Pulling out of Iraq detrimental??

Well I wouldn't say that about Iraqi's in general terms. I've met a couple dudes from Iraq and they were seriously the nicest, humblest dudes I've spoken with.

But, I just gotta think, that if a people is being oppressed, you gotta rise up.

We did it in the 1700's against the British.

I'm rambling. We just can't fight everyone's wars
 
hairball said:
And this kind of emotional, baiting, conspiracy crap is what will keep Ron from being taken seriously by National voters. Facts, not this paranoid, delusional fixation with the Jews.
Click to expand...

I posted facts. I linked to a MAJOR ISRAELI NEWSPAPER and to a policy paper written for the Israeli government. How much more solid facts do you want.

One more time for those in denial:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

--------------------
In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another
------------------------------------------------------

So does Haaretz, the Israeli daily, believe in "conspiracy crap" about Jews as well? Obviously not. Obviously Jewish nationalists were the ones who pushed for the war on Iraq.
 
Last edited:
In 1996, the strategy paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was written for Benyamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel. The paper was put together by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser. It advocated re-establishing 'the principle of preemption' and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, which the paper described as "an important Israeli strategic objective".

Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser subsequently joined the Bush administration and pushed for this same policy to be adopted by the United States.

This is the reality, not a conspiracy theory. Are you claiming this paper was never written hairball?
 
All this hate, all this bigoted writing, *sighs* these whacko's do no represent Dr. Paul. They are all shameful.
 
First:

Saddam Hussein did not kill millions of his own people. Over a 20 year period he was responsible for around 250,000 Iraqi deaths. We, on the other hand, are responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children by international trade sanctions introduced after the first Gulf War plus 600,000 new deaths since our invasion in 2003. We brought nothing to Iraq but death and chaos. Life under Saddam Hussein's regime was a walk in the park compared to what "liberated" Iraqis endure today.

Second:

If your friend wants to imagine what will happen to Iraq if we pull out all she has to do is look to history. We pulled out of Vietnam under similar circumstances. Vietnam did not deteriorate into chaos nor become our bitter enemy. When left to their own devices the people of Vietnam created the government they wanted and we now have far greater diplomatic relations with that country in peace than we ever could have achieved in war.
 
The Baath party with Saddam took over during a civil war and with some heavy handed techniques pretty much stopped the infighting overnight. He brought literacy and basic human services to almost the entire country. He probably saved millions of lives that would have gone to useless "sectarian violence."

The evil Saddam that was portrayed in the news only came out after the first Gulf War when the US promoted open revolution against him, and like any person in power he cracked down to keep his position. And the people he was killing were mostly the Kurds, who have repeatedly tried to declare themselves a sovereign nation, Saddam was basically doing the same thing as Lincoln did in the War of Northern Aggression.

While none of this excuses his actions, it does paint them in a different light.


Also, I call b.s. on any ties to Al-Queda. Saddam was a huge secularist and hated pretty much everything that Bin-Laden stands for.
 
1) The main reasons given for going to war in the first place were proven to be false. Saddam was not stockpiling WMDs and Saddam was not harboring/aiding al-Qaeda. Both the 9/11 Commission report and the subsequent Senate intelligence report confirm this. Also, the current administration went into this War knowing full-well what would happen after Saddam was removed from power. Cheney talks about Iraq after Saddam in the video below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-08-iraq-report_x.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

2) Bush claimed, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." This is a gross oversimplification for why we were and are going to continue to be attacked by radical Islamists. The real reasons are are found in:

a) bin Laden’s own words. Bin Laden himself refutes time and time again what Bush is saying about them simply hating our freedoms and prosperity. He gives specific reasons for why were and are going to continue to be attacked - US military forces in their Holy Land (especially Saudi Arabia), US support of Middle Eastern police-states (especially Jordan/Saudia Arabia), unconditional US support of Israel, and the ongoing assault on civilians in Iraq.

Bin Laden also specifically says that Americans should read "Imperial Hubris" by US author Michael Scheuer, if they truly want to understand the reasons for why the US is so hated and will continue to be attacked by radical Islamists. Mr. Scheuer was the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit and was charged with capturing or killing bin Laden. Mr. Scheuer understands the motivations of bin Laden and his followers and bin Laden himself agrees.

b) The 9/11 Commission Report. The report determined that the animosity towards the US felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." It also states that this is the same reason Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of one of the WTC planes, did it, too.

c) The FBI's testimony to Congress about motivations for 9/11. The FBI testified that al-Qaeda had specific goals - "One of the primary goals of Sunni extremists is the removal of U.S. military forces from the Persian gulf area, most notably Saudi Arabia."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qZNfuIvtLos
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/watson020602.htm
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/06/man-who-conceived-and-directed-sept.html
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/04/motives-for-september-11-2001-attacks.html

3) Most Iraqis do not want us there any longer. Most also believe that the US being there is causing most of the sectarian violence. Multiple polls and studies confirm this, including ones commissioned by our own State Dept and Army. Continuing the occupation against the will of the Iraqi people is not democratic and only causes more US resentment in Iraq and the Islamic world. Staying when we are not wanted also violates the fundamental democratic principle of self-determination. The Iraqi people realize that they have to figure it out for themselves now. Why are we not honoring the will of the Iraqi people?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262_pf.html

4) Thousands of innocent people are being killed as a result of the occupation. A conservative estimate is that ~85,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed from 2003 to the present. The 85,000 number is based on media reports - a method known to underestimate deaths because many go unreported. In 2006, Iraq's health minister himself estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed since 2003. A 2007 study also supports 150,000 civilian dead as well. Even worse, when a statistical model was employed in 2006, it was determined that the civilian death toll could actually be as high as 600,000. To put this in perspective - Human Rights Watch estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years. The continued killing of these Iraqi civilians only motivates the Islamists to become more radical. Put yourself in an Iraqi's position. How would you feel if your innocent relatives were being killed? How long before you would begin to despise the US and its occupation of your country?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000164.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

5) We truly cannot afford to continue the occupation. In 2003, before the war was started, the White House budget director estimated that it would only cost around $50 billion and largely be funded through the sale of Iraqi oil. Not exactly! We have already funded over $611 billion for the War and occupation to date. If the US gradually reduced its troop level in Iraq to 30,000 by 2010, the occupation will end up costing well over $1 trillion when interest on the borrowed money and veteran healthcare is accounted for according the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This is a best-case scenario and is based on real costs to date. Worst-case is over $2.4 trillion. We already have a current national debt of over $9.1 trillion. Continuing to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia to fund the occupation puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at great risk.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/analysis_says_war_could_cost_1_trillion/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-10-23-wacosts_N.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/28/business/main2135398.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22081728/from/ET/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
 
I also think that the war has served some good... even though it wasn't a popular decision.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. This is the sort of temporary trash you get from “normal” conservatives, i.e. neo-cons (whether they know it or not).

I can only imagine the millions of Iraqis who feared for their lives every day (Saddam Hussein was responsible for the genocide of millions of Iraqi citizens) and even though it's not better yet, I think that it will be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and in a thousand other places. Iraq was more secular than Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., this isn’t an argument for invading Iraq. It’s an appeal to sentimentality. I.E:

I am constantly reminded of the book "Night" by Elie Wiesel... a Holocaust survivor who talked about how the whole world knew that mass genocide of Jews was going on yet did nothing to stop the Nazis. For YEARS the U.S. didn't step in to defend the defenseless and I think that's wrong.
Click to expand...

Also, there have been DIRECT links to Al Qaida (terrorists) in Iraq. You don't hear about it much on the news because, as we've discussed, the media is extremely biased towards the left...
Click to expand...

That’s ridiculous and misdirected. The media is biased toward those who do not immediately insure their continued profit of this or that event.

Anyway, I'm SICK to death of politicians (i.e. Bill Clinton and his wife) who turn the other cheek to TERRORISTS, people who are not going to listen to the voice of reason and will do WHATEVER IT TAKES (including sacrificing themselves) to further their own cause.
Click to expand...

As Ron Paul says: read bin Laden’s letter/response on “why we hate you”: it’s fairly detailed, contains some obvious Islamic garbage, but on the whole is level-headed compared to the media image we’ve been handed.

My brother has been trying to convert me to the church of paul for a few months now. I have been hanging out on these forums reading and watching. After reading all of the conspiracy nonesense and the rabid anti-semetism as demonstrated above, my flirtation with the good Dr. is now over. You people are lunatics.
Click to expand...

Rat?

Fuck Iraq. I wouldn't trade one drop of American blood for all the Iraqis on planet earth.
Click to expand...

That’s also a ridiculous opinion.

Millions of Americans vote for people like Romney, McCain, BUSH, and Clinton. I don’t value them above anyone else. BUT—this does not mean that a foreign policy should be geared toward ‘policing the world’; actually, it’s the exact opposite.

In other words, your response to the original poster is overemotional, just as hers is; one (the latter) is a response to media-Bush propaganda, one (yours) a response to her response (to some degree).

I’d hope for a level-headed approach to this.

Else it 1) sounds bad; 2) is bad.
 
luaPnoR said:
Ok, I've been talking to my good friend about Ron Paul. She's a conservative republican like me. Here's the letter I got from her today and I often wonder myself what would "really" happen if we pulled out of Iraq right away. Can you all read this and tell me what you think and maybe give me an idea of how to respond to her? Thanks!

"I think my biggest difference with Ron Paul is on foreign policy. I'm not disagreeing with you that the war began under false pretenses or that we are spending trillions of dollars over there (it makes me sick just thinking about it.) But I DO think that it would be detrimental to our security and to the citizens of Iraq to pull out our troops suddenly. I haven't read in detail RP's plan for this... but I know he's generally in favor of immediate troop withdrawal. I also think that the war has served some good... even though it wasn't a popular decision. I can only imagine the millions of Iraqis who feared for their lives every day (Saddam Hussein was responsible for the genocide of millions of Iraqi citizens) and even though it's not better yet, I think that it will be. I am constantly reminded of the book "Night" by Elie Wiesel... a Holocaust survivor who talked about how the whole world knew that mass genocide of Jews was going on yet did nothing to stop the Nazis. For YEARS the U.S. didn't step in to defend the defenseless and I think that's wrong.

Anyway, I kind of feel that way about Iraq... all those innocent people killed at the hands of Saddam and his regime and nobody had the balls to step in and do something about it. Also, there have been DIRECT links to Al Qaida (terrorists) in Iraq. You don't hear about it much on the news because, as we've discussed, the media is extremely biased towards the left... so they don't report on things that negatively affect the left's stance on issues and make Bush look like he maybe knew a little about what he was doing. Anyway, I'm SICK to death of politicians (i.e. Bill Clinton and his wife) who turn the other cheek to TERRORISTS, people who are not going to listen to the voice of reason and will do WHATEVER IT TAKES (including sacrificing themselves) to further their own cause.

With that being said, I fully acknowledge that I haven't read up on each candidate's plan for foreign policy and can't say that I completely agree or disagree with RP on this issue until I do so."
Click to expand...

The issue of foreign policy boils down to this: Is it going to help the United States? If it doesn't, we shouldn't do it. If it does, we're obligated to. While you might sympathize with the plight of oppressed people overseas, it isn't our duty to save the world from itself. There are problems here at home that often go overlooked because we're so concerned with people in other parts of the world.

There were no proven connections between terrorists and Saddam Hussein. Most of the radical terrorist groups were very anti-Saddam.

I'm not sure that the war in Iraq has done *anything* good for *anybody.*
 
If you want an easy talking point, mention that British troops totally and immediately withdrew from Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, where they accounted for most of the forces, and violence subsequently dropped by 90%.
 
RonPaulalways said:
In 1996, the strategy paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" was written for Benyamin Netanyahu, the then-Prime Minister of Israel. The paper was put together by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser. It advocated re-establishing 'the principle of preemption' and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, which the paper described as "an important Israeli strategic objective".

Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser subsequently joined the Bush administration and pushed for this same policy to be adopted by the United States.

This is the reality, not a conspiracy theory. Are you claiming this paper was never written hairball?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, it is what you reface all this 'evidence that I take exception to. It is familiar jew-baiting. And yes, they have a policy, who doesn't? But it is the approach that the Jews are behind it all that creates troubles like the Holocaust, which some are even denying, which is reprehensible, morally and historically. I read through that site. Ho hum, not much to see here. Lots of the stuff you see in the New York times, but to think that there are 'strings' being pulled is giving them more credit than they deserve.

Maybe it is in OUR interest to have the Isrealites keeping tabs on the arabs, Being as many times, some of the harder elements in the PLO and islamist radicals have proven they are not the kind that recognize reason or mercy as anything but a weakness. That the U.S and Isreal may have merging interest seems unreal to some?

When reading of the whole of the history in the region, without looking to 'jewsh' conspiracies, you can see many hands having put this pot together.

Someone is always looking for a scapegoat.
 
hairball said:
Did I say that? No, it is what you reface all this 'evidence that I take exception to. It is familiar jew-baiting. And yes, they have a policy, who doesn't? But it is the approach that the Jews are behind it all that creates troubles like the Holocaust, which some are even denying, which is reprehensible, morally and historically. I read through that site. Ho hum, not much to see here. Lots of the stuff you see in the New York times, but to think that there are 'strings' being pulled is giving them more credit than they deserve.

Maybe it is in OUR interest to have the Isrealites keeping tabs on the arabs, Being as many times, some of the harder elements in the PLO and islamist radicals have proven they are not the kind that recognize reason or mercy as anything but a weakness. That the U.S and Isreal may have merging interest seems unreal to some?

When reading of the whole of the history in the region, without looking to 'jewsh' conspiracies, you can see many hands having put this pot together.

Someone is always looking for a scapegoat.
Click to expand...


you can't reason with tinfoil hat types
 
Yes this is terribly unreasonable:

Saddam did bad things but we are doing worse. We are committing "omnicide" which means the total destruction of all life and future life. Not only in that region but beyond. I think our true intentions have been to wipe out all living things in that area so that the only thing left is their oil.

Our military is using Depleted Uranium which is basically nuclear waste as ammunition. See my posts about it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=75661

If fact President Bush was convicted of war crimes: See:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004...nal10mar04.htm

Also here is what Pinky has to say about the legality of the Iraq war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbXK8
Click to expand...

I challenge anyone to read every bit of this who backs what your government has done not only to the MIddle East but to your own troops. I nearly vomited last night when i watched your president on CNN saying how much he deified the military. Must be because he sees them as sacrifiicial lambs rather than men and women who will come back into American life (the ones that live) with physical injuries, brutalized, with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and with compromised DNA so they can give their loving partners babies with horrendous birth defects. All in the name of the corporate money machine.

As for Israel. Anyone who cries out that America is Israel's bitch, is branded anti-semetic! Not because of the illegal occupation and all the degradations, death, human misery, that go with it, of Palestine. Oh Noooo!The bastards take water from Palestinian drinking wells so they can water their golf courses.
I'm not anti-semitic because I am shoulder to shoulder with any Jew (and there are many of them even in Israel) who recognize the evil of their government.

Your superficial analysis of good guys/bad guys disgusts me. And anyone who agrees with him.
Bugger off- this is a forum of people who are not brain-washed and who know how to think critically. The ones that don't, will learn how to, through virtue of being here instead of watching the bilge on your woefully inadequate television!
That is why RP is going to win, no matter what happens in the nomination. A giant is awakening!!
 
Just in case anyone cares about a follow-up... I wrote back to her last night:

"Hi again! Now don't get mad but I too sometimes question what "really" would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, soooo I started a thread on Ronpaulforums.com. I copied and pasted your letter into the thread and asked people to respond because I too want to know what would/could happen. So go read what people have to say. The best points I think are, if we're so worried about millions of Iraqis who feared for their lives every day then why aren't we in the Congo in Africa where people are being senselessly murdered everyday. Good point eh? It is a good point... is the answer because Africa is a poor country and it has no oil? Hmmmm. I never thought of this before. It kinda makes me want to invade Africa and kill all the bad guys there too! :)

Oh, and just so you know I 100% do not agree with comment #16. It's people like THAT that give the Paulites a bad name. You are not stupid for one minute. That guy made me mad. And in the first comment the guys says a bunch of stuff about conspiracy theories. I don't buy that stuff and most RP supporters don't either so you can ignore that! Someone linked to a Youtube video that was pretty interesting I thought."

Then she wrote me:

Hi! I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. I, as a Christian, feel that it's my duty to believe the best about the people that God has put in authority... the government. That doesn't mean I have to AGREE with them, but it does mean that unless I know otherwise, I should put the best construction on things and believe that they have the best interest of our country at heart. I truly can't imagine someone like Bush (not sure if he's the one accused of being behind 9/11 or not, but I have heard his name mentioned before in connection with a 9/11 conspiracy) orchestrating or knowingly allowing something like that to happen. I don't always agree with everything Bush does, but he is a Christian man and I really do believe he has the best interest of this country at heart. Plus, if he really was somehow
"behind" the attacks, don't you think the media would have dug up some dirt that connects him to the attacks by now?? They are sooooooo eager to point the finger and even fabricate documents (Dan Rather on 48 Hours did this in regards to Bush's military service record) to make conservatives look bad. There's not much you can hide these days.

Interesting comment about the Congo though. I guess I can't disagree... there is probably some truth to the fact that Iraq is not just an interest to us because of the social injustice but also because of the oil and because of terrorist connections. Whereas, the Congo plays no big role in our security or economy. As much as I believe in democracy, we're definitely NOT perfect!"
 
luaPnoR said:
Just in case anyone cares about a follow-up... I wrote back to her last night:

"Hi again! Now don't get mad but I too sometimes question what "really" would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, soooo I started a thread on Ronpaulforums.com. I copied and pasted your letter into the thread and asked people to respond because I too want to know what would/could happen. So go read what people have to say. The best points I think are, if we're so worried about millions of Iraqis who feared for their lives every day then why aren't we in the Congo in Africa where people are being senselessly murdered everyday. Good point eh? It is a good point... is the answer because Africa is a poor country and it has no oil? Hmmmm. I never thought of this before. It kinda makes me want to invade Africa and kill all the bad guys there too! :)

Oh, and just so you know I 100% do not agree with comment #16. It's people like THAT that give the Paulites a bad name. You are not stupid for one minute. That guy made me mad. And in the first comment the guys says a bunch of stuff about conspiracy theories. I don't buy that stuff and most RP supporters don't either so you can ignore that! Someone linked to a Youtube video that was pretty interesting I thought."

Then she wrote me:

Hi! I don't buy into conspiracy theories either. I, as a Christian, feel that it's my duty to believe the best about the people that God has put in authority... the government. That doesn't mean I have to AGREE with them, but it does mean that unless I know otherwise, I should put the best construction on things and believe that they have the best interest of our country at heart. I truly can't imagine someone like Bush (not sure if he's the one accused of being behind 9/11 or not, but I have heard his name mentioned before in connection with a 9/11 conspiracy) orchestrating or knowingly allowing something like that to happen. I don't always agree with everything Bush does, but he is a Christian man and I really do believe he has the best interest of this country at heart. Plus, if he really was somehow
"behind" the attacks, don't you think the media would have dug up some dirt that connects him to the attacks by now?? They are sooooooo eager to point the finger and even fabricate documents (Dan Rather on 48 Hours did this in regards to Bush's military service record) to make conservatives look bad. There's not much you can hide these days.

Interesting comment about the Congo though. I guess I can't disagree... there is probably some truth to the fact that Iraq is not just an interest to us because of the social injustice but also because of the oil and because of terrorist connections. Whereas, the Congo plays no big role in our security or economy. As much as I believe in democracy, we're definitely NOT perfect!"
Click to expand...


Lmao, you are a complete utter freaking idiot if you compare Nazis to Terrorists...there is no comparison you are just comparing them to Nazis because of your lack of knowledge on history so its the best reference you can make to justify "rescuing" people from somewhere.


Plus Saddam Hussein was a puppet government of ours meaning we installed him there. Rumsfeld even freaking met with him many times. You are a complete imbecile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wizardwatson
Trump's Hate Speech Will Get You Deported EO
10 11 12
Replies
234
Views
4K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
I
Release of JFK Files
2
Replies
22
Views
300
unknown
unknown
Working Poor
Deathly Ill
Replies
9
Views
3K
Liberty_Tree
Liberty_Tree
Matt Collins
Rand Urges Reversal Of TikTok Ban
Replies
0
Views
721
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
dannno
COVID FRAUD: Legal Challenges Claiming ~90% of COVID Deaths FAKED by Hospitals
Replies
0
Views
637
dannno
dannno
Back
Top