Today, Ron Paul continues to oppose the war in Iraq. So this is nothing new to him. Rightly or wrongly, if one thinks about it, his judgment is principled as well as constitutional.
Ron Paul asks the question we should all be asking ourselves. "Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
Now, supporters of the war, and I am personally one of them, must consider that the constitution only authorizes congress to declare war. Congress has made no such declaration of war. This puts us, we supporters, in a tricksack...since we have allowed our troops to go to war without congress declaring war as prescribed in our constitution. Our founding fathers believed that our representatives of the people whose sons and daughters would fight the war, and not our President, should make and declare war.
So if one thinks about the conflicts (not wars because congress has made no such declarations since WWII) where we have had failures, those actions of war were unconstitutional to begin with.
When congress authorized the funds for the war in Iraq, why did it not declare war against Iraq? It is Ron Paul's conviction that if the constitution had been followed to begin with, we would not be in the mess we are today.
Constitutionally speaking, he makes a valid point. And, he asks a very valid question very relevent to our situation in Iraq today, "Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?"
Perhaps some here can answer his question. And please don't yell at me. I supported the war from the gitgo. And no, I am not offering this a support for Ron Paul. I'm just asking myself and some of you, what do you think about sending our troops off to war without a declaration of war from congress as required by our constitution? And are we supposed to have our troops in Iraq or anywhere in the business of creating democracies?
I agree with your point entirely. I, myself, supported a Declaration of War and the removal of Saddam from power.
I did not then, and do not now, believe that we should maintain a continuing troop presence thereafter if the Iraqis are going to vote Terrorists into Power.
As one who supports the WoT and the invasion of Iraq, I say yes to sending our troops without a declaration of war when the administration believes it is necessary to defend America. This is not the first time this has happened.
As for having our troops in Iraq creating a democracy, that's not their purpose as warriors. However, I've yet to see a better alternative. Will democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan emerge victorious? Perhaps. But it will never happen if we now cut and run. Nor may it happen if we stay yet fight a politically correct war. What America has to do is come to a decision; do we stay or leave? I'm for staying. But if we do, the gloves must come off and we must win. Anything short of that would be disastrous. Gen. W. T. Sherman and his march through Georgia to the sea comes to mind as an example. The same with Phil Sheridan's march through the Shenandoah.
Yah? So what? I think a lot of Obama's beliefs are principled and fit into his warped idea of what the Constitution says. I still won't vote for him.