.

Agreed, the people in those countries have to decide themselves, on their terms. But the advocation of democracy wasn't the initial goal in most of these countries (Libya may be the exception, in partnership with averting genocide).

I'm hoping we eventually make more friends than enemies, once the peoples learn more about why we did what we did... but can agree somewhat that we've also made some enemies that may come back to haunt us in the future.

 

I want to clarify that I agree with you on the Saudis. IMO, our military bases in Saudi Arabia are the most relevant reasons for the formation of Al-Qaeda and 9-11.

 

I realized that but in the end, it's still Texas. As far as Ron Paul goes, he has at least as many bad ideas as he has good ideas. The thing I find about Ron Paul's positions is that there is a just enough for anyone to agree with but if you take all of his positions there is literally no one that would agree with even most of them. He is like a potpourri of political positions. It's easy to like one or two or even three of his positions and get sucked into supporting him because he advocates each of his positions more forcefully than anyone else is supporting them but if you actually made a list of all of his positions, you'd be surprised how few you'd actually support. Ron Paul is the catchall candidate that attracts people that don’t hear some of these ideas he is expressing as forcefully as he is expressing them but they seem to forget to look at the entire candidate because they are so transfixed by the one or two ideas they really agree with.

 

I don't believe we have military bases in Saudi Arabia any more. I think they closed them when we invaded Iraq. I could be wrong but I haven't seen one on the news or read about any bases in Saudi Arabia in years.

 

I guess I'm just not as attached to bad ideas as you are. Sticking to a bad idea doesn't seem any saner to me than being against someone that changes their position over time. In fact, I respect people that can change their position based on new information. Where is the sanity in rigid idealism? I also respect that even when Obama changes his position, it isn't just because it gains him more popularity. Sometimes, his change is very unpopular to his supporters. Unlike someone like Romney who changes his position with the very next poll.

 

By your logic, you support Ron Paul so you support businesses being able to post signs in their restaurant windows saying, "No blacks allowed". You are also for legal heroin use and legalized child pornography. Let's not forget NABALA. Prostitution is of course legal and of course even though Paul is a hypocrite on this issue, abortions should be widely practiced as a matter of personal freedom. Funny all the things you support when you support Ron Paul.

 

I always felt that Saudi Arabia was the real problem and that was were we should have seeked justice, get pay back and send a message out of "never again". Instead we are being played like a puppet on a string with the Royal familiy pulling the strings. People think of Saudi Arabia as a desert kingdom with oil but they are a global power and one that does want world domination of one religon, one religion practiced only one way and with them being the guardians of it all.

 

Thanks for the info, I'll look into it.

 

Can you provide actual instances? If you can convince me he lied I'd have no problem stating that as well, but I am going to take a closer look at circumstances so I'd appreciate specifics... actual qutes during his campaign is fair game.

Coin agrees with you I'm sure. I can agree if I find the *war to be justifiable.

*"war" in this instance consisting mostly of undeclared actions on foreign soil.

I have to add though that there are significant differences between defending others, defending yourself, and attacking someone. The reasons why we fight are important to consider. Refusing to fight under any circumstances is suicidal.

 

Just to start it out;
20 Claimed would not run for President
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama’s birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn’t know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife’s salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied

These are all linked for you at http://avideditor.wordpress.com/200...ent-this-fraud-from-stealing-the-white-house/

 

I know they packed up the Prince Sultan Air Bases and moved it to Qatar not too long before I was deployed there because a lot of our stuff had PSAB tags and writing on it. My guess is probably in 2003 PSAB was shut down. I think there may still be some AF people in Saudi Arabia, though, as I used to hear of the occasional person getting deployment orders to there even past 2003. Though I don't think there are any active bases.

 

Do people really find a candidate and support everything he supports? And are these things that you know Ron Paul supports or are they just things that you think Libertarianism is about if taken to the absolute extreme. Does every candidate support every extreme position is his party or every extreme position in his political ideology?

I would be interested in hearing what you know about Ron Paul supporting legalized child pornography. That would certainly be a deal breaker to me and would have figured something like that would make the news or the debates...

 

My guess is this is what teddy is talking about;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080203112955AAdRcCX

 

Interesting. I will have to read up on that bill and his comments. Appreciate the info. But, yeah, as for that being Ron Paul 'supporting child pornography', I would doubt it.

 

Oh Dicky, we just know each other so well....