[Grunthor]

No it’s not. Paul wanted the Iraq war declared constitutionally and then our troops fight without Washington tying their hands. And no nation-building or police action.

I bet if Paul would have been president on 9/11 he would have declared war without waiting to see what the “international community” thinks. Plus he’d secure the borders.

---

Sorry, I was looking toward the future, not the past. If Kookcinich were magically made POTUS tomorrow, he’d order our troops out of Iraq immediately.

Ditto Ron Paul. The reasons do not matter, the end results would be the same. A lost war, a people slaughtered by the millions by extremists for having the audacity to want freeedom.

[toru watanabe]

They’re already slaughtering each other, and they’ve made it well clear by now that they don’t desire what we define as freedom. Under Ron Paul, we could at least stop losing American lives and dollars in Iraq’s internecine battles.

[soccermom]

LOL! Poor EEE is so confused he can't keep his arguments straight. On another thread he pointed to the fact that Ron Paul voted for the action in Afghanistan as evidence that Paul is for a strong defense. (Of course, his staffers had to plead with him to support the measure -- even threatened to resign if he didn't. But that is another matter.)

Then on this thread he tries to defend Paul's failure to support the Iraq war by arguing, "Paul wanted the Iraq war declared constitutionally and then our troops fight without Washington tying their hands."

Really? So it was just a little matter of declaring the war "constitutionally"? Interesting that that didn't seem to stop him from voting for military force in Afghanistan! Funny, I could have sworn Ron Paul's ridiculous bar for a "constitutionally declared" war wasn't reached with the resolution for action in Afghanistan. Poor EEE, he wants to believe in Paul so badly that he'll buy an excuse he can -- even if it is contradictory!

[janetgreen]

A lost war, a people slaughtered by the millions by extremists for having the audacity to want freeedom.

Uh, that's already happened (a lost war, people slaughtered by the millions by extremists). I don't remember the Iraqi people asking for "freedom".

This was all Bush & Company's doing. Ron Paul had nothing to do with it, and if he had been in charge, I doubt that this disastrous war for oil would have happened.

[txrangerette]

Grunthor, you are absolutely correct. The result of either a Kucinich or a RP Presidency, on the Iraq War, would be the same.

Paul said in the most recent debate, “JUST BRING THEM HOME”. His very simple Iraq policy. “JUST BRING THEM HOME”. He has also said what happened after we fled Vietnam and even cut off money to the government of South Vietnam wasn’t so bad. Didn’t turn out too badly, is what he said.

No, just bazillions of refugee boat people, thousands drowning at sea, and concentration camps (oh, pardon me, re-education camps) and the killing fields of Cambodia and the virtual end of the Hmong tribe in Laos who made the mistake of supporting America against the Communist thugs.

So any and all types of horrific outcomes in Iraq and the ME is fine with Ron Paul.