Ok, first of all, as long as it's American soldiers with their lives on the line, we do right by America first, and the world second. We owe that to our troops. Iraq did not attack "US" before we got there. That's the beauty of the US Constitution. It was built on the Magna Carta and natural law (we get our rights from our humanity, not by decree of government, which implies that those rights can be modified or taken away). Amending the Constitution is a deliberate process because it is the highest law in the land. But the Constitution has been amended, and to good effect. The exception is the 16th, which was never properly ratified by the states. America is the Constitution. The laws within cannot be overridden by local or state governments. It preserves your rights, and regulates the role of government in our lives. It's basically the antithesis of the Communist Manifesto.
if the terrorists wanted to "pay us back" they'd be here by now doing that. right now is there best chance to do that, when we are focused on their land not ours. once we start focusing on our own country, it becomes a lot harder for them to try to pull the same shit. that argument has been tossed around so much and most people never even think about it. it's false and has no truth to it.
Those soidiers have dedicated their lives to the government, i was a signature away from doing the same thing at one time. So inconsistant, you tell us that our occupancy is causing a breeding ground for terrorist, now you say that only Iraqi's are there. Funny how you change the story to suit your point. Agreed and you made my point thank you. I was pointing out that you cant, or shouldnt rather, stand by the constitution as if it were written in stone, it is modified to suit different circumstances.
Simplyg , Wrong because our government is doing it again by getting us into iraq just as it has gotten us into vietnam. If you go back i have proven there was no evidence that the 9-11 terrorists were connected in any way to saddam, and our government has no evidence of that also. We were basically lied into a war. Dude it really would benefit you much more if you could read up on this. This is pure ignorance. saddam hated al qaida even more then we do. The iraqi people want peace not more war. I guarantee once we leave iraq the world will be amuch more peaceful place and al qaida will dwindle in popularity since they wont have any excuse to use to recruit more disillusioned young people. I know this, Ron Paul knows this and most american people are starting to realize this.
Are you kidding, they cant get here. We are constantly looking for them. Sooner or later they will slip by and you can have those words for dinner Getting us into iraq? You may not have noticed but we are there. too little too late. It doesnt matter, we are there. We should prevent it from happening in the future, but just because the war was a mistake doesnt mean the right thing to do is pack and leave
simplyg123, all I can say is this. If your are convinced we need to stay in Iraq, Ron Paul may not be the candidate for you. But I would ask you to think about a few things. 1. We can't afford to do it without selling the nation into debt with China. 2. Our troops are already on long tours and stretched thin. 3. We do not have victory conditions clearly defined. 4. We are spending more money building Iraqi infrastructure than we are spending building in America. 5. Since we have arrived, tensions are higher than they ever were before. ------------- If you are interested in other issues, Paul is very strong on illegal immigration, government reform, massive tax cuts, and defending the Constitution. He's the strongest candidate on the 2nd Amendment, and he's for state's rights which means that power belongs closer to the people, not in the heart of Washington. No other candidate is talking about saving 100's of billions of dollars when they take office. And no other candidate acknowledges that we need to reform the CIA and FBI to better make sure that 9/11's don't happen again. Paul is pushing the issues, the other candidates just respond to the questions they are asked with carefully prepared responses. I'm not saying he is the most honest man in the world, but he is leaps and bounds the most honest man running.
You are dodging the question. Do you believe that our troops should do right by America first, or the world? Not what our government chooses, but which do you think they should suit first? It is pretty much Iraqis only, but that doesn't mean they can't become terrorists. Let us remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. They were willing to die so that they could attack Americans, a country that has been occupying their holy land for years. Now apply that to the situation in Iraq. Do you think it would be difficult to sway your average Iraqi child whose father or mother may have been killed by the occupying Americans, to become a terrorist and fight for his holy land and defeat the "infidels"? I think not. I mostly agree with this. Yes, our Constitution can be changed, and yes, we need to follow it completely until its changed. What's your point though? I'd appreciate you responding to my long post from the previous page.
Woah. That is a huge mistake. The soldiers do not dedicate their lives to the government. They swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic. Huge difference. A soldier by rights should not obey an un-Constitutional order from government. I never said that. There are numerous studies which show that occupancy is the breeding ground for terrorists, even the neocons believe that. By occupying, we're creating the conditions that breed terrorism. No, that was not the point I was making. You have to stand by the Constitution because it is the only thing that separates America from the rest of the world. Our rights are absolute and universal. The only way to change it, is through a long process, designed to make sure that changes are not done casually or without the consent of the people. When you start arbitrarily ignoring the Constitution, it means all of your rights are now on the table for negotiation, except the negotiations don't occur between you and the government, but between special interests and the politicians. Look, you seem to be pretty hostile to these ideas. I'd like to think I could talk to you about them and maybe get you to see them differently, but I only have so much free time, and this close to the primaries, I have to stay focused on organizing and spreading the word to people who haven't heard of Dr. Paul at all. Best of luck my friend.
They signed their lives to the government, they do what the government tells them, its up to us to make sure the governments priorities are in order, which i will have to admit, they haven't in the past. The fact that i just said that is an indication of my open mind, i have always supported Bush, and still do to a point. Ron Paul stands by the constitution, was a reason someone stated. My point is the Constitution isn't always right
You really have to hear Ron say it for himself but I guess I will try to speak for him (I must be insane.) His reasons for wanting to withdraw are simple. We did not have a constitutional declaration of war approved by congress, it was a unilateral move by the executive, and as such going to war was unconstitutional. The war was pre-emptive and that is not the way we should carry our foreign policy. We should not attack first. IRAQ did not attack us on September 11, Al Queda did and instead of finishing them off to the best of our ability in Afganistan (which Dr. No voted for) we hopped into Iraq and mired ourselves there. And finally and most important for me, we cannot afford to stay there indefinitely which is what our current lack of an exit strategy or indeed any sort of clear goals there are are causing us to do.
you'll have to weigh it out in your head then if the war issue is the only one. there are no magic words we can sweetly whisper into your ear to get you to be a die-hard fan. i was in your position not long ago. and i realized all of his other issues outweighed his foreign policy by far. then when the brainwashing wore off I started to see it all from a new light. the changes will have to be made yourself.
If you accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, you have to accept it as being entirely right. If it isn't right, you need to be amending it. People have asked Paul "so does that mean you're against Constitutional amendments?" His response is that amendments are part of the Constitution and hence perfectly acceptable, and that if something goes through the amendment process it would have his full support. He just believes that what the Constitution currently says must be followed completely, and I agree. When he says he stands by the Constitution, he is implying that a lot of the other candidates support things that are unconstitutional.
I do not believe the military is there to be the Dogs of War for the government. I believe the military is there to protect our way of life and indeed our lives. To have them used for any other purpose is dispicable to me, but I suppose of the majority of people where for it and congress approved it I might feel a little better about a war for profit or influence. But of course Iraq doesn't fit that criteria. I like having a constitution, I think the bill of rights is one of the most fantastic things I have ever read.
We the people. Why is it WE arent invited to vote on congressional issues, any of the laws, do they do what WE want? or do they do what they want, or what is best for them?
doesn't matter what you believe, the government owns them, and thats the truth. I like the constitution also, I'm a gun owner, and it protects that right, it protects many rights. I guess i will accept that supporting the Constitution its a good thing. but...i wont change my mind on the war. But if thats the only thing holding me down, ill have to give it more thought.