Replies

"1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan."

Actually, he voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, considering our intelligence indicated that bin Laden was there.

My opinion of RP is that he would have rather Congress issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would have been more in line with our Constitution when dealing with a single or small group of miscreants.

The conspiratorial view of nation-building in Afghanistan holds some credence.

"1. He doesn’t think we should have entered Iraq or Afghanistan."

Actually, he voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan, considering our intelligence indicated that bin Laden was there.

If he did, then I stand corrected as far as the initiation of the war efforts there goes. It was my take that I had seen Ron call for our immediate withdrawel from both countries, and that we should not have entered either one of them. He may have qualified that last part by saying something like, "Knowing what we know now..." or some such. I ran a search on Google and believe most of this is confirmed on some of the reports that popped up. Headlines seem to support that perception. LINK

My opinion of RP is that he would have rather Congress issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, which would have been more in line with our Constitution when dealing with a single or small group of miscreants.

He may have. There are times when it's important to make a lot of noise and break things. Taking much less intensive military measures would have telegraphed a sort of timid approach to someone who has attacked us. No Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. The fact is he was encouraging terrorism around the planet, and was on record for having supplied $25k to the families of terrorist attackers against Israel. I think the U. S. thought it was time to clean up the region and included Iraq in the process.

The conspiratorial view of nation-building in Afghanistan holds some credence.

I think it may in both. While I wouldn't agree to it in every instance, in these two nations I think it was fitting.

Is the world better off today without Hussein and with a more stable nation not intent on invading it's neighbors?

Is that a bad thing?

Did we try to crush Islam in Iraq? Did we try to set up a government that was going to abuse it's citizenry? Did we Demand all of Iraq's assets, or personal wealth?

Am I wrong to think that our Founding Fathers would have seen Iraq as a threat to it's neighbors and to an extent the free nations of the world? Do we have no obligation to take a stand against a pariah state like Iraq? At what stage do we step in? Should we wait until another nation is invaded? Should we take action against a guy that openly says he will aid in any way he can, the terrorists against the West and Israel?

It's a debatable issue, at what point we do take action against other nations. With a massive attack on our own soil, I think it alters the weight needed to pull the trigger.

Others will see it differently.