Minimize

Welcome!

Haven’t We Already Done Enough Damage in Iraq?’ — Ron Paul’s June 16th Column

ker
June 16, 2014

In 2006, I invited the late General Bill Odom to address my Thursday Congressional luncheon group. Gen. Odom, a former NSA director, called the Iraq war “the greatest strategic disaster in American history,” and told the surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States. History continues to prove the General’s assessment absolutely correct.

Full article here.

 

Discussion
45 Comments
    CFS
    Jun 16, 2014 16:18 AM

    Off Topic:
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/ex-border-agents-immigrant-flood-orchestrated/

    Reasons to impeach……….take your pick, I’ve counted over 30 law violations and then gave up. I’m thinking firing squad for traitors.

    CFS
    Jun 16, 2014 16:55 AM

    I think Ron Paul is wrong, based on his isolationista beliefs.
    It was that kind of thinking that caused too early withdrawal in Iraq War I.
    It is that kind of thinking that has caused failure in all American wars in the last 50 years.
    I don’t like wars, but it is stupid to go into any war determined NOT TO WIN. That is Ron Paul’s attitude.
    The current problem in Iraq is a direct consequence of failure to leave behind 10,000 to 20,000 troops, combined with the policy of our Islamo-marxist President actually supplying allies of ISIS with armaments and releasing the leader of ISIS from captivity.
    Releasing a known maniac killer was utter stupidity.
    Ron Paul believes that if you leave Islam alone, then maniacs won’t attack the U.S..
    Such a belief is the height of folly; a total non-comprehension of the mindset of Islamic fundamentalism.
    We had no choice but to go into Iraq war I. We pulled too early. Then 9/11 happened. It is probable that going into Iraq war II was a mistake, but the public was demanding retaliation for 9/11.
    Given that we had fought Iraq war II, declaring victory and total withdrawal when we had not won was a mistake. Supplying the allies of ISIS with armaments compounded that mistake. But if Ron Paul thinks we are better off being isolationist now, he is just plain wrong. Wait till the next version of 9/11 happens, and it will, because the terrorists know the US is weak-willed.

      Jun 16, 2014 16:13 AM

      CFS, You can never win a war period. When The US entered Vietnam they had their hands tied but it didn’t matter because if you win the battles and take the country you will never be able to win the peace as soon as your troops go home the insurgents arrive and the subjugated country returns to it’s former self. So what have you gained besides a huge number of dead and wounded soldiers and a crippling deficit. Let the Arabs figure it out for themselves and learn how to trust the thinking of others.

        Jun 16, 2014 16:33 AM

        IMPERALISM………..which has NEVER WORKED……..and can NEVER WORK……

          Jun 16, 2014 16:31 AM

          DT and Jerry,
          Spot on…bingo….bulls eye….nailed it…should I go on!????

          CFS
          Jun 16, 2014 16:43 AM

          I happen to agree with you, J the LONG, but could you tell me when isolationism has won?

        CFS
        Jun 16, 2014 16:37 AM

        The last insurgent-type war to be won was probably the UK-Borneo war that was just after the Korean “not-war”. Completely different tactics were used. Don’t know if they would work today. Have not fully studied it.

        Jun 16, 2014 16:58 AM

        Yes, let them figure it out for themselves, but step on terrorists really hard when they directly attack us.

          Jun 16, 2014 16:08 AM

          Look back in History and read about what Britain has done. Do you remember Lord Kitchener and Lawrence of Arabia. Live and let live and if you are attacked yes, defend yourself. But remember the laws of physics for each and every action there is at least an equal and opposite reaction.

            CFS
            Jun 16, 2014 16:09 PM

            You guys are raising straw dogs.

            Ron Paul says Isolationism. I say it won’t work.

            You guys say Imperialism does not work. I agree, so what is the solution?

            If you agree with Ron Paul. Fine. Say so. I just think you are wrong and don’t understand Muslims.

          Jun 16, 2014 16:16 AM

          BIg Al,
          I completely agree…those guys having been fighting for thousands of years….this is strictly about the PETRO dollar and oil/energy….end of story…don’t try to complicate the uncomplicated…(not you Al – just people in general) AND NO, America doesnt have the oil reserves everybody think we do..hence – the PANNNNNIC!

            Jun 16, 2014 16:33 AM

            Marc, we mustn’t forget what General and President Dwight Eisenhower”s parting shots were when he left the white house.

      Jun 16, 2014 16:28 AM

      Your a pompous schmuck !

        Jun 16, 2014 16:30 AM

        Redaction CFS you are a pompous schmuck !

          Jun 16, 2014 16:31 AM

          Agree with Dick Tracy.

        Jun 16, 2014 16:02 AM

        Like I have said so often in the past, Joseph, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion!

        Common man, I would bet that you agree with my comment.

      Jun 16, 2014 16:56 AM

      Professor, at the risk of taking the middle road, I think that both you and Dr. Paul really make good points.

        CFS
        Jun 16, 2014 16:59 AM

        The problem is stopping the terrorism on American soil.

        I am not pro-imperialism. I believe that does invite attack.
        At the same time, when fighting an enemy, I believe it is imperative to understand the thinking of the enemy. I believe Ron Paul is ideologically Libertarian driven, and is no longer looking at facts.
        Was the Iraq War II a mistake. Probably. But we cannot change history. We are where we are. Looking forward does standing back and doing nothing make sense? I would suggest not. I believe we will be under attack from further terrorism.

        Also implied in Ron Paul’s comments seemed to be an excusal of Obama because he withdrew troops. I think Obama left Iraq in a mess and compounded that mess by arming rebels in Syria. I in no way endorse Imperialism, but there has to be a better solution than simple political ideology.

          bb
          Jun 16, 2014 16:35 AM

          cfs, if we were going to be attacked by “terrorists” wouldn’t we be by now?
          Really simple thing to do actually, mustard gas at events or transit trains for example same day in a few cities, even a box of nails on freeways at rush hour would cause some havoc.
          But we don’t see anything really, heck there are more “mass shootings” at schools than acts of terror.
          So, where are these terrorists? Why arnt these terrorists the first thing people think of when they take tansit or go to sporting events?
          Is it possible they don’t exist?

          This war on terror is mearly a fascist excuse to reduce peoples liberty imo.

            CFS
            Jun 16, 2014 16:50 AM

            Just wait. Right now the Terrorists are accumulating a land mass control from Morocco to Turkey. That is more important than attacking Satan across the Atlantic.
            A few years, a decade, even a century is but a short time in history.

            bb
            Jun 16, 2014 16:05 AM

            I understand the goal of these religious guys is to build an empire, but from that point assuming they are successful, wouldn’t that be war between nations?

            I don’t know cfs, except if a terrorist group could chop us up pretty good if they really wanted to.
            At least I think they could, minimum they could have people thinking twice before going to public places or using transit.
            I just see this terrorism as a lie.

            CFS
            Jun 16, 2014 16:11 PM

            It is possible that there is not a war going on in Iraq now, I suppose, but I kinda doubt it.

            bb
            Jun 16, 2014 16:43 PM

            Took me awhile but I finaly got it.
            These guys taking Morrocco to Iraq with the intention of building there own nation based around sharia law are the “terrorists”. ok, unless they win, at which time they become the new legitimate government.

            If we look back in time to other continents we find lots of eruopean and white terrorists.

            “terrorist” might just be perspective, we used to call it invasion for example.

            Anyway, Ron Paul has said that these acts of “terrorism” should be dealt with as criminal, not war unless war is declared.

            bb
            Jun 16, 2014 16:46 PM

            World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration.

            Ron Paul is just fighting for the constitution I think.
            This is a pce of a Forbes article I quickly googled.

    CFS
    Jun 16, 2014 16:20 AM

    We have not really had a conventional war for decades. You are right, DT, in believing it is difficult to win any insurgent war. The only way to win that is to place fear in the enemy, such that they understand any re-engagement will exact an intolerable punishment. Weakness becomes an invitation for further attack.

      Jun 16, 2014 16:33 AM

      Typical…My War Your Son

        Jun 16, 2014 16:03 AM

        Often times that is the case and that is why I agree with you and Dr. Paul regarding our involvement in the Middle East.

    Jun 16, 2014 16:39 AM

    PM………..same old play book………..EAST MEETS WEST……….

    Jun 16, 2014 16:42 AM

    CFS, We would both agree that WW11 was a conventional war. It was started after Germany took Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

    When the war ended Germany was a defeated nation but Poland, Czechoslovakia, and a host of other eastern European countries including East Berlin had been conquered by Russia. This collection of countries became known as The USSR. Then Russia entered Afghanistan and they lost there empire which was crumbling before that. Can you still tell me that you can win a conventional war when the reason for going to war in the first place was Germany’s aggression but at the end of WW11 Russia controlled far more countries than Germany. Now all of these countries are free because those who live by the sword can never keep the peace.

      CFS
      Jun 16, 2014 16:29 AM

      I have previously stated that Eisenhower was a good general, but the end of the war was poorly handled to due political policies over-riding Eisenhower’s fighting.

      I suggest you rent or buy the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”
      It is a good movie, starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. A dramatization loosely based on the truth, but it will give you more insight into the Afghan war, and the crumbling of the USSR.
      It is hard for me to argue coherently with someone who is not fully conversant with all the facts.
      The USSR was very lucky that Gorbachev loved his country sufficiently to allow the empire to break up peacefully. Had Putin been in charge there would still be bloodshed going on.
      “Can you tell me that you can win a conventional war when the reason for the war in the first place was Germany’s aggression but in the end of WWII Russia controlled far more countries than Germany”
      I really don’t fully understand the question.
      The allies certainly won he war in the Pacific.
      England, France and other minor countries certainly won their part of WWII.
      Poland and the Communist block countries (ex Russia) lost temporarily (50 years)
      But that was the political price paid for Russia’s war effort.
      Are you saying Germany won? Obviously not.
      Are you saying US, England, France Benelux lost? I don’t think so.
      You seem yo be saying Russia winning somehow equals a non-win for us, and I say it was still a win but a political price was paid. Tough on the Czechs and Poles, but England and France were broke…..they could not do more.

        Jun 16, 2014 16:26 PM

        Unfortunately CFS you do not see my point, I thought it was obvious but I am not interested in trying to change anyone’s mind only in stating my opinion. As for you I think you are astute at many things but this is not one of them.

    bb
    Jun 16, 2014 16:40 AM

    A little talk about Vietnam and Iraq, nobody mentioned the bay of Tonkin never happened or there were no wmd.

    Just thinkin focus might be in the wrong direction.

    Somebody said nobody wins a war, I agree.

    I find it amasing cfs you disagree with Ron Paul, your pretty astute in other areas.

    You mention 911 happened then we invaded, true, but it was all lies, check archetecs and engineers for 911 truth.
    Explain the thermite if you could or how building 7 came down from an office fire.
    Or, maybe watch a few videos of controlled demolishin then watch the towers and see if you can convince yourself it wasnt.

    No big deal really, I just am astonished sometimes that educated and intelligent people don’t see the truth of these matters.

    Its war for banks profit, unless you concur with Bush, “they hate us for our freedom”.

    CFS
    Jun 16, 2014 16:39 AM

    I did not say I agreed with Iraq war II. I have said, given where we are, isolationism is not the solution to future problems.

    Iraq II happened. It was based on lies. Politicians lie. Most politicians lie to some degree most of the time. All politicians have other agendas, than doing what is best for the country. Ron Paul is better than most.
    Chamberlain was naive; Ron Paul, in my opinion, regretfully, has an ideological tendency that parallels Chamberlain.

      bb
      Jun 16, 2014 16:08 AM

      cfs, are you sure not mixing up liberty with apeasment?

        CFS
        Jun 16, 2014 16:17 PM

        Is not isolationism appeasement?

        Ron Paul seems to be saying don’t get involved. If you don’t get involved, is that not pretty much the same as saying to someone “Go ahead. Do your thing, we don’t care.”

          bb
          Jun 16, 2014 16:42 PM

          CFS Personaly I don’t see isolationism and appeasment being the same.
          I actually disagree with both of those.
          I don’t see how a nation can be isolated today and appeasement,makes me say hmmmm.

          Liberty doesn’t have anything to do with either.

          I honestly think if you took the time to see how liberty gets applied to various situations you might be surprised.

          An issue with liberty tho, is it really need to be understood to apply it in some situations.
          When I saw how Ron Paul applied it a time or two (when I didn’t see how it applied)
          my first thought was Ron Paul is really smart, my next thought was “who could have seen that?”
          Now I think Ron Paul should be instructing it somewhere before the knowledge is lost.

          If you take the time to understand liberty Im sure you will end up agreeing with it.

          Not that I believe we ever get the chance to actualy implement it anywhere.
          But I see it as a beutiful thing, kinda what the religious speakers talk about but without the religion.

    Jun 16, 2014 16:47 AM

    It’s all about the World Reserve Currency status. We win by the country’s using the
    US dollar for settlement of crude, etc., and buying Tresury Bonds with their surplus’
    for future purchases. We sell our debt and keep our life style.
    Best to all.

    Jun 16, 2014 16:52 AM

    The problem for me lies in the fact that The Allies after The Second World War believed in a dangerous psychology, that they were right because they saw themselves as victors. In doing this it has stymied them from critically judging their actions to see what had made their society so successful. This has also led to poor leadership amongst them.

    CFS
    Jun 16, 2014 16:54 AM

    Believe there is a lot of truth in what you say Keep Stacking; that was the primary political motivation.

    Jun 17, 2014 17:08 AM

    A poem for Obama…the big Zero in chief.

    Isis is marching
    toward Bahgdad
    Obama dropped the ball
    and Hillary is just sad

    Kerry married
    the heiress to Heinze
    About as smart as a ketchup bottle
    are some of his lines

    I think it would be funny
    If Isis took over Baghdad city
    And hung the US puppet Malahki
    No more US oilfields, pity.

    Maybe Obama will send
    troops that are highly ranked
    But the US will lose
    and be internationally spanked

    Putin will be dancing
    at the hotel Ritz
    Perhaps do a romance explosion
    on Hillary’s wrinkled tits.

    Obama will be jealous
    He will have no plan
    Michelle will look at shirtless Putin
    and say “Now that’s a real man!”

    Inter-racial sex tape
    they will make
    Obama will be too cowardly
    his own life to take