Paul blames Iraq crisis on Bush administration

[musiclady]

You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.

 

[jmyrlefuller]

You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.

Muslim violence, yes, if only because the perpetrator happened to be a Muslim.

Yet a similar (and smaller) incident happened five years later, and Ivan Lopez was no Muslim. Hasan's (earlier) act had more in common with domestic shooting sprees like Sandy Hook than it did with anything al-Qaeda has done.

[evadR]

Muslim violence, yes, if only because the perpetrator happened to be a Muslim.

Yet a similar (and smaller) incident happened five years later, and Ivan Lopez was no Muslim. Hasan's (earlier) act had more in common with domestic shooting sprees like Sandy Hook than it did with anything al-Qaeda has done.

hmmm...I'm not sure what point we're making here, if there is one.

Fort Hood was muslim terrorism. There are other acts of extreme violence which are not muslim terrorism but just as deadly. The Boston bombings, we could go on.

The best thing I can say about the past decade since 9-11 is that we've been lucky, and we haven't been nuked......yet.

[Fishrrman]

xfreeper wrote above:
[[ We could cease any and all involvement around the world and the attacks would continue until the US accepts Sharia law for all it's citizens ]]

You have it right, sir.

Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.

Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".

Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.

BOTH of the above approaches are ridiculous and ignore the reality of islam.

The jihadis don't care who is in charge of the "nations" of the Mideast. They are ALWAYS going to hate us, because we are who we are. "Who we are," are the infidels, living in dar al-harb. And the entire purpose of islam is to overcome dar al-harb and transform it into dar al-islam. (Aside: for all you folks reading this, if those two terms confuse you, you'd better look them up.)

dar al-islam is in a fight to the finish with dar al-harb. The only problem here (for us, that is) is that dar al-harb doesn't even seem to understand or grasp the nature, the existentiality, of this struggle.

Someday, perhaps when the jihadis finally get their hands on a nuclear device or two, The West may wake up. But by then, it may be too late.

Could this struggle be ended? Yes, I believe -- with two weapons, one each deployed against two cities. I sense that the time may come when they will have to be used. It may be The West's last chance....

[faucetman]

The original premise for going there belonged and belongs to Bush and Cheney. If that premise was wrong, then they own it.

I very much dislike Obama, but he is holding true to his 2008 campaign stand, of getting out of Iraq.

Training the Iraqi military is a joke. They put down their guns and ran from the enemy, nearly 11 years after we first went there.

If 11 years of training is not enough, more won't be either; yet more training being the premise of Cheney now, today.

That seems a lot like liberal spenders and their failed plans, claiming more money will work, when the entire plan is a failure, including the basic premise.

Sunnis and Shiites have killed each other for 1,200 years, since long before the vital flow of oil to the world.

Let somebody else hand their sons and daughters over to America's brilliant military generals and admirals, to protect that oil. The US should spend national treasure to be self-sufficient, not letting our military dies and get mangled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports

It is so difficult to have an intelligent discussion when people highjack the meaning of words. For instance:

i·so·la·tion·ism  [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-]  Show IPA 
noun 
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

WORDS MEAN THINGS.

IMHO.

Does Rand Paul want to isolate our country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc ? NO

Does Rand Paul want to seek to devote the ENTIRE efforts of our country to our own advancement? NO, make it a priority? Yes.

Does Rand Paul want to remain at peace? YES! So do I. No more arms to terrorists. No more proxy wars. No more nation building. No more world policeman.

Does Rand Paul want to avoid foreign entanglements? In most cases yes. You would have to define "entanglements".

Does Rand Paul want to avoid foreign responsibilities? No.  We will honor our responsibilities. We should limit them as much as possible in the future.

Isolationist? NO
Isolationist tendencies? I could agree with that. America first? Definitely! Develop our own energy on a massive scale so we can create jobs, boost our economy, stop giving billions to terrorists and actually EXPORT energy? Paramount!

[Oceander]

*  *  *

Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.

Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".

Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.

*  *  *

with that I wholeheartedly agree.

[evadR]

Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.

Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".

Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.

*  *  *

with that I wholeheartedly agree.

*  *  *

I disagree with everything said about Bush's strategy EXCEPT building a democracy.
These people have no concept of a democracy and without the security of a major overseer, it could never be allowed to develop.

[Dexter]

The Democracy we tried to build was doomed to fail because Democracy only works if the people are willing to defend it, and they weren't. You can't force your idealism on another group of people and expect them to uphold that idealism after you leave. The decision needs to be their own.

[musiclady]

Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.

Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".

Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.

*  *  *

with that I wholeheartedly agree.

*  *  *

I disagree with everything said about Bush's strategy EXCEPT building a democracy.
These people have no concept of a democracy and without the security of a major overseer, it could never be allowed to develop.

It was based on the concept that every human being yearns for freedom.

In retrospect, it seems a bit naïve, knowing that given every opportunity to create a democratic government, the Iraqis failed.

But I still think that the majority of the Iraqi people DO long for freedom and individual choice.

Though I may be in the minority here.  I believe what I do based on our son's year-long experience in talking one on one to individual Iraqis who did long for freedom, and appreciated the presence of the US military there to help them achieve it.

Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME.

[evadR]

"Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME."

Spot on.

Everyone walks around with a firecracker up their butt and they all walk around with lighters.

Crude analogy but I think it sums things up pretty well for the ME.

[evadR]

I think everyone yearns for the freedom to raise their family the way they want, work for a living making a decent return, go to church, maybe own a herd of goats, etc...
BUT...
not everyone wants democracy.

Look at Americans.  We have it, it's been given to us by the blood and sacrifice of our fathers and we're throwing it away.

[musiclady]

I think everyone yearns for the freedom to raise their family the way they want, work for a living making a decent return, go to church, maybe own a herd of goats, etc...
BUT...
not everyone wants democracy.

Look at Americans.  We have it, it's been given to us by the blood and sacrifice of our fathers and we're throwing it away.

Really, REALLY good point, evad.

Without the brilliance of our Founders, democracy would not exist anywhere.

And here we are.

Throwing it down the toilet.


 

[evadR]

"Without the brilliance of our Founders, democracy would not exist anywhere."

Now THAT is a really, really, really good point!

[Oceander]

It was the British, actually, who are "to blame" for the existence of democracy.

[musiclady]

It was the British, actually, who are "to blame" for the existence of democracy.

In a manner of speaking.

But they still had a monarchy and some pretty hefty classism, and not the representative Republic that the Founders created.

[EC]

"Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME."

Spot on.

Everyone walks around with a firecracker up their butt and they all walk around with lighters.

Crude analogy but I think it sums things up pretty well for the ME.

The analogy may be slightly crude, but it's 1000% accurate.

[DCPatriot]

The analogy may be slightly crude, but it's 1000% accurate.

Isn't that the reason the Ba-ath Party (Saddam Hussein) seized control of the country in the 'first' place?

'first', meaning they've been killing one another for over a thousand years.

[EC]

Isn't that the reason the Ba-ath Party (Saddam Hussein) seized control of the country in the 'first' place?

'first', meaning they've been killing one another for over a thousand years.

You know - I really don't know.

I know that the "official" line is a load of BS about how Saddam came to power. Dark hints about outside involvement (which usually is taken to mean the USA (read CIA) in some way or another, and rather believable) if you listen between the lines, and a few comments that would make Idi Amin feel like a piker, but mostly people just say "He saw his chance and took it."

Even now, no one wants to talk about him, it's one of the taboo topics. It is strange. An entire country actively repressing it's last 30 years of history. It's like Germany in the 70's - "Holocaust? What's that?"