Ron Paul, Only Candidate NOT Following Orders of al Qaeda

"Well no shit, the Iraq war was never a sell until Sep 11 happened."

It was only a sell then because of the neo-con agenda, which a Democrat President would have been far removed from. In fact, if Bush hadn't picked Cheney as VP, I seriously doubt Iraq would have been our target.

Wolfowicz is on record saying that WMD's were the rationale they decided on to pursue the topple of Saddam & a broader agenda for the Middle East.
 
TheDanold said:
Yeah all the ones with safe seats to oppose the hated Bush and no presidential aspirations. The point is those that if a Dem was prez they would have certainly gone in, as evidenced by all the prez-electable Dems supporting the war and how many Dems did not support the Kosovo war under Clinton.


Well no shit, the Iraq war was never a sell until Sep 11 happened.
Click to expand...

In fact, the architects of the Iraqi war planned the war in the 1990's Dano, and if you don't know that, then that's truly sad. Google PNAC and learn something.

You are always pulling other people's motivations out of your ass and placing them on this board like they were pearls of wisdom rather than verbal poops. More democrats voted against the war than voted for it. You have no idea why they did so, but many of their on the record statements say they thought it was a crock. But we can dismiss that record because message board poster Dano decided to post another one of his pearls of crap about "why" some liberal, or democrat, or anyone who isn't a Republican kiss ass and hack, did something. Because you would know why Dano. Very credible evidence.
 
Darla said:
In fact, the architects of the Iraqi war planned the war in the 1990's Dano, and if you don't know that, then that's truly sad. Google PNAC and learn something.
Click to expand...
I know about PNAC better than you do, but again it would never have been a sell without the events of Sep 11. Rove was about staying in power, not advancing an ideology - clearly as we have seem virtually no cuts and lots more spending, hardly the agenda for Conservatives.

Darla said:
You are always pulling other people's motivations out of your ass and placing them on this board like they were pearls of wisdom rather than verbal poops. More democrats voted against the war than voted for it. You have no idea why they did so, but many of their on the record statements say they thought it was a crock. But we can dismiss that record because message board poster Dano decided to post another one of his pearls of crap about "why" some liberal, or democrat, or anyone who isn't a Republican kiss ass and hack, did something. Because you would know why Dano. Very credible evidence.
Click to expand...
I posted the words right from their mouth and I observed their reaction RIGHT after the war started. They were not against it and they listed all the WMD and Al-Qaida reasons that Repubs did.
The facts are the evidence.

Take a leaf out of BAC's book and realize that your party's leaders are not what you think they are. I don't have much in common with Greens but they are a mile ahead in seeing the Dem party for what it is over partisan Dems like cypriss, Lierax and yourself.
 
DigitalDave said:
Are there any democratic candidates for pulling us out of Iraq immediatly?
Click to expand...

Here is Edwards' position:

Stop the Escalation and Immediately Start the Drawdown
Edwards opposed President Bush's "surge" and supports immediately drawing down 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops.

Withdraw Combat Troops within about a Year
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops in Iraq within about a year and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a terrorist haven, or a genocide.
 
TheDanold said:
I know about PNAC better than you do, but again it would never have been a sell without the events of Sep 11. Rove was about staying in power, not advancing an ideology - clearly as we have seem virtually no cuts and lots more spending, hardly the agenda for Conservatives.


I posted the words right from their mouth and I observed their reaction RIGHT after the war started. They were not against it and they listed all the WMD and Al-Qaida reasons that Repubs did.
The facts are the evidence.

Take a leaf out of BAC's book and realize that your party's leaders are not what you think they are. I don't have much in common with Greens but they are a mile ahead in seeing the Dem party for what it is over partisan Dems like cypriss, Lierax and yourself.
Click to expand...


Don't I get a nickname?
 
"I observed their reaction RIGHT after the war started"

Only an idiot would come out after a war started & blast the invasion. As pacifist as I am, even I would not support such rhetoric at that time. That's a time for the country to unite & hope for the best; you'd be an idiot not to understand that.

And I don't give Dems who enabled Bush a free pass. But to stretch that to "Dems would have started this war, too?"

Idiotic...
 
If I were to attack those two candidates based on the fears of a neo-con, just as BAC is attacking Paul based on the fears of a liberal, we will still be in Iraq in 2012. We need to promote these candidates.... Kucinich, despite my disagreements with him, is a better candidate than Edwards, Hillary, or Obama.
 
I posted the words right from their mouth and I observed their reaction RIGHT after the war started. They were not against it and they listed all the WMD and Al-Qaida reasons that Repubs did.
The facts are the evidence.

And the Facts will always be, more Democrats voted against it than for it. How many republicans voted against the Iraqi authorization?
 
It doesn't matter. Only fringies like DeMano can argue with a straight face that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq as a logical response to 9/11, just like Bush did.

To the vast majority of America, this is Bush's war, and would have been extremely unlikely if he had not been in office, particularly with Cheney as VP...
 
DigitalDave said:
If I were to attack those two candidates based on the fears of a neo-con, just as BAC is attacking Paul based on the fears of a liberal, we will still be in Iraq in 2012. We need to promote these candidates.... Kucinich, despite my disagreements with him, is a better candidate than Edwards, Hillary, or Obama.
Click to expand...

I'm going with Edwards, in a leap of faith that he is going to stick to his 50k out now, and all out in one year promise.

With Hillary yes I'd agree we will still be there in 2012. With the Republican candidates, based on their own statements, I'd say any of us would be damned lucky to still be alive in 2012.
 
If we jsut 'draw-down' troops, the remaining troops are put in a more dangerous position and I have a feeling our death rates will escalate, causing whoever is president to re-think his decision and send more troops over there. We are in a Catch-22, and need to just get the hell out of there.
 
Onceler said:
It doesn't matter. Only fringies like DeMano can argue with a straight face that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq as a logical response to 9/11, just like Bush did.

To the vast majority of America, this is Bush's war, and would have been extremely unlikely if he had not been in office, particularly with Cheney as VP...
Click to expand...

True.
 
"I know about PNAC better than you do, but again it would never have been a sell without the events of Sep 11."

And a Democrat would have wanted to sell PNAC's agenda...why again?
 
DigitalDave said:
If we jsut 'draw-down' troops, the remaining troops are put in a more dangerous position and I have a feeling our death rates will escalate, causing whoever is president to re-think his decision and send more troops over there. We are in a Catch-22, and need to just get the hell out of there.
Click to expand...

That would probably be true if the remaining troops continued to go house to house. They won't. Part of that scenerio is that the troops who remain are there only to train Iraqis, and that's it. That should actually greatly drop their death rates. This also takes into account the feelings of many which is, we created a freaking humanitarian disaster of historic proportions there. Not everybody is comfortable with doing a "who did it and ran" thing. There is also an argument that can be made for a complete and immediate withdrawal being irresponsible.

I've come to the conclusion that it's for the best, in the long run, but, I do understand the other side of this. People of good conscience can disagree on this point. In my opinion.
 
Onceler said:
"I observed their reaction RIGHT after the war started"

Only an idiot would come out after a war started & blast the invasion. As pacifist as I am, even I would not support such rhetoric at that time. That's a time for the country to unite & hope for the best; you'd be an idiot not to understand that.

And I don't give Dems who enabled Bush a free pass. But to stretch that to "Dems would have started this war, too?"

Idiotic...
Click to expand...
So if a war with Iran started today, you would cheerlead it and not say anything negative about it?
ROFL, nice try Lierat
 
TheDanold said:
So if a war with Iran started today, you would cheerlead it and not say anything negative about it?
ROFL, nice try Lierat
Click to expand...

I'm not running for elected office.

Again, I don't give Dems a pass. My condemnation of their enabling of Bush is well documented, on this & the other board.

However, that does not mean that they would have started this war. You have an extraordinarily weak case.

And does anyone else find it odd that Dano seems to agree that at least a part of what started Iraq was the PNAC agenda, which 9/11 allowed the admin to sell, and then somehow make the leap that a Dem President would have also pursued the PNAC agenda?

Smart....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top