Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Why did Ron Paul vote for the authority to go into Afghanistan?

  1. #1

    Why did Ron Paul vote for the authority to go into Afghanistan?

    Shouldn't he have demanded that we either declare war on Afghanistan, or else issue letters of marque and reprisal?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by AggieforPaul View Post
    Shouldn't he have demanded that we either declare war on Afghanistan, or else issue letters of marque and reprisal?
    Declaring war on Afghanistan was unnessescary but he call for issue of letters of marque and reprisal. H.R.3074 & H.R.3076

  4. #3
    You do know not very many people knew abou 911 until at least a year or two later. (The 911 Truth) Do you remember the Mass Fear and Nationalistic thinking that was going around?????? They had Patriotic songs on every station and Fox Propoganda Channel was blowing and going, full force. WE ALL fell for it............... Not only is Dr Paul a Statesman, but he is Human too............
    ......I am afraid for our future

  5. #4
    To get Osama after 9/11 is what I remember

  6. #5
    I'm not a truther. I'm glad we bombed Afghanistan. What I'm asking is why RP voted to give the President authority to declare war, since RP believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional in the first place.

  7. #6
    Um.... He thought we should go after Bin Laden?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by AggieforPaul View Post
    I'm not a truther. I'm glad we bombed Afghanistan. What I'm asking is why RP voted to give the President authority to declare war, since RP believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional in the first place.
    Dr Paul never voted to authorize war in Afghanistan.


    Which HR was that?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by AggieforPaul View Post
    Shouldn't he have demanded that we either declare war on Afghanistan, or else issue letters of marque and reprisal?
    H.R. 3076
    There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream. ~Archibald MacLeish



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinci4RP View Post
    Yes, Dr Paul would never have voted to give the president war powers.

    Thank you.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by the Winner is (R0N P@uL) View Post
    You do know not very many people knew abou 911 until at least a year or two later. (The 911 Truth) Do you remember the Mass Fear and Nationalistic thinking that was going around?????? They had Patriotic songs on every station and Fox Propoganda Channel was blowing and going, full force. WE ALL fell for it............... Not only is Dr Paul a Statesman, but he is Human too............
    9/11 truth

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanEdwards View Post
    9/11 truth
    When are we ALL gonna grow up and quit hitting hornet nests with big sticks? This comment is nothing but an attempt to bait a truther. Shame on you, grow up!
    Follow my blog at http://tirelessagorist.blogspot.com/
    Current commentary from a libertarian/voluntaryist/agorist perspective.

    Consistent Candidate - with Chainspell

    2007
    Ron Paul Landslide by Jake Kellen - Constitution Mix

    The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.

  14. #12
    He voted for House Joint Resolution 64, on 9/14/01.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/se...roc_091401.htm

    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.

    The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of mark and reprisal in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we are offered, and doing nothing is unthinkable.

    There are a couple of serious points I would like to make. For the critics of our policy of foreign intervention in the affairs of others, the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise, and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it is crucial to understand why we were attacked, which will then tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or 10 countries will not help.

    [Begin Insert]

    Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.

    Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.

    Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

    We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

    Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.

    [End Insert]
    He was between a rock and a hard place. I think he did well.
    "Greater than the tread of armies is an idea whose time has come." -- Victor Hugo

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    He voted for House Joint Resolution 64, on 9/14/01.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/se...roc_091401.htm



    He was between a rock and a hard place. I think he did well.
    Ron Paul's vote on House Joint Resolution 64, in no way runs contrary to his beliefs that the war powers act is unconstitutional.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by AggieforPaul View Post
    Shouldn't he have demanded that we either declare war on Afghanistan, or else issue letters of marque and reprisal?
    Look at the authorization itself, its actually pretty good. It talks about going after the perpetrators of 9/11 specifically. It doesn't authorize nation building in Afghanistan at all, and all of the efforts in doing so since the authorizaiton have been, by definition, illegal.

    Unlike the Iraq resolution (which Dr. Paul opposed) which is manifestly worse, cites the enforcement of UN resolutions as the objective and gives the President power "as he deems necessary" to use military forces.

  17. #15

    This is a chance to defuse the "pacifist" charge

    See here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

    "Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Sadly, we find ourselves today dealing with a responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex...Although we now must fight to preserve our national security, we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

    We are placing tremendous trust in our President to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

    Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our President, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated."

    Here's the bill and the votes:
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    He voted for House Joint Resolution 64, on 9/14/01.

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/se...roc_091401.htm



    He was between a rock and a hard place. I think he did well.
    Can anyone give me a current link to this speech?
    "The Patriarch"



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Can anyone give me a current link to this speech?
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-Pg17110-5.htm

    [Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
    [House]
    [Pages 17110-17156]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office,



Similar Threads

  1. Franklin Graham says you must obey authority even if authority is wrong.
    By Anti Federalist in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 02-04-2016, 09:06 AM
  2. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham vote to give Obama fast-track trade authority
    By Brian4Liberty in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-03-2015, 11:22 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 04:10 PM
  4. Afghans vote! Good reasons to be in Afghanistan?
    By BamaFanNKy in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2010, 01:58 PM
  5. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-25-2009, 11:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •