September 27, 2007

Ron Paul Supporters Will Like This

I'm back in the session with Sean Hannity, who is now broadcasting the first two hours of his show live. We're actually in the final hour of the show, and Newt Gingrich has been his guest for most of these two hours. Hannity challenged Gingrich about his kind words for Hillary Clinton this weekend and at other times, saying that Gingrich's graciousness drives some of his listeners up the wall. Gingrich gave a humorous answer for that, noting that out of her ten-page healthcare proposal, there had to be one page that made some sense, and we should encourage common sense when it occurs.

Earlier, Sean Hannity noticed a Ron Paul supporter in the back of the room while he was on the air. He was easy to spot; he wore a t-shirt that had RON PAUL in large letters. Sean engaged him in a little banter, and in the end complimented him on his willingness to get involved -- even if they disagreed on candidates.

At the end of my Heading Right show, I noticed the man walking past me. I flagged him down and asked him to join the last five minutes of my show. Mark Augustine, of the Georgia Libertarian Party, chatted with me about why he thinks Paul is the only Republican candidate who can generate the kind of support that will win the 2008 general election. I amicably disagreed, and you can hear the very friendly exchange at the end of the HRR show. I also promised to link to the Ron Paul campaign site.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/13862

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul Supporters Will Like This:

» Taking Notice? from The Crossed Pond
Happened to catch this, at the end of a long analysis of Thompson’s Q3 numbers, over at Captain’s Quarters. Meanwhile, John McCain raised $5 million in Q3, but Ron Paul reportedly raised $3 million in the same period. McCain’s total... [Read More]

Comments (15)

Posted by leftnomore | September 27, 2007 4:45 PM

Hmm, well, as a follow up to my previous post, Newt DOES compliment some people-- Hillary.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 27, 2007 6:06 PM

Ron Paul's a Republican? That's odd. Isn't it the savvy kodkids who vote for him en masse to give the false impression he has widespread support among Republicans?

Ron Paul wants to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. He's a conservative who doesn't possess the quintessential conservative quality of being able to take a long range view. Giving Ron Paul the time of day undermines the strength of the Republican message that the Democrats can't be trusted with national security.

Ron Paul would make a great running mate for Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Bob Davidson | September 27, 2007 6:56 PM

You didn't know that Ron Paul is a Republican? That's funny...the people of his district have elected him ten times to Congress as a Republican. Maybe you should do a little research.

Of course, you're right that he has very little support. Odd, though, how those half dozen Internet trolling spammers of his managed to raise over $500,000 for him in only three days.

BTW, as a West Point grad, I know a few military terms. Just for you - "Withdrawal" does not have the same definition as "Surrender". Ask any historian what would likely have happened to the Japanese had they decided to withdraw instead of surrender.

There are a lot of military personnel who understand such things, including their oath to support and defend the U.S. constitution. That is why Ron Paul gets more of their financial support than any other Republican candidate.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 27, 2007 9:34 PM

Bob

I have great respect for the United States military so I'm a little surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. (Is Paul a Republican?)

It's distressing that a West Point grad is unconcerned about the likely consequences of withdrawal before Iraq is stabilized. Do you really think it wise to leave before al Qaeda is defeated? Are you unconcerned that they will keep killing innocent Iraqis until they are accomodated? How do you expect Iraqis alone to rid their country of al Qaeda when the United States and Iraq, working together, have yet to accomplish this (although al Qaeda is clearly on the run)?

Where do you think al Qaeda will send its new recruits after it succeeds in driving America out of Iraq? When they start killing Americans in Afghanistan will you advocate withdrawal (but not defeat) from that country as well?

Al Qaeda is now in Iraq because of the American invasion. Do you not think America has a moral obligation to rid Iraq of al Qaeda? What do think defeat in Iraq (and you are kidding yourself if it won't be viewed as such) will do to the morale of the American mlitary?

Have you no concern that Iran will move into the vacuum as they have promised to do?

Given that the United States is involved in both a military war and a propaganda war with Islamofascism, to ignore that withdrawal would be portrayed by Islamists, including al Qaeda, as surrender and as a result would constitute a real defeat in the propaganda war, betrays a naivete I wouldn't expect from a West Point graduate. What's the point of having a military if you won't use it to fight an organization that declared war on America?

Given the lack of real support for Paul and the fact that by and large the military does support the mission it does make one wonder where his "military contributions" are coming from?

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | September 28, 2007 12:47 AM

Too bad Newt doesn't recognize the folly of enabling the Clintons.

His 'generous' nature is a smoke screen for Clinton rear end kissing, desperately trying to appease the liberal MSM, and ugly debasing of some fine GOP Candidates with a far better record than himself.

If he believes Hillary has been competent, with bizarre imitations of Southern Drawls, lies about authorizing force in Iraq, and endless flip flops, NEWT has shown he is simply not capable to handle the Presidency.

Newt Gingrich is a player for himself and it shows.

Posted by Pete Fanning | September 28, 2007 7:16 AM

This Navy veteran wouldn't go near a vote for Ron Paul....

Posted by Bob Davidson | September 28, 2007 11:33 AM

Terry,

My responses are interspersed with your very good comments and questions.

I have great respect for the United States military so I'm a little surprised that you don't recognize sarcasm when you see it. (Is Paul a Republican?)

Of course your question was sarcastic, as was my response to it in kind.

It's distressing that a West Point grad is unconcerned about the likely consequences of withdrawal before Iraq is stabilized. Do you really think it wise to leave before al Qaeda is defeated? Are you unconcerned that they will keep killing innocent Iraqis until they are accomodated? How do you expect Iraqis alone to rid their country of al Qaeda when the United States and Iraq, working together, have yet to accomplish this (although al Qaeda is clearly on the run)?

Perhaps the reason that you are distressed over my position is that we have different views of what it means to protect national sovereignty. I am a Constitutionalist. That means that I accept the Constitution as the highest Law in our country, and the proper interpretation of it begins with Founding intent. I know for a fact that there is no authority in that Law for overthrowing foreign dictators, policing the world, nation building, spreading our culture and beliefs at the point of a gun, wars of aggression, or meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Read what George Washington had to say about foreign wars and entangling alliances. He warned us strenuously on more than one occasion, as did other Founders.

Where do you think al-Qaeda will send its new recruits after it succeeds in driving America out of Iraq? When they start killing Americans in Afghanistan will you advocate withdrawal (but not defeat) from that country as well?

Al-Qaeda is not a nation – it is a foreign criminal organization. The Constitution has a method for dealing with such people and it has been successfully employed throughout our history. It is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. The Founders included this method in the Constitution for the very purpose of dealing with the kind of circumstances in which we found ourselves on 9/11. There is plenty of information on the Internet for you to read regarding this authority.

Al-Qaeda is now in Iraq because of the American invasion.

Glad you agree with me on that point.

Do you not think America has a moral obligation to rid Iraq of al Qaeda?

No. There are horrible atrocities committed all over the world every day by every sort of criminal imaginable. We cannot fix the world and it is not our responsibility to do so. The Iraqis have had five years to get their act together. There are far more Iraqi citizens than there are members of al-Qaeda. They need to police themselves and they have the weaponry and training to do it.

What do think defeat in Iraq (and you are kidding yourself if it won't be viewed as such) will do to the morale of the American mlitary?

It is irrelevant what people think of a withdrawal at this point. This undeclared war has always been and still is unwinnable. No “War on Terrorism” can ever be won. We can defeat nations – not tactics.

We were not invited. We are viewed as occupiers on holy land – not liberators. Members of the Iraqi military and police have been found collaborating with al-Qaeda. The American military personnel have had more than enough. Their morale is already low because of many reasons, including repeated, unfavorable changes to the terms of their enlistment agreements. These troops are burnt out and need to come home. They are not machines. They have families and lives back here waiting for them.

Have you no concern that Iran will move into the vacuum as they have promised to do?

We should follow the doctrine of Just War. That is, war fought as a last resort and only in self-defense. Preemptive war is the doctrine of empires – not republics.

Given that the United States is involved in both a military war and a propaganda war with Islamofascism, to ignore that withdrawal would be portrayed by Islamists, including al Qaeda, as surrender and as a result would constitute a real defeat in the propaganda war, betrays a naivete I wouldn't expect from a West Point graduate. What's the point of having a military if you won't use it to fight an organization that declared war on America?

The naiveté is yours if you believe that America can long survive playing world policeman to a billion people who will never consider us anything but infidels needing conversion or death. Al-Qaeda has a virtually infinite supply of new recruits as long as we remain on their land. This war is bankrupting us of our blood and treasure. Ron Paul has the only rational, Constitutional solution – a withdrawal as quickly as the generals on the ground can make it happen safely.

We are told that this war is being fought over there so we don’t have to fight it over here. Nonsense. If this war were about protecting our security, then our southern border would not have been left virtually wide open for the last six years. We invaded Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us, but the perpetrators were in Afghanistan. There is another agenda at work behind this war and our security is not its highest motive.

We cannot win the propaganda war with regard to followers of Islam. No matter what we do or say, this is a religious matter to the Muslim world. To them, politics and military force are merely tools of their religion. Good luck converting them.

The purpose of the military is to be able to fight and win declared wars against other nations, if required in self defense.

Given the lack of real support for Paul and the fact that by and large the military does support the mission it does make one wonder where his "military contributions" are coming from?

Just because our military supports the mission does not mean that they all agree with it. Supporting Ron Paul with their money is about the only way for them to legitimately protest and still keep their jobs.

Ron Paul supporters have just raised $700K for him in less than five days. It would take more than a handful of Internet spammers to raise that kind of cash so quickly. He raised over $100K at one dinner recently. His public speaking engagements are regularly drawing 1000+ people wherever he goes. The other Republican candidates can only dream of the 50,000 Meetup members he has so far, with about 10,000 more added every month. He does have real support.

I predict that Ron Paul will at least be one of the last three Republican candidates standing. He is certainly the only candidate who understands and obeys the Constitution.

Posted by Terry Gain | September 28, 2007 9:05 PM

Bob

I wish to reply to your carefully considered (but flawed) rejoinder, however I want to give it the time it deserves. I will respond tomorrow.

Regards.

Terry

Posted by Terry Gain | September 29, 2007 1:48 PM

Bob, here's my reponse, with Captain Ed's permission, and if I'm over the line with the length of this I apologize.

I have bolded your comments and have left in italics those of mine which you italicized;

… I accept the Constitution as the highest Law in our country, and the proper interpretation of it begins with Founding intent. I know for a fact that there is no authority in that Law for overthrowing foreign dictators, policing the world, nation building, spreading our culture and beliefs at the point of a gun, wars of aggression, or meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Read what George Washington had to say about foreign wars and entangling alliances. He warned us strenuously on more than one occasion, as did other Founders.


Congress authorized the invasion so it is disingenuous to suggest the invasion is unlawful under American law. Constitutional principles need to be adapted to the times in which we live. Did the founding fathers anticipate America being attacked by terrorists coming from terrorist supporting states?

We are not forcing the Iraqis to become a democracy. They have overwhelming demonstrated they want to live in a democracy. Some of their citizens and the pre-eminent international terrorist entity want to prevent the establishment of democracy and the rule of law. By historical standards Iraqis are making fabulous progress and deserve our support.

Where do you think al-Qaeda will send its new recruits after it succeeds in driving America out of Iraq? When they start killing Americans in Afghanistan will you advocate withdrawal (but not defeat) from that country as well?

Al-Qaeda is not a nation – it is a foreign criminal organization. The Constitution has a method for dealing with such people and it has been successfully employed throughout our history. It is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

Al Qaeda attacked America throughout the 1990’s without reprisal. Al Qaeda then chose to fight America in Iraq. This battle cannot be avoided. You cannot defeat al Qaeda by allowing them to defeat you. (It’s hard to believe this needs to be said.) Al Qaeda is taking a shit kicking in Iraq-from Americans and Iraqis. And their brutality has caused the Islamic world to turn against them.

You have avoided my point about al Qaeda returning to Afghanistan if they defeat the United States in Iraq.

Al-Qaeda is now in Iraq because of the American invasion.

Glad you agree with me on that point.

How we got to this point is irrelevant to where we need to go from here.

Do you not think America has a moral obligation to rid Iraq of al Qaeda?

No. [ ] The Iraqis have had five years to get their act together. There are far more Iraqi citizens than there are members of al-Qaeda. They need to police themselves and they have the weaponry and training to do it.

Although great progress is being made The United States and Iraq fighting together have not yet completely defeated al Qaeda so to suggest that Iraqis can do it alone is unrealistic. You don’t seem concerned about the extra loss of life if the B Team is left with the job of finishing off al Qaeda nor the possibility that Iraqis may grow so weary of the bombing of innocents that they agree to accommodate al Qaeda.

Your position that America has no obligation to rid Iraq of what it brought to Iraq shows a skewed moral compass and a refusal to recognize the propaganda value to America’s enemies of the course you propose.

The Iraqis have not had five years. It’s been 4.5 years since the invasion and only 17 months since the Iraqi government was formed. Given that the consequence of failure will negatively impact the United States for decades your impatience is unreasonable.

What do think defeat in Iraq (and you are kidding yourself if it won't be viewed as such) will do to the morale of the American mlitary?
It is irrelevant what people think of a withdrawal at this point.

This undeclared war has always been and still is unwinnable. No “War on Terrorism” can ever be won. We can defeat nations – not tactics.

You defeat terrorists showing that you are superior to them and by killing enough of them that the rest give up. You cause terrorism to spread by ignoring it –as Clinton did- or worse, backing down, as Ron Paul proposes.

What people think is not irrelevant. One of the reasons bin Laden declared war on the United States is he considered it a paper tiger. So far Bush has proven him wrong but Ron Paul wants to prove him right. If people get the impression that terrorists can defeat the United States- and they will if America withdraws prematurely from Iraq -there will be more terrorism and vice versa.


We were not invited. We are viewed as occupiers on holy land – not liberators. Members of the Iraqi military and police have been found collaborating with al-Qaeda. The American military personnel have had more than enough. Their morale is already low because of many reasons, including repeated, unfavorable changes to the terms of their enlistment agreements. These troops are burnt out and need to come home. They are not machines. They have families and lives back here waiting for them.

Iraqi refugees and the INC did invite us. We are in fact liberators and once the violence ends-and that day is coming sooner than you think - we will again be regarded as liberators. We are there with the consent of the democratically elected government. The troops are not burnt out. They will be morally deflated for decades if the mission is abandoned.

Have you no concern that Iran will move into the vacuum as they have promised to do?

We should follow the doctrine of Just War. That is, war fought as a last resort and only in self-defense. Preemptive war is the doctrine of empires – not republics.

You have avoided my question. There were two choices. One choice was to allow a mass murdering, genocidal maniac, who had refused to abide by the terms of a ceasefire, and who had ordered the assassination of an American President, to remain in power to pursue nuclear weapons –once again I ask you to read McGrory and Bhattia’s Saddam’s Bomb. The other choice was to remove him and help the people of that country establish a democracy which would not be a threat to us. The first choice would have been dangerous, the second difficult. I prefer difficult to dangerous.

Given that the United States is involved in both a military war and a propaganda war with Islamofascism, to ignore that withdrawal would be portrayed by Islamists, including al Qaeda, as surrender and as a result would constitute a real defeat in the propaganda war, betrays a naivete I wouldn't expect from a West Point graduate. What's the point of having a military if you won't use it to fight an organization that declared war on America?

The naiveté is yours if you believe that America can long survive playing world policeman to a billion people who will never consider us anything but infidels needing conversion or death. Al-Qaeda has a virtually infinite supply of new recruits as long as we remain on their land. This war is bankrupting us of our blood and treasure. Ron Paul has the only rational, Constitutional solution – a withdrawal as quickly as the generals on the ground can make it happen safely.

Allegations that there is an infinite supply of new recruits are false. You aren't keeping up. New recruits have been halved in the past few months. Once again there are two choices. Abandon the global economy, kick out all Muslims and withdraw to Fortress America; or, with the support of other countries, encourage the establishment of democracies. The first choice is no longer feasible.

We are told that this war is being fought over there so we don’t have to fight it over here. Nonsense. If this war were about protecting our security, then our southern border would not have been left virtually wide open for the last six years. We invaded Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us, but the perpetrators were in Afghanistan. There is another agenda at work behind this war and our security is not its highest motive.

It’s easy to say now that Iraq posed no threat. That was not the view when the decision was made. The perpetrators, as you call them,are now in Iraq and they are being decimated and Ron Paul wants to leave. Bin Laden must regard him as a gift from Allah.

Another agenda? It is disappointing to see a West Point grad talk like a conspirazoid.

We cannot win the propaganda war with regard to followers of Islam. No matter what we do or say, this is a religious matter to the Muslim world. To them, politics and military force are merely tools of their religion. Good luck converting them.

We are winning the propaganda war –and how could we not when we are giving blood and treasure for the freedom of Muslims and al Qaeda is blowing up innocent Muslims who don’t embrace their extreme interpretation of their religion.
Consider this from Back Talk blog.

"People in America and many other Western nations have expressed strong disapproval of bin Laden and al-Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks. What’s new is the dramatic decline in his standing in majority-Muslim countries. Polls in the two nations that have suffered some of the worst of al-Qaeda’s violence—Afghanistan and Iraq—show that more than 90 percent of those populations have unfavorable views of al-Qaeda and of bin Laden himself.

Support for terrorist tactics has fallen in seven of the eight predominantly Muslim countries polled as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project since 2002; in most cases, those declines have been dramatic. Five years ago in Lebanon, 74 percent of the population thought suicide bombing could sometimes be justified. Today it’s 34 percent—still too high, but a stark reversal. Similar declines in support have occurred in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Jordan."

Just because our military supports the mission does not mean that they all agree with it. Supporting Ron Paul with their money is about the only way for them to legitimately protest and still keep their jobs. Ron Paul supporters have just raised $700K for him in less than five days. It would take more than a handful of Internet spammers to raise that kind of cash so quickly. He raised over $100K at one dinner recently. His public speaking engagements are regularly drawing 1000+ people wherever he goes. The other Republican candidates can only dream of the 50,000 Meet up members he has so far, with about 10,000 more added every month. He does have real support.
I predict that Ron Paul will at least be one of the last three Republican candidates standing. He is certainly the only candidate who understands and obeys the Constitution.

Paul is an unattractive candidate with an illogical message. He is not in the top five, let alone three. But the apparent money support from him makes me wonder if there isn’t some palindromic conspiracy at work, if you get my meaning.

Regards

Posted by Terry Gain | September 29, 2007 3:51 PM

Ray Robison has a really intriguing post at The American Thinker, which, if accurate, ends Ron Paul's silly campaign.

Posted by Bob Davidson | September 29, 2007 6:41 PM

Terry,

We will never agree as long as you have no problem with Congress and the President breaking the law when it suits your agenda.

Congress authorized the invasion so it is disingenuous to suggest the invasion is unlawful under American law.

Congress (other than Ron Paul and a few others) is full of cowards who, once again, have failed to obey the law and formally declare war as REQUIRED by Article I Section 8. There is no other legal alternative for Congress to authorize the use of our federal military in warfare. It is not disingenuous to require that the law be followed.

Constitutional principles need to be adapted to the times in which we live.

This explains your misguided position. You have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into believing that the Constitution is a "living document". Either interpret the Constitution through Original Intent or toss it as just a meaningless piece of paper full of relativities.

Did the founding fathers anticipate America being attacked by terrorists coming from terrorist supporting states?

Yes. That is one reason why they included the Letter of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution, as previously mentioned. This was the method used by President Jefferson when he had to deal with Muslim terrorists (the Barbary Pirates) coming from terrorist supported states (along northern Africa). Dealing with Islamic violence is as old as our Republic.

We are not forcing the Iraqis to become a democracy.

I hope not. Democracies are probably the most evil form of government known. The Founders eschewed democracies as "mob rule".

They have overwhelming demonstrated they want to live in a democracy. Some of their citizens and the pre-eminent international terrorist entity want to prevent the establishment of democracy and the rule of law.

Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq because they want to prevent a stable government. There are relatively stable governments all over the Middle East and have been for a very long time. They are there because we are there and they want to kill us.

By historical standards Iraqis are making fabulous progress and deserve our support.

Hyperbole aside, I would be most happy for our citizens to help the Iraqis in any volunteer manor they choose once our military is out of there.

There is a civil war going on in Iraq and it has been escalating since the fall of Sadam. Three people groups who hate each other were kept in line by his iron fist. Now our troops are not only fighting al-Qaeda, they are also trying to make order out of internal chaos. On this issue I agree with the solution put forth by Senator Brownback, although I had thought of it long before I heard him speak on this subject. The country needs to be divided into three parts for those people, with Baghdad as a federated city.

This battle cannot be avoided.

Actually, it can and could have been. You seem to believe that our military is the world's policemen. It is not.

You cannot defeat al Qaeda by allowing them to defeat you. (It’s hard to believe this needs to be said.)

It's hard to believe you keep saying this. In this war, there is no winning and there is no defeat. The Muslims have been at war with the West for a thousand years. You speak as if this is a new problem and that it will end if we just apply the proper use of military force.

Al Qaeda is taking a shit kicking in Iraq-from Americans and Iraqis. And their brutality has caused the Islamic world to turn against them.

They have taken severe losses but they will continue finding recruits and changing tactics. There are plenty of Iraqi (and Saudi, and Iranian, and Syrian, etc.) mothers who are not only honored to have a son blow himself to pieces for Allah, but they themselves will do the same to rid their holy lands of infidels.

You have avoided my point about al Qaeda returning to Afghanistan if they defeat the United States in Iraq.

I answered you perfectly. You need to research the Letter of Marque and Reprisal to see how it is used.

Although great progress is being made The United States and Iraq fighting together have not yet completely defeated al Qaeda so to suggest that Iraqis can do it alone is unrealistic.

Again, we are not the world's policemen.

You don’t seem concerned about the extra loss of life if the B Team is left with the job of finishing off al Qaeda nor the possibility that Iraqis may grow so weary of the bombing of innocents that they agree to accommodate al Qaeda.

You don't seem concerned about the 3,500+ dead Americans, 25,000+ wounded, many horribly burned and mutilated, and thousands more to die if we continue this unjustified war without end.

No WMDs. Mission accomplished. No Sadam. Mission accomplished. Let's move the goal post again. Now we need "democracy" in Iraq. Let's build a huge embassy there (like we are doing) and several permanent military bases (like we are doing) to keep the Muslims in a perpetual state of anger at the American defilement of their holy ground. Brilliant policy!

Your position that America has no obligation to rid Iraq of what it brought to Iraq shows a skewed moral compass and a refusal to recognize the propaganda value to America’s enemies of the course you propose.

My moral compass is just fine as my compassion is reserved first and foremost for our military in this situation, not the Iraqi people.

I see no value to the propaganda you speak of when the people themselves, men, women and children, danced in the streets when they saw the images of our Twin Towers smoldering and crashing. Where is the Iraqi outrage when our soldiers are shot, burned and beheaded? It is nowhere to be found.

The Iraqis have not had five years. It’s been 4.5 years since the invasion and only 17 months since the Iraqi government was formed.

Is this more sarcasm? I round it to five years and that is a problem for you?

Given that the consequence of failure will negatively impact the United States for decades your impatience is unreasonable.

Patience or impatience has nothing to do with it. We should not have gone in and we should not stay. It is your opinion - not fact - that a withdrawal will negatively impact us for decades. I would contend that the American soldiers who will remain alive because we leave would not consider it a failure to still be alive.

You defeat terrorists showing that you are superior to them and by killing enough of them that the rest give up. You cause terrorism to spread by ignoring it –as Clinton did- or worse, backing down, as Ron Paul proposes.

This sounds like it came out of a fortune cookie, not modern American military doctrine.

What people think is not irrelevant. One of the reasons bin Laden declared war on the United States is he considered it a paper tiger.

False. That is not why he attacked us. That was merely his conclusion about whether or not we would respond.

So far Bush has proven him wrong but Ron Paul wants to prove him right. If people get the impression that terrorists can defeat the United States- and they will if America withdraws prematurely from Iraq -there will be more terrorism and vice versa.

Bush attacked a country that posed no threat, has spent a trillion dollars bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy, is responsible for the needless loss of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and will no doubt go down as the worst President in American history. This war ranks among the greatest strategic blunders I ever studied at the Academy or beyond.

Ron Paul wants us to obey the law and deal with this issue using the Constitutional mechanism that has proven effective against terrorists throughout our history.

Iraqi refugees and the INC did invite us. We are in fact liberators and once the violence ends-and that day is coming sooner than you think - we will again be regarded as liberators. We are there with the consent of the democratically elected government. The troops are not burnt out. They will be morally deflated for decades if the mission is abandoned.

Liberators? Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because we invaded. Families have been annihilated, separated, displaced, handicapped and otherwise traumatized. These are real people who, although they despise us infidels, would still be alive had Bush and company not orchestrated this war.

You need a clue how the troops feel. Tens of thousands of American military personnel have been FORCED into extended and additional tours beyond their contracts. This war has gone on longer than WWII. Thousands are dead and tens of thousands have been wounded. Those are real morale-boosting facts. It is apparent that you have either no or insignificant military service in your background. And you certainly have a callous disregard for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and their loved ones.

You have avoided my question.

You have once again avoided my answer.

There were two choices. One choice was to allow a mass murdering, genocidal maniac, who had refused to abide by the terms of a ceasefire, and who had ordered the assassination of an American President, to remain in power to pursue nuclear weapons –once again I ask you to read McGrory and Bhattia’s Saddam’s Bomb.

We leave such people in power all over the world every day. Again, we are not the world's policemen.

The other choice was to remove him and help the people of that country establish a democracy which would not be a threat to us. The first choice would have been dangerous, the second difficult. I prefer difficult to dangerous.

You prefer breaking the law, wars of aggression and foreign entanglements.

Allegations that there is an infinite supply of new recruits are false. You aren't keeping up. New recruits have been halved in the past few months.

You are listening to propaganda. As I already indicated, there are a billion Muslims who believe as the Koran teaches that infidels must convert or die. That is why we, the West, have been at war with them for a thousand years. This is a clash of civilizations based upon religion. As long as we defile their land, they will find recruits to fight the occupiers.

Once again there are two choices. Abandon the global economy, kick out all Muslims and withdraw to Fortress America; or, with the support of other countries, encourage the establishment of democracies. The first choice is no longer feasible.

This is a straw man argument. Ron Paul rejects any idea of isolationism. Non-intervention is not the same as isolation. If that is what you think of his determination to obey the Constitution by withdrawing our troops, then you have not studied his position. It is precisely the global economy that he wants us to engage in through unfettered free trade, not trade managed by the federal bureaucracy. Real free trade encourages economic ties that increase freedom and raise living standards around the world.

It’s easy to say now that Iraq posed no threat. That was not the view when the decision was made. The perpetrators, as you call them,are now in Iraq and they are being decimated and Ron Paul wants to leave. Bin Laden must regard him as a gift from Allah.

The Bush administration knew full well that al-Qaeda was not in Iraq at the time. He used 9/11 to conflate them.

Within a month of 9/11, Ron Paul introduced legislation that would have put an enormous bounty on bin Laden and his associates. Here is a paragraph from a news report at associatedcontent.com that came out a few months ago,

"In a statement released yesterday on Ron Paul's campaign website, his campaign chairman, Ken Snyder, reminds us that Ron Paul has been at the forefront of the efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. On October 10, 2001, Congressman Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. If passed, the legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not still be at large six years later."

$40B was authorized as a bounty pool for the capture, dead or alive, of bin Laden or any of his associates. What a bargain to the American people! Not only would there have been countless covert ops teams assembled from around the world to win a piece of that pie, but I’d even bet that Abdul the camel driver would have rounded up a few buddies, as well. Or, perhaps one of bin Laden’s associates would have suddenly taken a liking to greenbacks.

Another agenda? It is disappointing to see a West Point grad talk like a conspirazoid.

So you call names instead of facing the fact that Bush has left us wide open to terror attacks through our borders. Our entire southern border could have been secured by the military within 90 days. Instead, here we are six years later and federal prosecutors are now telling us that middle-eastern men with ties to al-Qaeda are adopting Mexican names, faking IDs and crossing with the tide of Mexican illegals. You are a fool if you think that Bush runs this war out of concern for our national security. It does not take a genius to figure out that borders need to be secure in a time of war. Maybe the border just slipped his mind for six years. Oops!

We are winning the propaganda war –and how could we not when we are giving blood and treasure for the freedom of Muslims and al Qaeda is blowing up innocent Muslims who don’t embrace their extreme interpretation of their religion.

Consider this from Back Talk blog.

"People in America and many other Western nations have expressed strong disapproval of bin Laden and al-Qaeda since the Sept. 11 attacks. What’s new is the dramatic decline in his standing in majority-Muslim countries. Polls in the two nations that have suffered some of the worst of al-Qaeda’s violence—Afghanistan and Iraq—show that more than 90 percent of those populations have unfavorable views of al-Qaeda and of bin Laden himself.

Support for terrorist tactics has fallen in seven of the eight predominantly Muslim countries polled as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project since 2002; in most cases, those declines have been dramatic. Five years ago in Lebanon, 74 percent of the population thought suicide bombing could sometimes be justified. Today it’s 34 percent—still too high, but a stark reversal. Similar declines in support have occurred in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Jordan."

You forgot to mention that only 25% of American Muslims think suicide bombing is justifiable. What a relief! I sure feel a lot safer now knowing that only a few hundred million Muslims around the world still think it's a good idea to blow us up.

Paul is an unattractive candidate with an illogical message. He is not in the top five, let alone three. But the apparent money support from him makes me wonder if there isn’t some palindromic conspiracy at work, if you get my meaning.

Paul is unattractive to you as a candidate because he believes the Constitution should be obeyed and you believe otherwise. His message is illogical to you because you apparently cannot comprehend why anyone would actually want to base our foreign policy on a dusty old document like the Constitution.

BTW, that handful of Internet RonBot conspirators has now raised nearly $1M for him in less than six days.

Cheers

Posted by Terry Gain | September 29, 2007 10:37 PM

Bob

Here's my reply. Once again I have bolded your comments

Congress (other than Ron Paul and a few others) is full of cowards who, once again, have failed to obey the law and formally declare war as REQUIRED by Article I Section 8. There is no other legal alternative for Congress to authorize the use of our federal military in warfare. It is not disingenuous to require that the law be followed.

So why didn't Ron Paul launch a legal challenge to the use of force authorization?

Constitutional principles need to be adapted to the times in which we live.

This explains your misguided position. You have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into believing that the Constitution is a "living document". Either interpret the Constitution through Original Intent or toss it as just a meaningless piece of paper full of relativities.

If the Constitution is not a living tree then you don't have a democracy (which you don't seem to favor, in any event). Are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers required that they be permitted to rule from the grave? The Founding Fathers didn't allow dead Monarchs to rule them.


Yes. That is one reason why they included the Letter of Marque and Reprisal in the Constitution, as previously mentioned. This was the method used by President Jefferson when he had to deal with Muslim terrorists (the Barbary Pirates) coming from terrorist supported states (along northern Africa). Dealing with Islamic violence is as old as our Republic.

What you are suggesting is goofy. What makes you think this warrant would be respected in countries where terrorists are given santuary. Al Qaeda didn't rob a bank. They declared war.

Democracies are probably the most evil form of government known. The Founders eschewed democracies as "mob rule".

Wow. I had no idea I was debating with an elitist. I have 2 degrees but I come from the working class. I have no use for "my betters"

Al-Qaeda is not in Iraq because they want to prevent a stable government. There are relatively stable governments all over the Middle East and have been for a very long time. They are there because we are there and they want to kill us.

They want to prevent the establishment of democracy and the rule of law- non sharia law. And they are the ones being killed in great numbers. They are being decimated - attrited at a fearsome rate in the words of Petraeus. And not just by Americans- by Iraqis too.

Hyperbole aside, I would be most happy for our citizens to help the Iraqis in any volunteer manor (sic) they choose once our military is out of there.

There is a civil war going on in Iraq and it has been escalating since the fall of Sadam.(sic) Three people groups who hate each other were kept in line by his iron fist. Now our troops are not only fighting al-Qaeda, they are also trying to make order out of internal chaos. On this issue I agree with the solution put forth by Senator Brownback, although I had thought of it long before I heard him speak on this subject. The country needs to be divided into three parts for those people, with Baghdad as a federated city.

You are wrong on all counts. Casualties in September will be the lowest in over a year. The spike in sectarian violence (hardly a civil war) caused by the bombing of the Golden Mosque has dissipated because of the Surge. Every survey of Iraqis has shown they do not want their country broken into three. What you are proposing will cause a civil war, not eliminate it.

The Muslims have been at war with the West for a thousand years. You speak as if this is a new problem and that it will end if we just apply the proper use of military force.

This particular Muslim threat is in fact relatively new. And the military effort is working. There is considerably less support for al Qaeda now than 4 years ago. I repeat this because it seems not to have sunk in.

Al Qaeda is taking a shit kicking in Iraq-from Americans and Iraqis. And their brutality has caused the Islamic world to turn against them.

They have taken severe losses but they will continue finding recruits and changing tactics. There are plenty of Iraqi (and Saudi, and Iranian, and Syrian, etc.) mothers who are not only honored to have a son blow himself to pieces for Allah, but they themselves will do the same to rid their holy lands of infidels.

They are having trouble finding recruits for what is increasingly clear is a lost cause.

You don't seem concerned about the 3,500+ dead Americans, 25,000+ wounded, many horribly burned and mutilated, and thousands more to die if we continue this unjustified war without end.

I'm very concerned about every American family that has made sacrifices. These soldiers have volunteered and they are proud of their service and so they should be. I don't see anybody proposing that those who are making such extreme sacrifices should receive financial compensation consistent with their sacrifice. I would like to see such an initiative from any politician including Ron Paul. I think it unlikely for a libertarian to propose such an initiative.

No WMDs. Mission accomplished. No Sadam. Mission accomplished. Let's move the goal post again. Now we need "democracy" in Iraq. Let's build a huge embassy there (like we are doing) and several permanent military bases (like we are doing) to keep the Muslims in a perpetual state of anger at the American defilement of their holy ground. Brilliant policy!

No development of nuclear weapons. No re-starting of WMD programs the moment sanctions ended. No more training terrorists at Salman Pak. No more funding terrorists. No more harboring terrorists. No more collaboration with al Qaeda. No more WTC bomber Yasin on Saddam's payroll. No more 350,000 people in mass graves. No more 50,000 infants per year dying because of sanctions. No more defiance of Ceasefire Resolutions. No more unprovoked attacks on Israel. No more arracks on Radio Free Europe. No more assassination attempts on former American Presidents.

My moral compass is just fine as my compassion is reserved first and foremost for our military in this situation, not the Iraqi people.

I see no value to the propaganda you speak of when the people themselves, men, women and children, danced in the streets when they saw the images of our Twin Towers smoldering and crashing. Where is the Iraqi outrage when our soldiers are shot, burned and beheaded? It is nowhere to be found.

Lack of outrage. Do you mean in Iraq or America?

The Iraqis have not had five years. It’s been 4.5 years since the invasion and only 17 months since the Iraqi government was formed.

Is this more sarcasm? I round it to five years and that is a problem for you?

17 months is 43 short of 60 months

It is your opinion - not fact - that a withdrawal will negatively impact us for decades. I would contend that the American soldiers who will remain alive because we leave would not consider it a failure to still be alive.

My heart bleeds for every American soldier who gives his life for his country but -and I am sure you are not aware of this- fewer American soldiers have been killed each year of this war than died each year in peacetime during Clinton's presidency.

How can something which hasn't happened be a fact? The negative consequences of which I speak are a virtual certainty and you are in denial, or don't care.

Bush attacked a country that posed no threat, has spent a trillion dollars bringing us to the brink of bankruptcy, is responsible for the needless loss of thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and will no doubt go down as the worst President in American history. This war ranks among the greatest strategic blunders I ever studied at the Academy or beyond.

In 5 short years Bush has helped establish 2 democracies in the middle east. More significantly he has caused al Qaeda to become engaged in a war that is decimating them, not only in terms of leadership and numbers but damage to their image among Muslims. Al Qaeda's standing among Muslims is now in the toilet. A war that was predicted to last 100 years is going to be over in a far shorter period.

Ron Paul wants us to obey the law and deal with this issue using the Constitutional mechanism that has proven effective against terrorists throughout our history.

This strategy couldn't prevent 9/11.

Liberators? Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because we invaded. Families have been annihilated, separated, displaced, handicapped and otherwise traumatized. These are real people who, although they despise us infidels, would still be alive had Bush and company not orchestrated this war.

Wrong again. About 70,000 Iraqis ahve been killed in this liberation- most by terrorists or fellow Iraqis. Saddam eliminated Iraqis at a rate of at least 25,000 per year so the liberation has saved lives even as it is being carried out.

You need a clue how the troops feel. Tens of thousands of American military personnel have been FORCED into extended and additional tours beyond their contracts. This war has gone on longer than WWII. Thousands are dead and tens of thousands have been wounded. Those are real morale-boosting facts. It is apparent that you have either no or insignificant military service in your background. And you certainly have a callous disregard for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and their loved ones.

You have now gone from poorly thought out opinions to insult and fabrications.

I care for American soldiers every bit as much as you claim you do. There is little evidence to support what you say. If morale was as you claim it would be out there in the MSM 24/7. It's not. I've seen lots of soldiers complain about the way this war is being portrayed but very few who do not support the mission.

There were two choices. One choice was to allow a mass murdering, genocidal maniac, who had refused to abide by the terms of a ceasefire, and who had ordered the assassination of an American President, to remain in power to pursue nuclear weapons –once again I ask you to read McGrory and Bhattia’s Saddam’s Bomb.

We leave such people in power all over the world every day. Again, we are not the world's policemen.

Nobody said we should be the world's policeman but we are not foolish enough to let these new enemies develop nuclear weapons.

You prefer breaking the law, wars of aggression and foreign entanglements.

I prefer peace and security. Sometimes it's necessary to go to war to get them. I was at first opposed to this war until I did a lot of reading and concluded it was riskier not to go to war- that we were just putting off the inevitable. Saddam had the choice of abiding by the ceasefire or renewing hostilities. He chose to renew hotilities.


You are listening to propaganda. As I already indicated, there are a billion Muslims who believe as the Koran teaches that infidels must convert or die. That is why we, the West, have been at war with them for a thousand years. This is a clash of civilizations based upon religion. As long as we defile their land, they will find recruits to fight the occupiers.

You don't know your history. Islam has been spread by the sword and will continue to be spread if there is no resistance. The liberation of Iraq will in fact moderate Islam as Muslim countries are opened up. If we withdraw and they close up radcial Islam will flourish. You have it exactly backwards.

Within a month of 9/11, Ron Paul introduced legislation that would have put an enormous bounty on bin Laden and his associates.

This is bizzaro nonsense. bin laden has been hiding in caves in Pakistan in rugged terrain which is inaccessible to foreigners no matter how well trained. Anyone trying to get at bin Laden would be cut down.

And Pakistan won't give permission. For reasons that need not be stated it would be very unwise to alienate Pakistan on missions that would be suicidal in any event.

Posted by Bob Davidson | September 30, 2007 1:04 AM

Terry,

I am not going to answer all of your points because for some of them we are going to have to agree to disagree.

So why didn't Ron Paul launch a legal challenge to the use of force authorization?

You'll have to ask him. However, I suspect that if he launched a legal challenge every time he objected to some unconstitutional legislation, he would never have time for anything else.

If the Constitution is not a living tree then you don't have a democracy (which you don't seem to favor, in any event). Are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers required that they be permitted to rule from the grave? The Founding Fathers didn't allow dead Monarchs to rule them.

This country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Interpreting by Original Intent does not mean that the Founders are ruling from the grave. They created the Amendment process for updating the Constitution. However, even the Amendments must be interpreted by the intent of the authors. If we do not, then the Law is resolved in favor of the loudest or most persuasive argument instead of a consistent standard by which all can be guaranteed (as much as humanly possible) equal justice under the Law.

What you are suggesting is goofy. What makes you think this warrant would be respected in countries where terrorists are given santuary. Al Qaeda didn't rob a bank. They declared war.

The Founders didn't think Letters of Marque and Reprisal were goofy. Their experience with them in Europe proved such Letters were of sufficient import to include in our Constitution.

Again, al-Qaeda is not a nation. If a criminal organization like MS-13 "declares war", we do not call the Pentagon. We use police forces to deal with criminals.

As for respect for these warrants in other countries, I seriously doubt that a covert operation hoping for a $10B payday is going to notify anyone of their plans.

Wow. I had no idea I was debating with an elitist. I have 2 degrees but I come from the working class. I have no use for "my betters"

I have no idea what you are talking about but, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, then you should get a refund on the cost of your degrees.

Incidentally, I'll continue overlooking your many misspelled words if you stop using "(sic)" when you discover my few.

I would like to see such an initiative from any politician including Ron Paul. I think it unlikely for a libertarian to propose such an initiative.

Ron Paul is the best friend Veterans have in Congress. He often authors legislation to improve their treatment, benefits and conditions. He does this because he strongly believes that it is a Constitutional obligation of the federal government to take care of its military.

No development of nuclear weapons. No re-starting of WMD programs the moment sanctions ended. No more training terrorists at Salman Pak. No more funding terrorists. No more harboring terrorists. No more collaboration with al Qaeda. No more WTC bomber Yasin on Saddam's payroll. No more 350,000 people in mass graves. No more 50,000 infants per year dying because of sanctions. No more defiance of Ceasefire Resolutions. No more unprovoked attacks on Israel. No more arracks on Radio Free Europe. No more assassination attempts on former American Presidents.

Evil nations who can actually hurt us have had nuclear weapons for decades. As for training and funding terrorists, there was far less of that before we invaded. The rest of your list is equally irrelevant to any decision regarding the deployment of our military.

You are simply ridiculous with this 4.5 vs 5 year argument. It was obvious that I was referring to the invasion.

In 5 short years...

Ah yes, the "cakewalk" we were promised, with no end in sight.

This strategy couldn't prevent 9/11.

No more than invading Iraq could have. No one was talking about preventive measures.

There is little evidence to support what you say.

False. Pentagon stop-loss measures have impacted at least 40,000 Active and Reserve personnel. U.S. involvement in WWII lasted 3.5 years vs. 4.5 in Iraq. DoD confirmed U.S. military killed and wounded are 3800+ and 27700+, respectively.

Nobody said we should be the world's policeman but we are not foolish enough to let these new enemies develop nuclear weapons.

Then we better invade Russia, China and North Korea, too, just in case some day they no longer want to play nice and would rather glow in the dark for a few hundred years.

I prefer peace and security. Sometimes it's necessary to go to war to get them. I was at first opposed to this war until I did a lot of reading and concluded it was riskier not to go to war- that we were just putting off the inevitable. Saddam had the choice of abiding by the ceasefire or renewing hostilities. He chose to renew hotilities.

As I said, preemptive war is the strategy of empires, not republics. Rejecting a U.N. ceasefire is not the same as a declaration of war.

You don't know your history. Islam has been spread by the sword and will continue to be spread if there is no resistance. The liberation of Iraq will in fact moderate Islam as Muslim countries are opened up. If we withdraw and they close up radcial Islam will flourish. You have it exactly backwards.

My military and ancient history courses were quite interesting. Resistance is not the same as preemption. We (the West) have been resisting Muslim expansion since the Crusades. This is nothing new. Radical Islam has flourished since Islam was founded because Islam is radical. From the Quran:

(9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(9:28) O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.;

(4:101) And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.;

(9:123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).;

(4:56) Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.;

(9:23) O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.;

(9:37) Postponement (of a sacred month) is only an excess of disbelief whereby those who disbelieve are misled; they allow it one year and forbid it (another) year, that they may make up the number of the months which Allah hath hallowed, so that they allow that which Allah hath forbidden. The evil of their deeds is made fairseeming unto them. Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk;

(5:57) O Ye who believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers.;

(33:61) Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.;

(21:98) Lo! ye (idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come.;

(32:22) And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turneth from them. Lo! We shall requite the guilty.;

(48:20) Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men's hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path.;

(8:69) Now enjoy what ye have won [in war], as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(66:9) O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.;

(41:27) But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.;

(41:28) That is the reward of Allah's enemies: the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment forasmuch as they denied Our revelations.;

(9:111) Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.;

(9:68) Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.;

(8:65) O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.;

(5:51) O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.;

(9:29) Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.;

(5:14) And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.;

(4:89) They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them;

(9:14) Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.

This is bizzaro nonsense. bin laden has been hiding in caves in Pakistan in rugged terrain which is inaccessible to foreigners no matter how well trained. Anyone trying to get at bin Laden would be cut down.

Proof positive you have no idea how special forces operate or their capability. The reason bin Laden escaped, BTW, is because CENTCOM failed to heed the advice of the Marine general on the ground at Tora Bora. The Bush administration admitted that this was the worst mistake of the war.

And Pakistan won't give permission. For reasons that need not be stated it would be very unwise to alienate Pakistan on missions that would be suicidal in any event.

Their permission would be irrelevant. You must not realize that special forces move in and out of foreign countries all the time without their permission. Now you know.

Good night!

Posted by Terry Gain | September 30, 2007 1:44 PM

Bob

I too do not intend to respond to all of your points but I do wish to deal with three issues.

1. What is the best way to cope with Islam.

2. What would be the likely effect of conducting a covert operation in Pakistan.

3.The effect of the Surge on Ron Paul's campaign.

Islam

Your references to the Koran weren't necessary. I am well aware of the dangers to humanity posed by this religion - which is one of the reasons I take such a keen interest in the liberation, democratization and modernization of Iraq.

One of the reasons I have continued to support the mission to liberate and pacify Iraq is that I noticed whenever the insurgents attacked and killed 20 people trying to sign up with the new Iraqi army and police forces the next day there would be a line up of 150 people. This told me that Iraqis were ready to die for their country- an essential ingredient if the mission is to be successful.

Today, the IA stands at 170,000 soldiers. It's been an arduous process but they are now "in the fight " and more and more "in the lead". They are fighting for their nascent democracy. They are now taking more casualties than the American forces who have tutored them and fight alongside them. And they are winning. The insugency is being put down. General Petraeus is right. Politician Ron Paul is wrong.

And yes, they are not just fighting a homegrown insurgency, they are fighting America's second most dangerous enemy, the first being Iran.

And what does Ron Paul want to do? He wants to abandon these allies to al Qaeda even though these allies are having to fight al Qaeda because they came to Iraq to fight us. Ron Paul's position that you can simply walk away from a situation you created is grossly immoral. It is the kind of immorality I expect from the left -and from libertarians alike. You think only of yourselves.

Staying and fighting al Qaeda isn't just the right thing to do it's the best way of dealing with Islam. You want to withdraw and leave the Islamists to impose their will on the Muslim moderates who have rejected them.

Despite your knowledge of the dangers of Islam
you want to disengage when engagement offers the only hope of moderating Islam. You want to end the small war we are fighting in Iraq and risk a much bigger war which likely could only be avoided by dhimminitude.

Today in Iraq, al Qaeda is being decimated. Almost the entire Iraqi nation has turned against them. Sunnis and Shiites alike have sworn on the Koran to rid Iraq of this menace.

Whereas after 9/11 al Qaeda was popular, today - as a result of their insane and unsuccessful tactics of killing innocent people in an attempt to start a civil war and drive America out of Iraq - their reputation and standing among Muslims, not just in Iraq but throughout the middle east is now in the toilet. Al Qaeda chose to take on the United States in Iraq and they are taking a #### kicking in every way.

The best way to deal with the threat of Islam is to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. Withdrawing -and you are deluded if you think premature withdrawal won't be intrepreted as defeat - will embolden Islamists everywhere. I don't know why you think it won't be considered as weakness when you have gone to such great lengths to point out (a la Murtha) that America doesn't have the resources to engage in this battle with Islamic extremists.

Covert Operations in Pakistan

First of all they'll fail. Secondly, of course I'm aware that special forces can go into Pakistan without the blessing of that country. For someone who purports to be in favor of strictly abiding by the law it is interesting that you have no qualms about offending the sovereignty of another country, and an ally at that. What you fail to recognize is that like it or not we need Pakistan and your proposal would undermine our relationship with them. (Pakistan is an Islamic country with nuclear weapons whose leaders are hanging on against radical elements.)

I'm now going to suggest something counter-intuitive. If we had killed bin laden at Tora Bora he would have died an Islamic hero. Now, when he dies in some cave in Pakistan (if we haven't flushed him out- see The American Thinker) he will die as the pathetic loser who tried to expand an extreme version of Islam by killing innocent Muslims.

The Surge

The Surge is working. The campaigns of all, including Paul, who didn't have the moral courage to see this mission through to a successful conclusion are doomed.

Posted by Bob Davidson | September 30, 2007 6:11 PM

Terry,

My response...

And what does Ron Paul want to do? He wants to abandon these allies to al Qaeda even though these allies are having to fight al Qaeda because they came to Iraq to fight us. Ron Paul's position that you can simply walk away from a situation you created is grossly immoral. It is the kind of immorality I expect from the left -and from libertarians alike. You think only of yourselves.

What is grossly immoral in this case is that thousands of American military are dead and wounded, and the numbers will continue growing. Since you have no problem sending other people’s sons and daughters to be murdered, burned, and mutilated, perhaps you should volunteer yourself or a young member of your family to take up arms and face that situation yourself. I repeat – my first concern is for our military, not the Iraqis. That does not mean that I have no concern for them.

Staying and fighting al Qaeda isn't just the right thing to do it's the best way of dealing with Islam. You want to withdraw and leave the Islamists to impose their will on the Muslim moderates who have rejected them.

The Iraqi people have lived with al-Qaeda in their country for several years. If they still cannot handle the fight using our training and weapons when they outnumber the enemy by roughly 1,000 to 1, there is a serious problem with their motivation that we cannot fix.

Despite your knowledge of the dangers of Islam you want to disengage when engagement offers the only hope of moderating Islam. You want to end the small war we are fighting in Iraq and risk a much bigger war which likely could only be avoided by dhimminitude.

You are entitled to your opinion, but this runs counter to a thousand years of Western history with regard to dealing with Islamists. They will never be moderated unless they can be converted from Islam. How exactly do you imagine Muslims overrunning the U.S.? Even if we had no federal or state militaries, there are 200 million firearms in the hands of 80 million gun owners who might object and do something about it. This is not spineless Europe…Dhimminitude is not in our future.

Today in Iraq, al Qaeda is being decimated. Almost the entire Iraqi nation has turned against them. Sunnis and Shiites alike have sworn on the Koran to rid Iraq of this menace.

Whereas after 9/11 al Qaeda was popular, today - as a result of their insane and unsuccessful tactics of killing innocent people in an attempt to start a civil war and drive America out of Iraq - their reputation and standing among Muslims, not just in Iraq but throughout the middle east is now in the toilet. Al Qaeda chose to take on the United States in Iraq and they are taking a #### kicking in every way.

Super! Mission accomplished. With the Iraqi people hating al-Qaeda and outnumbering them by three orders of magnitude, they should have absolutely no problem mopping up after we leave.

The best way to deal with the threat of Islam is to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. Withdrawing -and you are deluded if you think premature withdrawal won't be intrepreted as defeat - will embolden Islamists everywhere. I don't know why you think it won't be considered as weakness when you have gone to such great lengths to point out (a la Murtha) that America doesn't have the resources to engage in this battle with Islamic extremists.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a withdrawal will be interpreted by millions of Muslims as a defeat for America. But, as I indicated previously, their opinion is irrelevant. Let them show tears when our people are murdered instead of dancing and cheering. Caring about their opinion in order to “save face” or “defend our honor” will only result in many more dead and wounded American military personnel and no change in their opinion of us, which stems from their irreconcilable religious beliefs.

Exactly where did I write that America does not have the resources to fight this battle? We can certainly continue fighting even beyond bankruptcy and on until the American Empire is in total financial ruin.

Covert Operations in Pakistan

First of all they'll fail.

Really? Where exactly did you get your military training that you are an expert on this?

Secondly, of course I'm aware that special forces can go into Pakistan without the blessing of that country. For someone who purports to be in favor of strictly abiding by the law it is interesting that you have no qualms about offending the sovereignty of another country, and an ally at that. What you fail to recognize is that like it or not we need Pakistan and your proposal would undermine our relationship with them. (Pakistan is an Islamic country with nuclear weapons whose leaders are hanging on against radical elements.)

I don’t need a lecture on what is Pakistan or its military and political value to us. If you are referring to Letters of Marque and Reprisal, I REALLY WISH you would do some research before commenting on it again. Our military forces do not use such methods. These are Letters authorizing PRIVATE individuals or forces to use whatever means to seize or destroy property, capture or kill a target, etc. Such PRIVATE bounty hunters do not have the same concern about international boundaries as they are acting on their own with oversight by Congress. There are plenty of well-funded and equipped paramilitary organizations in the U.S. and other countries that would no doubt do whatever it takes to bring home a multi-billion dollar bounty.

The Surge is working. The campaigns of all, including Paul, who didn't have the moral courage to see this mission through to a successful conclusion are doomed.

The “Surge” is purely political. In the Iraqi theater, 20,000 additional troops is a gnat on an elephant’s back. Put 20,000 or even 50,000 people in and around a city of 4.5 million such as Baghdad and you will get the picture. It is not a strategy for success; it is a political delaying tactic. The Surge focuses on security in Baghdad and a few troubled provinces. Violence is increasing elsewhere. At the same time, the al-Maliki government is admitting that reconciliation between the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis is not happening and fragmentation of Iraq is growing. I saw results of a recent poll of Iraqi citizens and more than a third of them want the country broken into three or more separate countries. Imagine how bad the situation would have to be if a third of Americans wanted the U.S. split like that. Well, we did have our own Civil War and 600,000+ dead Americans as a result.

Cheers!

Post a comment