The War on Terror is THE Issue!

Originally Posted by deacon blues

And what has been our policy in the Mid-East the past 50 years? Protection of Israel? I'll fall on the sword any day of the week! "I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you" I believe were the words of God to Israel's father Abraham.

I was thinking more along the lines of putting the Shah of Iran into power, helping Sadaam Hussein get into power, supporting Sadaam Hussein against Iraq...

We haven't created terrorists there! That's the biggest bunch of libertarian hooey if I've ever heard it! Those kooks have been terrorists for hundreds of years! Islam is a blood thirsty religion that condones murder and butchery. To pin the blame on the good ole USA is just plain preposterous!

No, we didn't create the terrorists. We did, however, become a target because of our interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations over the last 50 years.

Are you aware that the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers was 200+ years ago and there weren't evil forces of terror attacking our nation and killing innocent civilians? DO you realize that isolationism was the policy of the US pre-WWII? Do you realize that our reluctance to enter into the war only emboldend the forces of evil intent on spreading totalitarianism across the globe and enslaving multiplied millions around the world?

I'm well aware of America's foreign policy prior to WW-II and it's still a good policy!

And in 1994, what got the GOP elected was the "Contract with America" and that had nothing to do with this present day struggle against radical Islamic jihadists? HELLO? We are living in a whole NEW world! 9/11 changed all of that. We can never go back to isolationism!

You really don't get it! 9/11 happened because of American foreign policy. You want to deal with 9/11 with more of that same policy and with an erosion of American liberties in the name of "security".

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

You gotta love appeasement ...

Appeasement has nothing to do with it. It's about butting out of the internal affairs of other nations. If some country decides to declare war on us, CONGRESS has the constitutional authority to take America to war. If there must be war then let's follow the Constitution in taking us there.

Originally Posted by RevDWW

50 years? Ha, now that is funny.............

This is not a recent problem, it start back with Abraham's unbelief.

Genesis 16:11-12 (KJV) 11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

It's not just about Islam vs. the U.S. ................. It's Radical Islam vs. The Infidels.......

As far as the United States is concerned, it is only about the last 50 years or so.

PS. What's wrong with being a sheep? I am a sheep in His pasture!

I didn't say "sheep" I said "sheeple." And it has nothing to do with being the sheep of HIS pasture!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Chan

I was thinking more along the lines of putting the Shah of Iran into power, helping Sadaam Hussein get into power, supporting Sadaam Hussein against Iraq...

Not necessarily good decisions for us in the Mid-East, but tell me the last time you heard a modern-day terrorist or a member of Al-Qaeda state that they want to avenge America's support of the Shah, or b/c Saddam was helped against Iran, etc? No, almost unequivocally the Zionist State is cited as the main reason they hate us and will destroy us. Not even AJD talks about the Shah of Iran, he talks about Israel.

No, we didn't create the terrorists. We did, however, become a target because of our interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations over the last 50 years.

I-S-R-A-E-L. Until you start understanding EVERYTHING in the Mid-East through this lens you'll miss the point, which you do.

I'm well aware of America's foreign policy prior to WW-II and it's still a good policy!

It was a good policy then? Did it work? Ask the families of the 3,000 men who perished in the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to enter the war but Congress and public sentiment was against it. Congress and public opinion was wrong and FDR was right. Hesitation and reluctance to recognize evil for what it is cost many more lives and prolonged the war than if the Allies would've interfered with Hitler before he became too strong.

1787 foreign policy didn't have to deal with modern weaponry, WMDs or nuclear bombs. It worked then for that time in history. It is naive to think it would work now. Do you really believe that the Islamofascists would be content to leave us alone if we even built a concrete wall around our country?

You really don't get it! 9/11 happened because of American foreign policy. You want to deal with 9/11 with more of that same policy and with an erosion of American liberties in the name of "security".

I guess Israel should've allowed the Arab nations to attack them in 1967. The Six Day War was a tactical masterpiece and a great victory for Israel b/c they preempted the enemy. Bro, we can no longer afford to wait to be attacked, then retaliate. They wanted us destroyed as soon as we sided with Israel. Unless we abandon Israel, they will seek our destruction. Even if we did abandon Israel, they would seek to eliminate us from the Earth. Their faith compels them to do so.

Quit blaming America. You're falling for the liberals propaganda.

We're right, they're wrong, and so are you and Ron Paul.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Chan

Appeasement has nothing to do with it. It's about butting out of the internal affairs of other nations. If some country decides to declare war on us, CONGRESS has the constitutional authority to take America to war. If there must be war then let's follow the Constitution in taking us there.

We stay out of a lot of nations business. But when nations threaten our way of life or bring instability to the world or allow terrorism and despotism to run amok, we can no longer stand idly by. We used to do that and we paid dearly for it: Munich Olympics hostage taking of Israeli Team, Iranian hostages, Beruit Marine barracks bombing, Achille Lauro hijacking, Pan Am Flight 101 explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, Berlin night club bombing, World Trade Center bombing, Black Hawk Down in Somalia, Embassy bombings in Africa, USS Cole bombing---all done with no real retaliation or consequences for their actions.

We can no longer afford to allow more terrorists to go unchecked and unapproached. If you think packing our bags and going home will solve the problem, you are living in an alternate universe.

[bishopnl]

Not necessarily good decisions for us in the Mid-East, but tell me the last time you heard a modern-day terrorist or a member of Al-Qaeda state that they want to avenge America's support of the Shah, or b/c Saddam was helped against Iran, etc? No, almost unequivocally the Zionist State is cited as the main reason they hate us and will destroy us. Not even AJD talks about the Shah of Iran, he talks about Israel.

Actually, in explaining the appeal of Osama Bin Laden to fundamentalist Muslims, the 9/11 Commission Report actually lists his grievances against the West, starting with American military bases on holy ground in Saudi Arabia, and US enforcement of UN sanctions following the first Gulf War. So it's not all about I-S-R-A-E-L. Perhaps a more in depth study of Islam would help you to understand that. It's part of it, to be sure, but a much bigger part is the fact that we've stepped in time and again, placing our military bases in the Middle East on Islamic holy ground, forbidding them to do activities we ourselves were engaging in, and arming them and training them to fight communists even when we knew they were irrational, evil maniacs. At one time we were equipping "insurgents" in Afghanistan like Al-Quaeda to fight the USSR...now they've turned on us, and we act like they've hated us all along. You've been citing history...perhaps a better historical example is the CIA's support of Iranian rebels in overthrowing their democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, in the 1950's.

[H2H]

I have not read this thread... but on the face of it I must immediately disagree. I will NOT vote for someone that is in favor of abortion.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by H2H

I have not read this thread... but on the face of it I must immediately disagree. I will vote for someone that is in favor of abortion.

Out of the abundance of the HEART, the fingers typeth!

[bishopnl]

And this was one time Reagan didn't get it.

Nope. The Gipper had it right, and Bush and Co. have it wrong. Reagan's problem was that he didn't go far enough.

Muslims are irrational. They always have been. And to fantasize about building a democracy in a country where all they desire is the iron hand of religious zealots is blissful ignorance. If you haven't noticed, that new, free democratic government isn't working out so well....because Iraq is full of Muslims, and Muslims don't want freedom. They willingly submit themselves to tyranny and oppression, and pointing a gun at them and telling them they are going to be free, like it or not, is not going to work, especially when their leaders (who they see as the voice of God) are using us (the foreign devil invaders) as a rallying point to continue their stranglehold over that area.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein after 9/11 could not be tolerated, violating resolution after resolution. Rumsfeld miscalculated on the number of troops, that was clear. But going into Iraq was the right thing to do and history will bear that out if the military is allowed to finish the job.

Israel has violated and ignored resolution after resolution. Should we invade them too?

Lets be clear. I don't think the country is any worse with Saddam Hussein out of power. But continuing to stay there and try to build a stable democracy, in my opinion, is not going to work. Because oppression and tyranny is what those people want. They want a theocratic government based on the Q'uran that controls their lives at the point of the sword, and us trying to force freedom on them at the point of a gun is folly on our part.

As for comparing Germany with Iran, it won't work. Two completely different scenarios. And you referenced the Treaty of Versailles and Germany's violations of it...since you are familiar with the treaty, I guess you are also familiar with the fact that Woodrow Wilson caved on his plan and allowed the French and British to crush the German economy, thus paving the way for Hitler to come to power. All for the sake of the League of Nations, the forefather of the UN. That was a brilliant plan. The fact is, "sanctions" and entangling foreign alliances didn't work for the US then, and they don't work now. Obviously, I'm not blaming WWII on the US, Britain or France...but one does ponder what would have happened if Wilson hadn't been so eager to align us with European powers.

They ELECTED him to the office of President! I agree there is opposition in Iran, but they are a far cry away from gaining any power. The religious leaders have a stranglehold on that nation and it will take much more than a few dissenting voices to change the culture in Iran.

Yes. I voted for Bush, but that doesn't mean I approve of everything he does. In fact, I think bombing Iran is a foolish and terrible idea. And 70% of America now thinks that he stinks as president. So pointing to his (Ahmadinejad's) election as an indication of approval about his comments towards Israel or America is hardly the wise choice.

The fact is that according to most foreign policy experts, journalists, and even people who have lived in Iran but have since relocated, there is a huge majority of Iranians who want more Westernization and do NOT desire war with the West. yeah, they vote for Ahmadinejad...because they like the fact that he has promised those very things...things like nuclear energy, more modernization, etc. Giving nuclear weapons to terrorists would not only be real suicide for Ahmadinejad, it would be political suicide as well.

How many bould have to perish, bishop, for you to feel like it would justify a reaction from us?

How many innocent Iraq citizens have to die before you people realize that type of foreign policy doesn't work?

We invaded Iraq, at the time I supported it..in fact, up until about a year ago I still supported it. But sooner or later you will have to wake up to the fact that regime change in the Middle East never works in our favor. And the fact is that if we take any preemptory military action against Iran, we'll have to have a long term occupation there just like we do in Iraq.

Now, in Iraq, the fact is that there is no evidence that Saddam was stockpiling WMD's. I know some people on here still believe he shipped them off to Syria or something, but there was no evidence, and even George Bush has admitted that the intelligence on Iraq was flawed. So when Iran doesn't have, to our knowledge, nuclear capability yet, and even if they did we don't know if they possess a bomb (although, admittedly, it wouldn't be a surprise if they did), how can we possibly justify bombing a country who has not made any type of aggression action towards us? The US has hundreds of nuclear devices. And we have nuclear energy. Why do we feel we have the moral authority to tell Iran that they can't have what we have, and if they attempt to get it, we'll drop ours on them?

If it came out tomorrow that China, Russia, and France had developed some type of new technology that could either be a great energy device or a sinister weapon, how would you, as an American, feel if they told us that we could not develop that same technology, and if we tried they would use their new technology to wipe us out?

And the fact is that the majority of Iranians don't want to commit national suicide, no matter what you might think. You are aware that Islam, in addition to being split into Sunni and Shia, is broken down into much smaller sects, just like Christianity? And not all of them want to blow themselves up to be in paradise. In fact, Iran is primarily Shia, and Usama and his type of religious rhetoric typically tends to appeal to Sunni's. Not saying there aren't any nutcases in Iran, but the majority of them aren't running around blowing themselves up.

[bishopnl]

Iran will work thru terrorists (as they do right now) to deliver a devise against the USA with the expectation that the world would stand againt a retaliation. however, in all honesty, less than a dozen devises going off in the USA would prevent any response from the USA other than ICBM. however if we were to use ICBMs, it is very likely that Russia and China would retaliate with more ICBMs at us. ALL of America would be gone in seconds. period.

If Iran unleashed a nuclear device on the US, either by themselves or by proxy, the world wouldn't stand against retaliation.

It's very likely, though, that the world would stand against a US preemptive strike on Iran, especially if they've committed no military aggression against us. And if, come to find out, the Iranian nuclear program wasn't nearly as developed as we thought it was, or we go in there and find no evidence that their nuclear program was being used in the creation of weapons? What then? I guess we can say, "Oops. Sorry."

The US has rapidly spent most of its good faith credits in the last several years. I don't think it could withstand another such colossal mistake.