Replies

Few people seem to recognize the threat of globalism, to their peril. I would like to hear what Rep. Hunter has to say about globalism.

I agree with you. Paul does stick to the Constitution.

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

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

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 can criticise this war, but I also do not think we can shake hands with Iran and the jihadi's, nor can we ignore them.

I cannot answer for Ron Paul. I believe he was against our invasion of Iraq. But since we are there, I believe our troops want to complete their mission.

If you look into the record, hear the speeches, and read the articles on Rep. Duncan Hunter, I believe you would have no question in your mind as to how he would govern the country. Log onto his website for a sample: http://www.gohunter08.com Or type his name into search and you will come up with a myriad of Hunter threads.

I like Ron Paul in many ways, but I think we need a dynamic man with military experience to see us through the coming years with the growing threat of Iran, Korea, and now once again, Russia. Not to mention China.

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.