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.
Oh that's a great reason.