09-30-2011, 10:46 PM
(09-30-2011, 10:17 PM)username Wrote: As I understand it (without researching it), George Bush originally signed an arrest or kill order for him and Obama reaffirmed it. If Ron Paul were President, you have to assume that he wouldn't have signed the same order and therefore, this guy would still be alive.
I think the other slippery slope is you open all of this up to debate and discussion and nothing gets done with regards to pursuing terrorists. Not to mention the risk of leaks etc.
Maggot, where exactly does Ron Paul think we should be? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? or now Yemen? Does he disagree with pursuing al-qaida entirely? I might be wrong but if I understand his position, we shouldn't be involved in conflicts (or pursuing al-qaida) anywhere. He's kind of isolationist in that regard. Too much so in my opinion.
I would probably be fine with any of this if congress voted for any engagement outside our lands. Either say it is a war or not, do not sugar coat it as a "conflict" either go to war or not. The lines are very blurry when nobody can commit with impunity.
I had a conversation today about being a soldier and being able to kill the person on the other side after wounding them. Do you walk up and shot them in the head or take them as a prisoner. Do you fight to kill or wound. I do believe I would kill and move on although it would bug me like hell it still would be the only way to win the war.
Polititians will never be soldiers, they can only dream because they have no spine. War is hell.
I believe Ron Paul may be the only one that knows this and speaks out about it.
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.