US ship fires on Iranian boat

[Duality]

I agree, we should have never been in Iraq in the first place. My views on that have never changed. I am, however, in a disagreement with trying to say that there are "freedom fighters" trying to get a foreign invader out (the US). That would be great if that were the truth but all we did was stir up a hornets nest and are now caught in the middle of several factions/groups trying to gain power or a stake in the new government or get us out to take over by having a dominant influence. I would say that the groups or individuals trying to get us out because they see us as you say are the minority. This is a power struggle, and is why we should never have gotten involved in the first place




You think opium should be legal? For medical purposes yes, but those are some pretty extremist views there.
If we took down the existing government and spent our tax dollars and lost men and woman instilling a new form of government I think we do have a few say in things like they cannot grow a plant that is killing and ruining the lives of our citizens and people all around the world. I guess we see eye to eye on somethings and can agree to disagree on this subject.



I just mentioned our "right" above.
And you have to agree with how vast and large our borders are, it is impossible to have a completely secure border where no one can sneak in with kilos of whatever drug they want. That is just ludicrous and wishful thinking. So our only choice left is to nip it at the bud, no? Whether we have the right or not, it's more effective than being on the defensive and applying our "war on drugs". But I by no means condone or think we should do this in every country whose main export are drugs.

braaq you are doing an epic job arguing your side. excellent points. and your very right about the borders and how our best bet is to just try to eliminate the source, not the distributors.


IS, i don't even know how you can say opium should be legal. when used in non medicinal ways it is pure evil and destroys lives. that's a very exterme viewpoint you have there.

 

[Bulkboy]

Agreed, I've never called you a neocon before I don't think, just a poor misguided soul

disagreeing with u about the subject of iraq doesent make me misguided, cuz face it, almost noone agrees with u or ron paul about pulling out ASAP. why, because its not beneficial.

Again, the word "terrorists". Why aren't the US military portrayed as terrorists? They've killed FAR more people than any "terrorist" group ever will. Their presence just pissed off these "terrorists" who hate America as it is, and as such they're more likely to attack American troops, or set off a car bomb or what not and kill civilians in the process.

comparing the US military to jihadists is pretty extreme IS. Again there is a significant difference between running an air war and causing collateral damage and directly targeting civillian targets. if u dont get that difference then theres little i can do about that. these are not freedom fighters as u portray them, and i think its quite extreme that u even think so, they dont kill civillians in the "process of killing american troops" they kill civillians deliberately, and if thats not quite obvious when they blow themselves up inside schools and cafe's then i dont know what to say, obviously u hate american foreign policy, but please be alittle realistic.

How? How long will it take to finish the job, tell me this? You're looking for cherry picking information and statistics, 2007 was the deadliest year for American casualties, and casualties have always declined in the winter then picked up in summer.

stabilizing a country is not an easy task, no doubt about it, but it is possible, but u gotta have patience, the iraqi peoples sympathy towards american troops is increasing as the terrorists keep proving they only want to destabilize the country and kill civillians. yes 2007 was the deadliest year for american troops, why? well because of the surge where american troops moved into the streets to secure areas, but what about civillian casualties? they are down ALOT, in my eyes this is progress, u denying the progress the surge under general petrayas has made for iraq is ignorant, ure painting everything black, but the fact is that for the civillian population things are improving. and btw 4000 soldiers dead after 6 years of war is not by any means untolerable casualties, although offc it is a tragedy. i still believe that iraq can be stabilized by combining military, political and economic means.

But yeah, for whatever casualties which may be slightly down since the war began (NOT pre-invasion, there's a major difference) Iraq is completely destroyed. Pieces of Iraq are breaking off and getting controlled by other groups, and not only this, they are literally bribing those who they used to fight against. I'd encourage you to read this article in its entirety.

I agree that error after error has been made in iraq, it started with bremer and disolving the baath party and the iraqi police force which basically rendered the political structure in iraq obsolete and it encouraged large scale luting which made the iraqi population loose faith in the invasion forces. but what can you do, u move on and u try to fix the problems, u dont bail now, because leaving iraq now, just because its tough aint gonna solve anything. after having done the mistake of going in, the one thing the US cant do is leave, the US now have an obligation after bombing and invading the country to stabilize it. if the US leaves oh man we are gonna see a bloodbath down there u can never imagine, mark my words.

So instead America steals it for themselves? . No matter what "islamofascist terrorist bastard" groups do, they can not come close to doing the damage and killing the country that the US military has, not even close.

the us military is not what is tearing iraq apart, different fractions of shiites and sunnies combined with al quaida presence is making it a living hell for alot of people, but they can be defeated, not just militarily i agree. even military generals agree that a political solution is the only true answer to the problem, a military presence must bring about political progress. because that is the only thing that can stop iraq from falling apart right now. but do not believe that these terrorists are impossible to defeat, they can feel their casualties, and i already think their strenght is running out.


[/QUOTE]On the metric of violence in Iraq, it appears that about 80% of Iraq has a murder rate no higher than in the roughest neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Miami. This is worthy of being classified as 'violent criminal activity' rather than 'civil war'. The remaining 20% of Iraq has a higher rate of violence, but no higher than it was two years ago. Note that life expectancy in Iraq has actually risen.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't. For one, it is true, America has killed infinite times more. Two, is an Iraqi civilian who lost his wife and son in an air strike going to give a shit how or why it happened? Is he going to think "oh its okay, it's an air war". ?
Fuck no, he's not going to give a shit, he's going to get pissed off that some foreign nation waged war and bombed the shit out of his country for no reason whatsoever, (except pure lies). As such, he's going to get pissed off, and is more likely to attack the American troops, who killed his family for doing nothing.

Then, he is of course, labeled an "islamofascist bastard."

offc an iraqi civillian isnt going to think like that, but cmon man, whats most morally wrong? to drop a bomb on something u believe to be a military outpost and miss and kill civillians OR move into a school full of innocent children with a bunch of TNT wrapped around u and blow urself up. i dont care what u say, to most people its pretty obvious who holds the moral highground of these rebells and the american troops. u can question the political sentiments for going to war, but comparing american troops to terrorists is ridicolous.



http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/we_will_in_iraq.html

look at this, not everything is going so bad in iraq as u make it out to be, personally im confident that 2008 as long as one continue with the progress that has been made will be a pretty good year for iraq. the economy is improving, the oil will start flowing, crime rates are down and going down. lets see how things turns out in the end. one thing im sure of is that this is not another vietnam, not even close.

 

[Ironslave]

disagreeing with u about the subject of iraq doesent make me misguided, cuz face it, almost noone agrees with u or ron paul about pulling out ASAP. why, because its not beneficial.

Most people are lemmings, not saying you are a lemming, but I've yet to find a person who I could talk to in person and not have them support RP.

comparing the US military to jihadists is pretty extreme IS. Again there is a significant difference between running an air war and causing collateral damage and directly targeting civillian targets. if u dont get that difference then theres little i can do about that.

Oh give me a break, once again, I ask, if you lost your wife/child in an air strike, by a foreign invader (America) who just decided to bomb the absolute shit out of your country, kill hundreds of thousands of people directly, would you think "Oh thats okay America, it's only collateral damage, you didn't mean it." Who gives a shit what their "intention" was, bottom line, the US military has murdered multiple times more innocent civilians than other "Jihadist islamofascist bastards".

these are not freedom fighters as u portray them, and i think its quite extreme that u even think so, they dont kill civillians in the "process of killing american troops" they kill civillians deliberately, and if thats not quite obvious when they blow themselves up inside schools and cafe's then i dont know what to say, obviously u hate american foreign policy, but please be alittle realistic.

This is a complete strawman, I did not say "oh they are freedom fighters!!". No, middle eastern politics can be fucked up, and yes, many do deliberately kill civilians, there's no doubt about that. But, my argument is this. 1) There is a double standard for being considered a "terrorist", and 2) the US Military has done, and will continue to do, more harm than any "terrorist" organization could possibly ever do.

stabilizing a country is not an easy task, no doubt about it, but it is possible, but u gotta have patience,

Give me ONE historical example. Or better yet, I'll make it easier, give me one historical example where undeclared American intervention in a country during conflict has actually helped the country.

This is also completely ignoring the fact that the war is absolutely crippling the American economy, costing hundreds of millions of dollars every single day. The American dollar is crashing, the national debt is sky-rocketing.

Tell me how it is possible to "stabilize"? All that's going to happen is that America is going to prop up a puppet government, steal Iraqi resources, and Iraqi's are going to get pissed off, and more violence will occur.

the iraqi peoples sympathy towards american troops is increasing as the terrorists keep proving they only want to destabilize the country and kill civillians. yes 2007 was the deadliest year for american troops, why? well because of the surge where american troops moved into the streets to secure areas, but what about civillian casualties? they are down ALOT, in my eyes this is progress, u denying the progress the surge under general petrayas has made for iraq is ignorant, ure painting everything black, but the fact is that for the civillian population things are improving.

Give me a fucking break, you're being spoon fed bullshit by the mainstream media and politicians and you're eating it up and asking for seconds. You're the one who is painting everything black and white dude, not me. Read the article I posted, parts of Iraq are fucking destroyed, there's nothing else left to destroy!

Hundreds of thousands of people have died, eventually you'd think that naturally the number of those people will begin to plateau/decline. People have also fled and moved into other areas, so yeah, the number of civilian deaths in Baghdad may be down, say to levels of 2006 (whoop de fucking-do, it wasn't exactly paradise then), but it's still way up compared to pre-invasion.

But, let's look at some AFP statistics for casualties in Iraq, shall we?

August, 1,674;
September, 848
October, 679
November, 560
December, 548
January, 554
February, 674
March, 980.

So you see, it's beginning to climb up again, just like it always does. So much for your precious "the surge is working! the surge is working!"

and btw 4000 soldiers dead after 6 years of war is not by any means untolerable casualties, although offc it is a tragedy.

Oh for fuck sake, 4,000 dead FOR WHAT?!?! This is not as much a war as it is a foreign invasion! Iraq did nothing against America until America unprovokingly attacked it! Yes, it is fucking intolerable, because it was for a bullshit cause.

i still believe that iraq can be stabilized by combining military, political and economic means.

You're wrong.

. but what can you do, u move on and u try to fix the problems, u dont bail now, because leaving iraq now, just because its tough aint gonna solve anything. after having done the mistake of going in, the one thing the US cant do is leave, the US now have an obligation after bombing and invading the country to stabilize it.

America has an obligation for America, period. Regardless, why can't you possibly realize that American presence does NOT stabilize Iraq!

if the US leaves oh man we are gonna see a bloodbath down there u can never imagine, mark my words.

Your words mean shit. No matter what happens, it is completely impossible for any group of individuals to cripple the country, kill as many people, ruin the economy, put people in poverty, or have any detrimental effect that comes even CLOSE to the effect America has already had.

I'm getting pissed off reading the rest of your nonsense. Give me a break, why can't you realize that American presence CREATES more terrorist groups and pisses them off to commit radical attacks?? Read the first article I posted, many already anti-american groups are MUCH easier able to recruit people to their causes.

How the fuck can America eliminate all "terrorist" groups? Do they run around wearing like terrorist team uniforms and once they're gone that's it? Fuck, terrorism is a tactic, you cannot eliminate it.

I also noticed you didn't comment on America actually funding Sunni groups, which doesn't surprise me. Just like America has funded Contra's, and countess other "terrorist" groups. If you think America does beneficial, you're dead wrong. If America actually wanted to help, it should but the fuck out.

 

[pegasus]

disagreeing with u about the subject of iraq doesent make me misguided, cuz face it, almost noone agrees with u or ron paul about pulling out ASAP. why, because its not beneficial.


comparing the US military to jihadists is pretty extreme IS. Again there is a significant difference between running an air war and causing collateral damage and directly targeting civillian targets. if u dont get that difference then theres little i can do about that. these are not freedom fighters as u portray them, and i think its quite extreme that u even think so, they dont kill civillians in the "process of killing american troops" they kill civillians deliberately, and if thats not quite obvious when they blow themselves up inside schools and cafe's then i dont know what to say, obviously u hate american foreign policy, but please be alittle realistic.


stabilizing a country is not an easy task, no doubt about it, but it is possible, but u gotta have patience, the iraqi peoples sympathy towards american troops is increasing as the terrorists keep proving they only want to destabilize the country and kill civillians. yes 2007 was the deadliest year for american troops, why? well because of the surge where american troops moved into the streets to secure areas, but what about civillian casualties? they are down ALOT, in my eyes this is progress, u denying the progress the surge under general petrayas has made for iraq is ignorant, ure painting everything black, but the fact is that for the civillian population things are improving. and btw 4000 soldiers dead after 6 years of war is not by any means untolerable casualties, although offc it is a tragedy. i still believe that iraq can be stabilized by combining military, political and economic means.

do you know how much moneys going un-accounted for, each year in iraq because of the turmoil and unrest? why do you think the higher ups give a fuck about the 4000 americans or the 1 million plus iraqis in the past 5 years? do you think they care if it was 4000 or 40,000?

face the truth man, the US and the UK don't want iraq to stabalize! do you think the company's who make the bombs, guns, helicopters and tanks etc want the war to stop in iraq? if iraq was a calm country what do you think companys like black water would be doin?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

bulkboy i think your so consumed tryin to argue with IS and tech and tryin to prove them wrong that you don't want to open your eyes to what they sayin and hear out what they're saying, because maybe just maybe if you heared them out with an open mind then you'll see that maybe they're right about some of the stuff they're saying if not all of them..

also the fact that you stated that the government is a non-profit organization left me speechless. incase you didn't know, most people pensions are invested in oil companys such as exxon. so as you can see these people money aren't handled by a non-profit org.

 

[Flex]

Nice posts Pegasus and Ironslave.

Your words mean shit.

bulkboy i think your so consumed tryin to argue with IS and tech and tryin to prove them wrong that you don't want to open your eyes to what they sayin and hear out what they're saying

I completely agree. All I said earlier in this thread is if my country was occupied by American troops and they killed my children for no reason, I would fight back. Yet, Bulkboy tried arguing against that, saying it was ignorant of me to say.

He doesn't realize the problems we're causing just by being there.

 

[Ironslave]

bulkboy i think your so consumed tryin to argue with IS and tech and tryin to prove them wrong that you don't want to open your eyes to what they sayin and hear out what they're saying, because maybe just maybe if you heared them out with an open mind then you'll see that maybe they're right about some of the stuff they're saying if not all of them..

Also agreed. I think that there's no doubt Bulkboy has the right intentions in mind, but he just doesn't realize that despite the supposed intent of America's presence (Operation Iraqi Freedom!!!! ) , it always ends up fucking things up much more.

It's not as black and white as to say "America needs to stay and help clean it up, they broke it, they buy it." You have to realize that America is also funding the ones who keep Iraq, and other areas of the world, broken. The corruption by the US government is beyond imaginable, thus it would be so much better if they just stayed the fuck out.

 

[German_Joe]

I don't think the Iraq "quagmire" could become any worse at this point of time. If America stays Casualities will continue, and jihaddist's will continue to recruit new soldiers. The Viscous cycle continues! If America pulls out, you have different sects bidding for power of government. Either way people Die. So logically.... you have two choices


1) keep forces in Iraq
- worthless attempt at surpressing "insurgents"
- Crippling American Economy
- Civillian casualities
- American Soldier casualties

2) Pull troops out of Iraq
- Civilian casualties

Either way Civilians will be killed. Might as well brings forces home and try and "stabilize" the economy at home.

 

[Tech]

I always get overwhelmed in threads when people start multi-quoting in posts.

I wish someone would make cliff notes for each post so I could keep up.

 

[Braaq]

I always get overwhelmed in threads when people start multi-quoting in posts.

I wish someone would make cliff notes for each post so I could keep up.

I agree I kinda gave up

 

[Hypocrisy86]

my head hurts ..
or is it my brain
wait .... :S

 

[Bulkboy]

ye ok, ill be the one to end this one, arguing with IS is making me fucking sweat, and making those posts takes alot of time

however pegasus, i dont argue just to argue, i really disagree with the RP fans on this subject(tech, IS, flex) although i respect IS for making well thought through posts on the subject. u think i would spend this much time making posts on this matter if that was the case? i truly believe in a solution to this conflict other than immediate withdrawal, thats just my opinion and this is a open forum and im allowed to voice my opinion just as much as every RP fan.

i know that military force alone wont be enough, and mistake after mistake has been made in iraq, i agree. but things are going in the right direction imo, and let us now see how 2008 turns out. and yeah, withdrawing is irresponsible, when u intervene in a country and destroys its political and social structure u have a responsibility to stay there until the country is back on its feet.

imo the media portrays the situation to be worse than it is. iraq cant even slightly compare to vietnam for instance. and violence in 80% of iraq isnt much bigger than in chicago or LA. and iraqs GDP increased with 16% last year, now if economic progress continues it alone will serve to weaken the radical elements. bagdahd and that area is very violent, but progress is being made. just today i heard 28 rebels were killed when they tried to attack american troops. they feel their casualties too, that i can guarantee you.

 

[Ironslave]

i truly believe in a solution to this conflict other than immediate withdrawal, thats just my opinion and this is a open forum and im allowed to voice my opinion just as much as every RP fan.

Which is a fair opinion, and of course you/anybody is entitled to that, and certainly has the right to express it.

 

[pegasus]

however pegasus, i dont argue just to argue, i really disagree with the RP fans on this subject(tech, IS, flex) although i respect IS for making well thought through posts on the subject. u think i would spend this much time making posts on this matter if that was the case? i truly believe in a solution to this conflict other than immediate withdrawal, thats just my opinion and this is a open forum and im allowed to voice my opinion just as much as every RP fan.

yes ofcourse you do, my post was in no way an attempt to try and get you to be quite.

what bothers me about your posts is that you seem to think the government always has the best intentions at heart. the way i see it the founding fathers intended for this country to have is very different government to what you see today. government wasn't meant to be there to control everything, take people rights away, the president wasn't meant to declare illigal wars based on false claims and then secure his immunity from prosecution, america wasn't meant to be going around the world interfering in other nations affairs and nation building, which in turn has resulted in so much hate towards it self by the majority of the earth population. the reason why alot of people love ron paul is because he wants the government to be the way the founding fathers wanted it to be.

after having read alot of your posts two things stand out to me, one the fact that you belive america has a duty to police the world, two the fact that you think the government always has the best intentions at heart, and any bad that happens is because of a mistake and its never delibrate.

heres where i differ from you, then again this is my point of view and its perfectly fine for you to disagree. america chose to depend of middle eastern oil because it was so cheap, and having made that decision it does not give them the right to bully other nations and set up puppet governments to ensure its energy supplys. america chose not to invest in technologies such as coal to liquid fuel technologies and instead rely on forign sources. so when you say things such as, well america shouldn't leave iraq cause they need to secure the oil supplys, and that the terrorists shouldn't be in control of the oil in their own country, it annoys me.

on the matter of the government; a few days ago you said the government is a non profit org. yes its true that the goverenment doesn't have a CEO and shareholders that aim to increase profits on their investments, but if you view things from another prespective you'll see that it is actually a place for people looking to make profits. the government is made up of a group of politicians, and there is no reason to belive that these people are there to serve the best intrests of the country (with the exception of ron paul and 1 or 2 others), these people want to make money just like anyone else. you've already heard about lobbyist, and you know they bribe the people in government to vote in a certain manner, or you have other cases where people such as cheney who is the CEO of haliburton, which is a company that makes billions in profits because of the governments so called bad decision, or mistake to invade iraq. i for one do not belive the government makes bad decisions or mistakes, the descisions are bad for the nation and its populations, but not for those in government or those with ties to the government. hence why i think the fact that your trying to defend them saying they made a mistake but now they're doing better because they have the right strategy is a spineless argument in my eyes.

anyways thats just my two cents...

 

[Tech]

yes ofcourse you do, my post was in no way an attempt to try and get you to be quite.

what bothers me about your posts is that you seem to think the government always has the best intentions at heart. the way i see it the founding fathers intended for this country to have is very different government to what you see today. government wasn't meant to be there to control everything, take people rights away, the president wasn't meant to declare illigal wars based on false claims and then secure his immunity from prosecution, america wasn't meant to be going around the world interfering in other nations affairs and nation building, which in turn has resulted in so much hate towards it self by the majority of the earth population. the reason why alot of people love ron paul is because he wants the government to be the way the founding fathers wanted it to be.

after having read alot of your posts two things stand out to me, one the fact that you belive america has a duty to police the world, two the fact that you think the government always has the best intentions at heart, and any bad that happens is because of a mistake and its never delibrate.

heres where i differ from you, then again this is my point of view and its perfectly fine for you to disagree. america chose to depend of middle eastern oil because it was so cheap, and having made that decision it does not give them the right to bully other nations and set up puppet governments to ensure its energy supplys. america chose not to invest in technologies such as coal to liquid fuel technologies and instead rely on forign sources. so when you say things such as, well america shouldn't leave iraq cause they need to secure the oil supplys, and that the terrorists shouldn't be in control of the oil in their own country, it annoys me.

on the matter of the government; a few days ago you said the government is a non profit org. yes its true that the goverenment doesn't have a CEO and shareholders that aim to increase profits on their investments, but if you view things from another prespective you'll see that it is actually a place for people looking to make profits. the government is made up of a group of politicians, and there is no reason to belive that these people are there to serve the best intrests of the country (with the exception of ron paul and 1 or 2 others), these people want to make money just like anyone else. you've already heard about lobbyist, and you know they bribe the people in government to vote in a certain manner, or you have other cases where people such as cheney who is the CEO of haliburton, which is a company that makes billions in profits because of the governments so called bad decision, or mistake to invade iraq. i for one do not belive the government makes bad decisions or mistakes, the descisions are bad for the nation and its populations, but not for those in government or those with ties to the government. hence why i think the fact that your trying to defend them saying they made a mistake but now they're doing better because they have the right strategy is a spineless argument in my eyes.

anyways thats just my two cents...

 

[Flex]

yes ofcourse you do, my post was in no way an attempt to try and get you to be quite.

what bothers me about your posts is that you seem to think the government always has the best intentions at heart. the way i see it the founding fathers intended for this country to have is very different government to what you see today. government wasn't meant to be there to control everything, take people rights away, the president wasn't meant to declare illigal wars based on false claims and then secure his immunity from prosecution, america wasn't meant to be going around the world interfering in other nations affairs and nation building, which in turn has resulted in so much hate towards it self by the majority of the earth population. the reason why alot of people love ron paul is because he wants the government to be the way the founding fathers wanted it to be.

after having read alot of your posts two things stand out to me, one the fact that you belive america has a duty to police the world, two the fact that you think the government always has the best intentions at heart, and any bad that happens is because of a mistake and its never delibrate.

heres where i differ from you, then again this is my point of view and its perfectly fine for you to disagree. america chose to depend of middle eastern oil because it was so cheap, and having made that decision it does not give them the right to bully other nations and set up puppet governments to ensure its energy supplys. america chose not to invest in technologies such as coal to liquid fuel technologies and instead rely on forign sources. so when you say things such as, well america shouldn't leave iraq cause they need to secure the oil supplys, and that the terrorists shouldn't be in control of the oil in their own country, it annoys me.

on the matter of the government; a few days ago you said the government is a non profit org. yes its true that the goverenment doesn't have a CEO and shareholders that aim to increase profits on their investments, but if you view things from another prespective you'll see that it is actually a place for people looking to make profits. the government is made up of a group of politicians, and there is no reason to belive that these people are there to serve the best intrests of the country (with the exception of ron paul and 1 or 2 others), these people want to make money just like anyone else. you've already heard about lobbyist, and you know they bribe the people in government to vote in a certain manner, or you have other cases where people such as cheney who is the CEO of haliburton, which is a company that makes billions in profits because of the governments so called bad decision, or mistake to invade iraq. i for one do not belive the government makes bad decisions or mistakes, the descisions are bad for the nation and its populations, but not for those in government or those with ties to the government. hence why i think the fact that your trying to defend them saying they made a mistake but now they're doing better because they have the right strategy is a spineless argument in my eyes.

anyways thats just my two cents...

Very nice post. Repped.

 

[Ironslave]

Very nice post. Repped.

VIP'd

 

[pegasus]

thanks guys

Ron Paul FTW!!

 

[Braaq]

VIP'd

Yeah I brought up that pegasus should be VIP a while back. I say we get it to happen.

 

[Daniel Andersson]

VIP'd

 

[Bulkboy]

yes ofcourse you do, my post was in no way an attempt to try and get you to be quite.

what bothers me about your posts is that you seem to think the government always has the best intentions at heart. the way i see it the founding fathers intended for this country to have is very different government to what you see today. government wasn't meant to be there to control everything, take people rights away, the president wasn't meant to declare illigal wars based on false claims and then secure his immunity from prosecution, america wasn't meant to be going around the world interfering in other nations affairs and nation building, which in turn has resulted in so much hate towards it self by the majority of the earth population. the reason why alot of people love ron paul is because he wants the government to be the way the founding fathers wanted it to be.

after having read alot of your posts two things stand out to me, one the fact that you belive america has a duty to police the world, two the fact that you think the government always has the best intentions at heart, and any bad that happens is because of a mistake and its never delibrate.

heres where i differ from you, then again this is my point of view and its perfectly fine for you to disagree. america chose to depend of middle eastern oil because it was so cheap, and having made that decision it does not give them the right to bully other nations and set up puppet governments to ensure its energy supplys. america chose not to invest in technologies such as coal to liquid fuel technologies and instead rely on forign sources. so when you say things such as, well america shouldn't leave iraq cause they need to secure the oil supplys, and that the terrorists shouldn't be in control of the oil in their own country, it annoys me.

on the matter of the government; a few days ago you said the government is a non profit org. yes its true that the goverenment doesn't have a CEO and shareholders that aim to increase profits on their investments, but if you view things from another prespective you'll see that it is actually a place for people looking to make profits. the government is made up of a group of politicians, and there is no reason to belive that these people are there to serve the best intrests of the country (with the exception of ron paul and 1 or 2 others), these people want to make money just like anyone else. you've already heard about lobbyist, and you know they bribe the people in government to vote in a certain manner, or you have other cases where people such as cheney who is the CEO of haliburton, which is a company that makes billions in profits because of the governments so called bad decision, or mistake to invade iraq. i for one do not belive the government makes bad decisions or mistakes, the descisions are bad for the nation and its populations, but not for those in government or those with ties to the government. hence why i think the fact that your trying to defend them saying they made a mistake but now they're doing better because they have the right strategy is a spineless argument in my eyes.

anyways thats just my two cents...

good post man

however, let me tell you this, in no way do I always believe that the government has the best intentions at heart. while im in no way a "big government guy" i just believe that the government should play a bigger role than you ron paul fans think. thats just my ideological standpoint. and i agree totally that the invasion of iraq was based on lies and false premises. there were no WMD's, no connection to 9/11, no nothing. but you should know that 77% of iraqs population are happy that saddam was removed from power, although that obviously do not justify the war, since then an intervention should happend in alot of other countries too(saudi arabia, zimbabwe etc)

that being said, now that the mistake has happended, the last thing we must do is to leave iraq in the political shape it is in now. after the baath party was disolved the following power vacuum led to what we see now, with different groups fighting for power in a country with the worlds second largest oil supplies. the solution MUST come in the form of a political resentment and that can only happend with US/international occurence in the country. if one leave iraq in the shape it is now, we will see a bloodbath, and we will see Iran gain an untolerable foothold in the region, and no matter what you say about foreign policy and non intervention, leaving almost all the middle eastern oil supplies in the hands of a totalitarian extreme islamic regime that has publicly said that it has the destruction of Israel as its main objective is so far away from political realism as you can come.

I have never said that the US have an obligation to police the world. that being said i believe that the US have an international role to play. In this globalized world we live in, no country can just seek cover behind its own borders and pretend the world is not there. as the one remaining democratic superpower, the US imo must seek to prevent violations of the human rights, and in extreme cases, (like the genocide on the balkans), military intervention is justified. it's not something i wish for to happend, but when the alternative is millions of dead civillians, it is just obvious to me that the international community must do something. if my country was attacked by Russia, which is a very real threat, then i would wish support from America and NATO. For the US, seeking cover behind its own borders is ok, because obviously you dont have a great outside threat to worry about and you have the strongest military in the world. but for alot of other countries(like mine) who wish to preserve our democracy, we are dependent on a strong america that steps up if violations happends.

Also, i believe you when you say that the american government is somewhat corrupt and infected by lobbyists etc, and obviously that is something one should strive to prevent. however I believe you are generalizing when you say that there is no reason to expect that they are there to serve the best interests of the people. Some may be there only for profit, but i think those are few, there are lots of other ways to make alot of money other than getting involved in politics. just because they may not always do what you think is right do not make them all corrupted. think about it alittle, u live in the richest country in the world, u have the right to free speech, free religion and to pursue your dreams. that is a hell of alot more than most people on this earth was ever granted. let us be alittle more thankful shall we? i for one catch myself way to often complaining about politicians in my country, but fact of the matter is I realize I have alot to be thankful for too. its not all bad, as the media like to portray it sometimes.