Ron Paul is moving up!!!

[Lynn Farris]

Who would have believed it but the third ranked Republican in terms of available cash would be Dr. Ron Paul? He has taken McCain's place!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-15-giuliani_N.htm?csp=34

But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iraqslogger.com%2Findex.php%2Fpost%2F3609

Who would have thought he would have the best internet site among the Republicans and he would have attracted the young voters?

I hadn't heard of him until the first debate and then I went and looked him up like many others obviously did.

He is different - he is the traditional Republican - Conservative, Fiscally Responsible, Fighting to keep government out of our lives. He is intelligent. He believes in Science!!! He belives in Evolution and in Global Warming. He wants to pull us out of Iraq, He doesn't think we should start a Pre-Emptive Nuclear War with Iran.

He is a breath of Fresh Air to the Republican Party in my impression.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Stephen Eisel]

I am conservative and begrudge what has happened to the republican party. The only bright spot is the number of minorities that have become members of the party.

[Brian Pedaci]

The tete-a-tete with Rudy in the debate was a red herring and a chance for Giuliani to climb on top of those corpses to grandstand a little.

It's incontrovertible that we are a target of Islamicist aggression because of our foreign policy, not because they 'hate our freedom'. It's not the ONLY reason they attacked us, nor is it the only reason to be non-interventionist in our foreign policy. But Dr. Paul hits it right on the nose when he says that we must trade and show the world our best side rather than our worst if we want to win converts to the cause of democracy and liberty.

I doubt that he has the personal charisma to take the race, and he won't run as an independent or under the Libertarian party flag. He appeals to a weird range of voters, from socially-liberal lefties to the Constitution Party hard-right. He'll be an interesting factor as he's the only one I've heard speaking with principle and common sense. I'm pretty sure Obama has it in him, but he's been vague and hard to pin down lately. I know where Dr. Paul is coming from, and I think America could do with a healthy dose of grown-up leadership for a change.

[Stephen Eisel]

There is no excuse for 9-11. Genocide is never the answer or solution to any problem. What Al Qaeda did on 9-11 sealed their fate. Osama had no problem with the US when we assisted him and the Mujahideen in driving the Russians out of Afghanistan.

[Brian Pedaci]

And see, that's where the conversation usually goes. Of course there's no excusing 9/11. That's a bizarre and confounding conclusion to draw. The perpetrators need to be brought to justice (how are we doin' on that front, by the way?) Who said otherwise?

[Stephen Eisel]

And see, that's where the conversation usually goes. Of course there's no excusing 9/11. That's a bizarre and confounding conclusion to draw. The perpetrators need to be brought to justice (how are we doin' on that front, by the way?) Who said otherwise?

We are fighting and killing Al Qaeda members in Iraq.. How do we measure success in Iraq? Is it the frequnecy of attacks on US soil? I really do not know.. I do not trust the US media reporting on this subject.


PS You did not say otherwise. I was just trying to stress a point. (sorry for the bad communication)


PS PS

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

[Brian Pedaci]

We are fighting and killing Al Qaeda members in Iraq.. How do we measure success in Iraq? Is it the frequnecy of attacks on US soil? I really do not know.. I do not trust the US media reporting on this subject.

Do you trust the National Intelligence Estimate which states that Al Qaeda is back at roughly their pre-9/11 strength? Insurgents who identify themselves with Al Qaeda are part of our challenge in Iraq, but in fighting them there, we're doing nothing to substantially disable their infrastructure. We can have this discussion in any number of other threads on the subject. The fact is, despite the President's blithe denials, it's hard to argue anything but that we've done a poor job of our #1 mission - destroy Al-Qaeda. Our actions in Iraq have provided them with more recruits than they'd have gotten otherwise. Seeing family members die in a senseless war brought upon you by a foreign power has a way of radicalizing your outlook. The Iraqis don't want Al-Qaeda to establish a caliphate in Iraq. Unfortunately, they want us out even more than they want Al-Qaeda out.

Al-Maliki even went so far as to say that the US could leave "any time they want". If the government of the country doesn't want us there, and the people of the country don't want us there - why are we there?

PS PS

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

I don't get your point with this.

[Stephen Eisel]

WASHINGTON -- Al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the U.S. and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an increasingly worrisome portrait of al Qaeda's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be ...

I have not read the report and probably will not until the weekend. (I hope that it is availbale online) The media has a history of taking things out of context to match their agenda. ( I am not saying that they have done with this report) Leading up to 9-11, the US did nothing after several US targets were hit by terrorist. , The USS Cole, The US embassies in in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and the bombing of the WTC 1993 went with out any type of reaction from the US.

Yes, we bombed Iraq on 12/16/98

I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors

but Iraq had not been officially accused of supporting terrorist at this time. So is this situatiuon a catch 22 ? Regardless of US military action or lack of, it seems that we are a target of terrorist. And if Al Qaeda levels are just getting back up to pre 9-11 levels then have we not had some success?

[ryan costa]

Al Queda has flocked to Iraq specifically to fight the U.S. presence there.

Are the Al Queda fighters in Iraq still made up primarily of Saudis? Are Saudi millionaires still pouring money into venues that ultimately warm Saudi students up to thinking Al Queda is cool?

[Stephen Eisel]

Al Queda has flocked to Iraq specifically to fight the U.S. presence there.

Are the Al Queda fighters in Iraq still made up primarily of Saudis? Are Saudi millionaires still pouring money into venues that ultimately warm Saudi students up to thinking Al Queda is cool?

Ryan, good point! Are we (The US) following the money trail? I keep hearing that Iranian weapons keep on showing up in Iraq but where is the money coming from to buy these weapons?

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

The report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

[Brian Pedaci]

And if Al Qaeda levels are just getting back up to pre 9-11 levels then have we not had some success

Is it really your intention to argue that "hey, we're not losing as quickly as we COULD have"?

[ryan costa]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QEBV080&show_article=1

The report says that worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained al-Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. again and convinced terror groups that U.S. soil is a tougher target.

The most frequent slogans used by the Republicans is that the terrorists "hate our freedom". That cannot be an accurate assessment of the terrorists. Americans - whether they know it or not - define their freedom as the ability to do tankerloads of driving. The bottlenecks to our ability to drive are easy enough to disable or destroy. How many bridges or highway overpasses more than 100 feet long do you drive over every day? How long do they take to build or repair?

So no, the terrorists don't hate our freedom. This isn't a war for our freedom. there is no war on terror. It is a long drawn out policing exercise. Soldiers technically work cheaper than American police officers. We can't really even keep the gangs of Los Angeles constrained, and they have no political goals.

Ted Nugent can personally pick 500,000 Iraqis to execute immediately. Within a year more will drift into the ranks of what we consider terrorists. It is simply a new niche that exists as a natural consequence to what we tout as examples of our success.

[Stephen Eisel]

The most frequent slogans used by the Republicans is that the terrorists "hate our freedom". That cannot be an accurate assessment of the terrorists. Americans - whether they know it or not - define their freedom as the ability to do tankerloads of driving. The bottlenecks to our ability to drive are easy enough to disable or destroy. How many bridges or highway overpasses more than 100 feet long do you drive over every day? How long do they take to build or repair?

So no, the terrorists don't hate our freedom. This isn't a war for our freedom. there is no war on terror. It is a long drawn out policing exercise. Soldiers technically work cheaper than American police officers. We can't really even keep the gangs of Los Angeles constrained, and they have no political goals.

Ted Nugent can personally pick 500,000 Iraqis to execute immediately. Within a year more will drift into the ranks of what we consider terrorists. It is simply a new niche that exists as a natural consequence to what we tout as examples of our success.

I think the term used by the terrorist is Jihad. This is a Holy War according to Osmam bin Laden. So with out freedom of religion how is this not about freedom? We have all been labled infidels by this minority fringe terrorist group. They hate us us for being free thinking infidels. They hate us because of our culture (good or bad). Why is Al Qaeda killing innocent Iraqi civilians?

[ryan costa]

The most frequent slogans used by the Republicans is that the terrorists "hate our freedom". That cannot be an accurate assessment of the terrorists. Americans - whether they know it or not - define their freedom as the ability to do tankerloads of driving. The bottlenecks to our ability to drive are easy enough to disable or destroy. How many bridges or highway overpasses more than 100 feet long do you drive over every day? How long do they take to build or repair?

So no, the terrorists don't hate our freedom. This isn't a war for our freedom. there is no war on terror. It is a long drawn out policing exercise. Soldiers technically work cheaper than American police officers. We can't really even keep the gangs of Los Angeles constrained, and they have no political goals.

Ted Nugent can personally pick 500,000 Iraqis to execute immediately. Within a year more will drift into the ranks of what we consider terrorists. It is simply a new niche that exists as a natural consequence to what we tout as examples of our success.

I think the term used by the terrorist is Jihad. This is a Holy War according to Osmam bin Laden. So with out freedom of religion how is this not about freedom? We have all been labled infidels by this minority fringe terrorist group. They hate us us for being free thinking infidels. They hate us because of our culture (good or bad). Why is Al Qaeda killing innocent Iraqi civilians?

I dunno. If that was my concern I'd point out Al Queda wasn't trying or succeeding in killing Iraqi civilians before we invaded.

If sectarian violence is a factor in measures of Freedom, there is less freedom in Iraq now than before we invaded. So...in order to view ourselves as succeeding in Iraq it is necessary to not have Freedom being a benchmark of success.

Was Saddam's Prime Minister a Chaldean Catholic? I don't see that kind of religious tolerance in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

Here is a good book to read. World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability by Amy Chua(she is an American).