"-- Meddling in the affairs of others often fosters animosity and a desire for retaliation, and we would never allow other countries to do to us some of the same things that the US is doing to them --"
Seems to me the above is a fairly simple concept; - why so many here at FR blow up about it [like Guiliani] is a minor mystery.
Sauropod:
Baloney. The Jihadists would come after us even if we were not in Iraq and Saddam was still alive and in power.
Of course they would. No one [including Paul] is saying otherwise.
Jihadism is in their religion the way they interpret it and they hate our freedoms and culture enough to do what they do anyway. It's what they do.
Do you expect an argument from me?
I'm not defending Paul's misconceptions about Iraq. I'm defending his record as a constitutionalist/patriot.
Check out post 150, by JerseyHighlander:
Paul almost immediately brought forth a bill of Marque and Reprisal that would have allowed anyone in the world to track down and kill the Al Qaeda and Taliban officer corps, for a just reward from the US Treasury.
Google 'Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'
Thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you that Paul has been (in the past) a constitutionalist and a patriot. I have been a great admirer of his in the past.
The Ron Paul I saw Tuesday and the PMSNBC debate was not that man. ‘Pod.