I've listened to Ron Paul speak via video
on the web and in the debates. He has
a passion for returning the country to
the ideals it was founded on.
True freedom from government.
I fully support this ideal and am impressed
with his consistency. It isn't his overall
goal that I have serious concerns with, it is
a few specific ideas and mindsets he has that
just aren't realistic.
I heard his opinions on the Iraq war.
It was an illegal war fought on false pretenses.
While you may disagree with going to war in Iraq,
it was neither illegal nor fought on false
pretenses. It was approved by Congress and U.N
resolutions. It might not be a formal declaration
of war but the weight of the Congressional act is
equal.
In light of 3,000 citizens being murdered
by a small group of nut jobs, I can certainly see
how Bush would always view intelligence from
an aggressive view point. We still don't know if
the WMDs were moved prior to our invasion in order
to embarrass us. Russia, China, Syria, etc... All
would have the ability and motive. Iran did as
well although their participation is far less likely.
Vials of chemical agents from Iraq were just lying
around the U.N. office until discovered last week.
I saw pictures of fighter jets buried in the Iraqi
desert. The notion that the WMD's existed and have
yet to be found is not a huge stretch for me.
I heard Ron Paul's opinions on why Islamic radicals
killed 3,000 U.S. citizens. Our military bases
in the middle east that do nothing but make sure
we can pay enormous prices for oil? Perhaps
our support of regimes they don't like? That's justification
for the mayhem these thugs inflict on the West and
even worse on their so-called Muslim brothers?
Ron Paul has a limited and naive view of world affairs
and specifically radical Islam.
I heard Ron Paul mention his desire to eliminate the
FBI and CIA because they aren't functioning as well
as he'd like.
In today's world, can a nation of 300 million people
really maintain law and order and some semblance of
security from outside military intervention from
rogue states or groups?
I hear about all the things Ron Paul doesn't like but
you rarely hear an effective solution from him other
than a theme about freedom from government.
His apparent strategy for defeating Islamic radicalism
is to simply take our ball and go home. Hopefully,
they won't follow us to our own shores?
Ron Paul talks a lot about the U.S. getting involved
in too many places it shouldn't. He often quotes
the founding fathers on this topic. On the surface,
this sounds like a reasonable approach. Just 50 years
ago, the danger was minimal. Today, allowing
situations to fester breeds hatred that builds.
In an age of force multipliers, WMD's, the internet,
and the acceptance of suicide terrorism (all things the
founding fathers could never have contemplated),
allowing small situations to quickly get out of
hand poses a serious threat to America.
From my perspective, Ron Paul has allowed his
commitment to his ideals to cloud his judgement
regarding the defense of American interests.
It is for this reason, I just can't support him
with my vote. My hope is that he can direct
his energy to other domestic agendas and be
a positive force there.
