Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Ron Paul's Debate Comments
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 199003" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I wasn't aware you were being judged. I was just interested in your thoughts on the matter and if you had read the op-ed. I work nights so I was unable to see the debate but from what I hear from folks like yourself it was a matter of Paul doing a very poor job of delivering the message. I'm not certain Martin is so much here to clean up Paul's mess as it is that he's making the observation that this a part of the issue is rarely discussed and I for one have severly questioned US foreign policy in all this mess. I will say as much as extreme religious doctrine is driving this, US foreign policy is doing absolutely nothing to stop itself from feeding the breeding grounds from whence this comes. That part is MHO with no disrespect aimed at anyone and the greatest of respect and appreciation for those going to Iraq to answer their country's call to duty. They are hero's all and I want them home with us as soon as possible and I would like to see us focus on Afghanistan and I fully and completely support that effort, foreign policy or not.</p><p> </p><p>You may not like the history part, studying it I mean, but you might take a few minutes sometime and just search a little on the internet about the history of the Middle East from WW1 til today. It sure gives a greater understanding and you at least understand why some reactions are happening even though we both disagree with them. Knowing for example the religious importance of not only Saudia Arabia but Iraq as well and specifically Baghdad and Falujah (I know I butched that spelling or if I didn't I'm shocked) and then the difference between sunni and shia, it makes a world of difference IMO.</p><p> </p><p>In another thread someone posted that the best solution would be to divide Iraq into 3 areas, 1 for sunni, 1 for shia and 1 for kurds. Prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire and the taking over of the region by the British, this was exactly the way it was. I also learned that Kuwait use to be a part of what is Iraq so this might explain why Saddam was always saying that it was. Before I learned this I thought Saddam was just nuts. Well I still think that he is nuts and I'm glad he's dead!<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/wink.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink:" title="Wink :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" /> </p><p> </p><p>Why is Syria always in Lebanon? Because prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Syria and Lebanon were one. Now that explained a lot to me as well. Did you know that England promised political autonomy to the Saudias if they sided with them against the Turk Ottomans during WW1? But then after WW1 they went back on their promise and made Saudia a protectorate of the UK. And it goes on and on. Sorry UK Guy but the Brits and the French after WW1 made a huge mess of this region and now we find ourselves right in the middle of it. I honestly believe to go forward, you'll have to go back in time first and then I really do believe the vast amounts of the problems can be quickly solved. But that's JMO too for what it's worth.</p><p> </p><p>Have a good weekend.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/thumbup1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":thumbup1:" title="Thumbup1 :thumbup1:" data-shortname=":thumbup1:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 199003, member: 2189"] I wasn't aware you were being judged. I was just interested in your thoughts on the matter and if you had read the op-ed. I work nights so I was unable to see the debate but from what I hear from folks like yourself it was a matter of Paul doing a very poor job of delivering the message. I'm not certain Martin is so much here to clean up Paul's mess as it is that he's making the observation that this a part of the issue is rarely discussed and I for one have severly questioned US foreign policy in all this mess. I will say as much as extreme religious doctrine is driving this, US foreign policy is doing absolutely nothing to stop itself from feeding the breeding grounds from whence this comes. That part is MHO with no disrespect aimed at anyone and the greatest of respect and appreciation for those going to Iraq to answer their country's call to duty. They are hero's all and I want them home with us as soon as possible and I would like to see us focus on Afghanistan and I fully and completely support that effort, foreign policy or not. You may not like the history part, studying it I mean, but you might take a few minutes sometime and just search a little on the internet about the history of the Middle East from WW1 til today. It sure gives a greater understanding and you at least understand why some reactions are happening even though we both disagree with them. Knowing for example the religious importance of not only Saudia Arabia but Iraq as well and specifically Baghdad and Falujah (I know I butched that spelling or if I didn't I'm shocked) and then the difference between sunni and shia, it makes a world of difference IMO. In another thread someone posted that the best solution would be to divide Iraq into 3 areas, 1 for sunni, 1 for shia and 1 for kurds. Prior to the fall of the Ottoman empire and the taking over of the region by the British, this was exactly the way it was. I also learned that Kuwait use to be a part of what is Iraq so this might explain why Saddam was always saying that it was. Before I learned this I thought Saddam was just nuts. Well I still think that he is nuts and I'm glad he's dead!:wink: Why is Syria always in Lebanon? Because prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Syria and Lebanon were one. Now that explained a lot to me as well. Did you know that England promised political autonomy to the Saudias if they sided with them against the Turk Ottomans during WW1? But then after WW1 they went back on their promise and made Saudia a protectorate of the UK. And it goes on and on. Sorry UK Guy but the Brits and the French after WW1 made a huge mess of this region and now we find ourselves right in the middle of it. I honestly believe to go forward, you'll have to go back in time first and then I really do believe the vast amounts of the problems can be quickly solved. But that's JMO too for what it's worth. Have a good weekend. :thumbup1: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Ron Paul's Debate Comments
Top