Replies

“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.”

This does not relate to my arguement. Ron Paul claims opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom based on no declaration of war. But he supports military intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war.

“The invasion of Iraq was over Saddam’s supposed violations of treaty obligations that forbid the development of WMD. “

This statement alone indicates that you have no understanding of Saddam’s obligations to the council. To call it ‘supposed’ violations show a complete lack of understanding of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of said terms.

“Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty. “

These are more fallacious arguements.

” I was not aware that our ceasefire with Saddam and the U.N. resolutions specifically dealt with harboring terrorists. “

Yes, it dealt with many issues, including terrorism. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments regarding terrorism. How would have Ron Paul enforced Saddam’s complaince with terrorism. (All lefties and anti-war Paul fans do not answer this question. They pretend instead as though I asked if large quantities of WMDs were found, which is what you have done and will do again).

“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?”

Yes, the Al Qaeda in Iraq is foreign led. They had to resort to making up a guy in an effort to put an Iraqi face on their terror group.

Ron Paul claims opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom based on no declaration of war. But he supports military intervention in Afganistan without a declaration of war.

He opposed the invasion of Iraq because there was no evidence of Iraqi WMD, the primary justification for invading Iraq.

This statement alone indicates that you have no understanding of Saddam’s obligations to the council. To call it ‘supposed’ violations show a complete lack of understanding of the terms of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of said terms.

And yet, the Security Council did not support our invasion. So you have your reward. Live by the U.N., die by the U.N. It's pretty much what anyone familiar with them expects.

Our foreign policy should never be subject to the approval of or the veto of the Security Council. You'd never catch Ron Paul crawling to them on hands and knees. He'd defund them and expel them.

Yes, it dealt with many issues, including terrorism. The council unanimously concluded that Saddam was in breach of his commitments regarding terrorism. How would have Ron Paul enforced Saddam’s complaince with terrorism.

Again, you resort to the "authority" of the Security Council. So if you do so as the basis for war against Iraq and regard them as the arbiters of the peace, then the entire Iraq adventure, following their rejection of our requests for authorization, was illegal and Bush, Cheney, Powell and our military leaders are all war criminals. Naturally, I reject any notion that the U.N. has any place in our foreign policy. For that matter, even in our country.

You cannot appeal to their authority and then deny that it is legitimate when they deny authorization for their goofy treaty protocols. It was never a proper and constitutional treaty under our Constitution to begin with.

Yes, the Al Qaeda in Iraq is foreign led. They had to resort to making up a guy in an effort to put an Iraqi face on their terror group.

I don't doubt there are some actual al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq and that they might even be directing or participating in some attacks. But I don't think that is where they are concentrating their effort. Most of what we're seeing now is internal factionalism, aided by and armed by Iranians and Syrians and Saudis who are pursuing their own interests, hoping to carve out a chunk of post-American Iraq for themselves or their sect. And the Baathists are undoubtedly active as well.

“Being casual over the provisions of the Constitution or completely ignoring destroys its power as the safeguard of our liberty.“

“These are more fallacious arguements.”

Two words my friend: bovine feces. If you don’t take the constitution seriously then you can’t claim to be a “conservative”. “Neo-conman” maybe but “conservative” no. And yes if the constitution is ignored it becomes disempowered.

Simply yelling “wrong” doesn’t cut it for a rational argument. At least explain your reasoning please. Did you mean instead that the constitution is NOT the safeguard of our liberty?