That's the big expose? Please...

Glad that we agree on Mexico's leaders and how China is screwing us.

But don't be coy about what Iran may have done. When we advocate attackiong a sovereign foreign nation we sure as hell ought to have some concrete, non-secret reasons...don't you think?

NO, not every time. There are secret reasons to do stuff that ARE concrete. It's called National Security.

Nick, our nation's policy toward Israel has been so incorrect for so long that it is actually taken as both valid and moral by most Americans. I'ts one of the great lies of the 20th century. About 50 percent of our problems in the Arab/Muslim world can be directly attributed to our blind support of Israel.


But almost anyone who points it out is immediately branded as "anti-semite...Jew hater...holocaust denier...etc, etc etc" and that is part of the problem. (watch the replies to this)

Excuse me? Who said anything about a big exposé? Russert exposed him as a hypocrite. That's all. It's Paul's "I smoked pot but I didn't inhale" moment.

The exposé is that libertarianism (I know, I was one) is a utopian ideal that is silly to actually contemplate as a platform for the US government. Sure, lower taxes and spending are a great goal, but a libertarian foreign policy presupposes that the rest of the world plays nice and doesn't act aggressively in their own perceived self-interests. Silly.

That is absurd. Any USA declaration of war does not and should not involve those mysterious "secret reasons" you mention.

Our "National Security" per nations like Iraq or Iran is just about the weakest and most lame excuse I can imagine for not actually telling American citizens the truth when it comes to sending American kids into combat.

Glad you don't have a TS/SCI

The U.S. hasn't declared a war since WWII.

You were talking about reasons to attack, not reasons that lead to sending American Soldiers (they're not kids) into combat. These are two different issues.

There is no need to play mindless games of semantics about this. Yes, everyone knows or should know that the Congress has not declared war since WW Two. That's part of the problem. Instead of doing their job they gave it to the Executive branch. BIG mistake.

They are NOT different issues. We are talking about sending Americans into harm's way. You can call it any damn thing that you so desire but I would guess that most of the 28,000 Americans who have been maimed or killed in Iraq would not care what YOU call it.

That's why transparency in government is almost always a good thing. Especially if that government is considering war or anything resembling it.

I don't play mindless games and you don't see opinion from me 99% of the time. All for reason.

I know people maimed in Iraq, if you'd like I can ask them to contact you for their thoughts and opinions. I've also had Soldiers killed. They're all volunteers. In fact, the ones that I know who have been maimed or killed either joined way after 9/11 or re-enlisted after 9/11, they didn't go into it blindly.

Now, I agree that if war is declared, then the President needs to tell the public why as well as the "vision".

You and I continue to disagree that action and war are different. There are 24 or so kinds of action in the spectrum of armed conflict, war is one of them, posturing is one of them. You don't see reports of all the posturing we do with submarines, SPECOP units and such....all in the reason of National Security...that's my point. Not all of them (here's my opinion) require disclosure due to National Security. After-the-fact, yes, disclosure is appropriate sometimes. We can disagree on this one and remain cordial....I expect.

I agree. No need to go over top since we might be more similar than you think...especially if you have a military family.

But do tell me at what point you elevate a military "action" to the level of a true war? Would it be like what we have in Iraq and the 28K plus American casualties...or the few Americans maimed in our Balkan adventure,....or the nearly 37,000 killed in the Korean conflict?

Yup, my entire family is military, so I have thoughts as well, I just don't post them.

I'll get back to you on your question. I know it somewhat by heart, but I want to post facts and figures. I stay away from opinion, you know, they're like *********s...everyone's got one and they all stink.

True, but you can provide an example to follow. For instance,

It is said that a fish rots from it's head down.

Most especially after Colin Powell's little speach at the UN where it turns out all the ''Facts'' were untrue.

I am very much looking forward to the election. And if Ron Paul hasn't got a chance, maybe he will influence the tone of national concern, much like Ross Perot raised public conciousness about the deficit. Of course there are those that say the deficit isn't an indicator of economic health or stability. Most of them are currently in office. Probably why I am looking forward to the election.

And since I like to throw out proverbs, If you want to know what is going on, Follow the money trail. It is pathetic what has happened in the name of national security.

How's this one: Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6JyvkjSKMLw&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6JyvkjSKMLw&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

I certainly wouldn't want him teaching a biology class. That's for sure. Truthfully I find that clip pretty disturbing.

There are only two types of people who reject the concept of evolution. The first are the uneducated. The second group is far more troubling. These people reject the concept as an act of faith. Anyone who closes their mind to new ideas as a matter of "principle" scares me.

Since "evolution" is easily proven in a lab setting, I'd love to have a discussion with Ron Paul about this. Certainly how the process of evolution relates to the origin of man is not proven, perhaps that's what he was referring to.

That's pretty odd for a person with an M.D. . .

Ron Paul is great at first blush...really like many of his policies. Thought he seemed like an amateur on Meet the Press last week; he didn't have answers, let alone good answers, on many questions that should have been slam dunks.

My initial complaint was that he is shrill in debates, not Presidential. Sadly, he's starting to look a lot more like the Crazy Cat Lady on The Simpson's.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dno3r_rcqpU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dno3r_rcqpU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Yeah....then I looked at more of the ingredients and won't be drinking that KOOL-AID!

Does not accept evolution

favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations

opposes gun control

advocates overturning Roe v. Wade

affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.

the We the People Act

He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention

would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today

should be no affirmative action for any group

marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC

More if one cares to look beyond this point.

Ron Paul = lightweight kook.