Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[kubark]

Iraq was not a preemptive strike. Iraq was firing upon US warplanes several times a week and was in violation of the cease-fire agreement that ended hostilities from the first war. Even given these provocations the United States laid down conditions that if met would have The United States resuming hostilities.

Iraq was a preemptive strike. The Bush Administration made that perfectly clear. Iraq was not attacked primarily for infractions of the UN-imposed no-fly zone but under the false pretenses that Sadaam had and intended to use WMDs against us; that Sadaam supported al Qaeda; and that if he were not removed these weapons might be provided to al Qaeda, which would use them against the U.S. Furthermore, as Ron Paul has reminded us, for a war to be considered just there has to be an initial act of agression. But there was no initial act of agression against the U.S. by Iraq. Additionally, diplomatic solutions had not been exhausted. Also, just-war criteria also demands that the initiation of war be undertaken by the proper authority. Under the U.S. Constitution, the proper authority is neither the president nor the United Nations. It is Congress - but Congress unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making power over war to the president. In this respect, I am also reminded how Congress has implicitly delegated their responsibility to deal with abortion to the Courts.

 

[estesbob]

Iraq was a preemptive strike. The Bush Administration made that perfectly clear. Iraq was not attacked primarily for infractions of the UN-imposed no-fly zone but under the false pretenses that Sadaam had and intended to use WMDs against us; that Sadaam supported al Qaeda; and that if he were not removed these weapons might be provided to al Qaeda, which would use them against the U.S. Furthermore, as Ron Paul has reminded us, for a war to be considered just there has to be an initial act of agression. But there was no initial act of agression against the U.S. by Iraq. Additionally, diplomatic solutions had not been exhausted. Also, just-war criteria also demands that the initiation of war be undertaken by the proper authority. Under the U.S. Constitution, the proper authority is neither the president nor the United Nations. It is Congress - but Congress unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making power over war to the president. In this respect, I am also reminded how Congress has implicitly delegated their responsibility to deal with abortion to the Courts.

It was not pre-meptive strike. It was the restarting of hostilities that had ceased as a result of the cease-fire agreement some 10 years before. Hostilities were restarted because Iraq continually violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement.

 

[kubark]

It was not pre-meptive strike. It was the restarting of hostilities that had ceased as a result of the cease-fire agreement some 10 years before. Hostilities were restarted because Iraq continually violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement.

Infractions of the cease-fire agreement were not the PRIMARY reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You are getting recent history wrong. If infractions of the cease-fire agreement and infractions of the no-fly zone were primary reasons for attacking Iraq, she would have been attacked long before 2003. But that point is moot because the Bush Administration GAVE us the PRIMARY reasons for attacking Iraq in 2003, and infractions of no-fly zones were not the PRIMARY reasons why we attacked Iraq. You are quickly losing credibility here, estesbob.

 

[estesbob]

Infractions of the cease-fire agreement were not the PRIMARY reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You are getting recent history wrong. If infractions of the cease-fire agreement and infractions of the no-fly zone were primary reasons for attacking Iraq, she would have been attacked long before 2003. But that point is moot because the Bush Administration GAVE us the PRIMARY reasons for attacking Iraq in 2003, and infractions of no-fly zones were not the PRIMARY reasons why we attacked Iraq. You are quickly losing credibility here, estesbob.

So you’re admitting that Iraq was continually violated the cease-fire agreement. Accordingly there is no conceivable way that you can callrestarting hostilities to be a preemptive strike. Iraq could have avoided the restarting of the hostilities had they agreed to conditions laid down by the Bush administration. . I know that many would like us to believe George Bush just got up one morning and decided to attack Iraq , but the truth is it was merely the extension of hostilitties that had started over a decade fbefore

 

[kubark]

In my opinion no. However from the standpoint of the Catholic Church that determination is left up to the Prudential judgment of the individual Catholic.

. I think those who claim this war is unjust do not realize that if that is true every single Catholic who fought in these wars is guilty of mortal sin and will suffer eternal hellfire unless they repent and go to confession. I seriously doubt those making this claim are confronting Iraq war veterans and informing them of how imperiled their souls are. The claim that the war is unjust is invariably made by those trying to use it to buttress their political opinions.

Culpability for waging unjust war rests with the civil authorities that LAUNCH those wars. The claim that a war is unjust is not made for “policital reasons” but is made in light of the criteria that MUST be met for a war to be deemed just.

 

[kubark]

So you’re admitting that Iraq was continually violated the cease-fire agreement. Accordingly there is no conceivable way that you can callrestarting hostilities to be a preemptive strike. Iraq could have avoided the restarting of the hostilities had they agreed to conditions laid down by the Bush administration. . I know that many would like us to believe George Bush just got up one morning and decided to attack Iraq , but the truth is it was merely the extension of hostilitties that had started over a decade fbefore

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a preemptive war launched to “disarm” Sadaam and affect “regime change” and keep him from potentially using potential WMDs. Go read the Iraq War Resolution. As to the no-fly zones. Authority for such zones was said to come from U.N. Resolution 688. That resolution actually says nothing about no-fly zones, and nothing about bombing mission over Iraq.

 

[Wampa]

What about this country has gotten better under Republicans and Democrats in the last 30 years?

[snipped out 14 conclusions of how the two major parties have made things worse, not better]

Scott, this is a 100% dodge of my question. You’re preaching to the choir with a lot of those conclusions, because I’m a third party guy. I don’t vote for Democrats and I very rarely vote for Republicans. Like I said earlier, I haven’t made up my mind about Ron Paul yet, but I will take a long look at him before my state has an opportunity to vote.

Can you answer my and miguel’s question? Or if not, at least acknowledge your overstatement and refrain from that in the future?

Presumably you want me (and others) to vote for Ron Paul and your arguments are an attempt to convince us to do that. Currently, I view your argument style as long on conclusions and short on evidence (to be fair, that tendency is common to many political arguers - on all sides - on CAF). Complete dodges of honest questions about your argument’s foundation and misstatements of the facts tend to push me away from a person’s position.

 

[estesbob]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a preemptive war launched to “disarm” Sadaam and affect “regime change” and keep him from potentially using potential WMDs. Go read the Iraq War Resolution. As to the no-fly zones. Authority for such zones was said to come from U.N. Resolution 688. That resolution actually says nothing about no-fly zones, and nothing about bombing mission over Iraq.

The fact differ from your assertions You can call the war unjust all you want but there is simply no way this was a pre-emptive war.

 

[MMolloy]

I have addressed the Sanctity of Human Life Act before, but here it is again:

Without changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the Sanctity of Life Act is laughably inadequate. The bill purports to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, saying in effect that the Court can no longer rule on issues relating to abortion. Here is the relevant part of the Act:

However, the Supreme Court has already ignored such attempts by Congress to strip its jurisdiction (see Boumediene v. Bush). That is to say, that if the Supreme Court sees abortion as a fundamental right (which is its current view), then no amount of purported jurisdiction-stripping will stop the Court from ruling on the validity of abortion laws. Again I must repeat that changing the composition of the Supreme Court is the only feasible way to extend human rights to the unborn.

The notion that the Supreme Court is the only arbiter of what is Constitutional is laughable… who ceded power to the Federal Government and Limited it’s Scope to certain enumerated Powers?

 

[MMolloy]

Here is a video in which Ron Paul argues against a constitutional amendment defining marriage:

youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

Arguing against a Constitutional Amendment does not equal being Pro-Homosexual Marriage! How do rectify your statement with Dr. Paul’s continued support of DOMA?

Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid

He said he would not have EXECUTED an unarmed man who was putting up NO resistance.

 

[MMolloy]

I agree, I was disturbed by Perry’s actions in this matter. However, it is good to know the fullness of events. First of all, there was an opt out provision in the executive order, so parents could opt not to have their daughters get the vaccine. Secondly, Perry later allowed a bill that rescinded his order to go into law.

There was no Opt Out provision! Here is the link to the Executive Order: governor.state.tx.us/news/executive-order/3455/

It “…allow(s) parents to submit a request for a conscientious objection affidavit form…”
That Governor Perry allowed parents the privilege of ‘submit(ing) a request for a’ form is NOT an Opt Out.

 

[miguel]

…You’re preaching to the choir with a lot of those conclusions, because I’m a third party guy. I don’t vote for Democrats and I very rarely vote for Republicans. Like I said earlier, I haven’t made up my mind about Ron Paul yet, but I will take a long look at him before my state has an opportunity to vote…

I have voted GOP most of my life and I feel my prolife vote was taken for granted. Am I happy with strict constructionist judicial appointments? As a conservative, I suppose I am. But as a prolifer, I’d prefer prolife judicial appointments. Am I happy that the GOP has sought to restrict the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions? As a conservative, of course. But have these and other similar restrictions actually protected a baby from being killed? No. Am I happy with the partial birth abortion ban act? No. The act has language that affirms Roe’s jurisprudence that the unborn are not constitutionally protected persons. Am I happy that other constitutional remedies have not been tried or even mentioned by the GOP…for example Congressional regulation of Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction per Article III, Section 2? No. Ron Paul has suggested this approach…Congress passes a law removing the Court’s jurisdiction over abortion cases. No state abortion restriction could be challenged in Federal Court if this law passed. That type of law might have passed when the GOP held both houses of Congress and the Bush presidency.

Some argue that a vote for Ron Paul is wasted because he can’t win. I don’t think it’s wasted. It puts pressure on the GOP to stop taking this issue and it’s block of prolife supporters for granted.

 

[ishii]

What about this country has gotten better under Republicans and Democrats in the last 30 years?

?

Absolute dodge of a specific question duly noted.

Here is the question again posed by Wampa:

*Scott, this is a pretty big accusation against Republicans and it deserves to be backed up. I’m also not saying you’re wrong (about Republicans intentions), but I want to see support for the assertion. I just went through the relevant parts of Roe and I can’t anything even close to what you’re suggesting. If you’re wrong on the legal nature of the situation, then your assertion about Republican intentions needs to be supported by some other argument or evidence, lest it fall apart.

The court based this conclusion on the other uses of the word “person” in the Constitution, precedent (citing 7 prior cases), and the fact that all existing state abortion statutes included exception language: *

Ishii

 

[MMolloy]

Not sure why being a Navy chaplain makes one well versed in politics…

When Nader ran in 2000 I was happy that he took away votes from Gore because I wanted Gore to lose. Nader got almost 100,000 votes in Florida. A 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of the election between the two major party candidates. Voting for Paul as a 3rd party candidate would help the Democrat, no doubt, and if the election was a close one like in 2000, the votes could actually help swing the election. That is political reality. One will indirectly help Obama with a vote for a right-wing 3rd party candidate. I wouldn’t want to help Obama, directly or indirectly.

Ishii

Dr. Paul, as you know, is running as a Republican and will not be running as an independent.

 

[MMolloy]

In last night’s debate, Paul stated that a nuclear Iran would not be a threat to our national security. His ignorance of foreign policy is scary. I can’t belive people are considering voting for him.

Dr. Paul stated that a nuclear Iran would not be any more dangerous than a nuclear Russia or China (or Pakistan or India or North Korea). Did we go to war with China or Russia because of their nuclear weapons? I can’t believe people continually regurgitate the media’s interpretation of what Dr. Paul says and then unreasonably extrapolate.

 

[MMolloy]

No, how could you conclude that from my post? It would be the Ron Paul voter’s fault for voting for a (joke) “perfect” candidate with no chance to win, in order to “feel good” and not voting for the most electable pro-life candidate who is flawed. Twist it around if want, but what I’ve been saying is political reality: especially in a close election, voting for a 3rd party candidate has an effect on the general election between the two major candidates since the Democrat comes from the left and the Republican comes from the right of the spectrum. A vote for Paul in would take away votes from the GOP candidate. In 2012, this would have the effect of helping Obama win and give us more pro-abortion justices and socialism.

Ishii

Ishii, please desist from implying that Dr. Paul is not running as a Republican!

 

[MMolloy]

I would agree that for a lot of people, voting for Ron Paul is “more comfortable”. But if you don’t compromise then you indirectly help the greater evil prevail.

By continually misrepresenting the political realities… I’m sure you’re not helping the greater evil prevail

 

[MMolloy]

“The Zionist regime wants to establish its base upon the ruins of the civilizations of the region…The uniform shout of the Iranian nation is forever ‘Death to Israel.’…”

– Ahmadinejad, October 2009

“Death to America” is a common chant in Iran. Iran is not interested in Peace and Diplomacy.

Again, if Iran used a nuke on Isreal, or if Isreal took out Iran’s nuclear plants, what would Paul do, as POTUS. Stay out of it? What if these actions led to an incredible amount of unrest in the Middle East? Would Pres. Paul still stay out of it? What if Isreal asked, as an allie, for our assistance. Stay out of it? What if OPEC, due to the unrest, jacks up the cost of oil? Stay out of it? Does Pres. Paul have any idea how the cost oo oil directly impacts our economy?

Based on his comments yesterday - he does not.

Israel, with approximately 75-200 Nukes themselves and an Air Force that is rated just behind the US and Russia is quite capable of handling a country that can’t even manufacture it’s own gasoline. What are you proposing, more of the same Foreign Policy of Bribing or Bombing those who won’t do what we want?

 

[MMolloy]

How do you know that I’m not more concerned about the Catholic votes for Obama? We haven’t even discussed that topic. We have been talking about how a 3rd party candidate can have an effect on the outcome of an election - that is a proven political fact. In a close election (such as in 2000) a few votes either way could swing an important state such as Florida or Ohio. And those who vote for the 3rd party candidate could be said to have had an indirect effect on the election. Were Paul to run as such a candidate and enough people to vote for him, it could have an effect. That is the point I’ve been making and I think its a pretty simple one. Votes for Ron Paul could help Obama get re-elected and appoint pro-abortion justices. I still would like to know what the die-hard Ron Paul supporters think of that prospect. I have yet to get a straight answer.

Ishii

Why do you persist in misrepresenting the facts? Dr. Paul is running in the Republican Primary and will not be running as an Independent.

 

[MMolloy]

Hey, atleast I don’t twist people’s words. I went back and read your posts and responses, and nowhere do you address the possibility of a Ron Paul 3rd party general election candidacy and the possibility that it would help Obama get re-elected and nominate pro-abortion justices. Go ahead, vote for the 77 year old libertarian guy with no chance to win the nomination, but in the general election, (if Ron Paul runs) I truly hope you take into account political reality and the balance of power in the supreme court, when you pull the lever.

Ishii

When Dr. Paul runs in the General Election, as a Republican, it will be the clearest choice between any two candidates for President the American People have ever had.