If you accept his premises then it is all very logical, as usual. But he ignores the prevailing motivation for all of this activity, i.e. Saddam Hussein means to be the power broker in the Middle Eastern part of the world through force. He has shown no compunction about punishing his own countrymen who oppose him. He disregards the murderous acts of his sons who emulate him. It is even likely that he will unleash biological and chemical agents on his own turf, to the detriment of his own people. Ron seems to ignore all of these factors in this article.
**********************
I admire Ron Paul for his willingness to think things through in his own effective way. I believe he is off the mark here, however. If you accept his premises then it is all very logical, as usual. But he ignores the prevailing motivation for all of this activity, i.e. Saddam Hussein means to be the power broker in the Middle Eastern part of the world through force. He has shown no compunction about punishing his own countrymen who oppose him. He disregards the murderous acts of his sons who emulate him. It is even likely that he will unleash biological and chemical agents on his own turf, to the detriment of his own people. Ron seems to ignore all of these factors in this article.
Officially, we are going to war on behalf of the United Nations. The President said so, and so does the Congressional "Authorization of Force" that so many wrongly equate with a declaration of war.
Ron Paul is not 'off the mark." As a matter of law, Congress decides war, not the President, and certainly not the President in the name of the United Nations. Bush is President of the United States. He should not give United Nation interests as his official reason for going to war.
Just accepting that Saddam is as dangerous as you say, why not declare war legally? We won't be losing the element of surprise. Why not follow the law? It would remove the most effective argument those "dirty liberals" are using to protect the peace-loving tyrant of Iraq.