Posted on 12/26/2007 11:04:00 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
“What I know about Ron Paul is this: if I had a penny for every lie told about him I’d be rich.”
Especially here on FR, upon occasion, at least a dozen untruths and smears on this thread alone.
“Having discovered that our invasion was based on a mistaken premise, isn’t it time to pack up and leave?”
Why would that be in our best interest?
You ask: “I notice you didn’t answer the question: why was Afghanistan Constitutional and Iraq wasn’t? If both were un-Constitutional, why was supporting Afghanistan but not Iraq anything other than duplicity?”
I don’t need Ron Paul to answer that one and neither do you. Afghanistan harbored the terrorist group (Al Qaeda) that attacked us on 9/11. Iraq was more of a theoretical concern, down the road (way, way down the road, it turned out).
Yes, Designer, you really nailed it.
All those youthful enthusiasts for RP are not welcome in our party. Not the right kind of republicans, what? (snif)
You: “You’re missing the point entirely (aside from the fact that you sound like an Islamist apologist). If it’s “unConstitutional” to vote a “use of force resolution”, vice a Declaration of War (Paul’s point of view) in the case of Iraq then it’s equally “unConstitutional” to vote for a “use of force” (vice a declaration of war) in the case of Afghanistan. When you claim to stand on principle, you’d darn sure better stand for it proactively, as well as retroactively.”
Me: Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11, a bunch of Saudi terrorists trained by a terrorist group there did. A declaration of war would have been ideal, but against a non-state? Iraq, on the other hand, WAS a state.
In any event, I’m not really very concerned about declaration versus resolution. The substantive issue to me is, one attacked us and deserved retribution, the other had not done so.
Does that put me in the “Impeach Bush” crowd? God forbid. GWB is basically a good guy. But looking back, we can see the hubris emanating from the successful Afghanistan operation that led to the Iraq invasion.
“I don’t need Ron Paul to answer that one and neither do you.”
That question goes directly to the heart of whether Ron Paul is duplicious. Duplicity: “contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action”
You do remember your post #26?:
“Conned”? That suggests duplicity on Paul’s part.
Now is this duplicity or not? If not, why not?
“Now is this duplicity or not? If not, why not?”
No. See above.
Looks like there is a ‘Fatwa’ out on Paul’s for getting 3%.
Would you still advocate going into Iraq knowing what we know today? Just curious.
See what above? Why not just answer the question?
Policy differences are one thing, but to suggest that we have troops on the horn of Africa for corporate greed is simply not dealing with a full deck. Altruism in our government is the rule and not the exception. To suggest otherwise is to buy into the lies of our enemies. Our list of military outposts and interventions since WWII has been a direct response to real threats in many places. Pax Americana is not a pipe dream, like the Ron Paul retreat, it is the hope of the world against tyrants.
Yes, dismantle, Ron Paul wants to start cutting government spending with the military commitments, no matter who gets killed. Do you think he was lying to Tim Russert?
Let’s say, China, with the support of Hugo Chavez occupied the Panama Canal, do you think that Ron Paul would go nuclear over that? With out a credible conventional response, with boots on the ground, every conflict goes nuclear in a hurry.
Mission9:
I don’t think that the US has far flung outposts in most cases because of corporate greed. And I haven’t heard Paul argue that. (I have heard him point out that the principal beneficiaries of federal largesse are corporations and wealthy individuals — it is interesting that the hypocritical socialists who tout the interests of the little guy inevitably end up lining the pockets of their wealthy donor buddies).
You tout the benefits of a Pax Americana. Two points in response that RP is making: (1) we can’t afford to keep paying for this — we’re deeply in hock, dammit, and (2) our beneficiaries increasingly resent our oversight.
There is a growing international resentment of the U.S. out there. What seemed benign a few years back will increasingly be leveraged by our enemies abroad (Russia, China) against our interests.
Is any of that worthwhile?
“Would you still advocate going into Iraq knowing what we know today?”
I’m assuming your question is based upon this: Iraq had placed their WMD programs on hold due to the sanctions and inspection program.
Then the answer is ‘Yes’. We had the choice of watching the sanctions on Iraq and the inspection program collapse totally allowing Hussein unlimited freedom to reinstitute his WMD programs or to take him out.
BTW, there is quit a bit of evidence that Iraq had WMD until just before our invasion and that these WMD were shipped out of country to Syria or elsewhere.
Re: Duplicity. I’ve answered your question now will you answer mine?
ping
“BTW, there is quit a bit of evidence that Iraq had WMD until just before our invasion and that these WMD were shipped out of country to Syria or elsewhere.”
But notice that even the Bush Administration doesn’t make this contention. Don’t you think they would grab this lifeline if they had credible evidence of it? (They must not have).
Look, man, I too, once truly believed that we would find the WMD with each new excavation and raid. “The truth is out there,” ya know? They didn’t find any, and our own blue ribbon investigation concluded that Saddam was puffing to impress his neighbors.
As for answering your question, if you’re asking why invade Afghanistan and not Iraq, it’s because one harbored the terrorist group that launched 9/11, and the other didn’t actually attack us. That seems pretty clear to me. But now the people who told us that finding WMD would be “slam dunk” are telling us that to leave Iraq would create a “bloodbath.”
Problem is, they don’t have much credibility any more. We’ve helped fix the chaos we triggered in Iraq. Now it’s time to say goodbye. It’s a pretty chaotic place anyway. We can’t remain forever.
Now you're sounding like a member of the Clinton/Bush State Department. "We don't want the 'peaceful Muslims' thinking that we're at war with Islam". Clearly the Taliban Government (which is the entity we could/should have declared war on) was shielding Bin Laden. A great "Constitutionalist" like Paul should have seen it that way. Why doesn't he just admit, "that bandwagon was rolling, and I just didn't have the 'nads to get in the way"?
Amazing isn’t it? If the Republican party united behind Paul, I have no doubt he would win the election. His appeal is across the board - Democrat, Independent, Republican, young, old and in between. His message is simply give us back our government and our country.
“Paul is a curmudgeon - that’s what has attracted support for him for the role he’s in Congress. He doesn’t work well with others, he is contrary to consensus building, and he is inflexible and hopelessly non-pragmatic. His specialty is not getting things done. I suppose that there is a place for that sort in Congress, but nowhere near the Whitehouse!”
That is what is attracting his support and I think that Ron Paul is enough of a realist to know he is not going to walk away from the party with the nomination but will hopefully push they party in the less government is better direction that most wish to see. His views on foreign troop deployments are extreme but don’t we need a push in that direction too? We are paying for the defense of most of the world maybe its time to reconsider our role.
“We are paying for the defense of most of the world maybe its time to reconsider our role.”
Yep. And I believe that the U.S. role in recent history as the grown up has helped retard the development of our allies’ own sense of responsibility and maturity. We allow them to keep acting like teenagers, flirting with the kooks in Iran, etc., knowing that “Daddy” will ultimately step up and protect them if things go awry.
What if they no longer have any assurance of that? Might wake them up. If not, too bad for them.
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.