He wants the troops to come home.
Is there anything wrong with that?
The justification of war - WMD's - was false. There was no reason to go in there.
Then why should the troops stay?
Technically, it is an undeclared war, so its illegal anyway.
Besides, after the invasion there has been more trouble. There is Al-qaida now, where there was none previously. There is a civil war going on, which is not going to get better with US troops presence.
Why should not the troops come home, as Ron Paul says?
2007-08-26 04:26:59 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Edit:
No body disagreeing has said why we went there in the first place?
And 911-Iraq? Sorry, not even Cheney or Rumsfeld agrees to that now.
Al-qaida - as I said it wasn't there previously, but now after the war, it is.
2007-08-26 05:34:44 · update #1
Announcements on TV radio stations??? So that makes it legal now?
It is not a legal war.
Law is manipulated by calling it "authorization to use military force".
So acoording to that it is not a war. Now that's really mocking the laws and constitution.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#United_States
2007-08-26 05:42:21 · update #2
Boomer:
If there were legal reasons for war, my simple question is, Why was it not officially declared as war?
You're right. Troops are victims. Of trecherous politicians who send them in harms way, based on lies.
Ron Paul is not isolationaist. He is a free trader. He believes in engaging nations with trade & commerce. You think nations are best engaged by fighting them.
2007-08-26 06:26:29 · update #3
We went over there because of WMD's. We have found out that was a lie. Then we were over there because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Now we have to stay over there because of what might happen if we leave. Bull $H!t.
We are over there because AIPAC and big oil want us over there. Think about it WMD's were a lie plain and simple. Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. That is true enough, but there are a lot of dictators around the world that are not very nice. Why haven't we invaded Cuba? Casto has racked up an extensive list of human rights violations. There are plenty of Cubens living in the US that would love to go back and build a democracy there. It would be an easy win for us and it is stratigicly located to help us secure our borders from attack. You know the reason. No oil and it is no threat to Isreal.
2007-08-26 05:39:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree that Ron Paul should not be shooting his mouth off like this, I mean how the hell does he know that Iran's nuclear intentions are benign, what basis or information does he have? But I do not agree with you in that most Americans want a war with Iran, and to kick anything off at this stage would be a disaster for the whole region and for the US and moreover the world! Obama has to at least attempt an open dialogue with Iran, war is the very last option we should consider!!!
2016-05-18 01:59:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He may be getting thumbs up because he wants to bring the troops home, but no one seems to mention what will happen after we bring them home. A little research on what happened after we left Vietnam could answer that question real quick.
Your point about this being an undeclared war is pointless since congress approved it.
In WWII, had we left because there were enemies where there hadn't been before, we'd all be speaking german.
The biggest point of all. Ron Paul isn't strong for military and I'm not ready to go back to the 90's when our military was cut to the core and terrorism was considered a "police matter".
Read the 92 newsletter Ron Paul wrote, it's real interesting.
2007-08-26 05:03:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely nothing is wrong with Ron Pauls foreign policy. However we might want to look at the rest of the candidates policy for it is the one that is flawed. Ron Paul is the only one not falling for the bogus war on terror.Sometimes careful research shows the truth and then we find the TV is anything but truthful.
See link below to see what and how this whole plan was implemented.
2007-08-26 04:34:41 · answer #4 · answered by stephenmwells 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
There is nothing particualrly wrong with ron Paul's stated policy. The war in Iraq is an officially declared war, or perhaps you missed the announcement on very major TV and radio station. The legality of this particular war will be determined by who, if anyone wins it.
If, in fact terrorists are poised and ready to hit us on our own soil, they would take advantage of the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq to do it.
2007-08-26 05:33:24 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
1) Paul is an isolationist.
2) Saddam broke the terms of the Armistice of the First Gulf War. It was a legally binding document. That is the only legal reason necessary to off him. WMD possession is irrelevant (otherwise we could take out bunches of countries.)
3) A Mid-East controlled by Iranian nut-jobs would not be to any body's benefit.
4) I too, would pine for the good old days of isolationism. But globalism, like bananas, coffee, and gasoline, is here to stay.
5) Yes, the troops should come home, and they should come home as victors, not victims of a wimpy, treasonous Congress.
2007-08-26 06:01:59 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The only thing wrong with Ron Paul's Iraq policy is.....Ron Paul.
How can you trust anyone with two first names?
2007-08-26 05:27:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely nothing is wrong with his stance.. He suggesting we send peace corps there to build up Iraq afterwards.. and we will need to increase homeland security here for awhile... but our troops and civilians are dying over something completely pointless. Iraqis are mad bc they don't want us there period... He is right.. our forigen policy needs to change.. we have done so much damge there...we need to fix our mistake and get the hell out... and come back and secure our borders...
2007-08-26 04:31:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because he, like you, just don't get it..... we are fighting a religious war against Islamic Jihadist that look at any concessions as weakness. If we withdraw that would be the biggest recruiting tool they ever had... They beat the only Super Power on the planet... therefor Allah must be on their side. We can't pull back and stick our heads in the sand... 9-11 killed that option forever... we *MUST* win this battle and others that will follow... this is a long war that may stretch into the next generation... but it is one that we can not lose.
2007-08-26 05:00:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Sending the peace corps in to build up Iraq afterwards. HAhahahahaha. Does he want them all beheaded.
There is al-qaida now in Iraq, so why shouldnt we stay and fight. What do you think there going to do when we run home with are tail betwwen our legs? Quit the fight, or cause trouble for us elsewhere?
2007-08-26 04:36:11 · answer #10 · answered by Conor H 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋