they don't need government intnervention in their lives at all. Minimum government is the definition of LIBERTY.
Minimum government governing a people WITHOUT morality results in anarchy and chaos, not liberty.
We tried to bring liberty to Iraq, but the people there can't implement it, nor can they sustain it.
When we involved ourselves in Iraq to depose Saddam and bring liberty to a heathen people, we embarked on a fools errand.
The only clear voice of reason in the clogged field of presidential aspirants is Ron Paul who wants to restore constitutional liberties here in the US where we can sustain it, and cut our losses in Iraq before we give away the store.
How many of you see it this way?
2007-07-10 12:16:52 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
"When we involved ourselves in Iraq to depose Saddam and bring liberty to a heathen people, we embarked on a fools errand."
Why a fools errand? I believe Jonah thought the same thing about Nineveh. He found out he wasn't so smart.
Many of the Iraqi people want to help us and are grateful for what we've done. A lot of things have gone successfully. You would know that if you talked to a soldier instead of listening to a reporter.
You are not born with morals or the "inner convictions" and the Iraqi's really haven't had much of an option as to what to believe or what liberties they can practice, have they? I realize that's hard for your free, moral, spoiled American mind to comprehend. They've been under the thumbs of tyrants for so long, I'm sure they'd apologize for being a little wobbly on their new found liberated legs.
2007-07-10 12:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by BrutalBaby 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. We should get out of Iraq and stop the socialistic policies in which government hacks are imposing on us. We need to protect the Constitution by preventing anti 2nd Amendment crazies from taking away our ability to protect ourselves! Forget the liberty haters, and give us back our individual freedoms!
2007-07-10 19:26:34 · answer #2 · answered by d s 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First, heathen refers to someone living in the heaths. The moors or marshes. It has nothing to do with religion.
Second, people lived for thousands of years, and many still do live quite well, before the New Testament ever was written. So, I cannot agree that one book makes all the difference.
Ron Paul lost any respect when his supporters continued to spam the boards in his name. So he's a lost cause.
As for religion being the answer to government -- sadly, every example that has tried that in the past few thousand years (with the exception of Ancient Israel) has resulted in mass inquisitions and holy wars that have been as bad as anything secular government has done.
2007-07-10 19:29:42 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree 100% with your 1st three sentences.
However the rest of it showd that you fail to understand why we are in Iraq, and so does Ron Paul.
2007-07-10 19:24:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your first statement may well be correct - I'd feel a certain need for a government to protect me from such people, though.
2007-07-10 19:22:20 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree. Ron Paul is America's best shot at turning around the mess that is America. I'll ask you this though....Are there enough Americans that can vote him over the other GOP's????
2007-07-10 19:25:23 · answer #6 · answered by Go Blue 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Spot on. You're absolutely correct.
2007-07-10 19:32:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
'Biblical' and 'morality' are a contradiction in terms.
2007-07-10 19:25:20 · answer #8 · answered by Oliver T5 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋