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]

Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. He tends to be more isolationist from what I gather. Then again, whatever we did on the foreign policy front, we would take a hard look at just what we hoped to accomplish and if it was worth the cost.

Yes, that is correct, that is what he would do.

And the effect would be the same, either we fight them there or we fight them here, but we are going to fight them because according to them the world belongs to 'Allah'.

[P-40]

It was not our bombing them that emboldened them to wage Jihad against us.

That is one reason. One of many. Each bombing is like a big recruiting advertisement for them. Not to say that we should or should not bomb; we just need to be aware of what comes with it.

It sounds like you figured out one reason Spain got hit. Don't you know some reasons the other countries got hit?

[P-40]

either we fight them there or we fight them here

We will be doing both. We are drawing some of their resources into the Middle East right now but their operations are cheap provided they have enough recruits *and* we allow them into the United States. They have plenty...and we will.

[StarCMC]

ROFLMAOPIMPASTD!!!!!!

[fortheDeclaration]

either we fight them there or we fight them here We will be doing both. We are drawing some of their resources into the Middle East right now but their operations are cheap provided they have enough recruits *and* we allow them into the United States. They have plenty...and we will.

That is why Ron Paul's immigration policy is a sound one.

But make no mistake about it, we are fighting them because of who they are, not because of anything we did to them.

[P-40]

we are fighting them because of who they are, not because of anything we did to them.

It is both. It has always been both. To think otherwise would mean that the Japanese fleet was just out tooling around in the Pacific one day and attacked Pearl Harbor on a lark.

Paul has some sensible immigration plans. I'm sure he read the 9/11 Commission Report and remembers the section on the 1993 WTC bombing and what happens when you grant blanket amnesty to people you know nothing about.

[Petronski]

Perhaps Ron Paul and Jimmy "The Imbecile" Carter are actually cut from the same idiotic cloth ...

They certainly are. And Cindy Sheehan is the seamstress.

[StarCMC]

Bump!

[Ohioan]

While I do appreciate reading your comments, I have to wonder... why do you bother?

Because I believe that America--the America that worked and achieved, while understanding the essential truths of the human experience and the moral, as well as pragmatic limitations on the power of her own Governments--is foundering. We are about to lose it all, in a cauldron of chaos.

Because I believe that most of our so-called "leadership" in Washington is too 'clueless' to really be accused of corruption; that not one in 50 in high positons inside the Beltway could articulate anything worthy of the consideration of a reasonably intelligent ten year old; that not one in 50 could define our problems, even if one in 50 could be found with the courage to actually address them.

Because I believe that almost every program or proposal that arises on either side of the political aisle is at least counter-productive (to an extreme), even--as is rarely the case--if it is actually Constitutional; that we are living Andersen's "Emperor's New Clothes," and that someone, even your humble servant, needs to attempt at least to fulfill the role of the little boy, who did not know how to lie.

Thanks for giving me an excuse to rant a little. Not that that solves anything either.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes, but generally Libertarians are foreign policy liberals - apologize and retreat.

[Sam Gamgee]

I know what they believe and essentially they are anarchists.

[jpsb]

This thread is going to need pop corn and beer.

[mimaw]

Paul is a kook, he’s aligned himself with the fringe. He wants another 9-11 investigation. He’s a dangerous lunatic. Let him run as a libertarian and don’t keep him in Republican debates.

[jpsb]

"We should not have gone to war in the first Gulf War"

Completely totally agree! Why the hell risk American lives to reinstall the Emire of Kuwait. The same Emirge that REFUSTED to allow US Navy vessels entry into Kuwait waters forcing the USA to bring in huge barges to service war ships during a stand off with Iran. What a crock. Screw the Emige of Kuwait, hell Sadamn would have enjoyed helping us take down our real enemy Iran.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

What Paul also did, was accuse the U.S. of bombing Iraq for 10 years. When our planes were targeted by Iraqi SAM’s in the “no-fly-zone” after the Gulf War, they took them out. Self defense as I see it. IMHO, Paul is an absolute and irrelevant nut-job.

[Gondring]

Dresden was chosen as a target for its lack of anti-aircraft defenses, and the large number of civilians present--swollen by refugees from the advancing Red Army. Certainly not a heroic or courageous event, by your definition. Does that make the RAF/USAAF crews monsters? Cowards?

I have yet to find a definition of "courage" that relies upon the value of one's actions....rather, it is merely the ability to take action in the face of fear--for good OR for evil.

You're twisting the words, implying that our enemy is cowardly...and that implies easy-to-defeat. Rather, recognize that they are willing to do things that others might fear...and because of that, can be quite formidable. They are as 'courageous' as the murderer at Virigina Tech.

Care to make a case for him as well?

The hijackers flew into certain death to achieve a goal beyond themselves. The gunman at Virginia Tech might have been courageous if he'd had a threat to him from armed students, but since it was well known that the students are unarmed, there was no fear for him to face. Why would you consider him courageous?

[Sam Gamgee]

Let him in the debates - everytime he opens his mouth the crowd goes silent.

[Sam Gamgee]

Bill Maher is not a fan - that has got to tell you something. I’m not saying Paul wouldn’t get a lot of votes if he ran as President. Just that he would be a disaster as one.

[Sam Gamgee]

The Germans made their bed - sorry if I don’t lost any tears for those that died in Dresden.

[death2tyrants]

“And just who the hell is “Pro war”? “

I am. War is very effective in removing dictatorships and replacing them with democracy.

“Who the hell are you to call that man a traitor?”

I attribute this name to those who publicly make false accusations against their own country in a time of war, like Ron Paul.

“Just what has Paul “lied” about”

He lied when he claimed our intervention in Iraq was ‘illegal’.

” and what Conspiracy theories are you talking about?”

The ‘truther’ conspiricy theories. What’s Ron’s take on those?