Replies

My question about Ron Paul is "Does he see that we have been attacked by terrorists, terrorists are in Iraq"?

Attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and before that, led by Bin Laden who declared a written fatwa against the Great Satan (that would be us) in 1997 for, among other things, our troop presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia (that place they grovel to five times a day and I guess they don't like thinking about Jews or indecently clad women or any infidel standing on that patch of godforsaken desert while they're groveling).

Did he support going to Iraq in the first place, before we stayed to nation build?

He voted to authorize the president to pursue Bin Laden into Afghanistan (more a collection of medieval fiefdoms under warlords than an actual country) and has indicated support for pursuit into tribal areas of Pakistan (where he thinks Bin Laden and al-Q still are). And he still supports that and believes that Pakistan, our supposed ally, is actually harboring Bin Laden. I agree with him on that. It is almost certainly where Bin Laden is if he's still alive.

He opposed invading Iraq because there was and is no evidence of al-Qaeda operational presence there. Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do. Just as the Turkish army does to protect their secular "democracy".

Since no WMD were ever found nor any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Ron Paul voted against invasion. He believes that if Congress had actually been forced into taking responsibility to declare war formally as the Constitution prescribes, that we would have drawn back from it. And that is why Bush didn't ask for a declaration: he knew the evidence was far too weak. And that course, avoiding the Iraqi invasion, would have been far sounder, given the results in Iraq which could make the region even more dangerous for us. That is not the case with the Afghans whose excesses and barbarism repelled even other Muslims.

My problem with Paul is that I am not sure if and what he would consider to be an attack and a reason to fight back.

He spoke to this the other day. Given sound evidence of imminent attack, he believes the president is authorized and duty-bound to respond. Without any input from Congress. And of course, without running to the United Nations for permission first.

One of the more disturbing things about invading Iraq was that we didn't have a declaration of war from Congress, as the Constitution prescribes when dealing with sovereign nations, but we crawled on hands and knees to get the U.N.'s permission. It was a gross affront to any patriot and to anyone who believes that our Constitution, the basis of our law and our country, is our ultimate authority. I mention the shameful squirming we did before the criminally corrupt and incompetent United Nations because the topic of the thread is, after all, globalism. It's shameful to even recall that sad incident in our history, that we should grovel to the likes of the U.N. which Ron Paul has tried to defund repeatedly over the years. That would, of course, destroy the U.N. entirely.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It helps. You would agree that we cannot go back. We can only move forward.

Militant Islam is in a struggle with the globalists as to who is going to be in control. Globalists or them. The average guy would choose neither.

As a result, all western people are in militant Islams grasp, even though we didn’t ask for it. The people vying for control of humanity are the one’s duking it out.

Most people would not start war, and haven’t, what people are worried about is where we go from here, and save what we have known in the process.

We, as US citizens are under assault from two fronts, neither being what we would want.

In otherwards we need protection from globalists and from militant Islam at this time. Both are really irritating me and most people.

>I mention the shameful squirming we did before the criminally corrupt and incompetent United Nations because the topic of this threat is globalism.<

Duncan Hunter is 100% pro-America in every sense of the word. I don’t know if he would have invaded Iraq initially, but I agree with him that as long as we are there, we should allow our troops to finish the job without interference from Congress. To make public any pull out date whatsoever is an aid to the enemy.

Because of Rep. Hunter’s cool head, steady hand and clear eye, not to mention his extensive military experience, unmatched by any candidate, our country definitely needs the likes of Duncan Hunter at this time in our history.

“Since no WMD were ever found nor any evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11, Ron Paul voted against invasion.”

Actually, Ron Paul jumped on the WMD card after the invasion, around the same time as the left. Before the war, Ron Paul was warning everyone that all of the Arab and Gulf states would enact an oil embargo against the United States if the United States attacked Iraq. When is this oil embargo supposed to happen?

“He voted to authorize the president to pursue Bin Laden into Afghanistan (more a collection of medieval fiefdoms under warlords than an actual country) “

But there was no declaration of war. Ron Paul authorized military action against the internationally recognized soverign nation of Afghanistan without a declaration of war. And then he claims that this was unconstitutional in regards to Iraq.

“Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.”

Radicals? You mean like Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered a wheelchair bound Amreican? Oh, wait, Saddam provided safe haven for international terrorists like Abbas.

“That is not the case with the Afghans whose excesses and barbarism repelled even other Muslims.”

How about Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose excess barbarism is repelling even other Muslims? Oh wait, we can’t fight them there can we, because there was no declaration of war (even though we are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan without a declaration of war). And you never elaborated on you insinuations that the objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom have changed. I remember debunking this arguement in 2004 during the elections, and I haven’t seen it sense, except from you. I want to debunk it again, just for old times sake (it’s funny seeing regurgitated DNC talking points from 2004 appear on the net.) So tell me, in detail, what objectives have changed.