[xt5rt45]

I would imagine those on this site are opposed to the above heresy, but I am curious about the reaction.

[hflynn]

We fight so we don't have to fight. If Clinton had learned that in 8 years in the Oral Office, he wouldn't have left the Presidency with the training wheels still on his limo.

[BykrBayb]

My son is fighting so that hopefully I won't have to.

[txroadkill]

No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war

The fall of Baghdad has produced new evidence to buttress the Bush administration's prewar contention that Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda had a long history of contacts. The most conclusive evidence comes in a highly detailed list of intelligence reports revealed last month in the Weekly Standard. Senior Iraqis were said to have traveled to Sudan in the mid-1990s to teach bin Laden's operatives how to make sophisticated truck bombs. Terrorists subsequently used such bombs to hit targets in Saudi Arabia and at two U.S. embassies in Africa. ---Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus by Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES December 01, 2003

[Alberta's Child]

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.

This just about sums up my reasons for opposing this stupid war since Day 1.

[sheltonmac]

The "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument certainly didn't work for Spain or Great Britain. But I guess the fact that we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil in four whole years is all the proof some people need that the war in Iraq is working to thwart a global terrorist network. Well, it's either that or the magic anti-terrorist crystals I bought on eBay.

[bayourod]

"Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. "

No true. President Bush never said that the threat was "imminent".

Ron Paul is just gearing up to raise more money from his third party wacko supporters.

When he ran for President I asked him point blank if he was in favor of legalizing all drugs and if he supported abortion on demand. He refused to give a definitive answer, but instead talked in general terms about room for compromise on party platforms.

[Marine_Uncle]

Here's my reaction. The asshol* should be stuffed into a shredder.

[kublia khan]

Actually the premise is correct, we are at war with all of Islam but if you don't have the stomach for nation building than how could you ever accept the alternative which is not inaction but scorched earth. Your assertion that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the world may be true, however in the history of man all other avenues that have been attempted have met an abysmal end and left more people hurting, displaced and effectively eliminated as a cultural entity.
I do agree that nation building is a failed cause, when the enemy is destroyed victory is never in dispute, I believe that the war in Iraq would have been better prosecuted with a strategy of carpet bombing every major metropolitan area in Iraq. History dictates that the will of an opponent is rather quickly broken with such tactics. In our own war between the states Sherman did what Lee would not as he marched on Atlanta. The duration if not the course of WWII was changed by the bombing of Dresden, even the American Indian (I suppose you might prefer the less accurate term "Native American") has never risen from the ashes of their defeat as their villages and towns were attacked by the forces of westward expansion. If you were really desirous of a new world policy towards correcting wrongs wouldn't the logical place to start be in moving all non indigenous peoples from the North American continent?

[robowombat]

The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of "Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their” oil said: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Not long afterward a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Too bad we are not better at studying history."

This paragraph is a good example of the problems of shoehorning history into polemic, which this essay is.
The Mesopotamian Campaign began as an operation to push the Turks back from the Persian oilfields around Abadan that were vital to Great Britain since new classes of capital ships were to be oil fired rather than coal fired.

Military commanders on the ground kept pushing operations further inland and the India Office rather than the War Office really called the shots encouraging the mission creep with more troops to encourage the Russians to push deeper into Persia to link up with Brit forces.

Unfortunately the very ambitious Gen Townshend tried to capture Baghdad with insufficient forces and ended up having his force captured in the biggest British defeat since Saratoga. This made massive escalation inevitable to save British face before the Arabs and Muslims in India. A large force well supported logistically captured Baghdad and in the final weeks of the war captured areas far in the north known to hold oil.
After the war the British faced a large tribal uprising. however they did not leave. The rebellion was put down decisively with the RAF effectively terrorizing the revolting Arabs. To cut costs a puppet dynasty was put on the throne of the invented country of Iraq. The British held on to the overwhelming bulk of the oil deposits and Iraq became a British satellite state with a substantial RAF presences to overawe the Arabs and a 'defense treaty' which effectively made HM's ambassador have veto power over Iraqi foreign and defense policy.

In World War 2 pro-Axis Iraqi politicians led by Rashid Ali tried to expel the British and invite in the Germans. The British mounted a brilliant little expeditionary operation and crushed the revolt and turned Iraq into a British training and maneuver area for the rest of the war.

British retreat from Iraq in the late 40s was connected to the general retreat of British power in the Middle East and the US picked up a vague sort of defense protectorate over Iraq.

Just saying a jihad was declared and the British were forced to leave can be said to be charitably at best to be a gross misstatement of events. Polemicists of all hues regularly engage in this sort of historical distortion which is so great as to often be little more than lies.

[Migraine]

Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited...

Here's what is discredited, IMHO:
...a member of Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, overtly giving aid and comfort to the enemy (especially in the wider war vs. islamofacsists -- which is largely, like the cold war, a PR war for the minds and sympathies of a worldwide audience); thanks, Ron -- you JUST DON'T DO THAT while our people are "over there".
...a member of Congress, parroting Barbra Streisand and Michael Moore...
...a member of Congress, parroting bin Laden, Zarqawi, i.e., the enemy...
...a member of Congress, parroting Sheehan, the French, Castro, Chavez, and various other and assorted America-haters...
...THAT'S what, for my money, is DISCREDITED!

[Owl558]

"...I am curious about the reaction."

Long-winded and self-serving like I would expect from a politician.

1. He uses a straw-man arguement as to the reasons why we attacked Iraq OR he never actually listened to Bush's sheeches.

2. It is clear the congressman has never actually read the Kay(?) or 911 report where it is established that Saddam had a chemical weapons program in place AND stockpiles of precursor chemicals, but no actual findable weapons. The fact that this is ignored by the press is no excuse for a congressman.

3. The article is long on history but ignores Iraq's established contacts with Muslim terrorist groups (See the reports mentions above and refer to the Khobar tower bombing).

4. The congressman has never read Article 1, section 8 of the constitution and relies on your ignorance of the same to make a point about Congress' war-making powers.

[Erik Latranyi]

What the congressman and so many others do not understand is the bigger picture of this war on terror.

FDR committed the United States to defeating all the forces of tyranny, not just those that directly threatened us. FDR understood that defeating your enemies and leaving them broken is a formula for future wars.

So, FDR set out to create democracies where none existed. Some said that the Japanese could never be democratic because they are too primitive, or had no experience in freedom--much the same things said about Muslims.

W is doing the same thing. He knows that the only way to stop new terrorists from being created is to give people something else to live for. The only way to achieve such a society is through freedom and capitalism.

The terrorists came here to decapitate our country and change our way of life. W has set us on a course to change the terrorists' way of life and to change the countries they consider 'safe'.

That is why we are in Iraq.

[Chena]

"“Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”"

There were many good reasons for the Iraq war, but the first reason has somehow been lost in the shuffle. Even the author of this article glosses over it, but covers his butt by at least putting it in there somewhere.

Saddam defied the UN Resolutions that allowed him to remain in power after we, and our allies, had to go kick him out of Kuwait. He was FINALLY held accountable for his actions, and he was FINALLY removed from power.

I find it quite frustrating that people seem to forget about that.

[Stultis]

but I am curious about the reaction

Honestly can't give you one beyond the first few paragraphs, therein being far too much distortion of fact and resort to fallacious logic to justify continuing. E.g. Bush did enumerate, repeatedly and from the very beginning, the whole panoply of consilient reasons for war, including the need for regional transformation; there was evidence for contact and cooperation between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeada, and the quantity and quality of that evidence has only improved since the war, etc, etc.

I guess my main reaction is sadness. Even though I happen to be "pro-war" I believe we need principled iconoclasts like Ron Paul. At least I used to believe he was principled. The extreme intellectual dishonesty he resorts to here, however, tends to change my opion. Again it's unfortunate. I want "my side" to be challenged by having to engage the best and strongest counter arguments. Yet Ron Pauls argument (from what I read of it) seems so infested with error and fallacy as to be all to easily refuted or dismissed.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.

There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate

He is there illegally!

WAKEUP AMERICA!

For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.

Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen

Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

And the FBI has proof of his treason.

Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files

May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.

(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html

a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS

Distribute these url's!

Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page

http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html


EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!

MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!

http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html

Full details on these url's!

http://tonkin.spymac.net

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com


Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Anti Military Troll Bait on this thread!

[StarCMC]

Hmmmm. You just signed up to post this??

The folks fighting in Iraq are doing so in order that you can continue to sit in your mom's basement begging for more pop tarts when the munchies hit ya.

[Chi-townChief]

I've always liked Ron but he diminishes himself when he parrots this kind of crap:

"Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years, along with the neo-conservatives, for an Iraqi regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’ enthusiasm for the war."

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

1)Welcome to Free Republic.

2) This is too long a first post.

3)Congressman Paul, in a neighboring District to mine, is a nut.

4)My family has fought in every war since the Revolution. I come from a long line of trouble makers and curmudgeons, and frankly we just like shooting at people, especially bad governments ... Red Coats, yankees, National Socialist, Communist

[KC Burke]

My opinion is that this shows the weakness of an arm of libertarian opinion as represented by "dance to a different drummer" congressman. Likewise there are weaker members of the liberal eastern wing of the Republican Party. On the whole, I guess I am glad that this fellow caucuses with the Republicans, but I find his ability to critique his own fellow republicans more severely then the democrats to be tiring.