Republican/Democrat Debate on ABC

[clemsontigers23]

A couple of comments so far: Ron Paul got owned, and Mitt Romney is a tool. Ron Paul's assessment of the reason we were attacked is hilarious. You wanna know what more people don't support this guy? He's a joke. He thinks having a base in a country means we're occupying it. If that's the case, then we're occupying England, Germany, etc. Give me a break. Islamic terrorists hate us because we support Israel and they don't agree with our freedom and the fact that we've given women freedom. If Ron Paul would do his research, he would know that. McCain, Huckabee, and even Giuliani did good on the first question. Romney was exposed as a fake and Paul didn't make sense. McCain also made a good point. Donald Rumsfeld came up with the strategy we used in Iraq, not the President. He also pointed out we haven't been attacked since, so we should give Bush some credit for that.

I'll have more thoughts later. That was just the first question.

[cheewiee]

I agree that Ron Paul just got owned...

[rossid]

We've already chosen the next president and he is from AR.

[clemsontigers23]

Also would like to mention Fred Thompson's having a good debate. Huckabee needs to do well in this debate. Right now he's 4th in NH. Giuliani is 3rd, Romney 2nd, and McCain 1st.

Ron Paul keeps calling America the policemen of the world. I'm liking this guy less everytime he opens his mouth.

[cheewiee]

Yea, He may have been owned in the first question, but he owned everyone else in the second one...

[clemsontigers23]

Yea, He may have been owned in the first question, but he owned everyone else in the second one...

I disagree. He still keeps referring to America as a police state and I think the only reason you heard silence is because none of the candidates take him seriously anymore.

[cheewiee]

I think that this is the first time I have ever seen debate, where one opponent defends another from the attacks of the third.

I really think Obama and Edwards have already decided that one of them will be President, and the other Vice President.

[Jesuslove]

I thought the Republicans finished in the following order:

1. Ron Paul
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Mitt Romney
6. Fred Thompson

[Jake]

I think that this is the first time I have ever seen debate, where one opponent defends another from the attacks of the third.

I really think Obama and Edwards have already decided that one of them will be President, and the other Vice President.


I've wondered about that myself. I was telling someone the other day I think one of them will get the democratic nomination, and select the other as his running mate.

[cheewiee]

I thought the Republicans finished in the following order:

1. Ron Paul
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Mitt Romney
6. Fred Thompson

Ron Paul was owned on Foreign policy, and didn't really recover. I think that on terms of Substance the winner was McCain, winner in form was Thompson. Huckabee I think will come out of this the best, because he really didn't do anything to mess up the momentum now behind his campaign following Iowa.

[Valpo]

I thought the Republicans finished in the following order:

1. Ron Paul
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Mitt Romney
6. Fred Thompson

Knowing you like Paul, as a McCain supporter, I like this

[cheewiee]

Ok, Debate pt. II... On form, I think it's Edwards. He came off passionate, full of vigor and drive. On Message I think it was Richardson. Again, the same goes as the Republicans, I think Obama gained the most, by not messing up any of the momentium gained by the Iowa Cacuses, and I think that he will wind up wining NH, and from there, if he wins NH he will become the clear frontrunner.. Most likely the nominee after Super Duper Tuesday.

I think the Republican nomination may wind up going to the Convention, Depending if Rudy can hold on till Fl. If Rudy wins big in Fl (which right now he is polling to do) he will wind up cleaning up. I think that by November, he will have courted a solid Social Conservative Running mate, and us evangelicals will fall lock step behind him.

But alot of things can happen between now and then

[clemsontigers23]

Ron Paul took last place in the debate and showed that it's time he called it quits. He was owned in every aspect by the other candidates superior knowledge and debate skills. Fred Thompson took first prize, while McCain took second in my opinion. Mitt Romney was called out numerous times on his flip-flopping nature and I think that will really hurt any momentum he had. Huckabee didn't do anything to hurt himself, and Giuliani was mainly given questions on foreign policy, his strength.

As far as the Democrats, I admit that they seem to be more together than the Republican candidates in terms of treating each other with respect, but that could be an act. I thought Bill Richardson did better than expected, as did John Edwards. Obama continues to talk in generalities, which I think will hurt him as the race heats up. Personally I would actually consider voting for Edwards. He champions the middle class and is working against big corporations and corporate lobbyists, as well as (apparently) free trade which takes jobs from Americans and sends them overseas. When Obama tried to say he's anti-lobbyist, he was called out on numerous times when he's supported lobbyists or taken money from them. Hillary didn't have a great debate. While she has experience, she appears to be riding the things that she and her husband accomplished while they were in the White House. That could end up being a bad strategy. Some of the things I heard from the Democratic candidates was a little disturbing, considering how all of them believe in global warming and are willing to spend billions of American tax dollars, something we don't have, to combat it, as well as forcing millions of Americans to make financial sacrifices they can't afford to make. The fact is this planet cannot and will not be saved. Anyone's who read Revelation and believes the Word written in it knows that. Wasting billions of dollars that could go towards helping people instead of trying to save a physical earth that can't be saved is a very frightening concept and is humanism at its finest. Obama was the one who was most in favor of having Americans make great financial sacrifices for this, so it appears humanism is a large part of his campaign, as I previously thought. His lack of knowledge on foreign policy was exposed once again, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Former military leaders were very troubled by some of his statements on Pakistan and I just don't think he has what it takes to deal with the foreign policy aspects of his presidency. Overall, I think John Edwards takes top prize for the Democratic debate. Hillary comes in 2nd, Richardson 3rd, and Obama 4th. They just said on the news that many people think Obama's performance was weak and that even though he has big ideas he has failed to explain how he's going to turn those ideas into action, something Clinton pointed out and something that I've had a problem with for the longest time.

[Jesuslove]

For the Democrats, I think it was:
1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama
4. Richardson

[cheewiee]

Here is what I don't get... Why did Obama and Edwards let Clinton flaunt her so called experience, when her experience is only 7 years as a Jr. US Senator She has one year on Edwards in public service, and Obama has her owned when you thrown in his experience in State Government.

Ultimately She is running on her husbands record. If she wins, it will be nothing more than more of the same...

[VerbumReale]

I thought the Republicans finished in the following order:

1. Ron Paul
2. John McCain
3. Rudy Giuliani
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Mitt Romney
6. Fred Thompson

I was switching between the debates and the football game so I missed some but from what I did see I definitely disagree with the high ranking of Paul. I thought overall McCain had the best night and among the Republicans is probably who I am hoping will get the nomination. I thought Thompson bounced back nicely after some bad earlier debates. He definitely had a better night than Paul.

At this point, I think Paul is pretty much irrrelevant anyway. I think he's pretty much been reuced to the Dennis Kucinich of the Republicans. And I say this not as a Paul basher. I liked a lot of his liberatarian-esque positions, but at this point I think he's pretty much done.

[clemsontigers23]

Article on Huckabee's "FairTax" ideas. Is it just me, or does this sound similar to Ron Paul's plan?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080106/pl_nm/usa_politics_huckabee_tax es_dc

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's plan to eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax has the support of martial arts guru Chuck Norris but few economic analysts.

The former Arkansas governor's victory in the Iowa caucus, which kicked off the presidential nomination process for the November 2008 White House race, will bring his policy proposals under closer scrutiny as the candidates do battle in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

Much of the focus has been on the social conservatism of Huckabee, an ordained Baptist preacher who has connected solidly with his party's influential evangelical base.

But some of his supporters have been attracted by his populist tax plan, which calls for an end to all income and payroll taxes. It is the key plank of his economic platform.

"Putting the IRS out of business" has been a common refrain in his speeches in both Iowa and New Hampshire and it always draws some of the most enthusiastic applause.

Huckabee says taxing income is a tax on productivity that stifles economic growth and hits the middle class and small businesses the hardest.

"The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax ... All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line ... That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all," says his Web site.

"All our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness," it says.

Analysts see some sleight of hand here.

"To truly equal today's federal revenue take, to be revenue neutral, the flat tax has to be quite high -- usually higher than is advertised up front," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp in Cleveland.

UNDERGROUND TRANSACTIONS?

"And the complication that comes with that is it encourages underground economic activity. People will increasingly try to circumvent the tax system by doing transactions under the table," he said.

Analysts also see it as regressive -- as it is the same rate across the board regardless of income -- even if Huckabee's plan does make provisions to exempt the poor.

On Sunday, Huckabee was asked about Bush administration criticism that his plan would reduce taxes for those making less than $30,000 a year or more than $200,000 but raise them for everyone else.

"Of course they don't like the fair tax," he said on Fox News. "These are the guys that are going to go out of business. Thirty-five thousand lobbyists in Washington -- do you think they like the idea that a tax would be so simple that they couldn't really go in there and tinker with the congressmen?"

Given the U.S. government's massive revenue needs, Huckabee's plan is not seen as feasible, although abolishing the Internal Revenue Service appeals to many Americans.

"I think the fair tax is a great idea. It would be great to get rid of income tax ... it really stops people from growing businesses," said Bruce Weinfeld, 41, who went from New York to Londonderry, New Hampshire, to attend a Huckabee rally.

It is a policy proposal that also could resonate in New Hampshire, which has no state income tax and where evangelicals are less numerous than in Iowa.

The speeches that Huckabee has given in New Hampshire since his Thursday Iowa victory have put more emphasis on his tax plan and less on his opposition to abortion and gay rights.

Huckabee's "FairTax" idea caught the attention of action movie actor Chuck Norris, who has been traveling with him in what has been dubbed the "Huck and Chuck" show.

Norris tells crowds that young conservative bloggers sent him e-mails about Huckabee's tax plan, selling him on the man.

[Evanescence]

for now i like huck....

[mat1583]

If Ron Paul would do his research, he would know that.

He did. Even the 911 commission confirmed this idea that we were attacked in part because we have troops on their lands. He's not saying this is the only reason, but a major part of the reason. Why don't you do your own research?

Why is the blowback theory so foreign and strange to some people? I ask you this question, and I better see an answer. What would the United States do if the Saudis sent troops to our land to impose their form of government on us while a the same time stealing our oil and killing our people?


Ron Paul keeps calling America the policemen of the world. I'm liking this guy less everytime he opens his mouth.

If we're not the world's police, then why the heck do we have troops in over 138 countries? If we're not the world's police, then why did we ever get involved in Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, and Iraq? You are completely blind to the truth, and it's pretty sad.

-washboard

[mat1583]

Article on Huckabee's "FairTax" ideas. Is it just me, or does this sound similar to Ron Paul's plan?

No. Ron Paul would replace the IRS with nothing...not a flat tax, round tax, square tax.

-washboard

[Jesuslove]

He did. Even the 911 commission confirmed this idea that we were attacked in part because we have troops on their lands. He's not saying this is the only reason, but a major part of the reason. Why don't you do your own research?

.....

If we're not the world's police, then why the heck do we have troops in over 138 countries? If we're not the world's police, then why did we ever get involved in Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, and Iraq? You are completely blind to the truth, and it's pretty sad.

-washboard

I agree. Why is it such a foreign concept that we were attacked, in part, because we have troops on others' lands. Surely America wouldn't welcome foreign troops on our soil.

I too think we should remove troops from all foreign lands. It is not our job or responsibility to monitor the actions of the rest of the nations. If we want to form a coallition to fight injustice such as we did when America, along with NATO countries fought in Kosovo, that's one thing, but to bring troops into a foreign land (even if other countries are involved) to further our own interests, that's wrong in my opinion.

One last thought on Saturday's debate. I found it really offensive how some of the debaters, particularly the smug Fred Thompson, insulted Doctor Paul, and made him out to be stupid. Frankly, I think it backfired and made Fred look ignorant.

[cheewiee]

I agree. Why is it such a foreign concept that we were attacked, in part, because we have troops on others' lands. Surely America wouldn't welcome foreign troops on our soil.

But that's just it, the Saudi Government in response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait welcomed a US Air-base. The Saudi's did not have the military to defend her sovereignty against an aggressive an imperialistic Hussein.

So how would I feel about Chinese troops on American Soil, Well if we were unable to defend ourselves against an aggressive Canadian empire and they offered to have a presence here to stave off invasion, I might not like it, but I would be willing to accept their presence.

Ron Paul's belief that our own foreign policy is the cause for this, might be valid if we were occupying Saudi Arabia, but we are not. We have an air base in the area established after the Gulf War to help be a stabilizing force in a very unstable region.

[mat1583]

But that's just it, the Saudi Government in response to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait welcomed a US Air-base. The Saudi's did not have the military to defend her sovereignty against an aggressive an imperialistic Hussein.

It is much more complex than that. Saudi Arabia was a key member of the allied coalition in the early 90's that helped expel Iraq from Kuwait. Sending U.S. forces to that region was not a cry for help from the Saudis, but a decision made by a number of nations.

I believe Saudi Arabia used us as a tool just to keep their oil. Hussein was not attacking Kuwait to build a Hitler-esque empire. He wanted the oil, straight and simple. We stepped in and help stopped him...then what? We had over 9,000 troops in a land that houses two of Islam's holiest sites - Mecca and Medina. Saudis began to resent us for being in these areas. Bin Laden cited this as a reason for attacking us, yet people laugh at the blowback theory as if it's all myth?? If it's myth, then why were a majority of the 9/11 attackers from that region, why would Bin Laden cite this as a reason for attacking, and why would the 9/11 commission also conclude that this was part of the reason they attacked us?

Just because we have the ability to send troops or allowed to do so doesn't mean it is in our best interest to do so.

------------
"The presence of the U.S. forces gives a lot of fuel to the virulent, anti-American Islamic forces that certainly command an audience in Saudi, and in the broader Arab world," said Jamil Khoury, an Arab specialist and business consultant who teaches at the University of Chicago. "It's become a real sore point in our relationship with the royal family, because it has become too burdensome to them."

For the U.S., the presence in Saudi Arabia was also yielding diminishing returns, even before the host country refused to participate in the second war against Iraq. U.S. personnel were under constant threat of terrorist attack after the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex, which killed 19 service members.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030430-psab01.htm
-------------


So how would I feel about Chinese troops on American Soil, Well if we were unable to defend ourselves against an aggressive Canadian empire and they offered to have a presence here to stave off invasion, I might not like it, but I would be willing to accept their presence.

I'm not asking you to take the role of the helpless Iraqi citizens who had no choice in the matter.0

If we were attacked by China and they tried to impose communism and their religion on us, and stationed troops on our land, would we not attack them back? Would we just sit there and willingly accept their occupation and not fight back? Would we be all happy-go-lucky and not hate the Chinese government for doing this to us?


Ron Paul's belief that our own foreign policy is the cause for this, might be valid if we were occupying Saudi Arabia, but we are not. We have an air base in the area established after the Gulf War to help be a stabilizing force in a very unstable region.
We had a significant military presence in Saudi Arabia ever since the Gulf War. While not an occupation, I think 9,000+ American troops in an Islamic land would be a valid reason for Saudis and Muslims to be upset. Ron Paul's belief that our foreign policy was part of the cause was validated by Bin Laden's own words, the fact that a majority of the attackers were from that region, the 9/11 commission's assessment and was further solidified by the fact that we finally removed over 7,000 of our troops from the Saudi Arabia in 2003.


-washboard

[cheewiee]

So why did Al Queida attack in Bali, How about Austrailia, and Spain.

[in hiding]

So why did Al Queida attack in Bali, How about Austrailia, and Spain.

austrailia- partner with US in war on terror,
Spain - one of the EU countries who stood by the US (2004...evidence concluded no al qaida link, rather they were homegrown terrorists who disliked teh policy of teh country)
Bali - bombs targeted foreign tourists (austrailian and bombing at US embassy). (oct 02)

Those happened after the war on terror started and it's pretty easy to hypothesize that they were attacked b/c they were allies of the US or places where civilians from the countries may be. If those bombings happened before 2001, then the question would have more merit. My guess is the issue isn't as black and white as either side wants it to be. There's a lot of merit in the fact that our presence (and foreign policy) over there provokes a lot of extremists to do damage there's also merit that some of the jihadists are doing these things b/c they want everyone to be muslim. To say it's either one or the other is crazy

[cheewiee]

So then, if they don't like a policy laid out by their Government, the solution isn't to attack the citizens of another nation. if they don't like the policy laid out by their Government, the Saudi's should replace their government with one that would ask the United States to leave.

OBL may spin the "Blowback" excuse, but that's all it is. Since his beef is really with the Saudi Royalty, he should go after them.

[clemsontigers23]

He did. Even the 911 commission confirmed this idea that we were attacked in part because we have troops on their lands. He's not saying this is the only reason, but a major part of the reason. Why don't you do your own research?

Why is the blowback theory so foreign and strange to some people? I ask you this question, and I better see an answer. What would the United States do if the Saudis sent troops to our land to impose their form of government on us while a the same time stealing our oil and killing our people?

You paint a very poor image of America, and that's one thing that sort of rubs me the wrong way about your posts. We are not warmongerers, as Ron Paul put it. We are not trying to turn everyone into a democracy. We saw a threat in Saddam Hussein and we took it out. If we had left after taking Saddam out, then we would have left the country to fight it out in a civil war and we would've risked another extremist, possibly worse than Saddam, taking power in Iraq. Therefore we are staying there throughout the democratic process to make sure things are done the right way because Iraq is a country that's been in turmoil ever since Saddam took power. We can't afford another dictator in the Middle East, and it wouldn't be fair to the Iraqi people.

Your question is so anti-American that it's almost impossible to answer because I don't agree with the premises you're using. We are not forcing our government on Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our allies and they asked us to stay with them and keep them safe so we set up a base there. We also needed to look out for our own interests and keep an eye on Iraq in case Saddam Hussein decided to act up again. Just because Osama Bin Laden didn't like it means nothing to me. The guy is demon-possessed and will do anything to bring more people to his cause. Most of the terrorists were Saudis because that's where Osama Bin Laden operated and those are the people he recruited. That is merely geographical in nature. Obviously radical Islam is more than a few people being upset with us having a base in Saudi Arabia. Also, as far as I know we're not killing any Saudis and we're not stealing their oil. We are engaging in trade with them, but that's not what I consider "stealing."

If we're not the world's police, then why the heck do we have troops in over 138 countries? If we're not the world's police, then why did we ever get involved in Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, and Iraq? You are completely blind to the truth, and it's pretty sad.

-washboard

Many countries asked us to stay because we're so powerful. We saved Europe and the Soviet Union from destruction by Adolf Hitler and ever since then countries have taken note of that and have asked for our support. It is a matter of respect for the great country of America. Why did we get involved in Vietnam and Korea? To prevent the spread of communism, and even though we failed to do that in Vietnam, at least the people of South Korea don't have to live like the people in North Korea have to live. Because of what we did, we kept South Korea a democracy, and as a result they are prospering. When you have powerful countries like China and the Soviet Union looking to pick a fight, you can't back down. It was a power struggle and because of these wars we were able to contain the spread of communism. I think it was a very noble and worthy cause, as does most Vietnam and Korean war veterans I've talked to. They would be offended by some of the things you're saying, and some of the things Ron Paul is saying. Ron Paul wants to stick his head in the sand and act like nothing's wrong, but the truth is, sometimes we have to become involved to protect our freedom and our liberties. Many men died to keep you free. Don't disregard that by insulting our country and the causes they fought for or are fighting for. The message from the troops in Iraq is "Let us win." Do you want them to win, or do you want us to pull out, lose all credibility, and make it where the men and women who have given their lives died in vain? Which do you choose? The troops, or the Democrats who are concerned that their money is being spent on this war? The surge is working. We're winning, whether the Democrats like it or not. A majority of the leading Democratic candidates are enemies of America in my eyes, and so is the press which makes up lies and only shows the negative side of the story, never the positive. I know people who have been in Iraq. I've talked to them and I've heard great stories of thankfulness and gratitude form the Iraqi people. I think that's a noble cause, helping those who can't help themselves. Do you, or are you going to keep believing the lies that the uninformed Democratic candidates (or Ron Paul) tell you on TV to get your vote?

[in hiding]

You paint a very poor image of America, and that's one thing that sort of rubs me the wrong way about your posts. We are not warmongerers, as Ron Paul put it. We are not trying to turn everyone into a democracy.
"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," Bush said in his inaugural address after his swearing-in ceremony."


Don't disregard that by insulting our country and the causes they fought for or are fighting for. The message from the troops in Iraq is "Let us win." Do you want them to win, or do you want us to pull out, lose all credibility, and make it where the men and women who have given their lives died in vain? Which do you choose? ...Do you, or are you going to keep believing the lies that the uninformed Democratic candidates (or Ron Paul) tell you on TV to get your vote?

The surge is working, but if the message from the troops is just "let us win" why is Paul the candidate that has the most funds raised from the troops?? Of course they want to win adn they are doing a great job over there, but obviously there's something in Paul's message the troops support and are willing to back financially.

[mat1583]

You paint a very poor image of America, and that's one thing that sort of rubs me the wrong way about your posts. We are not warmongerers, as Ron Paul put it. We are not trying to turn everyone into a democracy.

In hiding answered this well. Since the 1940's our foreign policy has drastically changed. This includes the use of force to create democracies in foreign nations. The fact isn't even disputable. Whether it's all out war against a communist nation or simply selling weapons to them - our leaders since the late 1940's have continuously fought for democracies in foreign lands. I didn't paint this image for America. We painted it ourselves.

We saw a threat in Saddam Hussein and we took it out. If we had left after taking Saddam out, then we would have left the country to fight it out in a civil war and we would've risked another extremist, possibly worse than Saddam, taking power in Iraq.

If we hadn't even gone in the first place, Iraq would still be a stable region, we'd still have 4,000 of our soldiers alive, Al Queda would not be operating in Iraq, and Sadam still wouldn't have had WMD's. Sadam's army was the very thing that was keeping the civil war from starting and the terrorists out of there. Even if I supported going to Iraq, our strategy was obviously a complete failure. Taking out the national army was the worst idea ever.


Your question is so anti-American that it's almost impossible to answer because I don't agree with the premises you're using. We are not forcing our government on Saudi Arabia.

Way to avoid the question completely. I figured you would. It's an easy question to answer. If the Chinese or any other nation came to our land an set up bases and had goals of creating a communist government, we'd be extremely ticked off. We would retaliate with force and strength. Do you honestly think we would just sit there and take it?


The Saudis are our allies and they asked us to stay with them and keep them safe so we set up a base there. We also needed to look out for our own interests and keep an eye on Iraq in case Saddam Hussein decided to act up again.

The Saudis are our allies because they have most of the oil. We're not allies for any other reason than that.


Just because Osama Bin Laden didn't like it means nothing to me. The guy is demon-possessed and will do anything to bring more people to his cause. Most of the terrorists were Saudis because that's where Osama Bin Laden operated and those are the people he recruited. That is merely geographical in nature.

From Wikipedia (it has references you can check in case you don't trust it, even though Wiki has been found to be at least as accurate as Britannica):

The September 11 attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[104] In the fatwa, Bin Laden directed his followers "to kill Americans anywhere".[105] He also outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the occupation of Palestine.[106] The fatwa uses Islamic texts to exhort violent action against American military and citizenry until the alleged grievances are reversed, stating "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."

As I stated before, even the 9/11 commission confirmed this and cited it as one of the reasons they attacked us. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT: I am in NO WAY saying that they were justified for attacking us! Do not misunderstand me. Just because it gave them a reason to attack us does not mean it was justified. But to completely ignore the reasons they gave for attacking us is is completely foolish! OBL warned us in 1998, attacked in 2001. Then in 2003 we actually did remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. Coincidence? Hardly.



Obviously radical Islam is more than a few people being upset with us having a base in Saudi Arabia. Also, as far as I know we're not killing any Saudis and we're not stealing their oil. We are engaging in trade with them, but that's not what I consider "stealing."

Yes, it is more than just those in Saudi Arabia. It's has to do with our foreign policy not just in Saudi Arabia, but the whole middle east. I was a bit too narrow when I said Saudi Arabia and perhaps my description of 'stealing' was not completely accurate either. My point is that we operate in the Middle East to secure our oil interests. We even allow corrupt monarchies to continue in places like Saudi Arabia as long as our oil is safe.


Many countries asked us to stay because we're so powerful. We saved Europe and the Soviet Union from destruction by Adolf Hitler and ever since then countries have taken note of that and have asked for our support. It is a matter of respect for the great country of America. Why did we get involved in Vietnam and Korea? To prevent the spread of communism, and even though we failed to do that in Vietnam, at least the people of South Korea don't have to live like the people in North Korea have to live. Because of what we did, we kept South Korea a democracy, and as a result they are prospering.

South Korea didn't become a true democracy till the late 1980's, and it wasn't by the United States hand that they succeeded (unless they carried out secret operations). After the Korean War, South Korea's government was anything but stable. It was riddled by coups and assassinations.

And if we're about stopping communism, then why is our major trade partner China, yet we have an embargo on Cuba? The trade embargo on Cuba has hurt the Cubans more than anything. They cannot receive proper medical supplies and aid from a country that is only 60 miles away.


I think it was a very noble and worthy cause, as does most Vietnam and Korean war veterans I've talked to. They would be offended by some of the things you're saying, and some of the things Ron Paul is saying. Ron Paul wants to stick his head in the sand and act like nothing's wrong, but the truth is, sometimes we have to become involved to protect our freedom and our liberties. Many men died to keep you free. Don't disregard that by insulting our country and the causes they fought for or are fighting for.

Don't start giving me that BS that since I don't support the war I'm not supporting the troops and thus anti-American. I just had to see a friend off that is on his way to Iraq right as I type this. I supported his decision all the way through and provided him with encouragement. He has a noble character and is doing way more than I ever would to stick himself in such a dangerous place. I support his decision, but I do not support our leader's foreign policy. I do not support the reasons for being there. That in no way means I don't support my friend and the other soldiers there.

Ron Paul is in no way "sticking his head in the sand". How is that so when he is trying to uncover the reasons why we were attacked in the first place and addressing them? He wants to trade with other nations and have peace talks, not preemptive war. He believes in free trade, yet this is somehow construed as "sticking his head in the sand". Before WWII this was our foreign policy, and it worked just fine. Bush even ran on that platform!


The message from the troops in Iraq is "Let us win." Do you want them to win, or do you want us to pull out, lose all credibility, and make it where the men and women who have given their lives died in vain? Which do you choose?

I want our troops to come back home ALIVE, not in caskets. I want them to come back to defend our own borders and provide for the national defense. Is that so evil?


The troops, or the Democrats who are concerned that their money is being spent on this war? The surge is working. We're winning, whether the Democrats like it or not. A majority of the leading Democratic candidates are enemies of America in my eyes, and so is the press which makes up lies and only shows the negative side of the story, never the positive. I know people who have been in Iraq. I've talked to them and I've heard great stories of thankfulness and gratitude form the Iraqi people. I think that's a noble cause, helping those who can't help themselves. Do you, or are you going to keep believing the lies that the uninformed Democratic candidates (or Ron Paul) tell you on TV to get your vote?

Please prove that we're winning the war - not with anecdotal evidence, but with a clear and precise set of goals that have been achieved. If you want to claim that we're winning and that the media is wrong, then cite specific goals that have been achieved.

-washboard