Posted on 05/21/2007 1:53:00 PM PDT by The_Eaglet
He should have said, go read my thesis on this and you’ll get an answer rather than a canned 30 sec. soundbite like my colleagues here on stage.
How about honoring veterans like Congressman Ron Paul?
McCain went off track with the “Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act” which attempted to suppress the freedom of speech.
>>Sorry ... it was the United States that helped the Afghans defeat their would-be Soviet conquerers.
“If you studied their history, that means nothing to them. The US was simply a tool they used against the Soviets. We didn’t endear ourselves to them because we gave them weapons or training.”
Actually, most muj Afghans had no idea we were helping them and would refuse to believe that. All money and arms came from Pakistan, our proxy. The funds were match by Saudi Arabia. The credit for defeating the soviets... went to Allah.
I like to just let them shout. :)
OH, I remember THAT and mcCain’s part.........and I am watching a repeat of his arrogance in attempting to push through this latest bill...........
I suppose you’d like to honor Murtha as well? What’s your point? And bugger for you pinging in your crew. LOL
LOL! Thanks — I have a bit of experience with clowns.
That you again, sugarpie?
Good to see you aboard. I didn’t post here for almost a year. I’ve come back and see that things aren’t much better. While I do appreciate reading your comments, I have to wonder... why do you bother?
Keep sending me e-mails with updated essays, I enjoy them!
Yes, it would have been, and if they had not attacked helpless civilians.
I think that's a red herring. Running into a burning building to save someone is just as courageous whether the person inside is a woman, child, or man. You're confusing courage with heroism, perhaps?
Who was running into something to save someone.
These people were murdering people.
You seem to have a hard time grasping concepts.
Who was more courageous...Clinton, lobbing cruise missiles, or our men and women who are going over to Iraq, facing death? I'd say the latter. Courage involves taking action even in the face of risk or certain death. The hijackers displayed this; our troops are displaying this; Clinton didn't.
The hijackers displayed no courage.
There's was an act of desperation since they are unable to hit us with cruise missiles.
If they had them they would have used them.
There is nothing either heroic or courageous in attacking civilians who are nowhere near a military target.
They are as 'courageous' as the murderer at Virigina Tech.
Care to make a case for him as well?
Because they, like us, have some thing(s) they have done or some country they support that also attracts the attention of the terrorists. Does that mean they, or we, should change policy? No. It just means that we need to understand cause and effect. That is about all Paul said.
So that was what you were trying to say, that those Nations also brought the attacks on themselves by getting those 'poor' Muslims angry.
There is no 'cause and effect', we are hated because we are a threat and obstacle to the radical Muslim dream of world conquest, no different then with Nazism and Communism.
And there are many Verses of the Qur'an besides this verse (that threaten the Muslim nation if they give up Jihad) And you will not find any organization past or present, religious or non-religious as regards (Jihad and military) (ordering) the whole nation to march forth and moblilize all of them into active military service as a single row for Jihad in Allah's Cause so as to make superior the Word of Allah (i.e. none has a right to be worshipped but Allah), but as you will find in the Islamic Religion and its teachings (The Interpretations of the Noble Qur'an in the English language, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1996, pg.1236)
And if Saddam was a threatening to Saudi Arabia by moving into Kuwait, then it was indeed a threat to our vital interests.
But those are judgement calls.
The fact is that we have a right to make those judgement calls if it effects our national security.
That is not 'all' he said, since he would change our foreign policy to a less confrontational one with the Muslims.
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. He tends to be more isolationist from what I gather. Then again, whatever we did on the foreign policy front, we would take a hard look at just what we hoped to accomplish and if it was worth the cost.
Yes, there is always 'cause and effect' but the cause and effect with the Muslims is showing weakness as Clinton did.
It was not our bombing them that emboldened them to wage Jihad against us.
As for the Nations I listed, then what was the 'cause and effect' that led the terrorists to hit them as well.
The got the effect they wanted, they put Spain out of the WOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.