Q. Why has this small article on Ron Paul elicited the most comments of all stories posted here on CNN? A. The Ron Paul Revolution is taking the United States by storm.

If you truly love liberty, vote for Ron Paul in 2008!

Ron Paul has also shown that he doesn't understand how much of a mess it is in Iraq and Afganistan has been created by the current administration. We broke it and now we have to put it back together. Given how little that Ron Paul understands that we just can't up and leave Iraq as much as many of us would love to, it might not be best to have his run the country.

I think that most Republicans fail to see something about the government. It can work, when properly running, for the betterment of the U.S. and all of the legal citizens. The free market wouldn't correct problems unless forced to do so. Pollution, houselessness, discrimination are all problems that the free market didn't do on its own and needed government to correct (Federal, state, or local).

Brzezinski: U.S. in danger of 'stampeding' to war with Iran

"Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski likened U.S. officials' saber rattling about Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions to similar bellicose statements made before the start of the Iraq war.

I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq," Brzezinski told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" on Sunday.

In October 2002, five months before Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was toppled for what the United States said was his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
No evidence was found that Iraq was then pursuing such weapons.

Earlier this month during a televised speech about Iraq, the president said, "Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts.to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region."

Brzezinski also disapproved of Bush's statement. "When the president flatly asserts they are seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts," he said. "We are suspicious, we have strong suspicions, but we don't have facts that they are."

Brzezinski, who served under President Jimmy Carter, said he is not sure how to interpret Iran's intentions. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful purposes.
"I think it's quite possible that they are seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them, but we have very scant evidence to support that," he said. "And the president of the United States, especially after Iraq, should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions."

But Henry Kissinger, the former national security adviser and secretary of state under President Nixon, appeared not to doubt Iran's alleged ambitions."I believe they are building a capability to build a nuclear bomb," Kissinger told CNN.

"I don't think they're yet in a position to build a nuclear bomb, but they may be two or three years away from it."

Brzezinski urged American officials to be patient, whatever Tehran's intentions may be. "If we escalate the tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war, which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us," he said.

"And just think what it would do for the United States, because it would be the United States which would be at war. We will be at war simultaneously in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we would be stuck for the next 20 years."

Kissinger said the international community should enlist support from countries opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power.

"The current objective has to be to unite the countries that will suffer directly from Iranian nuclear weapons, the members of the Security Council and other countries in a program of diplomacy," he said.

Serious consideration should be given on chosing America's next President. Not only for Americans but for every citizen around the world.

For further reading on the dangers of the UN:
Search for:
The Law of the Seas Treaty
UN Control the internet
Lookup Strobe Talbott (Clinton Foreign Advisor)

Do some homework and you will begin to realize the true agenda of the UN. And as you do, you are likely to realize how dangerous it is.

I will leave you all to ponder and research now.

2B||!2B

Read on:
(From the Phyllis Schlafly Report)
In May 1994, Clinton signed a Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 25, asserting his authority "to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander" and under the United Nations rules of engagement. It is the most unconstitutional transfer of power in the history of America.(14)

Again, do a google search on "clinton gives control to the United Nations". We need a president that does indeed believe in the Constitution and it is very important they understand that control of our country should not be given to an organization such as the UN. President Clinton already tried and his act was rejected by the enforcement of the US Constitution. What do you suppose will be on the agenda if we let another Clinton into office? What do you suppose may happen if we let any candidate in that fully supports the UN?

Tell me, in all the positive things the UN has done, would any have occured without the US backbone and military power?

The US should not control the Earth nor should the UN. Remember the saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I believe you will see this occuring in short order if the UN is given control of the US.

I would be more apt to vote for ANY candidate that realizes the United States of America should always be its own entity and should never be controlled by any other organization other than the one our forefathers put together many years ago.

Any doubts to what I am talking about, do a search for PDD-25 on our official government search page: USASearch.gov

2B||!2B

I bet less than 10% of Americans know who the Canadian PM is. It's not because we forget, it's because we don't care. A hockey team from Canada can't even win the Stanley Cup for Christ's sake.

Trust me...no one from the U.S. cares to meddle in Canadian politics, so why don't you extend us the same courtesy and STFU.

If I want to dodge the draft or buy some Maple syrup I'll listen to a Canuck...but when it comes to world affairs I'll listen to those who matter.

If we don't trust our own government to keep its greedy, belligerent hands out of others' affairs, why should we trust this supernational layer of government, the UN, to be somehow benevolent.

The assumption that dissociating with the UN is equivalent to dissociating with international diplomacy is a non sequitur.

Paul's voting record and decades-long unflinching pursuit of peaceful foreign interaction is unassailable. UN politics is largely a power grab among competing dictatorships. US compliance to its resolutions since the Korean War has only lubricated violence throughout the 20th century.

The Constitutionalist who supports world peace, free trade, liberty, smaller government, and sound economic policy is RON PAUL.

Say it with me: RON PAUL!

Tricia M Charlotteotown wrote "The Iraq war began and continues with George W. Bush."

Congress gave Bush authorization for war, in essence putting the blood on their own hands without making a declaration per the constitution. Democrats can defund this war with a simple majority NOW. They haven't because THEY DON'T WANT TO. Anti-UN is anti-war. The only truly anti-war candidate is a republican. Tell me I'm not the only liberal that understands this.

In Reply to your comments, I would like to address a few issues from my perspective. Only my view as I see it of course.

Congress was forced to give Bush authorization on the Iraq war. Bush blantantly told Congress he'd veto any attempt to do otherwise. Still Congress tried diligently to gather enough votes (60) to at least show Bush the majority of the house were against him. They couldn't, because a few Republicans wouldn't vote against Bush. Hence, the Dems were short, but by very few votes for a majority.

Democrats can't defund this war by a simple majority. Even if they get a Majority Bush has stated he will veto any attempts on decreasing military funding! Dems most certainly DO WANT TO End the War but their hands are tied by the constant Bush strategy of VETO ING everything they've try passing to date in the Senate!

Anti UN is not Anti War...Anti UN is Anti UN. Not all UN Nations are supporting the war. Even the majority of those who are supporting the war are against it. But out of loyalty as a UN Member and bullying by Bush, they have sent their troops in aid.

Anti UN is Anti International Sovernity. Anti International Diplomacy. Anti peace keeping discussions and strategies on an international unified level among all Nations. Anti UN is a desire to break the bond with United Nations and have freedom of power to do as they choose and not be held to UN resolutions that aspire to world peace and equality for all Nations.

How would you feel given the speculations currently on Iran and it's Nuclear Program if Iran pulled out of the UN? Therefore being free to do as they wish with nil restraints, sanctions, or impetiments? As a current member of the UN the world can sanction Iran which would at least be another recourse to military action and war. Ron Paul should rethink his rhetoric on pulling US out of the United Nations. As I can't think of any other reason to do so short of being Free to unleash their power upon the world. Ironically, the same reason many of the Mid East Nations dislike the UN as it warps their free reign. North Korea only joined the UN in the last decade. Does that give you any insight as to what the UN stands for on an international perspective?

As far as your question regarding understanding you'll have to ask the Liberals yourself on that one. I don't know any personally being a Canadian.

But I can say, that President Bush hasn't done much to give me a warm feeling about his Republican Administration or Leadership.

All the Best,

Less government means more freedom for you and I.

Ron Paul is too old compared to McCain, eh? Did you know that Ron Paul is a whole one year older than John McCain? My goodness Joe, it looks like Johnny boy is out of contention, too. Oh wait, he already is–Ron Paul has substantially more cash on hand than John does. Sorry, Joe, you and your ad hominem attacks can take a hike–don't forget to take John McCain with you, too.

And to Donovan in Hanover: Your ridiculous statement holds NO MERIT. Accusing Ron Paul of being an "anti-semite" because he thinks that Israel should fund its own economy for a change is just as ignorant as labelling all Americans "racists" if they don't choose to vote for Obama or "anti- women's rights" if they don't choose to vote for Hillary.

RON PAUL

He has come in top 3 for almost every straw poll...and has a won a whole bunch of them.

And I believe his fund raising for Q3 will move him further into front runner status.

Congress gave Bush authorization for war, in essence putting the blood on their own hands without making a declaration per the constitution. Democrats can defund this war with a simple majority NOW. They haven't because THEY DON'T WANT TO. Anti-UN is anti-war. The only truly anti-war candidate is a republican. Tell me I'm not the only liberal that understands this.

The American public is very tired of both your and the Democratic partys' rhetoric and divisive politics. They are also tired of the Iraq war, tired of being over-taxed, and angry at the loss of their civil-liberties. They are discontent with the policy of "fear mongering" that was so key in keeping Mr. Bush and your party in power in 2004. You should have learned your lessons on these topics in the last election in 2006, but unfortunately you seem to still have an affinity for candidates that push these agendas. You will lose the 2008 races for the President and both houses of Congress unless you make drastic changes, and make them right now. You have only one candidate that the American people are showing a real interest in, Ron Paul. I don't make this assertion without fact, as you can look up online user statistics showing the the RonPaul2008.com website is generating nearly as much traffic as all of your other candidates combined. Mitt Romney even recently placed an add which seems to try and distance himself from his mainstream Republican party, no doubt taking a cue from the Paul campaign's results.

Its time to face these inevitable facts:
Rudy will not win against any of the Democratic contenders in the general election. Nor will McCain, or Fred Thompson, or even Mitt Romney, as the American people will see and label him as a flip-flop for going against a party he was originally inline with. They want someone they can trust and believe it or not, they might still vote Republican if only you would return to the core values that were the center of your party for so many decades. Please embrace your core values, please embrace the American people, please unite us as one under a President that we can all trust, black or white, poor or rich, young or old... Ron Paul. It's the "Hail Mary" play of politics for this election, but it is the only play you've got.

heck, I'm a democrat and I like Ron Paul. He actually believes in something.

Nailed it on the head.

This new republican party or New order
is out of control. I hope we fix this next election or God help US.

How soon we forget.

Also lookup:
iraq wmd 2000

So Bush was the only person that believed there were WMD's?

There are obviously some instances where you will have to raise taxes, regardless of your political views, you must be open to all types of legislation when the time comes.

Taxes on China are exactly what we need to get American's back to work for instance.

Ha, what an idiot withdraw from the UN. We aren't truly obligated to follow UN rules anyway.

Does Ron Paul not realize this a treaty and therefore a bind agreement, not easily pulled out of, it hold sway as much as a constitutional amendment.

Whats, so wrong with taking advice from the WTO. America is the most debt ridden country in the world and our congress is least efficient government in the world. Taking the advice from foreign nations, who clearly are doing a better job at managing their money can't be an all around bad idea.

If he doesn't like an aspect of the WTO, let him say what that aspect is, not beat around the bush and make sensationalist statements.

Being an outgrowth of the United Nations is not the whole of the United Nations. One should not dissolve themselves from a United Whole to get rid of a small sector.

The WTO and the United Nations are not one and the same. The WTO is for the purposes of trading between United Nations. I don't disagree that this organization does not benefit all members. But, Ron Paul appears to be penalizing the United Nations for infractions taking place within the WTO that the UN do not govern.

The United Nations was formed after World War II for the purpose of Uniting Nations in the cause of peace and preventing such tragic wars in our future.

"These instutions have no legitimacy but their allow to influence our laws.Dr. Paul is right no one except the American people should have a say on how we run our country."

And I expect Iraq feels the same don't you?

The Iraq War was not due to UN Resolutions. The Iraq war began and continues with George W. Bush. If it had been proven that Iraq had WMD's than Bush may have had a valid reason to ensure such weapons were not used against the US. However, he did not have that proof. In fact he was told by his inspectors, Iraq did not have WMD's.

He did not discuss the Iraq issue with the United Nations, as would be normal protocol. He told the United Nations he was attacking Iraq. And he told Nato Allies if they weren't with him, they were against him. A bully tactic to force Nato Allies to comply with his Will be it right or wrong. And the outcome of his unnecessary rush to War is what Iraqui's and the World are forced to live with today.

President Bush's decision to attack Iraq goes against every grain the United Nations stands for. They United to prevent that very action by one Nation against the other! Bush took matters into his own hands.

So, I guess you could say, no one except the American people HAS a say on how they run their country. So if this is the reason Ron Paul wants to dissolve the US membership with the United Nations, there is no need. As the US is already running their own country the way they see fit,while being a member of the United Nations.
So how exactly is the United Nations influencing or impeding the US from governing their Nation as they see fit? The question should be, Why does the US feel they are privilidged in having impunity to UN resolutions that other UN Members are required to abide by?

Thank you for allowing me to voice my comments.

The UN has tried to impose taxes. They are trying to impose gun control laws. Individual countries are more than capable of talking with other nations and working out treaties without the UN and its aspirations of creating a global government.

Ron Paul lives in Texas, but actually is from a town near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He paid his way through college with a paper route.

Ron Paul is not an anti-semite, in fact, he has pictures of Mises (Jewish economist founder of the Austrian School of Economics) and Rothbard (Father of libertarianism and Economist who is also Jewish).

No war experience? He is a DRAFTED air force veteran medic, who knows how many soldier's lives he saved with his own hands.

So please, cut it out with the 'tin foil' talk. Do about 15 minutes of research on Dr. Paul before you call him names.

Look at our choices for a Republican candidate this Presidential election. Ron Paul should win the primary HANDS DOWN!

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Libertarians DO understand the necessity of working with other nations. Ron Paul discusses non-interventionism, trading, and diplomacy with other nations, and is for not letting our sovereignty be ruled by international organizations and trade agreements. But he is NOT for going at it alone.

He is also the only real conservative running for the Republican nomination. The rest are neo-cons or liberals in sheep's clothing. For anyone who thinks that Ron Paul goes too far with his beliefs and policies, you need to learn more about WHY he espouses the policies that he does. They aren't just randomly thrown together, and you are just uneducated about the reasons he has, and fearful of something that you don't understand. Read more about libertarianism, get educated on the issues, because this isn't some random, misplaced ideals of his. Ron Paul is for freedom, and for bringing our country back to where it needs to be.

For those who think that pulling out of the UN would be dangerous, it is because you are rightfully fearful of the world that Bush has created for us. Ron Paul would do the right things to make the world like America again, even WITHOUT being a part of the UN, for a start by not policing the globe.

You guys are ridiculous, building your straw man out of isolationism and then refuting it like that is what Ron Paul actually stands for.