Anything Ron Paul

Sorry I didn't post an argument in round 2 in time. In all fairness to you, I'd like to offer a redo, if you care to have one. I'll give a reply to your argument from round 1, and if you don't care for a redo, we can continue in the comments section. Even if you don't care to continue the debate at all, please read my reply. It may give you some food for thought. If you go to www.pbs.org and find Frontline on their list of programs, you can watch a documentary called "The Dark Side" for free. It explains how Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were gunning for Hussein before Bush ever got elected into office. This was inconsistent with Bush's supposed "conservative" foreign policy at the time. It then goes on to explain how we got the faulty CIA intelligence that led us into war in the first place. What it shows is that Cheney ordered George Tenet, then head of the CIA, to compose the documentation that must be presented to congress in order to get a declaration of war in two weeks, when it would normally take two years. What Tenet used to compose the documentation in time to meet his deadline was old information from the first gulf war, added to a nominal amount of false testimony that the Egyptians tortured our of an Iraqi defector. It's the same "faulty intelligence" that Colon Powell went to the UN with. It was the basis for another false flag operation. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the CIA declassifies classified information 25 years after the fact. To date, the CIA has declassified information about several false flag operations they were involved with, including overthrowing dozens of regimes such as Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iran, etc. There were many similar instances after WWII and during the Cold War. Those we are fighting overseas see an America that's been overthrowing regimes, assassinating political figures, imposing sanctions on countries which forces hundreds of thousands into poverty and starvation, starting wars and bombing their people, families, and holy land, occupying their countries and building military bases on their holy land, and basically treated their nations like pawns during the Cold War. This is why they call us crusaders. This is why they feel motivated to become suicide terrorists. It's not because we are free and prosperous, it's because all of our meddling over the past six decades or so has caused them to declare a jihad. This is what the CIA itself states in the 9/11 Commission Report, it's called "blowback". This is in no way a defense of terrorism or terrorists, there is nothing that can justify such actions. What I am saying is the same thing Ron Paul and the CIA are saying, which is that the American people didn't provoke the attack on 9/11, but the blowback from hyper aggressive covert operations and foreign policy did. If you don't believe me, read the 9/11 Commission Report issued by the CIA. This concept of blowback seems to be escaping a large number of Americans. It's happened to every great empire throughout history, and it's happening to the US now. Empires expand beyond their means and fall when they get stretched too thin. When you're military might is spread around the globe like butter, you have a lot of weaknesses, such as not having a strong enough military presence to bail out the residents of New Orleans during Katrina, or to have fighter jets in the sky when there's a bunch of high-jacked commercial airliners flying into major US buildings, or to protect our borders from an invasion of immigrants or more potential terrorists. These are the reasons why Ron Paul calls George Bush out on flip flopping about his "conservative" foreign policy. There's nothing conservative about it. He's a neocon, which is a leftist liberal. This may be hard for some to accept, but look in to it before you dismiss it. Granted that it's not the most credible source, if you search wikipedia for paleoliberalism and neoconservatives, it will point you in the right direction. It says: "According to Michael Lind, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many "anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson… preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals'". According to Lind, this group of people influenced or later became neoconservatives. - Lind." I am not claiming that just because neocons aren't conservative that they are liberal, I'm claiming they are liberal because they ARE leftist liberals under a conservative guise. If one party should ideally give balance to the other, neocon republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the liberal opposition is liberal itself, then the scales tip to one side, and there is no balance to the system. There's nothing democratic about a system without balance. This is why Ron Paul is standing up against the other republican candidates, who are truly being "wholly unrealistic, irresponsible, and strange."