declaration of war

[johngr]

The discussion topic, in case you forgot is Ron Paul's vote on authorizing President Bush to invade Afghanistan. That there is no evidence against Bin Laden is relevant to his vote on that.

 

[pcosmar]

He did NOT vote to invade Afghanistan
Never did.

 

[johngr]

He did NOT vote to invade Afghanistan

I will stipulate to whatever euphemism you want to use, so long as the object is Afghanistan.

 

[JS4Pat]

Sorry folks - it looks as though this is a blemish on the good Doctor's stellar record in Congress.

He should have required a Declaration of War or Letter of Marque & Reprisal before voting to deploy our military to Afghanistan.

The Constitution...

 

[pcosmar]

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

Ron Paul

We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they have paid a high price. They're all dead. So those most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous act.

The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin.

The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.

Ron Paul

 

[johngr]

No contractors used. The US military invaded Afghanistan (as expected and despite that they were willing to give up Bin Laden if they were shown evidence) as a result of the resolution Ron Paul voted for. Try again

 

[JS4Pat]

No contractors used. The US military invaded Afghanistan (as expected and despite that they were willing to give up Bin Laden if they were shown evidence) as a result of the resolution Ron Paul voted for. Try again

The best response I can give is that as good as Ron Paul is - he is not perfect. This vote was a mistake.

But I can forgive him.

He has done more than enough to make up for it.

 

[pcosmar]

Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he opposed going into Afghanistan, and calls the vote a mistake Because of the way it was used.
Now you want to blame him for one vote (to punish the guilty) rather than the Bush Administration for the Invasion.
This twisted logic sounds very much like a Troll.

 

[johngr]

Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he opposed going into Afghanistan, and calls the vote a mistake Because of the way it was used.

Where? Link, please.

Now you want to blame him for one vote (to punish the guilty [without evidence]) rather than the Bush Administration for the Invasion.

You're saying that he didn't expect that Bush would at least invade (if not occupy) Afghanistan?! Okay. Here's some text from the resolution: "...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations...". How can you use force against a nation without invading it? Why not blame them both if both are to blame?

This twisted logic sounds very much like a Troll.

non sequitur

 

[JS4Pat]

Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he opposed going into Afghanistan, and calls the vote a mistake Because of the way it was used.
Now you want to blame him for one vote (to punish the guilty) rather than the Bush Administration for the Invasion.
This twisted logic sounds very much like a Troll.

Ohhh believe me - I blame the Bush Administration for the invasion as well.

I just don't see how RP's vote to use force in Afghanistan is constitutionally sound.

These arguments sound a lot like the excuses that I hear from Reps who voted for the use of force in Iraq.

BTW...
I'm not a troll...
I'm the Organizer of this Meetup Group:
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/166/

 

[Meatwasp]

Why would these people come here to discredit Dr Paul? We were attacked . He is not a sissy you know. I wonder if these people are doing this to give CNN ammunition

 

[johngr]

Turn it around. Let's say that someone from Canada hiding in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico blows up a mosque in Turkmenistan. The gov't officials from Turkmenistan ask Americans to hand the Canadian over. The US gov't state dept agent says, fine, give us some evidence that he was behind the attack and we'll hand him over. Would Turkmenistan be justified in invading the US under such circumstances?

If you want to invade a country, declare war. I see why this is a sensitive issue but "we were attacked" is just as good or bad an excuse for invading any country or kidnapping or killing anyone (including, it seems, US citizens) without any evidence as it is for invading Afghanistan.

Cool heads coupled with appealing to rationality and dissuading the natural desire for revenge would have done alot toward actually doing something effective and responsive in the aftermath of that unfortunate event. At it was the response was somewhat akin to going off all over the place with a sledgehammer in response to being stung by a horsefly.

 

[pcosmar]

What is your point.
This was done by George Bush.

 

[johngr]

I don't believe that Dr. Paul would have reacted so seemingly irrationally had he be president (in part, because I don't believe his actual goal is to destroy America in order to roll it up into a North American Union and ultimately a one world gov't).

But I also don't believe the attack would have occurred in the first place if Dr. Paul had been prez, for the same reason that I don't think Pearl Harbor would have happened if he had been then.

But he did vote for a resolution that he should have reasonably forseen would be used to invade a sovereign nation without a war declarations. I believe he went against his convictions for political reasons (which is understandable given the mood at the time and I have no problem giving him a pass on, especially considering the alternatives we have to choose from).

 

[JS4Pat]

But he did vote for a resolution that he should have reasonably forseen would be used to invade a sovereign nation without a war declarations. I believe he went against his convictions for political reasons (which is understandable given the mood at the time and I have no problem giving him a pass on, especially considering the alternatives we have to choose from).

I agree.

 

[pcosmar]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=271

Our troops in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Rumsfeld himself, are becoming increasingly frustrated over the lack of progress in locating bin Laden. Clearly we need to provide President Bush with innovative new tools to bring these criminals to justice. The drafters of the Constitution provided just such a tool to retaliate against attacks on America by groups not formally affiliated with a government: letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque and reprisal are especially suited to our modern campaign against terrorism, which is fought against individuals rather than governments. Essentially, marque and reprisal authorizes the President to use private parties to find international terrorists wherever they hide.

Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists. Our military invasion of Afghanistan undoubtedly has scattered al-Qaida throughout the Middle East and Europe. Marque and reprisal would create an incentive for individuals close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. This method in effect places a bounty on the heads of international terrorists, who often travel between countries, melt into civilian populations, or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the knowledge and expertise of private parties, especially given the lack of western intelligence in many of the countries likely to harbor bin Laden. Marque and reprisal could turn the tables on the terrorists, forcing them to live as marked men. Terrorist should fear us, not the other way around.

Ultimately, letters of marque and reprisal could help us avoid a wider war by bringing terrorists to justice without the need for military action- saving American lives in the process. I recently wrote defense Secretary Rumsfeld, urging administration support for my legislation, the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001." Unless and until the administration puts the focus back on bin Laden and al-Qaida, the horrific crimes of September 11th will remain unpunished.

Also read."A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS "
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=747

 

[johngr]

Conventional armed forces are ill-suited to tracking down international terrorists.

He knew that before he voted for to authorize the use of force against nations.

That said, unfortunately, if he hadn't voted as he did, we wouldn't be having this debate, i. e. he never would have been voted back into congress and would not be a viable candidate for president.

 

[Meatwasp]

jUST WHAT ARE YOU DOING???? ARE YOU TRYING TO PUT DOUBT IN PEOPLES MIND ABOUT DR. PAUL????
MAYBE YOU ARE IN THE WRONG FORUM.

 

[hvac ak47]

No, this is Ron Paul on the issues. Maybe you are in the wrong forum! Is there a way to ask Ron this question?

 

[pcosmar]

He has answered it, over and over again.
In his writings and before congress.
In several speeches before many audiences.