Comment by Tom W.

Entered on: 10/26/2007 1:23:14 PM

How about we let the Iraqi people decide whether this is an "invasion" or a "liberation". Watch middle eastern TV once in a while. The word that is used consistently is "occupation". This is synonymous with invasion. This is their words not Paul's.

JB-
"I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation"

Apparently you don't understand the constitution. It defines what government is allowed to do. If its not there then it's not allowed.

It's time for an English lesson - "preventative defense" this is nonsense talk. There's an English word for this it's called 'offense'. No where in the constitution is offensive action allowed. And what happens when you "preventativly defend" against a crime that has yet to be committed? Apparently you haven't seen the Tom Cruse movie 'Minority Report', watch it and learn something.

When did Iraq become a 'known foreign enemy' anyway? I thought the enemy was the people who committed 911, which is supposedly Al Qaeda?

JB-
"I submit that the same people who authorize government to use these additional powers to defend the nation today, have the power to remove those special powers once the threat no longer exists."

If you give the power to government then we no longer have the power to get it back. Maybe the government will be nice and give it back to us...I doubt it.

JB-
"We fear our own government why? It's elected by us. Anytime we get sick of the one we have, we can elect another one. We are the government. Our government can do nothing that we don't consent to. If we consent by our silence, shame on us! "

What planet are you living on? 70% of Americans are against the war. We have gone through an election cycle and guess what? We are still at war and planning to start the next. Even if 90% of Americans were against the war it wouldn't matter we would still be at war and will be until our benevolent dictators are tired of war. I don't think people against the war have been silent. Do you?

Comment by Anonymous

Entered on: 10/26/2007 9:55:05 AM

Typical neocon hogwash. The author tries to justify the invasion of Iraq as a "liberation" of the Iraqi people. I thought the reason for the invasion was weapons of mass destruction; wasn't the invasion a defense of America? By the way, just because people can vote doesn't mean they are "liberated." In fact, at this point most Iraqis would probably argue that they simply traded one master for another. In addition, the author points out how the United States has defended various countries and deposed various dictators. Once again, I thought the point of the national defense was to defend this nation, not to defend other nations around the world.

Despite all the rhetoric, the question that neocons never confront is "blowback." Why does the United States have so many foreign enemies? Could it be because a few people in Washington, DC have been sticking their nose in the affairs of other nations for a century? Finally, the author accuses Libertarians of being naive, of falling asleep in the 1700s and waking up wonder what changed. Here's what changed: America went from being a republic built on the foundation of individual dignity to an empire dominated by corporate interests and backed up with military might. Back to the 1700s, the Founders feared standing armies as the personal tools of a tyrannical executive (all of this started before George W. Bush by the way and Democrats are just as guilty as Republican). Today they would see their fears come to life. Time and time again, we have seen American troops put in harms way to defend "economic interests" (read the interests of the rich and powerful), including those of the parasitic military-industrial complex. While neocons accuse libertarians of living in a fantasy world, in reality, its the other way around.

Comment by Brock

Entered on: 10/26/2007 4:42:54 AM

Is this satire? It's Newspeak used either for a poor bit of satire or a desperate attempt to get a "Ron Paul bump."