Non-sequitur. You asked me in post #114 what Paul would have done in response to 9/11. I gave you an answer. Paul would have either asked Congress for a formal declaration of war (again, instead of waiting for approval from the UN or Euroweenies) or he would have authorized a letter of marquis and reprisal. Although I disagree with the latter as the WOT should be fought with real troops instead of mercenaries, there wouldn't be any of this nation-building & establishing democracy in Iraq as it is now, at the expense of our soldier's lives.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that he believes we SHOULD be at war with — with what? — the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq? Radical Islam? What?
Newsflash. We wouldn't be at war with anyone. Radical Muslims here would be deported and our borders sealed under Paul (Keep in mind that the lunatic Paul supports border security and interior enforcement) and Muslims would be left in the Middle East to stew in their own fecal juices.
>> Non-sequitur.
No. It was a polite way of calling BS. I don’t believe for a second RP really would have asked for a war declaration, and that goes double for Iraq. I think the pirate thing would be much more his style.
>> We wouldn’t be at war with anyone. Radical Muslims here would be deported and our borders sealed under Paul
Yes. Thank you for helping to make my own case.
>> Muslims would be left in the Middle East to stew in their own fecal juices.
Our European allies be damned? American citizens unable to travel out of the US because they’re being kidnapped right and left as part of Ron’s Muslim Stew? Our economy disrupted right and left? And — no matter how “sealed” the border gets, an unaffected Al Queda free to multiply and grow powerful and rich AND PERPETRATE EVER MORE HORRIFIC 9-11s because our POTUS is a head-in-the-sand isolationist who won’t take care of the problem at the source?
No thank you.