Paul states……”Even if no American soldiers had even gone to Saudi Arabia in 1991 (if it had been given to Saddam) there would still have been conflicts and America would have been involved (however unwillingly – as Jefferson found).”

It seems highly unlikely that Saddams forces could have ‘taken’ Saudi Arabia at all. Thats alot of desert to hold (and a lot of soldiers to feed) especially since the Iraqi forces were in the midst of occupying Kuwait.

And if this is true……..”Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration’s estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday’s Susan Sachs called Iraq the “phantom enemy”: “The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn’t be found.” http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=120

Well…securing Kuwait alone would be difficult with an uncooperative population remaining and supply vessels deciding not to enter Kuwaits ports due to the unrest there.

Certainly, Kuwait wasnt a military force but has to hope that a middle eastern solution would have likely been reached.

Paul Marks,

Still, I don’t find your explanations satisfactory. You write: No one had said “we went into Iraq because of 9/11″ in the debate – no one had even mentioned 9/11 (as far as I remember) before Ron Paul brought it up.

As far as I know, Paul’s remarks were against intervention in general. The moderator then asked Ron Paul if that policy should have changed post-9/11. When Paul emphasized that the interventionist policy may have motivated the 9/11 attacks, it was siezed by both the moderator and Giuliani as Mr. Paul insinuating that America invited the attacks or were responsible for them.

You’ve already said that the “impression” Ron Paul’s remarks gave you were similar to the far-left position that America is culpable. I’m sorry that this is what you took from his words, but it is not what Ron Paul actually said (nor, if you pay attention to his numerous interviews and articles, is it what he intended). It’s simply a bad interpretation of what was said, Fox News’ coverage notwithstanding.

You write further: Quite true – the motion that the Senate and the House voted on did not contain the words “declaration of war”. The wording should have been different (but the meaning was clear to everyone at the time).

Congress was being purposefully ambiguous as a political move. It was NOT clear to everyone at the time that the document was a declaration of war. In fact, Ron Paul introduced a bill that was a declaration of war, saying that he wouldn’t vote for it but that if congress wanted a war they should do it in a proper, constitutional manner. They didn’t take him up on the offer, surprisingly.

Finally, you write: But where was Ron Paul’s attack on the entitlement programs? Where was his defence of the view that most of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional?

I personally think you should give up your attacks on Ron Paul. I’ve met your criticisms with answers and you shift to different subjects, this being still another criticism.

I guess all I can say to this is that Ron Paul was neglected quite a bit in the debates — compare the questions Paul was asked to McCain, Romney, et. al. So he only had a few chances to say something. Still, he talked about eliminating the departments, and listed the Department of Education first (I think). He also made more than one reference to spending and regulating at home.

Also, check out the first debate, when Paul talked more about domestic problems. Look at his website or his speeches. Look at his articles. The man is shying away from no position of fiscal conservatism.

This critique is really another red herring — to harp on emphasis after going after the man himself (and then backing down) tells me that the original complaints weren’t all that acute.

Paul Marks,

You write: When a man’s country is at war with an enemy of the sort we now face

Well, we aren’t at war. You can’t wage a war on an idea, so we’re not at war with “terror.” Congress did not declare war against any sovereign nation, so there’s no war there.

We are conducting military operations against a wide range of people, some of whom are terrorists. I’m guessing that’s what you are referring to.

(an enemy which is, although you do not seem to understand it, utterly evil) all people (including people who are not of military age) have certain minimum moral duties.

In other words, you are saying the the US government has a right to infringe on people’s liberty when it deems itself sufficiently “at war.”

Of course they should be free to say anything they like – but being free to say something does not mean it is a good thing to say it.

Meaning that it is a judgment call. You disagree with Ron Paul’s statements and think they are harmful — I’ve never questioned this.

As for the 9/11 stuff – I watched the debate, do not tell me what “really” happened, I watched the whole thing (and the interviews afterwards).

The only reason that I have told you what “really” happened is that you put words in Ron Paul’s mouth and then defend it by saying that was the “impression” that it gave you. It would be far better to work with the words that the man actually used, because (frankly) I had the opposite “impression” that you did, and without some standard to which we can compare our impressions, with this conversation will go nowhere.

Dr Paul was given chances to retract his remarks – and he just went on and on.

And I’m telling you that Dr. Paul had nothing to retract. Well, nothing aside from the “impression” that he gave you, but there’s only so much he can control the way people perceive him.

So much for your “objections”.

If you say so. My entire project of participating in this thread can be summed up as:

* Wanting to correct factual errors, namely the confusion regarding the CIA’s overthrow of a government and installment of a Shah in 1953.

* Making it clear that Ron Paul never said, regardless of how people received his words, that America either (a) deserved, invited, etc. the 9/11 attacks OR (b) that the 9/11 attackers were justified in attacking based on our previous intervention.

* Questioning and critiquing the assertion that Ron Paul is a part of the “America is always wrong” crowd.

Paul Marks, I think you have misunderstood me on most points. (I don’t doubt that you’ll disagree with that assessment, though).

I only commented on the US being at war because you brought it up as fact, when in actuality no war has been declared by congress. Therefore, the United States is not at war. (Bush’s fiat declarations — and it is he that has declared war on an idea — aside).

You write: I did not put the words “we gave them the gas” in his mouth (post debate interview).

That may be the case, but you put other words in his mouth before that, and correctly paraphrasing him later doesn’t cover over the previous misattribution. Your answer here was obviously rhetorical in nature; I never accused you of doing nothing but misquote or misattribute beliefs to Ron Paul.

No one else in the debate had even mentioned “9/11″ before Dr Paul brought it up (at least I did not hear them).

Once again, Ron Paul was not the first person to mention 9/11 in the debates, as a moderator brought it up in a question to Mayor Giuliani. In fact, Paul’s first mention of it is in criticism of domestic spending and people’s general perception of what the role of government is — a passing reference only.

The main Ron Paul / 9/11 controversy came when Paul was talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy in general. The moderator then asked him specifically whether 9/11 changed the need for such a policy, followed by Ron Paul’s response and Giuliani’s famous pouncing after that.

A lot of the rest of your post isn’t really aimed at what I was discussing. You definitely seem to have a bone to pick with someone around here, but I can tell that I’m definitely not your man for that.

You did say: Lastly, I say again that I regard Ron Paul as a good man. And I regard his struggle against unconsitutional government spending and regulation over the last several decades as a noble struggle.

That it is why I regard him being used like this (and he is being used – he has no bad intentions himself) as so horrible.

I’m glad that you are proud and supportive of Ron’s history, but your assertion that he’s being used — whatever his intentions may be — is unfounded. Paul is a good example of principle being brought up against the mainstream. However his message is received, the message itself has been (in my opinion) above reproach.

You can put your criticisms of my blindness below. It’s a wonderful metaphor.

You write: You fail to see that I was quite open to Dr Paul saying that going into Iraq in 2003 was an error (especially as that is what I think myself). I was even open to being convinced that Western troops should get out right now (if his arguments were good).

I’m OK with that, and (by the way) you are reading far too much into my contributions here. Remember that my entire aim in participating in this thread can be summed up as:

* Wanting to correct factual errors, namely the confusion regarding the CIA’s overthrow of a government and installment of a Shah in 1953.

* Making it clear that Ron Paul never said that America either (a) invited OR (b) deserved the 9/11 attacks (or that the attackers were justified).

* Questioning and critiquing the assertion you made above that Ron Paul is a part of the “America is always wrong” crowd.