So now you’re telling me what *I* was talking about?

No. You’re trying to tell me what I was talking about. You responded to my post, remember.

I already presented this as clear as can be. I don’t feel I’m condescending or arrogant, but you give me reason to be.

Not in our conversation it wasn’t.

So now you’re telling me what *I* was talking about?

So much for letting go of your Paulian condescension and arrogance. Given that and your affected tone, I’m hearing all I need to hear.

Paul’s “fact” about radicalization is at issue.

Not in our conversation it wasn’t.

He may have gotten his facts wrong, but his point is valid.

Isn’t that kind of like saying “Dan Rather got the facts wrong, but his point is still valid about George W. Bush skipping out on his Guard physical…..?”

I framed “facts.” I was responding to his “two arab countries” mistake. You’re trying to say I was wrong, by trying to apply my statement to…

Paul’s “fact” about radicalization is at issue.

I wasn’t talking about that! Just admit you’re wrong.

Paul’s “fact” about radicalization is at issue. AP (IIRC) once made the point, and I reiterated, that if his “fact” were indeed a “fact” then we’d be losing hundreds of troops each day. But that is not happening, because the radicalization myth is just that…a myth. The JPFs (Just Plain Folks) in both countries are going to be drawn to the stronger winners…the ones who don’t abandon them out of a nostalgia for a largely invented view of 18th century history.

Nation building is left wing, not right wing. I think a “right winger” accepting a big government foreign policy takes more brainwashing than believing in liberty as Jefferson described it.

Jimmy Liberty on June 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Give it up, Jimmy boy. You’re not “spreading the word” here.

Your idol Paul is a clueless crank that garners about 1% of the population’s attention. Although with all the fraudulent online polling going on in his name, I’m figuring it’s less than that. A very small but highly vocal minority still does not represent the majority of this country, no matter how high pitched the squealing gets.

The Paulbot crowd exists in a vacuum, gleefully parting themselves from their money and giving it to Paul, enabling him to continue spouting exactly the demented worldview his followers want, no, need to hear.

It’s a symbiotic relationship, you know. Just remember to continue your donations, of course.

He may have gotten his facts wrong, but his point is valid.

I framed the word “facts” in our argument. The title of this post points to Paul making a factual mistake about two “arab” countries, that’s the factual mistake I was talking about.

Now you’re trying to reframe what I was referencing. Saying that the “facts” I was talking about were the facts revolving around whether or not our policies embolden Al Qaeda.

I wasn’t talking about that.

trying to mash far left ideologies together with far right ideologies and make them co-exist in the same skull must take a tremendous amount of brainwashing.

Nation building is left wing, not right wing. I think a “right winger” accepting a big government foreign policy takes more brainwashing than believing in liberty as Jefferson described it.

You have to give them credit though. In the political sense, trying to mash far left ideologies together with far right ideologies and make them co-exist in the same skull must take a tremendous amount of brainwashing.

Bravo.

The case has generally been that Iraqis (and Afghanis) are going to be drawn to the stronger winners in the conflict. And this case has been borne out, otherwise we’d have been losing hundreds of troops a day. Indeed, in OBL’s earlier writings he did not contemplate a prolonged US effort. He cited Somalia as evidence that we were a paper tiger and would roll over quickly. It’s hard to square that with the isolationist spin that engagement of AQ in Iraq is just what OBL wanted all along.

You can also skip the condescension…it’s hard to claim the intellectual high ground with a name like Jimmy Liberty.

I believe the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia long before the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole and 9/11. Bin Laden’s disdain for the U.S. grew out of what he saw was an occupation of his homeland and the Middle East. Bin Laden’s main objective, aside from the shock and awe of the attacks themselves, was to draw the U.S. out to fight in his backyard for both the marketing/recruitment aspect and the home field advantage. Remember, we still haven’t caught him yet, have we? Don’t confuse history with my personal feelings about terrorism. Unlike Paul, I would have put our nukes to good use in Tora Bora and sent the right message to these primates: F with us and you get to cook at about 7500 degrees. Instead, we’ve got 7000+ dead Americans, about $550,000,000,000 invested and NO BIN LADEN! Oh yeah…and a permanent occupation in Iraq that, like every other God damn place we go to, we won’t be able to leave completely.

Oh, why not skip the Paulian condescension and grace us with an explanation?

Rather’s mistake was that his evidence, the smoking gun, was fake. Paul’s mistake was trivial. It wasn’t relevant to the main point, that putting troops in two Muslim (not arab) countries would help radicalize more Muslims. He used the wrong descriptive word, he didn’t fabricate evidence.

Was that really necessary?

Is there a sane Republican who can primary Ron Paul out of his Congressional seat?

They tried that this year. Paul won with 70% of the vote in the primary.

Silly comment about arresting people in foreign countries aside, his statement about doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted is 100% correct. The U.S. presence in that region fuels the animosity which translates into real-life experiences for the next generation of suicide bombers. It’s not just Playstations and the Pussycat Dolls that is causing their hatred toward us.

DanKenton on June 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM

Where is the line for bin laden where he would no longer like our response? 3 countries liberated? 6?

Is there anything that al qaeda could have done that would provoke someone like you or Ron Paul to respond to it? In other words, if al qaeda had set off nukes in L.A. N.Y. and Chicago killing millions instead of crashing airplanes into buildings killing thousands, should we still have avoided reacting to it because bin laden would have wanted us to react to it?

RP knows that the bottom line is the thing that most stirs up the terrorists is our support of Israel and that our abandonment of that country would be the only “peaceful” means to quell them in any significant way. RP won’t out and out call for that because he knows that would be the end of his political career.

apoole on June 19, 2008 at 7:48 AM

The same breed who elected G.W. Bush governor, twice.

Exactly… Our military personnel are trained and equipped to get the job done; these men/woman are professional warriors. The only obstacle standing in the way of these professionals achieving absolute success, is politicians handcuffing them while sending them into battle.

I don’t understand why Liberals and other assorted weenies insist upon making a big deal out of what the rest of the world thinks about us. A few quotes from a few Americans who understand this, and are not afraid to proudly state so…

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building’ by George Bush.

He answered by saying, ‘Over the years, the United
States has sent many of its fine young men and women
into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return
is enough to bury those that did not return.’

There was a conference in France where a number of
international engineers were taking part, including French
and American. During a break, one of the French engineers
came back into the room saying ‘Have you heard the latest
dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft
carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What
does he intended to do, bomb them? A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: ‘Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does
France have?’

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference
that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian,
Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception,
he found himself standing with a large group of Officers
that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped
their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that,
whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn
only English.’ He then asked, ‘Why is it that we always have
to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking
French?’ Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied ‘Maybe it’s because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.’

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in
Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. ‘You have been to France before, monsieur?’ the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.’ The American said, ”The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it. ‘Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !’
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard
look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore
at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.’

America is the greatest force for freedom and human liberty on earth. If the rest of the world doesn’t appreciate this fact, screw them.

America is the greatest force for freedom and human liberty on earth. If some Americans refuse to recognize this fact, screw them to; stupid ignorant a-holes!

You sound like alphie. Left and right meet. Yet again. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He was not running a theme park. Saddam had a long history of supporting terrorists, he even offered sanctuary to Osama in 1999. Now maybe you think it would be better if Saddam was still shooting at our planes and killing people and paying off terrorists and letting Zarqawi do the same thing in Iraq that the Taliban let Osama do in Afghanistan. But I don’t. The truth is that sooner or later we were going to have to deal with Saddam, that holding pattern was not going to last forever.

Well we have lost more than 4,000 American Soldiers and Marines with thousands more permanently disabled, …

MB4 on June 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM

4,000 casualties!! OMG that’s worse than any war ever, how do we even consider pushing on?

Wait… that’s not right. Switch “worse than” to “comparable to” and definitely switch “war” to “single battle”.