This is a bit misleading. We can’t even get Ronpaul to say that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. It’s not that he’s against the War in Iraq - it’s that he against any form of involvement in the world whatsoever, no matter what, period. The man said that America has never needed to fight a war even dating back to WWI. Heck, even Pat Buchanan said we needed to get involved in WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor!
There is anti-Iraq war, and then there is anti-U.S. defense. Ronpaul is the latter - noone can seriously expect that in the 21st century we can simply build a forcefield around the country and never have a troop stationed overseas. No reasonable person can possibly believe we can have a real National Defense by staying entirely within our borders in this day and age.
That’s the difference - we’re not talking about just an Iraq disagreement here, we’re talking about setting back national defense and interests 150 years in the name of total isolationism.
Things like our involvement in overthrowing the elected government of Iran, and installing the sock-puppet Shah who destroyed constitutional limits on his power and converted himself into an absolute monarch, or our involvement in protecting him from justice at the hands of the Iranians he oppressed for years?
Things like our involvement in supplying satellite reconnaissance data to Saddam so he could better plan and coordinate his chemical weapon attacks on Iran?
That's the kind of "involvement" that Ron Paul is referring to.