[BJWilliams]

But wouldn't an Iran attack on the US be justified? After all, it was our policies that made them so mad at us.

No, but I am glad that you agree the U.S. policy in the middle East does provoke a negative reaction.

I believe that was sarcasm.

I have some sympathy to it. Iran is nuts, don't get me wrong. But would the Taliban really come and attack us? Nope. When we pull out of Afghanistan, they'll go back to killing the other tribe down the river just like they always do, and snatching books from the hands of women. They will no longer be killing our American soldiers who are dying without a cause. What's one good reason we should be in Afghanistan? Libya? And how do we know when we win? When every terrorist is gone? As if you're going to kill every one of them?

Not picking on you Almunus, I'd just like a few good reasons why in the world we're in Afghanistan right now from people who support it. Isn't funny how all of the sudden Hannity questions Libya and Afghanistan. But when Bush did it, he was perfectly fine with it, and if you didn't everything Bush did, you weren't a real patriot.

(end rant)

who is Almunus?

[Purple Haize]

JBOCK - we were not in Afghanistan when the Taliban took control of the country. We did nothing as they took control and started terrorist training camps. We did toss a few missiles at an aspirin factory. Yet those camps are where the 9/11 terrorists trained. Sure they will continue to kill each other but there has been a history of groups exporting violence from there. We should leave the country when the legitimate govt can defend themselves. My fear is we have not done that. My hope is that once we do leave they will straighten up and stand up against Taliban rule.
HAWK - I always find your view of history interesting. Your theory that the Bolshevik Revolution was caused by the entry of the US into WW1 is a new one. I'm fairly certain that between our Aug 1917 entry into the war and the OCT Revolution an entire movement rose up. I would think the roots of the revolution took hold in the years prior. As Reagan, I've heard those arguments before and they make no sense. While you CAN argue that the USSR collapsed under it's own weight but what lead to that? Could the policy of denying Russia resources to support themselves have helped? Could the required increase in their defense output to keep up with ours have anything to do with it? Star Wars has been credited by many sources on both sides that was the final straw. All of these were Reagan policies.

[jbock13]

My hope is that once we do leave they will straighten up and stand up against Taliban rule.

But that would be to ignore the history of Afghanistan. Cave dwelling, women hating, religious fanatics. You're not just suddenly going to change them overnight.

I hear this all the time from my conservative friends: "But they treat their women so badly." True. Do you think you can magically change their traditions of stoning? Do you think they'll throw away 5,000 years of treating women as animals? And most importantly, is it worth the life of 4,000 soldiers to acheive this goal?

Just aside, I know where you're coming from Haize. Trust me, I was as hawkish as they came. Then I had my eyes opened to what was going on.

[RubberMallet]

Look, I think we all applaud Ron Paul for being true to his ideology/philosophy, and for the most part, we agree with him. The problem is, it's perfect-world philosophy, and there comes a point when reality trumps theory, and the two can't always coexist. Even some of the things that I agree with him simply can't happen. I'd like to let my 7-year-old daughter take her bike and just ride all over town wherever she wanted to go like I did when I was a kid, but there's no way on earth I'd ever let her do that today. The world has changed, mostly for the worse, and we can make things better, just not to Ron Paul's extent.

He's a great theoretician and even teacher, someone we need in government, but I don't think he'd make a great leader.

i have hope in my heart that every ron paul fan doesn't think he's THE answer. he's just the turd with a few less nuts in it. i'd much rather take a handful of nutball policy's along side some fiscal responsibility. presidents are handcuffed figureheads anyway. you think anything the conservatives have to offer will be any different than what we've had for the last 20 years? just more "no new taxes" meanwhile the liberals want entitlements for everyone. our debt and debt ratings will continue to worsen and it will be both of their faults. well i guess our faults too.

[thepostman]

I wish I could give my full opinions on here, but with it being a public forum I won't. I will say this, its a shame that people don't take ron paul seriously simply because they don't like some of the people that support him or because they hear fox news or sean hannity make ridiculous jokes about him or whatever else bull crap fox news tries to pull.

Our foreign policy needs fixed just as much as our financial problems needs fixed. The 2 are so closely related that addressing one without addressing the other is simply irresponsible.

[Covert Hawk]

HAWK - I always find your view of history interesting. Your theory that the Bolshevik Revolution was caused by the entry of the US into WW1 is a new one. I'm fairly certain that between our Aug 1917 entry into the war and the OCT Revolution an entire movement rose up. I would think the roots of the revolution took hold in the years prior. As Reagan, I've heard those arguments before and they make no sense. While you CAN argue that the USSR collapsed under it's own weight but what lead to that? Could the policy of denying Russia resources to support themselves have helped? Could the required increase in their defense output to keep up with ours have anything to do with it? Star Wars has been credited by many sources on both sides that was the final straw. All of these were Reagan policies.

The Bolshevik Revolution would have happened regardless of whether or not the U.S. enters the war. The point is Lenin's communist revolutionaries would have been crushed by the immense Imperial Russian Army. Unfortunately, because of war the Germans helped to crush the Imperial army for the Revolutionaries. When the U.S. entered the war, President Wilson pressured and bribed the Russian Provisional Government to stay in the war, further empowering the revolution. I wish U.S. intervention ended there, but unfortunately, it got worse. During the civil war that followed between reds and the whites, President Wilson supported the Whites. The Whites lost the war, and the victorious reds became new enemies against the U.S. The result domestically was the "Red Scare" from 1919 to 1920 and the loss of civil liberties for many immigrants.

What led to the Soviets collapsing under their own weight, was the fact that central economic planning and socialism doesn't work. That and oil prices in the 1980's tanked. Oil was the Soviet Union's major export. Not to mention, the failed invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. If your going to claim that Reagan's increased defense spending led to their bankruptcy, then every President since Truman deserves credit for their collapse. The Star Wars program deserves no credit either. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, realized that he could build offensive missiles more rapidly and cheaply than the U.S. could ever build the defenses and undertook little effort to counter the American program.

[Sly Fox]

Hahaha ... he put morally correct & South in the same sentence without a smiley emoticon beside it.

[Sly Fox]

It takes two sides to wage a war. And one side was so committed to the "wrong" of slavery that it was willing to kill anyone standing in their way from the "right" to enslave other human beings. You also seem to be leaving out the number of casualties that came from the slave trade and ruthless treatment by their "masters" in the South.

It is completely valid to argue the point of whether or not the Civil War was constitutional. But to call it immoral is wearing some rather gray-colored glasses. It was the moral compass of the Union to stamp out one of the great abominations of our history that was the driving force of choosing to engage in a costly & deadly war that saw massive casualties on both sides.

[jbock13]

One problem I have with some analysis of the Civil War is that some pretend the war was all about slavery. Second, some pretend as though we were the only country to ever have slavery.

Just very simplistic opinion here. Now off to the links

[jmdickens]

The North could have just bought the slaves and set them free....worked in others countries.

[jbock13]

As we know, Lincoln even said as much. If Lincoln cared about freeing the slaves, why didn't he free the slaves in all of the states, not just the confederacy?

Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware all had slaves after the Proclamation.

[BJWilliams]

Bachmann wins the straw poll in Iowa Im hearing

[Sly Fox]

I guess my Yankee public education has me blinded to the truth.

Oh yeah, Lincoln didn't have Commander-in-Chief authorities to extend the proclamation to the four slave-holding states that had not declared war.

Then again, Southerners would have us believe that abolition was a non-issue. It was just a ploy to trick Christian Northerners into a war to pillage Southern riches against their will. Does that about cover it, BYD?

[thepostman]

Bachmann wins the straw poll in Iowa Im hearing

do real people actually like this woman?

[jbock13]

The Bachmann win was no surprise. What really shocked me was Ron Paul finishing close 2nd. I knew his supporters would come out, but not as much as they did. Only time will tell, but I bet he was overepresented in terms of the straw poll vote because his supporters are much more loyal to him (and no that is not a putdown of them).

With Rick Perry entering, I'm really interested to hear his foreign policy views as they come out. He's great on the economy. I know he's weak on the southern border, but you'll never find a perfect candidate.

At this point, in my opinion, I could go for either Perry, Bachmann, Paul.

[Purple Haize]

I will sum up my opposition to Ron Pauls foreign policy position like this: It ignores historical precedence to assume that if the US just left everyone else alone then everyone else would leave the US alone.
As for the War of Northern Aggression had the southern states been allowednto seceed then we would have at least 2 countries in what now make up the United States. I would say at least 3 as the Beehive would 'be' the national symbol of Deseret!

[jbock13]

However, Haize, your foreign policy does not take into consideration that no foreign power has ever won any type of war in Afghanistan.

Also, do you really think if the South seceeded, we'd still have 2 nations today? Its a opinional argument I know, but despite the starkly different culture, we as Americans still have much in common with those in the northern states (plus, the midwest has much more in common with the south than the northeast).

At this point, I almost feel it would have been better to have two different countries. Slavery was an evil institution that would have ceased soon after secession. Its beyond ignorant for some (not you Haize) to suggest that slavery would still exist in the South today if it weren't for the civil war.

Keep in mind, I wasn't even born in the south.

[Purple Haize]

J - I know that no country has won a war in Afg. However successful coups have been attempted. As for 2 Americas I do believe we would have the USA and the CSA to this day. The differences were very great and the animosity on both sides were high. Add to that the different foreign governments that would have aligned with both sides reconciliation would be difficult. Especially if England sided with the South. The Crown would have loved nothing more than to see it's future rival for global dominance split in two. But as you said it is all theoretical.

[TDDance234]

Pawlenty drops out today after coming in a distant third in the Iowa straw poll. Perry's entrance really put the final nail in his coffin.

Starting to believe the GOP nom is going to come from the trio of Bachmann, Paul or Perry. Yikes.

[Sly Fox]

Silver Lining ... at least two of three are Texans.

[jbock13]

Well that's many people who don't like Bachmann on here.

Just a question... what do you not like about her so much?

Not trying to argue, just wanting to listen as to why.

[RubberMallet]

Bachmann wins the straw poll in Iowa Im hearing

do real people actually like this woman?

its amazing.

[jbock13]

I realize nobody watches CNN, and I was forced to at work, but what was the "conspiracy" they were talking about on their UNReliable Sources show about the Iowa straw poll?

Anybody know?

[jmdickens]

which one? about how RP stacked the deck or how the GOP is scared of him?

[jbock13]

which one? about how RP stacked the deck or how the GOP is scared of him?

It could have been either one lol. I was just so amused. I knew they'd find some way to spin it, but a conspiracy? Cmon on.

Random question for the RP supporters, how do you feel about his showing at the Iowa Straw polls?