Replies

“At any rate, it’s a pretty reasonable standard “

“Well, unless only a dictator makes you feel safe....then you really need to go with a dictator.”

No, just because I don’t believe Operation Iraqi Freedom violates our constitution doesn’t mean I want to live under a dictator. That is fallacious.

” Destroying it as the basis of our rule of law is not in the interest of conservatives. Ever.”

There is nothing of substance to these fallacious arguements. Nowhere did I advocate destroying the constitution. I was talking about Paul’s double standard regarding Iraq and Afganistan.

“I think you know I was referring to al-Qaeda within Iraq prior to our invasion (which created a power vacuum into which they poured to kill our soldiers). “

You were? I was responding to your statement that “Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.” Since you now claim that you were referring to Al Qaeda, what Al Qaeda radicals did Saddam execute? Saddam harbored terrorists. This in and of itself puts him in violation of our cease fire agreement. What would have Ron Paul done to enforce Saddam’s compliance to this agreement in regards to terrorism?

“I’ve read of no organization called “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. “

This explains alot.lol

It’s a double standard. One is applied to Al Qaeda in Afganistan, and a different one applied to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Fighting al qaeda in Afganistan is constitutional, even without a declaration of war. But fighting al qaeda in Iraq is unconstitutional, because there was no declaration of war.

No one has ever questioned the presence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's tribal areas, allied with and harbored by the Taliban warlords.

In Iraq, no one ever found any al-Qaeda prior to our invasion or even for some months after we had conquered Saddam's forces.

The invasion of Iraq was over Saddam's supposed violations of treaty obligations that forbid the development of WMD. And yet, no stockpile of WMD was found, no storage facilities for WMD, no credible missile platforms (though there was a set of rockets they were trying to modify so they could fly something like 150 miles instead of the 70 miles or so they were designed for).

I think you don't have any consistent set of standards over the use of force. Now you may think that's fine. But maybe you should think about what President Hillary will do with that same exact power. Maybe put our troops under the U.N.'s control wearing the blue helmets and fighting under grossly incompetent foreign commanders?

There is nothing of substance to these fallacious arguements. Nowhere did I advocate destroying the constitution. I was talking about Paul’s double standard regarding Iraq and Afganistan.

Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty. It is a fundamental goal of the Left. They have drooled at the thought of convincing us all to hold a new consitutional convention since the Sixties.

You were? I was responding to your statement that “Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.” Since you now claim that you were referring to Al Qaeda, what Al Qaeda radicals did Saddam execute?

Muslim regimes routinely execute or disappear radical clerics. I was not aware that our ceasefire with Saddam and the U.N. resolutions specifically dealt with harboring terrorists. I can only recall the one well-known Pali terrorist. But certainly, we know Saddam sent money to the families of Pali suicide bombers, not unusual. Some of the Saudi princes routinely did the same. Should we invade the Saudis too? Of course not.

However, we are seeing new reports from our military and the WH just today which speak directly to an al-Qaeda threat and how we may need to take direct action (invade) Pakistan's tribal areas. I certainly would support doing anything necessary to capture/kill all the al-Qaeda leadership responsible for 9/11 and their key associates and those who harbor them. Ron Paul indicated in an interview two days ago that he thought we had failed to be aggressive enough to capture Osama.

So, you're saying there is a group that identifies itself as "al-Qaeda In Iraq" as the name of their group? And that they are directly affiliated and act under orders from the Bin Laden organization?