Replies

Does Ron Paul believe we should declare war on Pakistan prior to our invastion? Or, would he support an authorization of force? Or, would he still recommend Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

Afghanistan is barely a country, even on paper. The tribal areas of Pakistan belong to Pakistan as a territory but no one, not even Pakistan, believes that Pakistan's government rules them in any significant way.

We're not talking about countries in the normal sense of the word here. Even Paki military are afraid to set foot there. It's one of the truly lawless areas on Earth, outside of Africa or places deep in the Amazon.

Ron Paul has not been specific about how we deal with the danger of destablizing Pakistan entirely by imprudent measures. If you heard the White House statements on dealing with these tribal areas, clearly they are keeping quiet too. Apparently, we're going in with Paki approval but no assistance. It won't be a large bombing and invasion campaign for the region though. We'll be probing and observing. If we can identify Bin Laden's camp, we'll try to capture him and his group or we'll bomb it flat, perhaps with some of our new drone aircraft that can carry, what, 2 dozen Hellfire missiles. We just deployed a squadron of them in Iraq, I read.

If we had listened to Ron Paul, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, we would have issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

No, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and long since moved in to clean out the al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Iraq is and always was completely separated from 9/11. There was and is no connection between the two.

It's long past time to kill Osama and all of his top henchmen. Every day we allow him to live only encourages future terrorists and future attacks. Do we have to wait for him to kill another 3000 Americans on our own soil again before we get back to the job?

The Bush administration has seemed, until this last week, to have no more interest in Osama than Xlinton did. We condemn Xlinton over and over for not apprehending Osama when he had the chance. Just what the hell has Bush been doing to get Osama the last five years anyway?

“Iraq is and always was completely separated from 9/11. There was and is no connection between the two.”

There was a connection. Hussein had a record of supporting terrorism and a record of WMD. Saddam could have remained in power by fully cooperating with the inspectors and proved he had no WMD that he might provide to terrorists.

“Ron Paul has not been specific about how we deal with the danger of destablizing Pakistan entirely by imprudent measures.”

Just like the democrats, avoid being specific, just criticize.

“The Bush administration has seemed, until this last week, to have no more interest in Osama than Xlinton did. We condemn Xlinton over and over for not apprehending Osama when he had the chance.”

Exactly which organization offered to turn Osama over to Bush like the Sudanesse offered to Clinton?

“Just what the hell has Bush been doing to get Osama the last five years anyway?”

You’re making the same mistake as the democrats in viewing this as a law enforcement issue that can be solved by arresting or killing one man. Getting Osama won’t solve the problem of Islamic terrorism.