1) We could end WWII, and bring our troops home from Germany and Japan
2) We could end the Korean war, and bring our troops home from South Korea
3) Socialist governments which we prop up would fall. Perhaps they would be replaced with something better.
4) We could pay down the national debt.

Paul is neither Anti-Israeli nor Anti-Arab. He’s Pro-American. He believes in the radical idea that the American government exists for the sole benefit of America.

The point about the weapons was that you indicated it was SA and not Iran. It is both but Iran denies it just as they denied enriching Uranium while they were doing it.

Israel wants our support and has not asked us to stop providing it. It is one little country surrounded by a lot of people who want to wipe it out.

I have been a fan of letting all the Middle East fight it out and we can deal with who is left. But that means we stop ALL support including financial and humanitarian. Let the b******s starve to death and if an Earthquake or tsunami hit them they can figure it out on their own.

As for whether the war is necessary it is a moot point now that we are there. I did laugh though with the Army showing up at my door thing. I got a picture of the Alamo in my head…

The question is not whether the government is charged with funding the military. By the Constitution, it is. The question is whether or not the war is necessary.

Agreed. You make assumptions to back up your beliefs. And I make assumptions for mine. I think that getting you and me to agree on the question is about as futile as our government getting those people to agree how to live. I don’t know about you. But I think that if I were show up, at your door, with an army at my back, and tell you how to do things, it would only harden your resolve that you are right and I am wrong. Maybe not. But I think people just don’t like being told what to do.

As far as governments supplying weapons, we were no different w/ the Russians in Afghanistan and with Israel today. They use the same tactic we do; Get others to fight your war. How is it right for us to do it and wrong for them?

I might agree with you about our financial situation but ending the war will not stop our demise. The BILLIONS in pork, the unnecessary social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, etc are bankrupting us. None of those are Constitutional. Funding a military is.

I knew we would have trouble as well, not with fighting the war because no one can beat us if we use our forces but we did not have enough. I though half a million would have done the trick.

In any event, once DC cleans up all the waste,, then we can talk about how much we spend on war.

BTW, Iran is supplying arms to Hamas whether you think so or not.

Again, I have to take exception to the assumption that they’ll follow us home. That, I believe, is the source of the fear generated by the government and media. And I believe that it’s only being done so to continue giving tax dollars to weapons suppliers… There is no ‘winning’ this war. There is only the loss of people and funds. We are not going to change the mindset of the middle east. Only they can do that for themselves.

Ron Paul’s idea of leaving people alone not only means pulling out of Iraq and letting the situation unfold in the direction that which it has the most potential -be it a democracy, a divided state, a civil war- it means the discontinuation of the financing of nations in the middle east -and all nations everywhere, for that matter.

Ron has received a lot of bad press for the allusion that he doesn’t support Israel. His argument and that of a lot of Israelis is that they don’t need or want our support. Their military industry produces some of the finest weapons available. If you’re typing this blog on a Core 2 Duo processor, that is thanks to Intel’s Israeli development team. They have the weapons, technology, and toughness to defend themselves, as they’ve shown time and time again. The lion of Egypt was little match for the mouse of Israel.

I knew that the outcome of the Iraq invasion was going to be the destabilization of the nation. My prediction, from day one, was that it was going to turn into nothing more than a middle eastern Ireland. Maybe rightfully so. The majority has long since been controlled by the minority. It translates well to our country also.

Leave them (the entire middle east) alone, completely, hands-off alone, and see what happens. Give them ZERO REASON to ‘terrorize’ us. They’ll be just fine. And so will we.

When making my Ron Paul case to a Democrat friend, one of his arguments was, “What about the War on Terror?” I couldn’t believe my ears. After all of his intellectual grandstanding, he’d finally given in to that idea. After all, the War on Terror is an idea. And nothing more. There is no winning. Stamp out and kill every person on the planet that does not like us and what will happen? Others will see. And they will, in turn, hate us. Give them no reason to hate us, i.e. let them be, let them live their lives, and the thought will never cross their minds. Of course, the other possible outcome of stamping out all the nay-sayers, is the fear of us. And that is what you have to decide you want to be, as a person. That is the neocon approach. Because if people fear them, they have control. That is the evil empire people speak of, when referring to the current administration and direction of our country.

“…the only exit strategy is winning.” Big D., you should lobby for Boeing:) So perhaps we do win. Iraq is made to set up its democracy, under our guise, all of the terrorists are killed and captured, and all the different Iraqis decide to stop killing themselves; what next? According to neocons and now Dems, Iran. Next we launch a war against Iran. Iran has made the statement that Israel should be wiped from the planet -nevermind that they have zero nukes, while Israel has app. 130. They’re also financing terrorists -I think we all know that the money comes and came from the Saudis; but they sell us oil…

With the current war and in this hypothetical war, economics eventually has to come into play. In short, we go to war, at our own peril. This country cannot afford what it has gotten itself into. Like I said before, gold is up to $850 an ounce -from $300 two years ago. Why do I make such a big deal of this and why does Ron Paul stand for a currency backed by something tangible, instead of the current fiat dollar that we use? Because the value of gold doesn’t change that much -the amount of it, barring some huge jackpot discovery of thousands of tons of gold, stays the same. It pretty much is worth what it’s worth. Despite the supposed great economy and low inflation, the truth in the value of our dollar is in how much gold it can buy. And right now, it’s a lot less than it was two years ago. This is why the middle class and poor are having such a hard time. It costs more dollars, which are now less valuable, to buy the same thing. This is the effect of the government printing more dollars to finance the war, social programs, and other expensive bureaucracies. We can’t afford it all. And to stay willfully ignorant of that fact is only going to lead our country into a post-USSR era. We’ll be broke!

It doesn’t take a lot of foresight to see these things coming. This isn’t end-of-the-world Armageddon-type stuff. This is what’s happened to plenty of other countries before ours. And it’s exactly what we’re lining ourselves up for right now.

I hear a lot of talk about conspiracy theories. When I hear people say those words, I can tell that most of them are thinking of UFO’s, Roswell, 9/11, and David Icke lizard people. I wish people would undo that type of thinking, because are very real conspiracy theories that are present. There are very real conspiracies taking place. Enron was a conspiracy. The Clinton real estate deal (White Water, Waterhouse, Whatever) was a conspiracy. Martha Stewart’s stock scandal was a conspiracy. Plenty of conspiracies do, in fact, exist. What makes you think the government, in cahoots with big corporations, is impervious to this? They are people, just like the people I mentioned above.

One question that I would like to have answered is why World Trade Center: Building 7 fell. Not a lot of people know that a third building went down that day. It was blocks from the twin towers. Yet it was caught, on video, coming down. The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges this. But it offers no explanation. How does a building like that fall, unless it’s intentionally being done? Conspiracy? Maybe. Maybe not. But what I do know is that the answers don’t line up with the realities of that day.

I’ll sign off with this: If you think you can walk outside, every day, and toss a bucket of paint onto your neighbor’s house, without him making retribution against you, I wish you the best.

You act as if the fact that they have no huge military assets means they cannot attack and use the mouse that roared. bin Laden has no army, navy, marine corps or air force and he struck us in our country using our planes as weapons. This is the problem with people that underestimate the threats or the people who make them.

Paul has said, why did they attack us, because they are mad at us for meddling in their affairs. That means we made them mad and they attacked us.

As for the war, we can debate all night if it was a good idea or not but we are there and the only exit strategy is winning. If Paul gets his way and pulls us out then the radical Islamic world will claim victory and follow us home. They will continue to attack and they will kill lots of people here. This is what Paul fails to understand. This is not like taking care of a pregnant woman, this is deadly and requires people to be willing to fight. Paul is not that man.

How will all the Ronbots respond when he brings them home and we are attacked? Paul is old and won’t be around for much longer but the younger people will have to be here to clean up that mess.

We can fight them there or here. I prefer there and some folks prefer here. Unfortunately, those who prefer here won’t be the ones fighting.

I have written in the past that I like most of Paul’s views on domestic policy but I have some real issues with his foreign policy especially with regard to the war on terror in Iraq.

I’m curious: was Iraq ever involved in ANY terrorist attack on the United States? If so, it’s been covered up pretty well. Of course there are a couple of conspiracy theorists who think they were involved in 9/11, but such reports have been debunked again and again.

So what “terror” were we fighting when we invaded Iraq? George Bush’s utterly irrational fear of the coming Iraqi invasion of the United States? Wouldn’t that be something to see? No army, no navy, no air force, no marines, no industrial plant, and trying to invade the most powerful country in the world. What a hoot! It would be like “The Mouse that Roared”!

I have been trying ever since the war drums started beating for Iran to get somebody to describe to me the logistics of Iran’s coming invasion of the United States. So far, I’ve found no takers.

I just can’t get my hands around this idea that we caused the attack on 9/11.

Nobody can, including Paul. This is why he has never made this statement. Many liars and sc**bags have made the statement for him, but he never said it.

What he has said is that one of the most important reasons that we were attacked is that they are angry with us, which is pretty obviously true, and that one of the most important reasons they are angry with us is because we have been meddling with their affairs since we overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, under Eisenhower. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is simple fact, and well doc**ented. It sounds odd, because people almost never mention it … even during the hostage crisis under the Peanut Farmer.

Does this mean the attack was justified? No.

Does this mean that America is the worst country on earth? F**k no.

Does this mean that we might be better off if we did not waste our time and money manipulating the affairs of other countries? Yes. Absolutely. Obviously. This is a no-brainer. We gained nothing by our “regime change” in 1953, and lost much.

What I don’t understand about the neocons who want so badly to “win” the war is Iraq is this — what the f**k do we win? Are we going to take enough oil, without paying for it, to pay for our enormous costs in restoring their country? I doubt it. This is not the 19th century, and I don’t expect that we would act that way. So what do we get? What can we possibly gain, that is worth the lives of 4000 American soldiers, and several more huge steps toward our national bankruptcy?

Dear Editor,

This is a copy of a letter that I recently wrote to Mona Charen and thought that I would pass it on to you, as well.

Thank You

———

Dear Mona,

It is not a habit of mine to send personal emails to columnists, but your article “Too Close To Kooky” prompted me to read virtually every article written by you within recent months and to read more about you, in general. Not because my personal beliefs and opinions about Ron Paul are similar to your own, not by a long shot, but because I thought that your incredulous attempt to discredit Dr. Paul was rather …. “kooky”.

I won’t bother addressing your individual claims here (I certainly will, at your request), but suffice it to say that while I do agree with some of your commentaries, and find your witticisms somewhat entertaining, I find that much of your work lacks criteria that would be considered editorialization based on factual truth. Now, I realize that this is a trend very popular in our “infotainment” industry, but it worries me when I see so many columnists basing their opinions on rhetoric and not actual fact. Your tendency to call names and use labels like a schoolyard bully, in my mind, makes you no better than the people that you claim to despise so much.

After reading your material it’s easy for me to form the basic opinion that you are just an average person who shares their opinion in the guise of an objective report. Is this true? Care to comment?

“The problems we face do not cry out for a man on a white horse, but for someone who can persuade the nation about what is required to face our problems” ~Mona Charen

Well said. If you think that you can persuade me into believing that there is a person who can better shoulder this monumental task than Dr. Paul, then please, I would like to hear what you have to say.