Who for president

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Didn't lose Korea...
Not what I said.... I said we didn't WIN Korea, and that we had no business being there, and countless American lives were lost.
Didn't Lose Iraq, we removed Sadaam which was the objective along with his army.
Still a little early to make that declaration.... we removed Sadaam, but yet we still are losing American soldiers DAILY!!!
Oh, there's also the fact that Congress never declared war on Iraq.... which is what is necessary to make it LEGAL for us to use US troops to attack another country....
We lost Vietnam because our hands were tied as to how to fight that war. Since it wasn't a war we couldn't treat it as such, then with the media painting it in a poor light we had to pull out. However with the limited engagement capacity we could operate under we did do a damn fine job fighting the enemy. We have only lost one war. and that is open to debate.
First, we shouldn't go to war unless we are going to do whatever is necessary to win said war.
Second, last I checked, the Armed Forces do not report to the media. Politicians bowing to the whim of the media is what kept us from winning Vietnam.
On top of all of that, it's a war that we never should have been in.
When did it become the duty of the United States to be the world's police? Why is it that OUR soldiers have to die to force OUR will (democracy) on the world? Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates us..... this is why.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by phunckie
When did it become the duty of the United States to be the world's police?

Since it is in the best interest of our country. The last time we ignored the world and mind our own business it cost us over 290,000 american lives in combat...not to mention the number of lives lost by other countries because we did not act. Since then, we have intervened, and no war since has equaled the casualty of that war by even half in total.

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I think your summation of history is a bit skewed.
*Korea was a UN mission.
Actually, this is part of my point.... we never should have been there. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes legal the handing over of American sovreignty (like control of our troops) to the control of an international organization (UN).
*First Iraq was after an ally was wiped out and annexed (Kuwait).
Sorry, failed to differentiate. I have no problem with going to war to protect an ally.... but if you go to war, FINISH THE JOB!!! We never should have HAD to go to Iraq again.
*Second Iraq was after Saddam repeatedly broke the peace agreement of the first war.
The peace agreement was with the UN.... not with the United States. Bush was itching to go to war with Saddam to finish what his daddy started. We should have allowed the UN to police their own peace treaty.....
In Vietnam we lost close to 60,000 troops. Korea close to 40,000. Iraq to date less than 4,000.
So, if you add up the totals, when we "stick our noses where they don't belong" we've lost 1/3 of the troops we lost in WW2 when we set back and let the world devolve into chaos...
so you think that any time there is a problem in any part of the world, the US should get involved? Why is it the business of the United States whether another country is ruled by Communism, Socialism or Democracy? Why is it our responsibility to put OUR soldiers in harm's way to force our way of thinking on another country. There is a name for that.... IMPERIALISM!!!
{sarcasm on} Maybe the United States should just take over the entire world{sarcasm off}

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Since it is in the best interest of our country. The last time we ignored the world and mind our own business it cost us over 290,000 american lives in combat...not to mention the number of lives lost by other countries because we did not act. Since then, we have intervened, and no war since has equaled the casualty of that war by even half in total.
Not really apples to apples to compare death tolls in WWII and more recent wars.... Technology makes it much easier to fight a war without losing nearly as many lives. If we were still fighting today with the same technology as WWII, the death tolls in the more recent combats would have been exponentially higher.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by phunckie
Funny how people are afraid of what they don't know..... why would you want to label Dr Paul as one of "Ross Perot's Cronies" when you don't even know anything about him?
It's a testament to your involvement in the political process that you don't even recognize the NAME of a 10-term Congressman from your state.

So do you know the NAMES of every single congressperson curreently sitting in Congress? I know Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I knew Henry Bonillia, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Gonzalez. This Ron Paul guy was in Congress when I was in High School and just out of college. Dealing with politics back then was the least thing on my mind. He must not have run a very impressive candidacy in '88. I never heard his name once when that election was going on.
So the guy made all his money looking up girl's skirts eh? Now that's my kind of politician!!!

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
So do you know the NAMES of every single congressperson curreently sitting in Congress? I know Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I knew Henry Bonillia, Ciro Rodriguez, Henry Gonzalez. This Ron Paul guy was in Congress when I was in High School and just out of college. Dealing with politics back then was the least thing on my mind. He must not have run a very impressive candidacy in '88. I never heard his name once when that election was going on.
So the guy made all his money looking up girl's skirts eh? Now that's my kind of politician!!!
I didn't say I knew the names of every Congressperson currently sitting in Congress, but I certainly recognize the names of the current ones from my state.
Oh, and Ron Paul is currently in Congress..... has been since 1997.
As for his candidacy in 1988, how many times do you EVER hear the name of the Libertarian candidate for anything?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by phunckie
Not really apples to apples to compare death tolls in WWII and more recent wars.... Technology makes it much easier to fight a war without losing nearly as many lives. If we were still fighting today with the same technology as WWII, the death tolls in the more recent combats would have been exponentially higher.

Ok, lets look at the numbers. World war 2 we had roughly 300,000 killed and roughly 670,000 wounded.
The other wars totals are as follows,
Korea, 33,000 killed and 103,000 wounded
Vietnam 47,000 killed and 150,000 wounded
Iraq both times combined is 4000 dead and 30,000 wounded.
Amazing the total of casualties and deaths of those wars doesn't even equal the number killed in World war 2 from The U.S.A. Let alone factoring in wounded. Factor in the number of jews killed and the 9 million russians killed and 18 million russians wounded and the number is astronomical. Your arguement holds no water.
Next excuse? I study war figures extensively,. so please don't make a statement about war unless you know for sure it is factual.
Technology has made some of our weapons smarter...as well as the enemies. In vietnam the AK-47 was more effective than the M-16. Technology helps us hit our targets better and more of them, but it doesn't prevent the enemy from killing us just as easily. Our troops in Iraq have armored vehicles and armored chest plates and a simple road side bomb is still killing or wounding them just as effectively as it did in the 1940's.
The major difference now is we get involved before the country or person becomes a global threat of significance like Hitler did in his time. Had we got involved as early as we do now I am willing to bet money 3/4 of the lives lost would not have been lost in that time. And you can be damn sure we wouldn't have had to rebuild pearl Harbor.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang
....
Amazing the total of casualties and deaths of those wars doesn't even equal the number killed in World war 2 from The U.S.A. Let alone factoring in wounded. Factor in the number of jews killed and the 9 million russians killed and 18 million russians wounded and the number is astronomical. Your arguement holds no water.
....
Don't forget the 20 million Chinese.... or the million Czecks, the 4 million Indonesians, or the 5 million Polish or the 500,000 Brits and 500,000+ French...
We live on a relatively small planet. If we don't pay attention and intervene early we get drug into much greater messes later.
Isolationism doesn't work. Ever.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by phunckie
do you mind if I ask what makes you think that?
For starters he's an Isolationist, he voted against the Patriot Act, and he wants to cut and run from Iraq.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Ok, lets look at the numbers. World war 2 we had roughly 300,000 killed and roughly 670,000 wounded.
The other wars totals are as follows,
Korea, 33,000 killed and 103,000 wounded
Vietnam 47,000 killed and 150,000 wounded
Iraq both times combined is 4000 dead and 30,000 wounded.
Amazing the total of casualties and deaths of those wars doesn't even equal the number killed in World war 2 from The U.S.A. Let alone factoring in wounded. Factor in the number of jews killed and the 9 million russians killed and 18 million russians wounded and the number is astronomical. Your arguement holds no water.
Next excuse? I study war figures extensively,. so please don't make a statement about war unless you know for sure it is factual.
Technology has made some of our weapons smarter...as well as the enemies. In vietnam the AK-47 was more effective than the M-16. Technology helps us hit our targets better and more of them, but it doesn't prevent the enemy from killing us just as easily. Our troops in Iraq have armored vehicles and armored chest plates and a simple road side bomb is still killing or wounding them just as effectively as it did in the 1940's.
The major difference now is we get involved before the country or person becomes a global threat of significance like Hitler did in his time. Had we got involved as early as we do now I am willing to bet money 3/4 of the lives lost would not have been lost in that time. And you can be damn sure we wouldn't have had to rebuild pearl Harbor.

Your numbers are baseless. You can't compare WWII to the other 'conflicts' listed. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq has essentially been the USA against one enemy. WWII involved the US, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Germany, and England. Hence the implied name WORLD WAR. You had five times more soldiers involved in that war than the combined troops in the other three. (Yea, yea. Go look up the EXACT count numbers man). Of course the deaths count will be higher. Most of the deaths in WWII involved hand-to-hand combat. The deaths in Iraq are lower because of the high tech weapons you see being used.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Your numbers are baseless. You can't compare WWII to the other 'conflicts' listed. Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq has essentially been the USA against one enemy. WWII involved the US, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Germany, and England. Hence the implied name WORLD WAR. You had five times more soldiers involved in that war than the combined troops in the other three. (Yea, yea. Go look up the EXACT count numbers man). Of course the deaths count will be higher. Most of the deaths in WWII involved hand-to-hand combat. The deaths in Iraq are lower because of the high tech weapons you see being used.
The issue was raised because some here have called for an Isolationist policy.
My point and Darth's point is that if we don't intervene early we get sucked into much worse conflicts later.
Also, are you sure about the most causalties being inflicted hand-to-hand?

 

[mr. guitar]

I really don't like the people runnin' for the next Presidential election that much. None of them appeal to me that much.
I can tell you one thing...
In my personal opinion...We don't need any Democrats or any extreme Liberal in office.
We need a strong Christian Republican.

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
For starters he's an Isolationist, he voted against the Patriot Act, and he wants to cut and run from Iraq.
No.... he never said cut and run from Iraq.....
He said we never should have BEEN in Iraq. He voted AGAINST it in the first place.
As for the Patriot Act, what part of protecting personal liberty makes him a "wacko?"
And there is a difference in being an Isolationist and not wanting a foreign policy of "nosy-neighborism" under which we have to stick our nose in every little thing going on around the world (which is what we currently do)

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar
We need a strong Christian Republican.
I agree wholeheartedly. That's one of the many things I like about Ron Paul.
Strong Christian
Married to the same woman for 55 years (that in itself is a miracle these days).
OBGYN for 40 years
Has delivered over 4,000 babies and never aborted one.

 

[phunckie]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The issue was raised because some here have called for an Isolationist policy.
My point and Darth's point is that if we don't intervene early we get sucked into much worse conflicts later.
Also, are you sure about the most causalties being inflicted hand-to-hand?
No one here called for an "Isolationist" policy.
There is a huge difference between Isolationism and refusing to be involved in every little thing going on around the globe.
People around the world hate the United States for exactly this reason.... we can not keep ourselves from getting involved in anything going on anywhere.
When you were in high school, I'm sure you knew who was the bully. You know, the guy that went around making trouble, getting involved in every little thing going on, trying to push people around every time he got the chance. I have known MANY of these people, and every one of them eventually pays the price for their behavior. Some day they push the wrong person, and get the crap kicked out of them.
This is EXACTLY what US policy has been for many years. We have pushed everyone around and angered many. If it doesn't stop, the time is coming where we're going to pay a huge price for our foreign policy. In fact, many believe that the US foreign policy was a HUGE factor leading up to what happened on 9/11.
Not Isolationism, just choose battles more wisely.....

 

[rudedog40]

Great. Now we bring the religious factor into play. Keep your religion out of my government. I don't need a bible thumper telling me what I can do with MY body and MY life. You don't believe in abortion? Good for you. When your 10 year old daughter gets raped by a drug addict while walking home from school, you just go ahead and take care of that drug baby with YOUR money, not mine. Don't believe in stem cell research? Don't ask to use a possible cure for cancer or Alzheimers that is found by stem cell research. Just because this guy has been married to the same woman, and walks into a church on Sundays makes him better than someone that doesn't? Yea, tell that to all those young Catholic boys molested by the numereous priests all these years. I get sick of these politicians playing the "I go to church on Sunday's and believe in faith and family values" card to make them look like innocent trusting people. There are more deceitful and crooked politicians that smile at the cameras every Sunday.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by phunckie
....
How many American lives have been lost in "combat" where we never should have been? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
When we were minding our business, we were attacked. We then TOOK CARE OF BUSINESS! And THAT was the last time we won a war.
To me that is "Isolationism".
Chinese backed North Koreans crossed the border and overwhelmed South Korea only 5 years after the end of WW2 established it as a nation. You aregue we shouldn't have been involved.
Same scenario with Vietnam.
Same situation with Iraq.

 

[1journeyman]

Rudedog, great point. After all, the vast number of abortions are 10 years olds who have been walking home from school and have gotten attacked by drug addicts...
Tell ya what; You tell me when life begins and I'll say abortion gets the green light up to that point. Until then, however, the Government is obligated to protect the life of the unborn.

 

[phunckie]

Hold up now.... no need to get nasty
We Christians have the right to want certain things in our candidates, just like you do.
I love that Dr Paul is a Christian. HOWEVER, his political views lean much more to the Libertarian side. So, while Dr Paul is personally pro-Life, he does not think that the Federal government has the right to decide whether abortion is or is not legal. That is not outlined in the Constitution, so per the Constitution, that is something to be decided by the state. Same goes for stem cell research and the legal definition of marriage.
I never said that I want a "bible thumper" telling you what you can & can't do with your life or your body. I don't believe that the government (federal) has the right to tell you that.
The federal government's duties, rights and responsibilities are plainly outlined in the Constitution, and none of those things are there.
I however, do want a Christian in office because I believe that a strong Christian such as Dr Paul has a strong core in his belief system which helps him to make the right decisions.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by phunckie
No.... he never said cut and run from Iraq.....
He said we never should have BEEN in Iraq. He voted AGAINST it in the first place.
As for the Patriot Act, what part of protecting personal liberty makes him a "wacko?"
And there is a difference in being an Isolationist and not wanting a foreign policy of "nosy-neighborism" under which we have to stick our nose in every little thing going on around the world (which is what we currently do)
From an NPR interview dated july 25th, 2007 (NPR question in bold):
"If you were president, how fast and how far would you withdraw from Iraq?
As quickly as possible and as far away as possible. I think the military people have to tell you how fast you can do it safely, but it wouldn't be one of these things [where I would] wait six months to start. I would do it immediately..."
That's what I define as "cut and run".
Do you know one person who has had their civil liberties violated? What exactly about the Patriot Act violates your personal liberty?