Joined
·
189 Posts
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18
Take a look at the issues, let's discuss Huckabee...
Take a look at the issues, let's discuss Huckabee...
Posts by King Lou
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Joined
·
189 Posts
Cut and run isn't going to happen no matter who is President after Dub, and yes I'm including Paul (although he will not be our next President). So who do you want, someone who will appear weak to the terrorists and insurgents, or someone who will appear strong?
The sad thing is, the insurgency would be crushed if tomorrow every American woke up and changed their minds about the war and supported it. That's all it takes: solidarity.
Isn't it sad that so many think we should pull out now for the sake of lives they don't know and have never invested in? They simply want to satisfy their own feelings against the war. What's another way to describe something that accomplishes nothing but feels really good? Oh yeah, masturbation.
Isn't it ironic that supposedly pulling out will "save lives" when in fact it will consign more Iraqis to death than what is occurring now?
"Cutters" insist that they don't think bombs and bullets are the answer. I agree: we could end this all right now without firing another shot by truly supporting our military. If the enemy saw 100% solidarity, they would concentrate their energies elsewhere. We need to stop talking about time tables, and tell the enemy, we're in it for the long haul, no matter what, we will not give up. We're not pulling out.
That's how WWII was won. That's how EVERY major battle is won. It's conviction, not body count.
During the Civil War, the North suffer nearly 3 times the number of casualties than the South, it was their conviction that won the war.
Nobody said the body count was too high during the battle of the bulge, even though we lost more men in that single battle than we did in 4.6 years in Iraq.
We lost Vietnam because of public opinion. Does anyone deny that? Look at Linebacker II. That operation brought the North to their knees, but we took so long to do it because we were worried about public opinion. Once we left, the North took over. We should have continued bombing them until - instead of signing a treaty - they fully surrendered. But public opinion didn't allow us to win the war.
I suppose this is where people will say, "Bush Lied; People Died" and tell me that the Iraq War is about oil, so that Dub can get rich. Newsflash: he's always been rich, and always will be rich, so that doesn't make sense. What makes more sense is that there was a serious error made, and we thought Saddam was more dangerous than he really was. What does make sense is that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and only bombed Iraq, instead of launching an invasion of Iraq. Remember Khadafi? He's been kind of a different character after Reagan bloodied his nose, eh? That's how you deal with Tyrants, you smack them on the nose and tell them you're boss. Saddam and Khadafi both defied us and the world, but they HAVE to, that's what dictators do, they have to flex their muscles or they lose their grip, had we understood that, we could have blown up Saddams palaces and one of his sons and that would be it. Maybe Khadafi would be sponsoring Saddam in a Dictators Anonymous program right now.
But there were no WMDs! No, there weren't not on the level that we thought (there have actually been 500 chemical munitions recovered since the invasion according to the USHR Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence). Like I've mentioned, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We didn't want this, but like I've always been told, you make your bed, and you lie in it. Iraq is our responsibility now, whether we like it or not. We must make the difficult sacrifice and defeat the insurgency, and show the Iraqi separatists that we're not leaving.
You want a bloodless end to this war? Isn't it ironic then that we could literally end the conflict now, without blood, without firing another shot, if we all stopped talking about withdrawals and actually banded together to WIN?
The sad thing is, the insurgency would be crushed if tomorrow every American woke up and changed their minds about the war and supported it. That's all it takes: solidarity.
Isn't it sad that so many think we should pull out now for the sake of lives they don't know and have never invested in? They simply want to satisfy their own feelings against the war. What's another way to describe something that accomplishes nothing but feels really good? Oh yeah, masturbation.
Isn't it ironic that supposedly pulling out will "save lives" when in fact it will consign more Iraqis to death than what is occurring now?
"Cutters" insist that they don't think bombs and bullets are the answer. I agree: we could end this all right now without firing another shot by truly supporting our military. If the enemy saw 100% solidarity, they would concentrate their energies elsewhere. We need to stop talking about time tables, and tell the enemy, we're in it for the long haul, no matter what, we will not give up. We're not pulling out.
That's how WWII was won. That's how EVERY major battle is won. It's conviction, not body count.
During the Civil War, the North suffer nearly 3 times the number of casualties than the South, it was their conviction that won the war.
Nobody said the body count was too high during the battle of the bulge, even though we lost more men in that single battle than we did in 4.6 years in Iraq.
We lost Vietnam because of public opinion. Does anyone deny that? Look at Linebacker II. That operation brought the North to their knees, but we took so long to do it because we were worried about public opinion. Once we left, the North took over. We should have continued bombing them until - instead of signing a treaty - they fully surrendered. But public opinion didn't allow us to win the war.
I suppose this is where people will say, "Bush Lied; People Died" and tell me that the Iraq War is about oil, so that Dub can get rich. Newsflash: he's always been rich, and always will be rich, so that doesn't make sense. What makes more sense is that there was a serious error made, and we thought Saddam was more dangerous than he really was. What does make sense is that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and only bombed Iraq, instead of launching an invasion of Iraq. Remember Khadafi? He's been kind of a different character after Reagan bloodied his nose, eh? That's how you deal with Tyrants, you smack them on the nose and tell them you're boss. Saddam and Khadafi both defied us and the world, but they HAVE to, that's what dictators do, they have to flex their muscles or they lose their grip, had we understood that, we could have blown up Saddams palaces and one of his sons and that would be it. Maybe Khadafi would be sponsoring Saddam in a Dictators Anonymous program right now.
But there were no WMDs! No, there weren't not on the level that we thought (there have actually been 500 chemical munitions recovered since the invasion according to the USHR Permanent Select Commitee on Intelligence). Like I've mentioned, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. We didn't want this, but like I've always been told, you make your bed, and you lie in it. Iraq is our responsibility now, whether we like it or not. We must make the difficult sacrifice and defeat the insurgency, and show the Iraqi separatists that we're not leaving.
You want a bloodless end to this war? Isn't it ironic then that we could literally end the conflict now, without blood, without firing another shot, if we all stopped talking about withdrawals and actually banded together to WIN?
Joined
·
189 Posts
Hi K! You know, I am too. I've been liking this guy more and more over the last several weeks, and today I spent alot of time researching, getting to know him, and you know what? I really like this guy. His politics aren't 100% in line, but darn close. Better than that, I like how he comes to decisions, his thought process and his values.
He's doing a special contribution raising on his website, and I'm gonna do it. I can't give much, but the more I learn about him, the more I feel I can be counted to stand with him. Normally this is where I say, "until he's outed on a scandal or we find out he's got 6 love children with transvestites" but - and I know this may sound kind of naive - I don't think he's that kind of guy.
I might just buy a hat while I'm at it.
He's doing a special contribution raising on his website, and I'm gonna do it. I can't give much, but the more I learn about him, the more I feel I can be counted to stand with him. Normally this is where I say, "until he's outed on a scandal or we find out he's got 6 love children with transvestites" but - and I know this may sound kind of naive - I don't think he's that kind of guy.
I might just buy a hat while I'm at it.
Joined
·
189 Posts
I think Huckabee has a great chance if the word gets out. I think he's the best candidate in the Republican party for reaching out to both sides of the aisle. He's honest, intelligent, he has a quiet strength, and the most stellar performance of any candidate, anywhere.
Only idiots believe Ron Paul will pull the troops out if elected. Like I said before: nobody is going to do an immediate withdrawal, if you believe they will, just keep saying this over and over: "Baaaaah, baaaah".
No candidate from either side of the aisle is going to do an immediate withdrawal. To vote for a candidate solely based on that reason is pure stupidity. Since Ron Paul offers nothing else, then a vote for him is pure stupidity.
What amazes me is that we have the perfect candidate in Huckabee, and instead of coming TOGETHER and working hard for the right candidate for all our problems, we're groaning and moaning about the stupidest things. Sad really. Kinda reminds me of that scene in Braveheart when the Scots win their first major battle, and you're thinking William Wallace is gonna be their leader, but then the clansmen all start arguing and all they hear is their own voices.
Excuse me while I puke.
Only idiots believe Ron Paul will pull the troops out if elected. Like I said before: nobody is going to do an immediate withdrawal, if you believe they will, just keep saying this over and over: "Baaaaah, baaaah".
No candidate from either side of the aisle is going to do an immediate withdrawal. To vote for a candidate solely based on that reason is pure stupidity. Since Ron Paul offers nothing else, then a vote for him is pure stupidity.
What amazes me is that we have the perfect candidate in Huckabee, and instead of coming TOGETHER and working hard for the right candidate for all our problems, we're groaning and moaning about the stupidest things. Sad really. Kinda reminds me of that scene in Braveheart when the Scots win their first major battle, and you're thinking William Wallace is gonna be their leader, but then the clansmen all start arguing and all they hear is their own voices.
Excuse me while I puke.
Joined
·
189 Posts
I just think it's sad when you have people who support Paul for one reason: because he's saying he'll immediately pull out the troops.
Since Paul will NOT immediately pull out the troops if he's president. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. If you think he really will, then you also believed Bush the first when he said, "Read my lips: no new taxes".
Huckabee's honest and sincere, and he's intelligent. His answers to America's dilemmas are exactly what we need right now.
Since Paul will NOT immediately pull out the troops if he's president. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. If you think he really will, then you also believed Bush the first when he said, "Read my lips: no new taxes".
Huckabee's honest and sincere, and he's intelligent. His answers to America's dilemmas are exactly what we need right now.
Joined
·
189 Posts
1.) Why do I have to believe the Earth is 6000 years old for Huckabee to be my guy?
2.) What's wrong with believing the earth is 6000 years old?
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
