Okay, I'll try this again: Good article

caley · Feb 28, 2003

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul62.html

cenimo · Feb 28, 2003

you may think so

caley · Mar 2, 2003

I certainly do think so.

cenimo · Mar 3, 2003

That's fine caley. am just pointing out that it's your opinion, everyone is not going to agree with it.

WayneH · Mar 3, 2003

Your absolutely right cenimo, I do not agree.......... but we are all entitled to our opinions.....

Lacmeh · Mar 3, 2003

Well except, that being against a war is automaticalyl labeleld pro dictatorian and anti American.

caley · Mar 3, 2003

Ron Paul is certainly not anti-American, or pro-dictatorian. He is pro-liberty, and he views most wars as necessarily interfering with liberty (as I do).

Starscream · Mar 3, 2003

My opinion is that it is a good article.

Perhaps those with the knowledge to tear Ron's views apart wouldn't mind sharing them with us?

Here, I'll help you get started with some common rebuttals:

1)  Nothing but liberal garbage!

2)  Bah!  He must be a communist!

3)  If you don't support the President then you are anti-American!

(note:  reply 3 is only to be used when the president is a conservative)

ern · Mar 3, 2003

I would have to dissagree with a lot of the article. The article stated that Iraq has never attacked us, but for that to be true you would have to say that Iraq has no ties with Al-Quada, which I think they do, and so do many others.

cenimo · Mar 3, 2003

From the article:

The first Persian Gulf War therefore was clearly a UN, political war fought within UN guidelines, not for U.S. security...

Gee, I thought it was fought because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea!

That may be the case now but for many of the years we have had forces in Korea it was not only to protect the South from an invasion from the Noth but also to keep the South from attacking the North.
ask any of tens of thousands of American soldiers who have served on the DMZ. For many years South Korea had highway billboards with slogans that translated to "Kill Joe Chink" on them (South Korean slang for North Korean soldiers.)

it's ironic that we're making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support.

And had this all happened a lot sooner after 9-11? When most of the world was holding memorial services for 9-11? How soon we forget...

David Gould · Mar 3, 2003

I disagree with this article in that its main thrust is anti the UN. Personally, I think that the UN is vital. People talk about its many military failures but they do not talk so much about its many successes in other areas, such as in combating the spread of disease and creating agreements between groups of nations on a whole range of issues. 

The United Nations, being democratic in nature, helps spread the notion of democracy to nations that so far have not gone down that path.

It is a tough road and a frustrating road but I believe the fruits of going down it are well worth it.

Fears of a loss of sovereignty and of a one world government are, imo, irrational.

The United Nations processes will play themselves out in this case, and while the US may decide to go to war regardless, the exercise in attempting to get people to agree is important, even if it fails.

caley · Mar 4, 2003

Yesterday at 09:50 PM ern said this in Post #9

I would have to dissagree with a lot of the article. The article stated that Iraq has never attacked us, but for that to be true you would have to say that Iraq has no ties with Al-Quada, which I think they do, and so do many others.

You can think that all you want, but you'd be wrong.  Osama hates Saddam, and said so in his last videotaped statement.  There is absolutely zero hard evidence of Iraq being involved with al-Qaida that would stand up in any court of law.

cenimo · Mar 4, 2003

Osama hates Saddam, and said so in his last videotaped statement.

Ever heard of a good cop / bad cop routine?

those who won't stand for something will fall for anything

Lacmeh · Mar 4, 2003

I always though the burden of proof is on the accuser.
Meaning, that anyone accusing Husein to have ties to OBL, he has to prove this claim, not Hussein to prove his innocence in this regard.

David Gould · Mar 4, 2003

As to the 'good cop, bad cop' idea ....

Saddam: "I am going to commit horrible mass murder in order to assert my authority as a supreme secualr ruler."

Osama: "Or we could do this the easy way, and I will commit horribly mass murder to assert my authority as spokesman for the supreme truth that is Allah."

 

Saddam hates Osama bin Laden, as Osama financially backed some of the terrorists (freedom fighters?) in the south of Iraq. Osama hates Saddam because Saddam is not a Moslem (although he gives lip service to the notion) and because he opposes the Islamic revolution.

Saddam and Osama are deadly enemies.

They are both scum.

Hitler and Stalin kind of deal ....

 

Okay, I'll try this again: Good article

Christian Anarchist

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team

Christian Anarchist

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team

Washed in His Blood

Well-Known Member

Christian Anarchist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Christian Anarchist

Jesus Had A 12 Man A-Team

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency