Thread: Ron Paul - This Candidate DOESN'T QUIT

War on Terror. How do you win it. How long will it take. Is terror moveable? What is the clear and defined objective? Who is the enemy? I have questions. Anyone?

"Slinking away in defeat from a country that never attacked us? Don't you remember the pictures of the ragtag soldiers walking up, never firing a shot? "

Never attacked us?

You might ask the pilots that were repeatedly attacked as they
patrolled the no fly zone

That in itself was provocation to go in

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

War on Terror. How do you win it. How long will it take. Is terror moveable? What is the clear and defined objective? Who is the enemy? I have questions. Anyone?

If there is a fear that a country (that previously invaded another country, unprevoked) has nukes, chemical weapons, etc.-----and they refuse to allow inspections to erase those fears (which was part of the surrender agreement in regard to Iraq)-----does the president get a second chance if he does nothing----and they have nukes, and they then use those nukes????

There wasn't really any wiggle room in regard to----do they have nukes/chemical weapons or don't they.

Originally Posted by Dolly3275

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

War on Terror. How do you win it. How long will it take. Is terror moveable? What is the clear and defined objective? Who is the enemy? I have questions. Anyone?

If there is a fear that a country (that previously invaded another country, unprevoked) has nukes, chemical weapons, etc.-----and they refuse to allow inspections to erase those fears (which was part of the surrender agreement in regard to Iraq)-----does the president get a second chance if he does nothing----and they have nukes, and they then use those nukes????

There wasn't really any wiggle room in regard to----do they have nukes/chemical weapons or don't they.

Yeah especially since Haliburton will make Zillions of dollars throwing the USA into bankruptcy while the killing and maming of our young men and women continues all because our Prez LIED to the American people which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

How many countries are inbetween us and Iraq where is the individual responsibility of the neighboring countries? When we intervene and police other Nations we neglect to allow the real countries who would really be affected from doing there job! Intervention in Iraq was and is not our job rather the job of the neighboring countries that would have been affected by what ever the threat was, yet to be determined.

In fact some of those neighboring countries that we supposedly protected do not agree!

What if China had a hunch that we may invade Hong Kong? Does or would that give them (China) the right to wipe out our country and create a government to China's liking here! Sound familier?

Originally Posted by Dolly3275

If there is a fear that a country (that previously invaded another country, unprevoked) has nukes, chemical weapons, etc.-----and they refuse to allow inspections to erase those fears (which was part of the surrender agreement in regard to Iraq)-----does the president get a second chance if he does nothing----and they have nukes, and they then use those nukes????

There wasn't really any wiggle room in regard to----do they have nukes/chemical weapons or don't they.

I was never quite sure why we were invading Iraq, but I supported the war for several years. I used to make these same points.

Iraq didn't refuse to allow the inspectors. We pulled out inspectors before we attacked.

You might be thinking of Scott Ritter's team, who left in 1998 because the Iraqi government was not giving his teams the access they were supposed to have, and there was a chance that we were going to attack then. But they ironed all that out, and the inspections program was indeed resumed.

You might recall that by 2002 / 2003, Ritter was making the TV rounds proclaiming to anybdoy that would listen that there were no weapons. Of course, he was then arrested for soliciting a minor...a charge that essentially later disappeared via beaucracy, and was probably a government set up to shut him up and discredit him. I suppose he is lucky that he isn't dead.

As for Kuwait? Heck, Hussein asked us if he could invade Kuwait. We told him we weren't going to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. If we had simply told him not to, the whole Gulf War could have been avoided.

Also, breaking a UN resolution does not give the US the right to attack another country, anyway.

We can't afford to be the world's police, nor should we remain in denial that our foreign policy stirs up the hornets in the Middle East.

But instead, now we're re-arming the evil Hussein Sunnis again, to fight the Al Qaeda.... that didn't exist in Iraq before we invaded because the Sunni hate them - they never allowed Al Qaeda in Iraq.

And don't forget, we even armed the Al Qaeda so they could defeat those evil Russians back in the day when Communism, and not Islamofascism, was the global threat of the decade..

When exactly do we stop and declare victory? When there's peace in the Middle East? We'll be bankrupted long before then.

I don't care if they do have nukes. They can blow each other up and we can be done with them.

Originally Posted by usanevada

"Slinking away in defeat from a country that never attacked us? Don't you remember the pictures of the ragtag soldiers walking up, never firing a shot? "

Never attacked us?

You might ask the pilots that were repeatedly attacked as they
patrolled the no fly zone

That in itself was provocation to go in

Actually, no it wasn't. According to international law, we were flying on behalf of the UN. They were firing on UN planes, which gives the UN the right to retaliate. The Head of the UN at the time, Secretary General Kofi Annan, said that the attacks were not a violation of UN Resolution 1441, despite our interpretation otherwise.

We should have pulled out troops and let the UN find some other sucker to do their dirty work, but it did not give us a right to attack.

This is a prime example of why we shouldn't be in the UN.

Breaking a treaty with the UN does not give the US a right to attack, especially when the UN does not agree that the treaty was violated.

Looking back, I think most would agree going into Iraq was a huge mistake.

Personally, I think to only option now is to split it up into 3 seperate countries and let each faction have their portion and be done with active policing of the area. Much like the area before Britian forced the 3 together in the first place. Help with advice and such, but no actual troop involvement.

Originally Posted by Pistov

Looking back, I think most would agree going into Iraq was a huge mistake.

Personally, I think to only option now is to split it up into 3 seperate countries and let each faction have their portion and be done with active policing of the area. Much like the area before Britian forced the 3 together in the first place. Help with advice and such, but no actual troop involvement.

But like you said - that was Britain's "solution" to the Persian problem too, and look how that's worked out.

Scott Ritter wrote a very good article about the Middle East, and he pointed out that we just don't get it - they're still mad at each other over stuff that happened 1700 years ago. We're pretty much the polar opposite - we usually forget what happened only 10 years ago.

I wish he hadn't titled it so aggressively. It puts people off before they even get to the first paragraph. People aren't idiots.

http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/20070 ... t_america/

The nerve of that Ron Paul! Can you imagine a Congressman that votes on bills in Congress with Constitutional limitations in mind! How is Congress suppose to sell America,...err, American ideals with this Ron Paul character running around with a copy of the United States Constitution? Perhaps if Congress were to donate the Constitution to the Smithsonian, they could display it in the antiquated documents wing of the museum. Then Ron Paul would be forced walk through the halls of the Smithsonian with ordinary, everyday, public school educated folks instead of running around in the halls of Congress with Congressmen trying to..........a,....oh yea, get their pay raised,....I mean swindle the public,....I mean get re-elected, oh heck, what is it they do there anyway?

Go Ron, Go. All the way to the convention!