SGG's Pick the President Poll

[Hail2theskins]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

"I'm just waiting on a Fred."

Ha, I love my own humor. Meantime Rudy.

I assume you're talking about Fred Thomspon and this morning on my way to work WMAL basically said you can expect him to announce his candidacy on July 4th.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why is it our job to stick our noses into everyone else's problems??

I'll just never understand why people think the US needs to be the world police.

Well that's an argument for never going into Iraq in the first place, but it's not a good argument for why we should just pack up and leave.

We were the ones who made that friggin mess (though not the only ones, thanks Iran and Syria). We'd absolutely DESTROY any remaining credibility we have in the international community if we just packed up and left a power vacuum in it's place. The Iraqi government is not nearly strong enough to stand on its own, and without our presence the insurgents/Iran would quickly move to overthrow the existing government.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

As for Ron Paul's position on Iraq, what does he think will happen to Iraq once we leave? Does he think the sectarian strife will subside following our departure? If so, he's nuts. If, however, he doesn't care if the civil war will increase in intensity and perhaps bring other countries (e.g., Turkey and Iran) into the mix, then I guess that's his perogative. Finally, Iraq is a terrorist training ground already, but I can't see how our departure will help matters.

I'm not certain he's stated one way or the other what he thinks will happen once we leave. I do know this -- go back and read his statements in 2002 and 2003 about why we shouldn't go into Iraq, and his predictions on what will happen once the balance of power is overturned. At every turn, Ron Paul was right.

I can't speak for him, but I can tell you what I think about 'sectarian strife' after we leave: Who cares? Let the Sunnis and the Shia duke it out. It is not our job to referee a civil war over religious disputes between Muslims. Our departure will secure one thing -- a stop to dead American servicemen and women in a poorly planned fiasco we never should have gotten ourselves involved with in the first place.

As for Iran taking over? Fine. Let them start taking the casualties.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well that's an argument for never going into Iraq in the first place, but it's not a good argument for why we should just pack up and leave.

We were the ones who made that friggin mess (though not the only ones, thanks Iran and Syria). We'd absolutely DESTROY any remaining credibility we have in the international community if we just packed up and left a power vacuum in it's place. The Iraqi government is not nearly strong enough to stand on its own, and without our presence the insurgents/Iran would quickly move to overthrow the existing government.

I can appreciate the point of those who say we're there now, and there's nothing we can do about the mistakes our country has made in the past.

But for a moment, let's say what is not supposed to be said: They'll say we'll lose all of our credibility -- We have no credibility in the international community. They say Iraq will turn into a bloodbath when we leave -- Iraq IS a bloodbath. The only difference is that American blood will no longer be spilled there.

We were the ones who created the vacuum when we toppled Saddam. He was a Secularist, who quite obviously knew how to keep the Sunnis and the Shia separated and in line. Was he evil? Sure. But he kept order in what we now know to be a volatile environment, and he kept Iran in check. Now he's gone, the insane are running the asylum, and we are caught in the crosshairs of huge mess.

The old saying by Thomas Jefferson goes like this: The tree of liberty must be freshened from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. At some point, the people of Iraq will have to discover their own destiny -- even if that destiny is paved with blood, even if it's a knock-down, drag out with Iran. The right thing to do, the ONLY thing to do, is get the hell out of their way.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

I assume you're talking about Fred Thomspon and this morning on my way to work WMAL basically said you can expect him to announce his candidacy on July 4th.

I was actually referring to Fred Couples. I think if his back stays healthy he could really give it a run. That belly putter will go over like gangbusters in New Hampshire.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

C'mon man, you know better than to generalize like that.

I am not generalizing, even before Allen ran there were doubt as to his racial views. They again surfaced during his campaign with the Macaka incident and his usage of the N word frequently during his time at UVa.

I do feel it says something about Republican leadership in the party or atleast in VA, to support a candidate like that when an issue such as racism should not be tolerated whatsoever. Also if you watch the Macaka clip, you can hear much of his supporters laughing and applauding. That is just sick in my honest opinion.

I have nothing wrong with Republicans, and I myself vote Republican for the House(Congressman Wolfe), but I do have a huge problem with overt racism. Perhaps he is a product of his environment or whatever, but the Republicans should not support him if there is suspicion and he supporters should not approve of that kind of stuff.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

When we topple governments we don't like, install dictators like we did with the Shah of Iran in 1953, when we station troops in Mecca and involve ourselves in middle eastern territorial disputes like we did in the first Gulf War, when we bomb, strike, invade, and occupy foreign lands, what sort of reaction do you think we will continue to get in that part of the world?

.

I have two questions. First, were we right to involve ourself in the European territorial dispute of the 1940s?

And second, when did we have troops stationed in Mecca?


Lastly. let me say that my experience with Republican isolationists like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, or Bob Novak has been that they are mostly just good old fashioned anti-semites. I think they want to pull out of there because they would like to see the Jews driven into the sea.

This is in no way meant to throw an accusation like that at anyone here. I want to be perfectly clear about that. I'm not calling anyone an anti-semite in this forum. Unless Pat Buchanan is posting in which case I am.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I am not generalizing, even before Allen ran there were doubt as to his racial views. They again surfaced during his campaign with the Macaka incident and his usage of the N word frequently during his time at UVa.

I do feel it says something about Republican leadership in the party or atleast in VA, to support a candidate like that when an issue such as racism should not be tolerated whatsoever. Also if you watch the Macaka clip, you can hear much of his supporters laughing and applauding. That is just sick in my honest opinion.

I have nothing wrong with Republicans, and I myself vote Republican for the House(Congressman Wolfe), but I do have a huge problem with overt racism. Perhaps he is a product of his environment or whatever, but the Republicans should not support him if there is suspicion and he supporters should not approve of that kind of stuff.

Ok, but when you say the Republican party I think you're talking about every single person affiliated with Republican party. Even people like myself who tend to vote Republican.

Just craft your argument better, that's all.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Ok, but when you say the Republican party I think you're talking about every single person affiliated with Republican party. Even people like myself who tend to vote Republican.

Just craft your argument better, that's all.

Point well taken, I meant more towards Republican leadership for allowing such a candidate. I am glad you realize I am not generalizing.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I have two questions. First, were we right to involve ourself in the European territorial dispute of the 1940s?

And second, when did we have troops stationed in Mecca?


Lastly. let me say that my experience with Republican isolationists like Ron Paul, or Pat Buchanan, or Bob Novak has been that they are mostly just good old fashioned anti-semites. I think they want to pull out of there because they would like to see the Jews driven into the sea.

This is in no way meant to throw an accusation like that at anyone here. I want to be perfectly clear about that. I'm not calling anyone an anti-semite in this forum. Unless Pat Buchanan is posting in which case I am.

On your first point, yes. Since Germany declared war on us first, we had no choice but to answer their threat.

Troops in Mecca? 1990. Gulf War I.

As to anti-semitism, you have a legitimate point about Buchanon. Novak I'm not sure about. But all Ron Paul has ever suggested is that perhaps it's time we let Israel defend Israel, and put an end to entangling alliances. When we side with Islam's sworn enemy, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that you'll irritate the people of Islam. Nothing against Israel -- they are the freest country in that region of the world, and I want nothing but the best for them. I wish them well. But they are not our fight.

Bottom line, stay out of irrational religious conflicts in the middle east. Period.

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

the day hillary clinton takes over i leave this country

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

rudy rudy rudy

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Newjerseyredskinfan14

rudy rudy rudy

Um, welcome to the board?

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

die hard skins fan

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Um, ?Rhiana has a really big forehead...I would have to bag that

Big ass forhead!

yeah i agree with this guy and a fat ass lol



hell