Thread: Ron Paul Is Not Who....

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I thought he was. He said in tonights debate, basically, that because of our foreign policy, we brough 911 on ourselves.
I realize that Libertarians don't believe in meddeling & are, for the most part, nationalists, but to blame the US for that atrocity goes beyond the pale.
He had very little chance before at getting the nomination, now he has none.

Well, yes. America did do something to upset the Salafists. But did the punishment fit the crime? No.

Jerry Falwell and that Kansas preacher blame the gays. Others blame Hollywood. Some blame the Pentagon. But no matter the reasoning behind the attacks, it was not justified.

Originally Posted by dbelkau

Another case of the GOP hopefuls putting as much distance between themselves and the admin. as possible.

No. Read Paul's history and comments over the years. If he could pull together to coalition to get elected, he would be the best president since Reagan, and possibly better than him, though that would put him next to George Washington.

Originally Posted by Niviasar

Well, yes. America did do something to upset the Salafists. But did the punishment fit the crime? No.

Jerry Falwell and that Kansas preacher blame the gays. Others blame Hollywood. Some blame the Pentagon. But no matter the reasoning behind the attacks, it was not justified.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by Niviasar

Well, yes. America did do something to upset the Salafists. But did the punishment fit the crime? No.

Jerry Falwell and that Kansas preacher blame the gays. Others blame Hollywood. Some blame the Pentagon. But no matter the reasoning behind the attacks, it was not justified.

No, of course not. The strongest reason bin Laden gave for attacking the US was that the US had troops stationed on Saudi sand, you know, the sand that's connected to the magic mystical city of Mecca. Clearly the thing to do was establsih popular opinion in Saudi Arabia to ask the US to leave.

Being major asssssholes, bin Laden and gang decided to murder thousands of people totally unconnected with the issues that concerned him.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Why not? There's a kernal of truth in that. What Paul is forgetting is that after we were dragged into WWII by the incompetents in the other nations that could have avoided it we were thrust into the position of being the only nation that could fend off the Soviet Union. The Cold War colored our decisions for the next 45 years, until Reagan won it.

Right now we're still in the inevitable period after the collapse of any empire in which the lesser nations are scrambling around for pieces to pick up. The anomalous state of this particular era is that the empire that collapsed wasn't the strongest entity in the neighborhood. Clinton was far too interested in his zipper and his politicking to actually do any leading in the opportune time after the Soviet Union collapsed, letting instead world events to drive us. How fucking stupid.

And sure, GHW Bush wasn't much shakes as Leader Without a Cold War, either, but the critical time was the Clinton Era, when things were starting to fall into some kind of shape.

Paul's either conveniently forgetting this, or he's missing it.

What he's forgetting is what the Surrender Monkeys are too stupid to learn:

Once you're entangled, you can't pull an Alexander and simply cut the Gordian Knot. Too many people will get hurt, including the US.

Clinton, and Bush before him, should have been seeking ways to reduce our entanglements and non-commercial activities overseas that would not reduce our national security but decrease our exposure and interference in other lands.

And it's always been obvious that this Bush wouldn't be able to do that. And it's equally obvious that none of the candidates likely to get elected have any idea what's needed in the field of foreign policy.

damn fine post there

sadly I don't see any good way to really dis-engage from some of our problems in the Mid-east, in any senerio some bad shit is gonna go down.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of our shifting from a cold-war to post-cold war foriegn policy and the problems we've had doing it. In point of fact I think we're still in Cold War mode by in large.........a large professional standing army testifies to that in my book.

I don't think there's any way to avoid a whole lot of hurt in the Mid-east......but I think that we as a nation need to shift modes from our more hard-power cold-war stance to a soft-power mode. Use our commerical and cultural ties to seek our goals more then our bullets and bombs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no peacenik, the war in Afganistan was just by every measure of the word, and I believe we should strive to maintain our naval and air supremacy. But at our current rate, the national building, the peace-keeping, the troop deployments, we're overstretching ourselves and needlessly.

Oh and go Ron Paul!

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

No, of course not. The strongest reason bin Laden gave for attacking the US was that the US had troops stationed on Saudi sand, you know, the sand that's connected to the magic mystical city of Mecca. Clearly the thing to do was establsih popular opinion in Saudi Arabia to ask the US to leave.

Being major asssssholes, bin Laden and gang decided to murder thousands of people totally unconnected with the issues that concerned him.

there was always the desire in Bin Ladin to engage his percieved "enemies of Islam" but the bases on Saudi soil definatly drove him........

Lets look at our choices.

Hillary:



Obama:



Giuliani



Ron Paul and his Wife:




And after weighing their backgrounds, stances on issues, their hopes and goals, Ron gets my vote.

I still vote Giuliani since Ron Paul doesnt have a chance in hell, especially after his comments on 9/11.

While his comments were probably not the best words he's uttered, they will give him a lot of name recognition in the coming weeks. The problem I had was after the debate and Hannity interviewed him and wouldn't let Paul justify the comments he made. Hannity is a hack.

Originally Posted by Migi e!

I thought he was. He said in tonights debate, basically, that because of our foreign policy, we brough 911 on ourselves.
I realize that Libertarians don't believe in meddeling & are, for the most part, nationalists, but to blame the US for that atrocity goes beyond the pale.
He had very little chance before at getting the nomination, now he has none.

I agree with him somewhat. I was totally against this thought until I spoke to people from Europe. The way they explained it made perfect sense.