A Question If I May

[jawrightbiz]

So, I am reading a lot of posts. Most think that the Ron Paul position of leaving Iraq is a weak link in our platform. So that would mean they think we should stay in Iraq.

What I am wondering is, for the people that think we should stay in Iraq, whether because the terrorists will follow us here, or Sunnis and Shia in Iraq will kill each other, what does the end look like?

Please answer because I am truly curious....

Can we leave once all of the terrorists are killed? Do we leave once a democratic government is firmly in place? Do we leave once the Baathists are firmly back in their positions of power to quell the violence? Please answer with your thoughts...

 

[Ayse]

The fighting will never end there...we will be there forever no matter what happens...unless Ron Paul becomes president.

 

[Thunderbolt]

A terrorist is simply a soldier deploying a type of military methodology. You might as well ask, do we leave once all the grenade throwing soldiers are killed? Neither makes any sense at all.

Ron Paul explained it very well. The plan of our enemies is to get us to go broke over here by fighting them over there. It is working quite well. So far a handful of men managed to bring this country to the brink of extinction with a few box cutters. Now that is what I call impressive.

No one ever proved there were more al qaeda at the time. It is very possible that was a tiny rogue group that came over here and they all died that day. Then we spent the next xxxx years chasing ghosts that do not exist, (which is why there have been no more terrorist plots), and spending ourselves into oblivion. (See BBC documentary about al qaeda for more information).

The U.S. Government jumped into the brier patch after the tar baby. I guess they never read children's books either. Now, all we do each day is to create more "terrorists" who are willing to do anything to end us. After all, the U.S. Government is blowing their families to bits and all they have to fight back with is sticks and stones and some very rudimentary weapons. The U.S. military on the other hand sends bombs that cost us millions of dollars and they drop them like fliers all over the country. 1.99 for them, 5 million for us. Who do you think is going to broke first?

They have achieved exactly what they wanted to achieve. By fighting them the U.S. Government has fallen into their trap and we the people will lose everything we own to support that insane military endeavor.

 

[dblee]

They have been fighting for 5000 years before we were there and they'll be fighting for 5000 years afterwards. Reagan had it right when he said the complexities of politics in the middle east are beyond our understanding.

 

[jawrightbiz]

Right I understand all of that, however, I want to know what the other side of the argument leads to. People think that Ron Paul is wrong and that we should not pull out of Iraq. I want to know what the alternative 'solution' is then, outside of simply keeping bases there and patrolling the streets.

 

[jeff43]

Who thinks leaving Iraq is a weak link? It's one of Paul's strongest links. We've spent way too much time and money there already. Others are advocating that we stay there for decades. Some day we're just not going to be able to afford to police the world and occupy all of these countries and that day may be soon upon us. Republicans used to believe this.

 

[krott5333]

In order to win what the media refers to as the "conservative base" we need to stress the "conservative" issues and defend Ron Paul's strength on national defense.

Please see the link in my signature for details.

 

[gray]

Right I understand all of that, however, I want to know what the other side of the argument leads to. People think that Ron Paul is wrong and that we should not pull out of Iraq. I want to know what the alternative 'solution' is then, outside of simply keeping bases there and patrolling the streets.

the other side wants to 'win' in iraq. what does that mean? it means that we can leave there with some pride. what does that mean? it means that the government over there can become stable enough to control their people. which i think is funny because conservatives believe in small government.

anyways, once the oil is worked out to where the govt over there controls it and regulates is it's a done deal.

 

[gaazn]

RP emphasizes that the focus is not really about leaving Iraq. It's about whether we want to take this nation on a path where our foreign policy allows for invading and occupying a country without a declaration of war, attacking preemptively without being threatened, and setting up an empire around the world.

 

[gaazn]

huckabee has the dumbest reason for having to stay in iraq. because it's the honorable thing to do. As a preacher, he should know the dangers of pride.

 

[Wingman]

the US should just leave instantly now and exit the entire region. the US being there is preventing the people of the region from settling their own differences.

those who advocate staying do so on the basis that the US presence somehow allows the US to dictate how the power struggle between the peoples resolves itself. thi sis patently absurb, as has bee shown by the much longer history of attempted colonialism of the UK.

 

[Archie]

In order to win what the media refers to as the "conservative base" we need to stress the "conservative" issues and defend Ron Paul's strength on national defense.

Please see the link in my signature for details.

Exactly Ron Paul is 100% right on the iraq issue but he needs to stay away from giving the perception from the Base that he is pointing a finger at them saying "I told you so" these is not good in that they will just think hes saying it to piss them off like the dems when infact Rons just saying it to educate them and make them see the loving logic in his words unlike when the dems say it who are so phony and arrogant.. But sometimes it comes of that way to some repubs and thats why Paul has to market himself carefully to them with the issues they mostly agree with him on which is 90% of them LOL!!!!!! he just cant be looked at as that "One Trick Pony" guy who is only known for one issue, and thats the problem he is getting seen like that by the base which is leading to his low numbers in votes..


Great posts guys

 

[MrZach]

So, I am reading a lot of posts. Most think that the Ron Paul position of leaving Iraq is a weak link in our platform. So that would mean they think we should stay in Iraq.

What I am wondering is, for the people that think we should stay in Iraq, whether because the terrorists will follow us here, or Sunnis and Shia in Iraq will kill each other, what does the end look like?

Please answer because I am truly curious....

Can we leave once all of the terrorists are killed? Do we leave once a democratic government is firmly in place? Do we leave once the Baathists are firmly back in their positions of power to quell the violence? Please answer with your thoughts...

People are stupid and believe whatever they're told by the administration and the news media. Apparently everyone is on the the impression that if we just up and leave Iraq that they're descend into chaos and Iraq will take over or they'll all hate us and send terrorists over to bomb or whatever crazy idea people think up...

It SEEMS plausible... but that is only scratching the surface of the issue. The truth is that our presence there spurs the violence - the Iraqi security forces are READY to take over, the "surge" isn't why the violence went down - it only went down in areas we pulled troops out of (further proof it is our presence that is the problem), Iran isn't going to "take over" any parts of Iraq - most Iraqis WANT us to leave - and we're going to have to deal with the threat of terrorism on US soil no matter WHAT we do in Iraq. We're just better protected if we're spending that money and using that manpower here actually DEFENDING US soil rather than defending some other country from a phantom enemy.

Why do I say this? I've been researching the crap out of it. Go to KnowBeforeYouVote.com - I just added more info on it there. Anyone who tells you that leaving Iraq immediately would be a disaster - tell them there is TONS of evidence to the contrary and that they need to read my website.

Like I said, people are stupid and don't bother digging around for the truth. They want someone to tell them what is true, they can't be bothered with investigating for themselves! Psh...

 

[pacelli]

So, I am reading a lot of posts. Most think that the Ron Paul position of leaving Iraq is a weak link in our platform. So that would mean they think we should stay in Iraq.

What I am wondering is, for the people that think we should stay in Iraq, whether because the terrorists will follow us here, or Sunnis and Shia in Iraq will kill each other, what does the end look like?

Please answer because I am truly curious....

Can we leave once all of the terrorists are killed? Do we leave once a democratic government is firmly in place? Do we leave once the Baathists are firmly back in their positions of power to quell the violence? Please answer with your thoughts...

Basically Iraq has become a training ground for terrorist Al Qaeda wanna-be's. You have Chechen sniper teams in the region now, as well as random small sects of people banding together to drain america by taking out our war machine. Iranian covert ops are going on in Iraq now. The "surge" is a reaction to the enemy's surge. It is really a disgusting situation and our troops are doing no good being over there & in harm's way. Bring them home and the terrorists will have no incentive to keep killing our men & women in the service.

If Ron Paul doesn't get elected, we're never going to leave. Remember, Ron Paul says that we are building an embassy in Baghdad that is as large as the Vatican. I'm willing to bet that the plans for that building don't allow for a temporary structure.

 

[Broadlighter]

What I am wondering is, for the people that think we should stay in Iraq, whether because the terrorists will follow us here, or Sunnis and Shia in Iraq will kill each other, what does the end look like?

The truth is we really don't know if the terrorists will follow us here if we leave Iraq. It hasn't happened and so far they are not here. We do know that terrorists attacked us here because we had troops stationed in their revered holy lands over there and they told us as much. If we leave Iraq now or when the next administration begins, we take away their prime motivation for targeting our troops and civilians. Will they continue attacking us in spite of that? We really don't know, but with our troops stationed here and our energies focussed on defending such attacks, we'll be in a much better position to deter them and that may cause them to think twice about following us back here. The reason they were successful on 9/11 was because of government failure. If we strengthen our defenses here and the terrorists know it, chances are they won't attack us.

Will the Shia and Sunni kill each other? That's been going on for hundreds of years. Iraq is the front line of the strife between these two streams of Islam. Hostilities run deep and will continue on until they decide they want to end it. Further intervention only aggravates it because intervention causes more entanglements. One side or the other gets favored by the intervening party (That's us, now!) and the other side resents it. The best chance for them to stop killing each other is for them to sit down and work out their differences. Iran may also play a growing role in determining the outcome, which doesn't bode well for the Sunni minority. This is something the neo-cons and their Democratic counterparts will not like.

I see a shift that favors the Shia majority in the region with Iran and possibly Syria becoming stronger influences in the region and that may rile Saudi Arabia and Israel.

I don't expect the region to stabilize whether we stay there or not. The U.S. may be able to recover itself economically by getting out of there, but I don't see the world as a whole becoming a safer place for a long time.

Is it our role to continue playing policeman in the region? I think not. The best chance for peace depends on the countries that are there. American and European interests will only aggravate the situation further, thereby prolonging the strife.