[wagglebee]

Ron Paul would probably support the use of force indulged by our forefathers in those wars because it was in our national interest and confined to the problems at hand. Our interests were most likely directly attacked first. No?

Let's see, the Muhammadens demanded an increase in the "tribute" money (which we had been paying for years) and Jefferson said no. They cut down the flag pole at the US Consulate, so Jefferson sent troops in.

In comparison, Iran seized the American Embassy in Tehran and kept Americans hostage for 444 days.

Then on September 11, 2001, Islamofascists killed 3000 Americans on American soil.

Yet, Ron Paul doesn't consider our actions against Islamofascist terrorist just.

[Notary Sojac]

Yet, Ron Paul doesn't consider our actions against Islamofascist terrorist just.

The specific Paul position that kicked off this thread was his attitude toward Iran.

For the last six years, all we've gotten from the Bush admin on Iran has been a lot of empty threats and State Dept pat-a-cake.

The effective difference between the Bush and Paul policies has been pretty minimal.