Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point

FOXNews.com ^ | 5/21/2007 | Radley Balko

[The_Eaglet]

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

[fortheDeclaration]

The purpose of the American military is to provide for the common defense of the United States of America.

You have confused the reason given for the Constitution with the role of the United States military.

An Act to Provide a Naval Armament, March 18, 1794 Whereas the depredations committed by the Algerine corsairs on the commerce of the United States, render it necessary that a naval force should be provided for its protection. http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/04/04b.htm

Stoddert envisioned a navy that would eventually be capable of defending expanding American interests and maritime commerce. He pushed for the creation of ships of the line that could rival the most powerful ships of the European navies. Though he did not succeed in this endeavor, he is credited with being the first "battleship man" of the U.S. http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/05/05d.htm

A glorious opportunity now presents to the brave and hardy Seamen of New-England, to enter the service of their country--to avenge its wrongs--and to protect its rights on the ocean. Those brave Lads, are now invited to repair to the FLAG of the Constitution now flying at the above rendezvous; where they shall be kindly received, handsomely entertained, and may enter into immediate pay. http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/05/05j.htm

In the years between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, the navy's primary purpose was the protection of trade. During the 1820s and 1830s, Congress redirected funds to the construction of the smaller sloops needed for thwarting the pirates who were disrupting trade in the Caribbean. During this period, naval officers were expected not only to command their ships, but also to serve as diplomats in far-flung nations. http://www.mariner.org/usnavy/09/09f.htm

[Gondring]

I remember Bill Maher stating that he thought the terrorists were heroic since they were willing to give their lives for what they believed in.

I believe you have a poor memory, then. Please show me where he said they were "heroic."

[cowbot]

Who reinvented the language and when? I know you’re right about this, but i never heard a good explanation of who usurped the word ‘liberal’ in politics and turned it around to mean (almost) the opposite.

cheers

[P-40]

We are where we are in the world folks and we have made our Bed with the alliances we have made

That is what Paul said.

[P-40]

And their history justified the attacks on them?

Did I say that?

[NCSteve]

Who reinvented the language and when?

It has evolved over time, but the origin of American liberalism can probably be traced to Croly and Lippman and the founding of The New Republic magazine in 1914. They adapted the ideas of European social liberalism to the American culture. This is where liberalism diverged from libertarianism. Croly and Lippman were statists. During the 1930s, the socialist element began to creep in with their embrace of Keynesian economics and various aspects of Marxism.

American liberals and libertarians share some of the same beliefs with regard to certain social policies, especially with regard to the state's role in enforcing morality, but they differ strongly in the areas of economics and government control of money and property. American conservatives and American liberals both have statist beliefs, but they differ on exactly where the state should insert itself into everyday life.

[fortheDeclaration]

And their history justified the attacks on them? Did I say that?

You asked if I knew the histories of those nations.

So what relevancy does their history have with why they were attacked by Islamic terrorists.

If we were attacked because of our bombing them for ten years, why were they attacked also?

[fortheDeclaration]

I remember Bill Maher stating that he thought the terrorists were heroic since they were willing to give their lives for what they believed in. I believe you have a poor memory, then. Please show me where he said they were "heroic."

I thought I heard it on Larry King.

I think his contention that their acts were 'courageous' and not cowardly would be considered synonymous with 'heroic'.

'Daring and Risky'

So stop playing word games.

[P-40]

So what relevancy does their history have with why they were attacked by Islamic terrorists.

Because they, like us, have some thing(s) they have done or some country they support that also attracts the attention of the terrorists. Does that mean they, or we, should change policy? No. It just means that we need to understand cause and effect. That is about all Paul said.

[MHT]

We are fools not to acknowledge that they hate us, which Rudy does. However, they hate us for more than involvement in their political terrain. They hate us because they perceive themselves as material have-not’s in a world of abundance. Their religion feeds this, which Paul did not acknowledge. They value death, we value life. How can you have a dialogue with people with whom you do not share the most basic of all values?

[Gondring]

He didn't use helpless women and children to do so.

So if the planes had no passengers, it would have been more courageous?

I think that's a red herring. Running into a burning building to save someone is just as courageous whether the person inside is a woman, child, or man. You're confusing courage with heroism, perhaps?

Who was more courageous...Clinton, lobbing cruise missiles, or our men and women who are going over to Iraq, facing death? I'd say the latter. Courage involves taking action even in the face of risk or certain death. The hijackers displayed this; our troops are displaying this; Clinton didn't.

[Red Phillips]

“The purpose of the American military is to provide for the common defense of the United States of America.”

You are correct. I see nothing in the Constitution about protecting our allies. Surely we are allowed to protect our interests, but how do you define interests? For example, keeping oil shipping lanes free would be our interests. Kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was not.

[Ditter]

Good one Star, now if you could just put a red clown nose on Paul.

[P-40]

Their religion feeds this, which Paul did not acknowledge.

Perhaps that was because he had only a few seconds at a time to say anything at all.

[cowbot]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If all you respect is force, you want to solve everything by force.

Ron Paul is absolutely correct. Bombing countries has consequences. Killing a million people has lots of consequences. Some freepers have no problems with the US position that “we think the price is worth it”. I submit that callous disrespect of human life deserves to be called evil.

But it’s also stupid and barbaric. Some of you are too blind to see the damage it causes your own country, your moral standing, your respect in the world. To the annihilationists, just remember the tune “What go’ around come’around...”

[StarCMC]

How's this work for ya?

[Ditter]

Perfect! LOL! (You are so smart.)

[TheKidster]

Well he blew it. Now you can’t even mention anything negative about how we went about it without being shouted down as a defeatist, blame america kook.
It sucks!

[tioga]

wasn’t it McCain who had the straight-talk express?

[Captain Kirk]

Ron Paul bump