Posted on 05/09/2007 7:18:18 AM PDT by malibu2008
Perhaps you meant to refer to Saddam and his cohorts? The majority of Iraqis weren't the enemy and they aren't today either. I wish I had the time to educate you regarding the WOT, Al Queda, Saddam's defiance of the UN Resolutions, etc., but I don't. If you're still this clueless after all these years something tells me that you probably never cared to learn truth and facts in the first place. Have a nice day.
Way to not answer the question. I'll ask again. How exactly were "Saddam and his cohorts" going to kill us all? By the way, I did two tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps. How many did you do? My guess is zero. Are you one of those people who thinks that Bush is doing a great job? Do you honestly believe that he would have gone into Iraq if he could have foreseen how it would work out? We went into Iraq with far too few troops, and a lousy post-invasion plan. Now my friends and I have to pay the price.
PS You can't even spell Al-Qaeda. I don't think I need you to "educate" me.
You might sell that at DU or Kos land, I am not buying that.
Buying what?
All I asked was "how exactly were the Iraqis going to kill us all?" By what means?
What was untrue about my statement?
Saddam was keeping down the mullahs and islamofascists who, now in power around the country, have created chaos, established sharia law, and driven 2 million people out of the country - including most Christians.
Saddam was a brutal dictator - but a lot of his brutality was against Islamic nutcases. He was a secularist. That's why Osama hated him.
Me too. The only problem with your logic is that Saddam and his 5th rate army didn't pose any danger to your liberties or mine. No more than, say, Mugabe, another dictator, threatens you or me.
Actually, the people who have been shown to be deluded - or at least misinformed - are the officials who said we had to invade Iraq because they had wmd's. Bush and Cheney now admit there were no wmd's. I have a hard time calling Ron Paul "deluded" when he opposed an invasion that has only served to massively destabilize Iraq, create 2 million refugees (including most of the country's Christians), empower Iran, free Iraqi islamo-nutcases to set up sharia law in the countryside, establish an explicitly Muslim constitution, and cost the US taxpayers $2 billion a week.
Ron Paul, you were right.
That's about idiotic. Declaring War also brings sedition laws into effect. It also allows for total war.
But...but...Ron Paul is a Libertarian kook, he always votes no...this can’t be < /Paul haters >
This sounds like a liberal who says the Constitution as written is no longer relevant.
Nice thread hijack, Bushbot. Nevermind the fact that Paul has praised Bush for vetoing this.
Effing hypocrite...
He voted IN FAVOR of Afghanistan, but he wanted a formal declaration declared for Iraq, CORRECTLY predicting that it was going to turn into an exercise of nation-building.
How ironic that the elected official who adheres to the Constitution the most is criticized here.
I expect no less from a Ron Paul hack like yourself.
Ron Paul is 100% pro-life and 100% pro-border security. He has been called the biggest tax-cutter of all time.
How in the Hell is he a RINO?
They were in the north, as I have heard, beyond Saddam's area of control.
In any case, Osama is in Pakistan. Does that mean we should invade Pakistan? If you're not calling for an invasion of Pakistan, are you an "appeaser" - the way opponents of the Iraq invasion were called?
What part of the GOP plaform does Paul oppose? I don't think that the GOP platform calls for massive foreign aid - I know that's one thing he opposes.
Yeah whatever. Perhaps if Bush followed some of Paul's examples, his historical legacy will be right up there with Reagan's instead of LBJ's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.