Posted on 09/08/2007 10:38:25 AM PDT by NapkinUser
Edited on 09/08/2007 2:50:08 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Pray tell, Mr. Paul, what freedom have we surrendered? And please be specific.
(crickets)
“Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character,...”
This guy speaks more harshly against his own countrymen than he does against the enemy who manifested 2 wars against us.
A common misconception (lie). We do not know that saddam had nothing to do with 911. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that he did have connections, including Czech intelligence that swears that mohammed (may pigs be upon him) atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Just because the then incompetent CIA and the CYA 911 commission doesn't believe it says to me that the likelihood that it did happen is pretty strong.
This is a dumb straw-man. Those who claim we are in Iraq fighting "those who attacked us" are not referring to (a) the 19 people who hijacked the planes in 2001 (who are all dead), or (b) Saddam Hussein or anyone related to Saddam Hussein.
They are referring to jihadis, who wage terror warfare under the banner of Al Qaeda. Many such people are in Iraq right now. And Al Qaeda was the organization that attacked us on 9/11.
If Ron Paul were honest in this matter he'd at least characterize his opponents' argument accurately.
In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there?
"We" (a certain portion of our military) are over there so as to help safeguard the new government, (a) at its request and (b) as per UN mandate.
Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
Then why are "we" still in Japan, Germany, and South Korea? Same argument should apply right?
For that matter, why are "we" still in Afghanistan? By Ron Paul's own arguments, we should not be, and he should be publicly advocating for withdrawal from Afghanistan with as much energy as he does so for Iraq. Why doesn't he?
They voted for an end to the war in 2006.
No they didn't.
Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands
"Indiscriminate" bombing? Of whom is Ron Paul accusing this act? Oh that's right: the U.S. military. Congressman Ron Paul just accused his own military of indiscriminately bombing Iraq - which would be a war crime.
That is vile slander and if he had honor he would resign for saying such a thing.
our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran.
Which country then does Ron Paul propose to invade? This might be a convincing argument if one could have any confidence that Paul's idea here is to withdraw our military from Iraq so that they can go get our "actual attackers".
One doubts this though.
Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another.
Could have just as easily been said at the U.S. entry into World War II, when we invaded.... Morocco.
Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?
"Troops" can't defend us at home from terror attacks in the first place, which is a big part of the reason we have to take an offensive stance against an enemy that relies on terror warfare.
I used to at least think highly of Ron Paul because, no matter whether I disagreed, he was principled. The problem is, he also seems to be a bit dumb.
I would guess that you’re losing more than you’re winning with these threads. Maybe that’s why the Mods are leaving them up.
Oh that's a great reason.
|
“Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:”
I agree, those are definitely reasons for me NOT TO SUPPORT Mr Paul.
He asked why and I gave some reasons. You pick one such reason and scoff at it.
Do you think you've made a counterargument?
If you like, I could list more reasons.
That says a lot. Which reasons on that list strike you as reasons not to vote for Paul? Never supporting tax cuts or new federal restrictions on peoples' second amendment rights?
“Never supporting tax cuts or new federal restrictions on peoples’ second amendment rights?”
Given only those 2 choices, the answer is very easy:
Never supporting tax cuts
This is conflating two separate things. One can be against various types of over-reaching of the federal government in the US and still in favor of an aggressive policy against the enemy in locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
In fact, I submit that failure to deal with the terrorism problem in the Middle East inevitably leads to more restrictions on freedom at home. If we get out of Iraq in disgrace and encourage the fanatics, who are in poor shape right now if Osama's video is any sign, then the result is virtually certain to be more attacks here. That leads to more clampdowns, more demands by the feds to have the right to violate our freedom.
I'm sympathetic to many of Ron Paul's positions. I want a minimalist federal government too. But giving up on the one function of the federal government that I support whole-heartedly, namely national defense, is not part of that bargain, and I think Paul is a fool to think his policies would lead to anything but a disaster for freedom.
Dr. Ron Paul, King of Thr Feebs!
Can you show me three points from that list in #16 you have a problem with?
OK, who put the Rosie O’Donnel post up? Who? Ron Paul? Oh. Easy mistake to make.
I am all for starting a “neo-con brigade”, with uniforms and identifying placards, to greet Mr. Paul at every public venue and remind him that “the neo cons are watching him”. It would be a hoot and I expect most any crowd would see the truth in the humor of it.
The jihadists certainly do hate our freedoms, as bin Laden tirelessly explains on every one of those tapes, but the fundamental reason we were attacked is that terrorism works as a military strategy. If we accept Paul's suggestion and surrender in the Middle East, we will STILL HAVE every one of those odious domestic restrictions. We will still have a Patriot Act, secret wiretaps, and everything else Paul hates. As in WW II, we have no choice but to win this. We would like to do it the nice way, by rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but if we have to we will resort to doing as many Dresdens as it takes.
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.