Nation-Building Is Not Conservative
by Rep. Ron Paul

A recent study by the Pentagon's Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf


concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.

Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the U.S. warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.

These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the U.S. government's own assessment of our "progress" in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.

This demonstrates once again the folly of nation-building, which is something candidate Bush wisely rejected before the 2000 election. The worsening situation in Iraq also reminds us that going to war without a congressional declaration, as the Constitution requires, leads us into protracted quagmires over and over again.

The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people who have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the U.S. military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.

Even opponents of the war now argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist. This blanket acceptance of foreign meddling and foreign aid may be the current Republican policy, but it is not a conservative policy by any means.

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation's founding. It's easy to repeat the tired cliché that "times have changed since the Constitution was written" – in fact, that's an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution – limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs – has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.

You are so against us in iraq OD....is it my understanding that you wish the united states to be isolationist and just not care about what is going on over there?

No, I'm against making terrorism worse for us and putting our country at a higher risk. Sorry you disagree with the Pentagon though.

i thought the article was about whether or not nation building is "conservative".....and not about whether or not we should be in iraq?

A recent study by the Pentagon's Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists. It goes on to conclude that our active intervention in the Middle East as a whole has greatly diminished our reputation in the region, and strengthened support for radical groups. This is similar to what the CIA predicted in an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, before the invasion took place.

--------
This is an official report, that is from the Pentagon...showing we are fighting this war wrong. We are making terrorism worse. We are doing the opposite, and actually making us more un-safe.

......and?

i would EXPECT them to get more grass-roots level support....

too bad their whole network has been taken down.....they arent NEAR the threat they were.....worth it? i think so

and watch what you highlight....it may mislead people.

in the quote "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended".....it is speaking of american efforts for "hearts and minds in iraq"...whatever that means.....and DOES NOT describe the entire iraq war situation. I hope that was just a mistake on your part and not an attempt.

Originally posted by Decka
......and?

i would EXPECT them to get more grass-roots level support....
Wrong. You shouldn’t expect it. You should expect that terrorism would be decreasing rapidly. Sadly, any excuse is good enough for the Bush Administration.

Originally posted by Decka
too bad their whole network has been taken down.....they arent NEAR the threat they were.....worth it? i think so
Prove it. Give me a link, and examples to prove that their WHOLE network has been taken down. As of now, the Pentagon is saying we haven’t taken them out and that the are increasing their support because we are running this war incorrectly

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong. You shouldn’t expect it. You should expect that terrorism would be decreasing rapidly. Sadly, any excuse is good enough for the Bush Administration.


Am i wrong OD? Who are you to tell me what i should expect? LOL. I think YOU are wrong...there, we are even. So did i just "refute" you? why should i expect terrorism to decrease rapidly when these terrorists are so into what they believe? Thats why i would expect them to conjure up some spirit, with their backs against the wall...and lash out a bit. Sorry, but your word isn't always the way it is. The only people who have said this would be a quick thing is you guys. And i dont need to make excuses for the Bush admin...im just telling you how i think.

Prove it. Give me a link, and examples to prove that their WHOLE network has been taken down. As of now, the Pentagon is saying we haven’t taken them out and that the are increasing their support because we are running this war incorrectly [/B][/QUOTE]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alleged_Al-Qaida_members#Alive_and_captured.2Fin_custody

says that 37 alleged members are free...100 alleged members are captured...and 49 alleged members are dead....id say having 149 out of a possible 186 members is pretty crippling.


A Pakistani official estimated his country has arrested and handed over at least 600 suspected al Qaeda operatives to U.S. officials in the last three years.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/pakistan.arrest/

these are just a few examples of the overwhelming hit the whole terrorist network has taken from us and everyone.

and if you think we are running this war incorrectly......what would you do different? I know id already be in iran and syria, i wouldnt worry too much about a free iraq....but hey its a noble cause. Do you think the military doesnt operate correctly? Do you think we need new military operatives?

Originally posted by Decka
why should i expect terrorism to decrease rapidly when these terrorists are so into what they believe?
Weren't these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan put in place to decrease terrorism and make our country safer? Well, if that was the intent of these wars, it’s not coming true. The Pentagon claims that the way we are conducting this war, we are making our country at a much higher risk. Doing the opposite of what the Bush Administration said these wars would do.

Originally posted by Decka
says that 37 alleged members are free...100 alleged members are captured...and 49 alleged members are dead....id say having 149 out of a possible 186 members is pretty crippling.
Except we haven’t even caught Osama Bin Laden. As for these members, how is it crippling? Explain? They have been hitting us harder then ever before. This month in Iraq, we have suffered the most US deaths then ever before. We are at a 21 year high in terrorism. They seem to be pretty lively to me. Not to mention recruitment is up, according to the Pentagon. Those “leaders” can always be replaced…it’s the masses we have to destroy.

Originally posted by Decka
A Pakistani official estimated his country has arrested and handed over at least 600 suspected al Qaeda operatives to U.S. officials in the last three years.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/08/pakistan.arrest/
600? Out of the thousands of terrorists all around the world? Yes, that’s astonishing!

Originally posted by Decka
and if you think we are running this war incorrectly......what would you do different?
Yes, the Pentagon says the war in Iraq will ultimately make us less safe. That we are doing the opposite of what we should be doing. Wouldn’t that single we are doing it incorrectly? As for doing something different? Why don’t we attack Afghanistan, kill every terrorist we can in that country, and ask other Governments to do all they can to help find the terrorists in their country. That would make us safer. Although, not only are we “killing” the terrorists, we are making more. For every one child we kill in Iraq, that entire family will have disgust for us. They are recruiting far more then we can kill. Terrorism is across the world, and what we are doing in Iraq is recruiting members everywhere.

Our actions are leading us to have more enemies. Bottom line.

Originally posted by Overdose
....they are increasing their support because we are running this war incorrectly

:confused: :@@: :confused:

Saying that we're **running this war wrong** is a bit like watching a man hitting himself in the face with a clawhammer and observing --"Hey, you aren't swinging that hammer in the proper way!".

Originally posted by Decka
You are so against us in iraq OD....is it my understanding that you wish the united states to be isolationist and just not care about what is going on over there?
Nooooooooooooo........we couldn't have THAT!!!!! (http://www.odac-info.org/) :rolleyes:

After all, it'd cut-short our desire to sell EVERYONE democracy!! (http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia198.htm)

Originally posted by Overdose
Nation-Building Is Not Conservative
by Rep. Ron Paul

A recent study by the Pentagon's Defense Science Task Force on Strategic Communications
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

concluded that in the struggle for hearts and minds in Iraq, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended." This Pentagon report flatly states that our war in Iraq actually has elevated support for radical Islamists.

When reading the line you referenced on pages 39 and 40 of the report you mention, it makes no mention of Iraq. It' clearly refers to the war on terror as a whole, not just Iraq. Also the report is not a look at the Iraq war, it's a look at the entirety of US communication to nations around the world and how effective the US has been at persuading the nations of the world.
Also, I'd like to quote page 2 of the report:
" This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a federal Advisory Commite established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions and reccomendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense".
So the report is not a Pentagon report as you claim and was finalized in August 2004, long before the major accomplishments made at Najaf and Fallujah.

Then, earlier this month we learned that the CIA station chief in Baghdad sent a cable back to the U.S. warning that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, and not expected to improve any time soon. Other CIA experts also warn that the security situation in Iraq is likely to get even worse in the future. These reports are utterly ignored by the administration.

Keep in mind, first, the Admin has been saying all along things will get worse closer to the Jan elections. Nothing was ignored by the Admin, you just ignored what they've been saying all along, also that 15 of Iraqs 18 provinces have been peaceful since the end of major hostilities.

Also the view you claim is counter to the films made by Iraqi's at www.VoiceOfIraq.com and counter to what I saw personally in my 18 months there.

The correct link.

http://www.voicesofiraq.com

Good post Tony, thanks for sharing.

Excellent Tony. Could you post somewhere on some part of AllForums what you did/saw there?

soon the defenders of free speech will be calling for a ban of this film. sort of like how these same defenders of free speech called for aban of the book that shed light on the lies of john kerry.

Why would we want to ban this movie?

I remember a few war mongers that wanted to ban farenheit 9/11.

Originally posted by Travh20
soon the defenders of free speech will be calling for a ban of this film. sort of like how these same defenders of free speech called for aban of the book that shed light on the lies of john kerry.
Uh, who wants to ban this movie? I don't.

then obviously you are not who i was talking about borg

Were you talking about me? Or Echo? Because we don't want it banned. And we are liberals...so please, tell us who you were talking about.

B]Excellent Tony. Could you post somewhere on some part of AllForums what you did/saw there?[/B]

What I saw most of the people was optimism. Of course not everyone likes us there, hell not every American, even in this forum, likes us there. But the vast majority are enjoying being able to talk freely on the street, buy satellite dishes( Which is the hottest item) and sell on the street. Some of the street vendors have become a channel for terrorist activities by mixing terroist "how-to" CD's with the music and movies.
The so-called "insurgency" is primarily former Fadayeen that are organising foreign terrorists. The people are upset because these foreigners march into their homes and use them as bases. They even force familiy members to drive non-stop into US checkpoints, knowing they'll draw fire and be killed so as to test our defenses and expose our positions.
The most prominent memory in my mind, besides Al-Tuwaitha, was the April Fallujah assault. This little 5 foot fat woman comes up to me and pats me on the cheek like a son and says a bunch of stuff I couldn't figure out. An Iraqi soldier with us laughs and says.."She says she lives on the lower floor at the end of the block. (I forgot the street name, but it was southern Fallujah, east of the prominent mosque). She says you can sleep in the bed but dont eat all the bread." They were tired of these foreigners taking their homes, but they freely offered them up for us to use.
These people are tired of terrorists. And they're not good fighters. I recall one group of 8 men that put up a decent fight, then disagreement arose among them right in the midst of battle and it became a "my-balls-are-bigger-than-yrs" arguement in the street. We casually stood up behind our position and soundly machine-gunned all of them. There is alot of contention among them because they're from all over the mid-east.
The key aspect is that Iraq calls the shots. During the April assault, the world came unglued at our attacks. Once authority was turned over to Allawi, and he called the shots, the Arab world has become silent. We destroyed more mosques than can be counted in the most recent Fallujah assault, and not a whimper form the world Arab community. They know who's calling the shots now. Brilliant move on the part of the administration.
Once the Iraqi army becomes more confident, the bigger issues will be turned over to them. Thats why the terrorists are attacking THEM more than us. Thats just a taste of the scene.

Wow, THANK YOU for sharing this!!! I wish you would have made your own thread. I have read reports similar to yours, but the media always paints a much bleaker picture, so it is confusing for America to get a true sense of what is going on over there.

Again, excellent post!!!!

Overdose, Echo, Vilepagan, Freethinker and co are probably gouging their eyes out right now. Hahahahaha!!

Originally posted by Karankawa
Wow, THANK YOU for sharing this!!! I wish you would have made your own thread. I have read reports similar to yours, but the media always paints a much bleaker picture, so it is confusing for America to get a true sense of what is going on over there.

Again, excellent post!!!!

Overdose, Echo, Vilepagan, Freethinker and co are probably gouging their eyes out right now. Hahahahaha!!

Well, first, I'm not one to gloat in any manner, I think it's unprofessional. The problem with folks of the mind of OD and company is they wont do the research. First of all, they haven't been there and seen with their own eyes, They watch TV news and run with it as gospel truth, or in the recent case of OD, they take a 144 page report about something totally irrelevant, take one sentence out of it and try to pass it off as being "Official Administration" information about something it's not
Deception combine with the lack of world knowledge, and military tactics as demonstrated by a 15-year old, will never stand a true test of the facts.
As far as the press, one must always keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the major media is to do anything possible to make Bush look bad. Whatever it takes, fake documents, bogus missing explosives, overplaying a single terrorist attack in Iraq. They'll do what ever it takes. And some in this forum are SO brainwashed by the video and news of TV that they will go so far as to discount the recollections of the troops coming home. I mean, here we have the SAME EXACT people saying, "This is an unjust war, We should be getting out"...then they turn around and say..."Why we need more troops to finish the job, We need more armor for Humvee's" ( My personal opinion, driving fast is the best defense for IED's and I dont want an extra 200lbs of armor slowing my vehicle down.) Then they'll complain about all the gas were using because of heavily armored humvee's. There's no consistency with these people, they allow themselves to be tossed at the whim of the television.
They key to developing an informed opinion is to develop reputable sources, then consider how the info from each source agrees and thats most closely the correct events. Obviously, the TV news has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted.
There are 3 good civilian sites I can think of:
www.GlobalSecurity.org
www.StratFor.com
www.Debka.com
These sites have been consistently reliable. Also, I would encourage everyone to read all 966 pages of Charles Duelfer's report to the DCI. It's 3 volumes in PDF form. Download it overnight. I've read it cover to cover and he nails the situation on the spot. All the media told you about those 966 pages was "No WMD". He clearly shows how Iraq, after realizing it's position, began exporting and hiding it's WMD to get sanctions lifted but kept the infrastructure in place. As sanctions eroded because of the Oil for Food Program, Iraq began rebuilding and was even so bold as to openly bid for illegal missle parts on the open market.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Develop your sources, follow them and how they agree. You'll keep yrself well abreast of things better than watching TV.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Deception combine with the lack of world knowledge, and military tactics as demonstrated by a 15-year old, will never stand a true test of the facts.

Facts, eh.

If things are going as well in Iraq as you say, if the Iraqis are as amenable to the military there as you portray the situation to be, why is the Media operating over there completely handcuffed and controlled and not allowed to go out unchaperoned [as they were in virtually every war prior to this one] to develop stories for the people back in the US ?

Is the mainstream Media in the US working covertly to hamper and confound the war effort??....is the American Media operating over there intent on bringing about the downfall of the present political leadership in Washington, thru the reporting of false stories??

Originally posted by Freethinker
Facts, eh.

If things are going as well in Iraq as you say, if the Iraqis are as amenable to the military there as you portray the situation to be, why is the Media operating over there completely handcuffed and controlled and not allowed to go out unchaperoned [as they were in virtually every war prior to this one] to develop stories for the people back in the US ?

Is the mainstream Media in the US working covertly to hamper and confound the war effort??....is the American Media operating over there intent on bringing about the downfall of the present political leadership in Washington, thru the reporting of false stories??

Working covertly? That's an unconfirmed potential. The reporters do one thing, the transmitted messages sent to the US always arrive on the screen as something else after the Editor has his way. We sat our reporters down and told them straightout, "You're going to tell the truth. Yr going to show how things actually happen and why or else you're not coming, and we're going to monitor your reporting". Some in our unit even expressed desire to leave them exposed on the battlfield if they pulled what we called a "CNN" at any time. They're allowed around town unchapperoned...if they think they can survive. Around base, they get an escort so as not to broadcast the details of our base. It's clear by the recent gloating of the press over the recent attack on the chow hall, that the media still enjoys the deaths of US troops in Iraq.

Originally posted by Tony31841
As far as the press, one must always keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the major media is to do anything possible to make Bush look bad. Whatever it takes, fake documents, bogus missing explosives, overplaying a single terrorist attack in Iraq. They'll do what ever it takes.
Bullshit. I keep repeating this, and it seems that no one listens: The media's sole, one and only goal is to MAKE MONEY. If fake documents earn viewers for a station, sure, go ahead. If this or that is sensational enough to earn viewers, then let's do it. That's the "media bias", that is the ultimate goal of the mass media. There is no "liberal bias", there is no conspiracy to undermine the Bush administration. There is only the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.

Ahhh, so the bigger the lie, the better the sale. So wouldn't that make the National Inquirer the most profitable? Err, I said National Inquirer, but I never go grocery shopping, so I can't remmeber the name of that newpaper with the stories about the aliens attacking Pakistan, etc.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Ahhh, so the bigger the lie, the better the sale. So wouldn't that make the National Inquirer the most profitable? Err, I said National Inquirer, but I never go grocery shopping, so I can't remmeber the name of that newpaper with the stories about the aliens attacking Pakistan, etc.
Oh come on, sensational but believable. You know what I mean. Feasible.

Originally posted by Overdose
No, I'm against making terrorism worse for us and putting our country at a higher risk. Sorry you disagree with the Pentagon though.

That is the most completely stupid attitude to take. Basically, we get attacked, and we should bend over and take it because we don't want to be attacked any further.

Liberalism - the stuff cowards are made of.

Gatsby. What's the job of the government? Promote our safety? It's not there to get thousands of young Americans killed for no reason. We should be taking a defensive stance in order to protect the lives our our citizens. We should do nothing to put ourselves at risk unless we have to.

Originally posted by Blibblob
thousands of young Americans killed for no reason.

isnt that what 9-11 was? don't we want to stop further 9-11's???

Originally posted by Karankawa
Wow, THANK YOU for sharing this!!! I wish you would have made your own thread. I have read reports similar to yours, but the media always paints a much bleaker picture, so it is confusing for America to get a true sense of what is going on over there.

Again, excellent post!!!!

Overdose, Echo, Vilepagan, Freethinker and co are probably gouging their eyes out right now. Hahahahaha!!

A good post? Really? Tony is extremely funny. He’s been on this forum for awhile now, PM’ing me a few months ago. So, he really have no present knowledge of how the Iraqis are feeling right now.

According to the USA Today, the vast majority of Iraqis feel or 2/3’rds feel that our occupation has done more harm then good.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

So, I’m calling bullshit on his perspective on how the Iraqis feel.

Not to mention a new report came out that said the Iraqi Malnutrition rates have doubled since the start of this war (see world forum) So, I’m sure the Iraqis are feeling just wonderful about that, too.

Honestly, you are one soldier, who has a perspective that we are doing good in Iraq. Echo posted about a solider she knew, who was always questioning the motives of this war. It just depends on the solider, and that’s the bottom line. I appreciate and respect what Tony has to say, it just does not add up with the polls and the events that are occurring in Iraq, presently.

Originally posted by Overdose
A good post? Really? Tony is extremely funny. He’s been on this forum for awhile now, PM’ing me a few months ago. So, he really have no present knowledge of how the Iraqis are feeling right now.

According to the USA Today, the vast majority of Iraqis feel or 2/3’rds feel that our occupation has done more harm then good.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

So, I’m calling bullshit on his perspective on how the Iraqis feel.

Not to mention a new report came out that said the Iraqi Malnutrition rates have doubled since the start of this war (see world forum) So, I’m sure the Iraqis are feeling just wonderful about that, too.

Honestly, you are one soldier, who has a perspective that we are doing good in Iraq. Echo posted about a solider she knew, who was always questioning the motives of this war. It just depends on the solider, and that’s the bottom line. I appreciate and respect what Tony has to say, it just does not add up with the polls and the events that are occurring in Iraq, presently.

Well, OD it appears that with you, the opinion of a 15-year old that read one page in the newspaper holds more weight than anyone serving there. And name your sources.

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Oct/19-99569.html

Originally posted by Tony31841
Well, OD it appears that with you, the opinion of a 15-year old that read one page in the newspaper holds more weight than anyone serving there. And name your sources.

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Oct/19-99569.html

Firstly, you’ve been here for awhile…so right now you have no idea how the Iraqis are feeling presently. The “optimism” you say they had, could have died and or decayed. As for my “sources”, if you don’t believe my sources that's not my problem. A poll was conducted throughout Iraq, and the majority want us out of their country. So, your “optimism” must not be so prevalent throughout Iraq.

I know a few people who have served in Iraq, as do others on this forum, and they say the opposite of what you say. As do the polls and reports of malnutrition doubling. I’ll believe them and the reports, over someone I met online on a political forum.

isnt that what 9-11 was? don't we want to stop further 9-11's???
And again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
Sending people to die for no reason(legally, morally, bound by the constraints of government reason) is not the job of the government.

Quote by Tony - "Some in our unit even expressed desire to leave them exposed on the battlfield if they pulled what we called a "CNN" at any time.

With this statement you have totally blown any credibility you may have had. Actually admitting that the warmongers have talked about killing anyone that reports anything that makes this illegal war look bad. And implying that employees of a specific news station should be left to be murdered because of what they report. Very American of you.

Your bias comes through in posts.

"As far as the press, one must always keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the major media is to do anything possible to make Bush look bad. Whatever it takes, fake documents, bogus missing explosives, overplaying a single terrorist attack in Iraq. They'll do what ever it takes. And some in this forum are SO brainwashed by the video and news of TV that they will go so far as to discount the recollections of the troops coming home."

You have been so brainwashed yourself that you actually believe that the press is bias. Get a grip. If you are going to try to point the finger at someone for being bias you had better watch what kind of rhetoric you wrap it up in. It just makes you look like an idiot.

Of course there are some Iraqi's that want us there. And there are some that don't. The bottom line is that if people want freedom they will fight for it. If people believe in something strongly enough they will fight for it. And few Iraqi people are willing to fight for their freedom. You can use the old excuse that they have been under tyranny for so long they don't know how. But reality is, that people have lived under tyranny for thousands of years, And it was those very people who fought for and gained their freedoms and started democracies throughout the world.

For every sweet, Iraqis love American GI's story you come up with, there is an Iraqi's hate American GI's story to counter it.

From what I'm hearing this morning -- 3 more killed in one incident and 1 more killed in another incident. Of course, I don't believe any of the rumors until I see it in print or on TV And I hope the rumors are false.

Also, quickly sliding around all the news hotspots on the web this beautiful AM, I find no less than a half dozen articles, mostly by high up military types, stating that the cause in Iraq is now lost. We have been defeated and will never bring what we think is democracy to that area.

They mostly fall short of calling for an immediate and complete pullout but I suspect it won't be much longer til that happens.

Dop

With this statement you have totally blown any credibility you may have had. Actually admitting that the warmongers have talked about killing anyone that reports anything that makes this illegal war look bad. And implying that employees of a specific news station should be left to be murdered because of what they report. Very American of you.
Did you read what he said, Echo? If not, then here you go:

"Some in our unit even expressed desire to leave them exposed on the battlfield if they pulled what we called a "CNN" at any time."

Where did he say they ever did it? Thinking about it, and doing it are two very different things, indeed. Listening to Jesse Jackson makes me want to shackle him with a 30 lb weight and toss him into lake Michigan, but will I...not a chance. His credibility isn't blown when he says that he has an inherent mistrust of what gets reported by the sensationalist media. He was there, and I trust that he read quite a number of articles written by journalist that were factually flawed. These so-called "reporters" are on a need to know basis and for good reason (reference Heraldo "I'm and idiot" Rivera). These asswipes try to collect bits and pieces of information so they can weave them into certain facts, and most of the time, their reporting is relegated to being as accurate as a game of telephone played by 100 people.

I guess they don't know, Praetorian. Maybe some of them should have 'checked their sources' before posting...hehe

Originally posted by Blibblob
isnt that what 9-11 was? don't we want to stop further 9-11's???
And again: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
Sending people to die for no reason(legally, morally, bound by the constraints of government reason) is not the job of the government.

But would you at least admit there are indeed terrorists on Iraq?

AND people who enroll in the Armed Forces know that they are giving up their freedom to fight for the freedom of others, at any cost, putting themselves into the hands of the government. To say they are bound by the government is right, but it was by their choice to be bound by the government, so this is a poor example on your part. I think there is in fact a "reason". To say "no reason" makes you an extremist.

But would you at least admit there are indeed terrorists on Iraq?
So? Were they directly tied to the government and 9-11? There is no evidence that any were.

AND people who enroll in the Armed Forces know that they are giving up their freedom to fight for the freedom of others, at any cost, putting themselves into the hands of the government. To say they are bound by the government is right, but it was by their choice to be bound by the government, so this is a poor example on your part. I think there is in fact a "reason". To say "no reason" makes you an extremist.
Right... so killing the people of another country when they have done nothing, overthrowing a puny state when there were other more dangerous ones, and almost ignoring what the goal was in the first place, to take down the terrorists, is a perfectly acceptable reason? No. That is no reason a government can hold, it's not part of it's job. Our armed forces are not currenly fighting for our freedom. They aren't protecting anything of ours. Our armed forces are not policemen, nor is their job to take over another country for no reason. Our army is to defend us, not overthrow tyrants, that's the job of the people of that country.

A good post? Really? Tony is extremely funny. He’s been on this forum for awhile now, PM’ing me a few months ago. So, he really have no present knowledge of how the Iraqis are feeling right now.

According to the USA Today, the vast majority of Iraqis feel or 2/3’rds feel that our occupation has done more harm then good.

So, I’m calling bullshit on his perspective on how the Iraqis feel.



Boy, this is tough. Should we believe a cocky 15 year old homosexual with a confusing political ideology who reads USA today and says that veterans are liars, or a veteran who was actually in Iraq fighting the war there....

Think I'm going to go with the eyewitness.

Originally posted by Tony31841
Working covertly? That's an unconfirmed potential. ........It's clear by the recent gloating of the press over the recent attack on the chow hall, that the media still enjoys the deaths of US troops in Iraq.

Tony, i respect your service and i thank you for putting your life on the line, but if you are going to come on this board and accuse the American Media of ""enjoying"" the deaths of US soldiers fighting in Iraq, you are......

...well, i just don't know what to say......except that it is inconceivable to me that any citizen of the US could honestly believe that.

if you are going to come on this board and accuse the American Media of ""enjoying"" the deaths of US soldiers fighting in Iraq, you are......

...well, i just don't know what to say......except that it is inconceivable to me that any citizen of the US could honestly believe that.

Why not? Violence sells. The media is trying to make money just like everyone else. Movies, video games, everything glorifies death.

It's inconceivable to me that this is all inconceivable to you. Is your head buried in the sand or what?

Originally posted by Karankawa
Boy, this is tough. Should we believe a cocky 15 year old homosexual with a confusing political ideology who reads USA today and says that veterans are liars, or a veteran who was actually in Iraq fighting the war there....

Think I'm going to go with the eyewitness.

Hmmmm, okay, so why did you have to bring in my sexuality and age? Is it because it somehow discredits my opinions more? Okay….well at least I know you are a judgmental asshole.

As for the USA Today, etc. Yes, they polled the Iraqis. The majority of them want us out of their country. Why wouldn’t you believe it? Oh wait, the “liberal media” …:::sigh:::… Okay…now I understand.

Tony PM’ed me a few months ago, so he has no present knowledge of how the Iraqis are feeling right now. The polls and reports show they want us out and that we have done more harm then good. That’s not my problem.

Go to Iraq Veterans Against The War, if you want to see Veterans who also have been eyewitnesses, advocating my opinion that the Iraqis want us out.

But I’m glad you believe one man you met on a forum, over official reports…

Originally posted by Blibblob
So? Were they directly tied to the government and 9-11? There is no evidence that any were.

Some were, yes. We have caught over 2/3 of the top 50 most wanted terrorists. To say there were no wanted terrorists there is just senseless.

Right... so killing the people of another country when they have done nothing, overthrowing a puny state when there were other more dangerous ones, and almost ignoring what the goal was in the first place, to take down the terrorists, is a perfectly acceptable reason? No. That is no reason a government can hold, it's not part of it's job. Our armed forces are not currenly fighting for our freedom. They aren't protecting anything of ours. Our armed forces are not policemen, nor is their job to take over another country for no reason. Our army is to defend us, not overthrow tyrants, that's the job of the people of that country.

Iraq isn't a puny state idiot. It had built up one of the largest armies in the world and had some of the most high tech armament built up also.

AND Considering one of the president's supra-constitutional roles is "Global Leader of the Free World," I think he was all right in making a decision to go to war at the time he decided. If I remember correctly a lot of people were all right w/ it at the time too. Hussein was killing thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people and now we have him. Clinton and even Kerry agreed about this.

What one must ask himself is "do they feel safer with Hussein locked up?" (if you don't you're crazy)

Some were, yes. We have caught over 2/3 of the top 50 most wanted terrorists. To say there were no wanted terrorists there is just senseless.
9-11 and the government? Interesting... who?

Iraq isn't a puny state idiot. It had built up one of the largest armies in the world and had some of the most high tech armament built up also.
Ahem. Syria could be considered just as powerful. Saudi Arabia even more so(OH! And they have terrorist connections!). Iran. North Korea(they have nukes!). China(probably the greatest human rights abuser on the planet, largest army, I think they have nukes, and massive political power).

AND Considering one of the president's supra-constitutional roles is "Global Leader of the Free World," I think he was all right in making a decision to go to war at the time he decided.
LOL. "Global Leader of the Free World". Where do you come up with this shit?! Bush? Right... "Supra-Constitutional" rolls don't matter shit when they conflict with the constitution. Hell, they hardly matter at all. Now. Prove to me that attacking Iraq has helped the free world. Prove to me that we weren't outstepping our bounds.

If I remember correctly a lot of people were all right w/ it at the time too. Hussein was killing thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people and now we have him. Clinton and even Kerry agreed about this.
Yes, his people. Tragedy. Is it the job of our military to conquer him and kill even more of his people? No. It's not helping our safety, our freedoms, yada yada ya. Help them overthrow their government? Sure! If they asked. If they rose up, help. Do it for them? NO. I've gone over this many times. If you want a rather good explaination(I think), see my second post here (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9162&perpage=15&pagenumber=2). I hate repeating myself, yet I do it so often...

What one must ask himself is "do they feel safer with Hussein locked up?" (if you don't you're crazy)
They don't matter when our military is what did it.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why not? Violence sells. The media is trying to make money just like everyone else. Movies, video games, everything glorifies death.

It's inconceivable to me that this is all inconceivable to you. Is your head buried in the sand or what?

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly; you agree with the former assertion made by Tony that the American Media ""enjoys"" the deaths of US soldiers fighting in Iraq??

**********
Originally posted by Blibblob
LOL. "Global Leader of the Free World". Where do you come up with this shit?! Bush? Right... "Supra-Constitutional" rolls don't matter shit when they conflict with the constitution. Hell, they hardly matter at all. Now. Prove to me that attacking Iraq has helped the free world. Prove to me that we weren't outstepping our bounds.
**********
Yes, his people. Tragedy. Is it the job of our military to conquer him and kill even more of his people? No. It's not helping our safety, our freedoms, yada yada ya. Help them overthrow their government? Sure! If they asked. If they rose up, help. Do it for them? NO. I've gone over this many times. If you want a rather good explaination(I think), see my second post here. I hate repeating myself, yet I do it so often...

**********

bilbo, your lack of education really shines through here. There are constitutional and supra-constitutional roles that ALL presidents have followed throughout America's history. In case you don't understand, Supra-constitutional roles "refer to roles which have accrued to the presidency but are not discoverable in the Constitution." It doesn't matter what party affiliation the presidents are, they all have these roles when elected to the position whether you like it or not.

Constitutional Roles of the President (as stated in the CONSTITUTION numbnuts...)

1) Commander-in Chief
2) Chief Diplomat
3) Chief of State
4) Chief Legislator
5) Chief Administrator

The Supra-Constitutional Roles of the Presidency

1) Chief of Party
2) Protector of the Peace/ Global Leader of the Free World
3) Manager of the Economy
4) Voice of the People/ Opinion Leader/ Moral Leader

And so you say, "Supra-Constitutional rolls don't matter shit when they conflict with the constitution." No shit sherlock!! Wow, you really are a smart one.

Go to Iraq Veterans Against The War, if you want to see Veterans who also have been eyewitnesses, advocating my opinion that the Iraqis want us out.

Why, you simply "call bullshit" when you hear from a veteran that actually attempts to spend time here on allforums with you to show you his take on the war. Frankly, the way you "call bullshit" and disrespect a veteran that comes by to post makes me fucking sick.

And why should I have to read one of your goofy, slanted, anti-war sites? Have you read any pro-war sites? Let's make a deal. How about you quit telling me to look at your stupid, propaganda sites and I won't tell you to look at mine. That sound okay to you?

But I’m glad you believe one man you met on a forum, over official reports…

I believe one man, a veteran fresh out of Iraq, who seems to have a much better grasp of the facts and has much more impressive documentation to back up his facts than you, and your copy of USA Today.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why, you simply "call bullshit" when you hear from a veteran that actually attempts to spend time here on allforums with you to show you his take on the war. Frankly, the way you "call bullshit" and disrespect a veteran that comes by to post makes me fucking sick.
I’m sorry. That’s not my problem. He has no present knowledge of how the Iraqis are feeling presently. Sorry you hate the truth.

Originally posted by Karankawa
And why should I have to read one of your goofy, slanted, anti-war sites? Have you read any pro-war sites? Let's make a deal. How about you quit telling me to look at your stupid, propaganda sites and I won't tell you to look at mine. That sound okay to you?
Bla. Bla. Bla. Bla. Okay? So you want me to listen to a Pro-War Veteran, but you won’t look at the Anti-War Veterans? Nice…good job! I’m proud of you!


Originally posted by Karankawa
I believe one man, a veteran fresh out of Iraq, who seems to have a much better grasp of the facts and has much more impressive documentation to back up his facts than you, and your copy of USA Today.
Impressive documentation? I’m sure. Every report from Iraq is showing chaos. Malnutrition is doubling. The Iraqis have shortages of food and water. More American troops have died this month then ever before. The majority want us out of their country.

You just hate the facts that aren’t in your favor. I’m sure when we first went into Iraq, the Iraqis wanted us there. But, now they don’t. Tony was in Iraq, and he served. But he’s been back for awhile now, he PM’ed me awhile ago. So, he has no present knowledge of Iraq right now. Sorry, but that’s not my fault. I can’t trust his word, because he hasn’t gone there recently, now has he? The reports and news show Iraq is in chaos. Oh wait, that’s just the liberal media. –rolls eyes-

bilbo, your lack of education really shines through here. There are constitutional and supra-constitutional roles that ALL presidents have followed throughout America's history. In case you don't understand, Supra-constitutional roles "refer to roles which have accrued to the presidency but are not discoverable in the Constitution." It doesn't matter what party affiliation the presidents are, they all have these roles when elected to the position whether you like it or not.
Wow. You really had no clue what I said. I don't know how you came to any of your conclusions from my post. Not one thing you just said addressed any of my points. Good job, you did it again. Would you like to address my points now? I have nothing to say to your latest post, mindless drivel that I already knew.

Karankawa;

Do you agree with the former assertion made by one man, a veteran fresh out of Iraq, that the American Media ""enjoys"" the deaths of US soldiers fighting in Iraq??

You have already signalled that you likely agree; I just want to hear you confirm it .

Originally posted by Blibblob
Wow. You really had no clue what I said. I don't know how you came to any of your conclusions from my post. Not one thing you just said addressed any of my points. Good job, you did it again. Would you like to address my points now? I have nothing to say to your latest post, mindless dribble that I already knew.

I addressed points you made. "Mindless dribble you already knew"?? You obviously had no clue what I was talking about when I said Supra-constitutional Role of the President by saying this:

"Supra-Constitutional" rolls don't matter shit when they conflict with the constitution.

YOU ARE OBLIVIOUS!! If you would actually try and open your mind to what I am saying instead of TRYING to refute every sentence I make maybe you would learn a thing or two. But nooo, you're a close minded fool bilbo. A close minded fool who can't read or think.

Originally posted by flyerES
You obviously had no clue what I was talking about when I said Supra-constitutional Role of the President

Which historical or legal document of this nation specifies the parameters and/or the legality of this **Supra-constitutional Role of the President** that you keep refering to??

Just asking.

I addressed points you made. "Mindless drivel you already knew"?? You obviously had no clue what I was talking about when I said Supra-constitutional Role of the President by saying this:
LOL. NO. You spoke on one thing, ignored the rest. That peice of pointless shit was... POINTLESS.

YOU ARE OBLIVIOUS!! If you would actually try and open your mind to what I am saying instead of TRYING to refute every sentence I make maybe you would learn a thing or two. But nooo, you're a close minded fool bilbo. A close minded fool who can't read or think.
Then you have NO clue what I meant. Again with the lack of comprehension ability! I know what these "Supra-Constutional roles" are, and why they're there, how they came to be, and what kind of legal backing they have. Which would be NONE. Why the fuck did you bring up something so inanely pointless? I was saying that the president was outstepping his constitutional bounds. What I gathered from you was that you were trying to justify it with your "Supra-constitutional roles"(no idea why else it would be mentioned), and told you very flatly that it DOESN'T MATTER. We're overstepping our bounds, and no added role of the president is going to remove that.

Which historical or legal document of this nation specifies the parameters and/or the legality of this **Supra-constitutional Role of the President** that you keep refering to??
NONE. Supra-Constitutional roles are roles that the President takes up due to tradition ONLY. They are entirely pointless when relating to legality, entirely pointless when relating to what we are talking about. Mostly they come from Presidents outstepping their constitutional grounds and the people not caring because it is POINTLESS DRIVEL.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Which historical or legal document of this nation specifies the parameters and/or the legality of this **Supra-constitutional Role of the President** that you keep refering to??

Just asking.

They aren't legal roles, they are traditional roles that the people judge the presidents by. Such as manager of the economy, for example. There is nothing in the Constitution about the president managing the economy, however the public look to him and judge him based on how the economy is doing. (like when the president decided to deficit spend in order to get out of depression after WWII) The supra-constitutional roles lead to how much power the president has. His powers increase or decrease based on how the public judges his decisions. If he doesn't do the job the public likes his power decreases and Congress becomes more powerful.

All I think is that he is doing a good job (yes, in iraq [based on when he decided to declare war] and in the whole world) b/c he is retaining his power b/c of the public's perception. If the public was that upset Congress would be the one making the big decisions.

I'm new here so maybe I missed something but did you imply Bush is doing a "good job" ?
All I think is that he is doing a good job (yes, in iraq [based on when he decided to declare war] and in the whole world) b/c he is retaining his power b/c of the public's perception. If the public was that upset Congress would be the one making the big decisions.
DAMN !!!
The Bush administration may go down in history as the most misguided, self serving, unethical and most manipulative under a false pretense.
..Give credit where credit is due..
>took one of the most powerful and admired nations in the world and made it the most resented country in the world ..
>1st US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%)view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability..
>promised and failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'..
>Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending and set the record for biggest annual deficit in history..
$ 7 , 5 9 9 , 9 8 9 , 8 1 2 , 9 4 0 . 6 0
>first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs..
>Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans and cut healthcare benefits for war veterans yet managed to spend more money on polls and focus groups than any president ..
>Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts..
You wanted it, you got it..4 MORE YEARS to watch Bush and his comrades screw the American people and our economy.

As far as Iraq..Don't get me started..
It's clear after the attempts to make things right and put in place a system that will improve the quality of life; the Iraqis resent our presence. They show it on every news cast. They display their hatred and disregard for human life over and over w/suicide car bombs and w/the taking and execution of hostages. Totally unscrupulous lot.
Still we are an occupying force w/out a way out. Hostility should be expected.
But at what cost?
Seriously we need a new strategy..
Sweep up the mess we've made so far and get the hell out.

Just remember ... it was never about the oil... ROTF.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1224-05.htm

Dop

Originally posted by Tony31841
We sat our reporters down and told them straightout, "You're going to tell the truth. Yr going to show how things actually happen and why or else you're not coming, and we're going to monitor your reporting". Some in our unit even expressed desire to leave them exposed on the battlfield if they pulled what we called a "CNN" at any time.
Oh........you mean, like reporting all things, that actually happen??

We're gonna have to rely on Independents (http://www.kevinsites.net/), for that.

*

"There are people in our own country that would weaken your institution and our nation –by telling you it's okay to betray our guiding principles by not making the tough decisions, by letting difficult circumstances turns us into victims or worse…villains.

I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Falluja began. He said something very powerful at the time-something that now seems prophetic. It was this:

"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."

I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us."

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
That is the most completely stupid attitude to take. Basically, we get attacked, and we should bend over and take it because we don't want to be attacked any further.
Basically.......we go after the people who can't fight-back........'cause they've got OIL.........and, arrange a pass for the people who did the attacking (Saudis), 'cause......well, basically.......we've (already) GOT their oil!!!

Originally posted by flyerES
But would you at least admit there are indeed terrorists on Iraq?

AND people who enroll in the Armed Forces know that they are giving up their freedom to fight for the freedom of others......
.....And, now......they want us to LEAVE!! (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FA18AFB-F2C9-4678-8E6A-3595D91B83A1.htm)

"For months now, the Bush administration had been building up the image of a massive network of foreign terrorists using Falluja as a base for their terror attacks against targets associated with the interim government of Iyad Allawi and the US military which backs him.

One name appeared in western media accounts, over and over again: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a wanted Jordanian turned alleged "terror" mastermind. Almost overnight, Zarqawi's terrorist group, al-Qaida Holy War for Iraq, expanded its operations across the width and breadth of Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi was everywhere, his bombers striking in Mosul, Baghdad, Samarra, Najaf, Baquba, Ramadi and Falluja. Islamist websites published accounts of al-Zarqawi's actions, and the western media, together with western intelligence services, ran with these stories, giving them credibility. The al-Zarqawi legend, if one can call it that, was born.

The problem is, there is simply no substance to this legend, as US marines are now finding out. Rather than extremist foreign fighters battling to the death, the marines are mostly finding local men from Falluja who are fighting to defend their city from what they view as an illegitimate occupier. The motivations of these fighters may well be anti-American, but they are Iraqi, not foreign, in origin.

There is, indeed, evidence of a foreign presence. But they were not the ones running the show in Falluja, or elsewhere for that matter. As a result, the US-led assault on Falluja may go down in history as the tipping point for the defeat of the US occupation of Iraq."

Mr. Shaman I love you! haha

Originally posted by flyerES
Some were, yes. We have caught over 2/3 of the top 50 most wanted terrorists. To say there were no wanted terrorists there is just senseless.



Iraq isn't a puny state idiot. It had built up one of the largest armies in the world and had some of the most high tech armament built up also.
Yeah.........back in '91!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html)

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]If I remember correctly a lot of people were all right w/ it at the time too. Hussein was killing thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people and now we have him.
Hell.......we had him, WHEN he killed those (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=20989&archive=true) "thousands upon thousands of INNOCENT people"!!!!!!

Selective amnesia!! Ain't it grand?!!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Just remember ... it was never about the oil...
.......And, some people never find-out what it WAS about.........until long, after-the-fact. (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1115-06.htm)

"They chumped us. Anyone can be chumped.

That's you now. Just fewer trees and less water.

The big bosses are trying to gain control of the world's energy supplies to twist the arms of future economic competitors. That's what's going on, and you need to understand it, then do what you need to do to hold on to your humanity. The system does that; tells you you are some kind of hero action figures, but uses you as gunmen. They chump you."

The Bush administration may go down in history as the most misguided, self serving, unethical and most manipulative under a false pretense.
This is the same, tired argument in which has been employed by people who lack vision for years now.
1st US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%)view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability..
This is patently false, and even if it weren't, who really gives a shit? They don't have to like us, and we don't have to consume their products.
promised and failed to fulfill his pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'..
Yeah, let's lynch him... :rolleyes:
first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs..
Which is COMPLETELY Bush's fault, I might add. While Clinton was out there making sure people were employed, Bush is purely guilty of veritably ripping them from their homes.
took one of the most powerful and admired nations in the world and made it the most resented country in the world ..
Why are you people so concerned with how the rest of the world views us? I don't see any drop in visitation, nor do I see anyone refusing to buy stock in our technologies. I do business with people I fucking despise, but their money spends the same way mine does, and that's the relationship we should have with other nations if necessary. I'm not going to go crying myself to sleep if the French don't like my country.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Why are you people so concerned with how the rest of the world views us? I don't see any drop in visitation, nor do I see anyone refusing to buy stock in our technologies. I do business with people I fucking despise, but their money spends the same way mine does, and that's the relationship we should have with other nations if necessary. I'm not going to go crying myself to sleep if the French don't like my country.

This is a very short sighted outlook. Consider for a moment if everyone in your neighborhood took that outlook towords the neigbors.

We need our allies. The world is constantly changeing, we are no longer the lone superpower and are quickly going to be overtaken as the biggest and strongest nation. The more the rest of the world hates us, the easier it will be for them to find common ground to join forces against us.

Eventually America's self idolation and give a damn attitued twords everyone else is going to be her undoing.

Originally posted by Echo2
The world is constantly changeing, we are no longer the lone superpower and are quickly going to be overtaken as the biggest and strongest nation.

this is a common theme among the boards libs as of late, and a theme they cant seem to be overjoyed at bringing up. I suppose it would be better if the chicoms were the world superpower and we all bowed to their will. or even better if the commie russians would have won the cold watr, oh what a great world that would be!

Originally posted by Travh20
I suppose it would be better if the chicoms were the world superpower and we all bowed to their will.

The question of "better" does not enter in to the equation.

Week by week, the USDollar continues (if fell further today) it's decline against the EURO and other world currencies.

That the once mighty USA is GOING to be surpassed as the pre-eminent world power is to many (if not most) economists a foregone conclusion (and the election of a gibbering, smirking imbecile as it's leader will only serve to hasten that devlopment) and the sooner we accept it and recognize it the sooner we can ---maybe-- DO something to lessen the blow.

But the Bushistats will keep their heads firmly planted in the sand right to the bitter end, no doubt.

As evidenced by the incessant **My country right or wrong!!** nattering of so many of the Bush supporters hereabouts.

RE: Praetorian
This is the same, tired argument in which has been employed by people who lack vision for years now.
So your one of them..Voted for 4 more years did ya..WOW, what vision..
Who jammed their finger in your eye?
Why are you people so concerned with how the rest of the world views us?
Have to agree w/Echo2 ..
This is a very short sighted outlook.
Vision problem again..short sighted..
Something in your eye again?

Go ahead stand up and be counted..
Just one more brainwashed Bushie ready to follow the rest of the lemmings off a cliff..
Thats what you get when voted for "4 More Years"..

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 29 Dec 2004 at 03:53:11 AM GMT is:
$ 7 , 6 0 8 , 5 8 7 , 7 1 7 , 8 5 4 . 5 9:hitout: