[BlackElk]

There is much in your #27 to agree with. Unfortunately, your remedy of paleoPaulie is no remedy at all. If El Ron Paul is sooooo supportive of the war in Afghanistan, how do you suppose he justifies that position when there is no more of a "declaration of war" as to Afghanistan than there was for Iraq??? In each case, we had Congressionally enacted authorizations of using military force (the modern equivalent of a "declaration of war" in order to get around the vipers' nest of UN treaty imposed reductions of American sovereignty).

Specific areas of agreement (parenthetical questions are my suggested policies with which you may not agree):

1. Our troops are being worn down by overdeployment and over [any???] reliance on reserves (and by imbecilic criminal prosecutions for anything the antiwar antiAmerican crowd does not like?);

2. We don't need social engineering (we need mass killing of our nation's enemies funded by confiscating their oil??? We also need to preserve the sovereignty of our Kurdish allies???);

3. Bush absolutely should have given the troops free reign to utterly destroy the Iraqi enemies and flatten their areas.

4. We need drastically increased numbers of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, etc., generally and in the Middle East.

5. We don't need or want nation building in Iraq or anywhere else, now or ever. (not even in New Orleans)

6. Your last two paragraphs generally.

The answer STILL is not and never will be anything vaguely resembling paleoPaulie or his ilk.

[cva66snipe]

There is much in your #27 to agree with. Unfortunately, your remedy of paleoPaulie is no remedy at all. If El Ron Paul is sooooo supportive of the war in Afghanistan, how do you suppose he justifies that position when there is no more of a "declaration of war" as to Afghanistan than there was for Iraq??? In each case, we had Congressionally enacted authorizations of using military force (the modern equivalent of a "declaration of war" in order to get around the vipers' nest of UN treaty imposed reductions of American sovereignty).

I'm pretty certain his reason was bin Ladden was a 100% certainity link to the 9/11 attacks. Saddam was not. Yemen and the Sauds likely were more involved than Iraq as they had more resources and money. More replies later if needed. It's late :>}