Posted on 07/20/2007 12:19:50 AM PDT by John Farson
It comes right down to freedom. They want to go back to small government. Not smaller government. Small government as it was originally intended. And that is what really unites most of our support.
The word ‘freedom’ is a short-hand way of explaining Paul’s platform.
Paul supports a drastically reduced federal government- the elimination of the IRS, he believes state’s should be left to regulate abortion and marriage policies.
He questions many international organizations and agreements, such as the World Trade Organization, NAFTA and the country’s membership to the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nhpr.org ...
So we agree that the firing of missiles at our pilots constituted an act of war by Hussein -- in fact repeated acts of war. Given that, how come Paul didn't support going to war against the Baathists?
Actually *declaring* war would be a start.
After the marine barracks bombing, Reagan reconsidered and pulled our troops out. He said there was no accounting for the irrationality of middle eastern politics.
Grass RootsSmoking Activists Push for Paul
Because of the history of that era. It wasn't just that one. There was more so called slip ups where Johnson put men in harms way that needed not happen. When opposition for Nam was heating up lo and behold a U.S. Navy ship is captured off North Korea. An unarmed intelligence ship except a 50 caliber and a ship laden with classified material with no means of Emergency Destruct because they didn't listen to the ships Captains concerns then after his crew was released Court Martial him. In the mean time LBJ night after night wagged North Korea on TV while Nam went on. People focused on Pueblo not Nam.
There was also Liberty which IMO Johnson never came clean on. Why send a ship into the middle of someone else's war? Johnson was a man few trusted and IMO not above back door deals with Syria whom Israel or Egypt was fighting. Again all eyes focused on Liberty and not Nam.
No elected leader is above checks and balances and scrutiny. Ron Paul is likely the most educated of all persons running for POTUS and he applies the history so mistakes are not to be repeated.
You Libertarians amaze me. It is all form over substance with you. It's not important to you that Bush actually got congressional authorization to attack Al Qaeda. What's important to you is the label placed on the authorization. Putting aside the fact that there were good reasons for not 'Declaring War' on Al Qaeda, you sound just like children quibbling with adults over the form of things rather than the substance.
I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that this is a fraud perpetrated by the MSM. They would love nothing better than to achieve the same “coup” they did in Vietnam. Remember Walter “Crock-of-sh!t”, et al? I sure do.
Yeah, that Constitution thing is so antiquated — we should just ignore it. Article 1, Section 8 is just toilet paper.
Answer me this and you'll have your answer to your question. Which Republican Congressman called for a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Which ones and which POTUS was against it? Those missiles could have been stopped without war by simply allowing the pilots to carpet bomb the entire area sparing no one. Why was that not allowed?
It’s not ignoring the Constitution if you get congressional authorization — in fact it is kind of the point of that particular clause in the Constitution. Aside from that, I’m guessing it matters not a whit to you that we didn’t want to Declare War on Al Qaeda because that would have entitled them to rights under the Geneva Convention which they are not otherwise entitled to.
Look war is a punishment to be inflicted upon a nation. Up[on a nation means the nation. The military and the people who allowed the ones to come to power who caused the problems. It means innocents die as well. It means entire nations can perish if that is what it takes. However I see it as an act of last resort but once declared it must be an absolute act until the will of the enemy people and military is such they no longer fight. That is not what is going on in Iraq. That is not what happened in Nam. That is not what happened in Korea. That is what happened however in every U.S. war up to that point and hey we one too. People who think war can be kind and gentle have no business being involved in calling for it.
The establishment candidates elicit a cold-fish, Bob Dole ennui.
I hope Iraq does not become our own national West Bank. The Israeli conflict has persisted for the same reasons you mention.
We did have a vote for a formal declaration of war against Iraq and here is part of the pertinent language from it:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; . . .
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; . . .
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Lending any legitimacy to the U.N. undermines our own national sovereignty.
Was it legitimate to go to war against Hussein given that he was routinely firing missiles at our pilots?
And sadly enough with the help of our state department as well. People forget it was Israel who ended Saddam's nuclear program. But yes it seems every time Israels leaders say enough is enough and try to deal with terrorism on their borders lo and behold in steps the U.S. State Department who enabled such scum as Arafat. Had we left Israel alone I do wonder how many M.E. issues we would be facing. Remember that little nation took on the region all at one time and won.
It is also unnerving to me that our government is pushing Israel into peace agreements. If anyone studies the Good Book that kind of policy with Israel should make them real nervous. Israel will indeed be deceived into a peace agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.