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.

[I see my hands]

"Maybe because Ron Paul isn’t an Islamist"

Correct. Exactly. We were attacked because of who they are not because of what we did.

Yeah, maybe.

[bluetone006]

It isn't about poverty, it isn't about a lack of education, it isn't about whatever the made up "provocation of the week" is - it is about a belief system - a religion.

We have 3 choices - we can convert - we can die - or we can kill them. Everything else is fluff.

They are willing to sacrifice and die for their belief system. What are we going to do?

[Rodney King]

I think it is obscene to suggest that there are “reasons” for the killing of innocents.

Of course there are reasons. Any time innocents are killed there are reasons. That there are reasons doesn't make it ok, but it might be useful to know what the reasons are.

For example, the reason robbers sometimes shoot the store clerk is to prevent the clerk from ID'ing him later.

The reason women abort their children is so that they don't have to be saddled with them.

etc. etc.

One of the reasons why the arabs are able to recruit teenage males to try to kill us is they point to the fact that we travel halfway around the world to mess with their affairs.

Now, that doesn't neccessarily mean we should change anything we are doing, but I don't see it being absurd to at least ask ourselves "Well, should we maybe stop travelling halfway around the world to mess with their affairs"?

I wouldn't change because I think the damage is done, but it would have been nice if we took a non-interventionist approach after ww2.

[bluetone006]

It’s a good thing we didn’t take a “non-interventionist approach” after WWII. Otherwise I would be writing in Cyrillic. The ME was a battle ground - as was the whole world.

[Misterioso]

We “had it coming” like when we walk into a junkyard at night and get bitten by the guard dog. I think that is Paul’s point. I say bring your .45 when you do that.

[pacpam]

-—I wouldn’t change because I think the damage is done, but it would have been nice if we took a non-interventionist approach after ww2-—.

They, the Islamist who want to rule the world through their religion, would only have gotten here sooner.

[doug from upland]

I would not trust Paul to defend the country. Go, Fred.

[George W. Bush]

I don’t know why we conservatives have to put up with libertarian - constitutional party idiots.

I don't know why we have to put up with "compassionate conservatives" and neo-con warmongers.

[fortheDeclaration]

Paul’s comments implied that it was correct to blame the USA. They did?

Ofcourse they did!

The implication was if the United States were not involved in the Mid East, 9/11 would not have happened.

Tancredo had it correct when he stated that the real issue was Islamic hatred for everything non-Islamic.

So, if the reason for the 9/11 terrorist act was due to our bombing them for years, what is their excuse for attacking the other nations in the world, Spain, Germany, France, India, etc.

[billbears]

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

My eyes must be playing tricks with me. This is on Fox is it? What? Somebody that tells the truth decided to hack their site? Excellent news and well reasoned argument.

[vigilence]

Oblige the SOB’s!

[billbears]

Paul phrased it very poorly during the debate, but he's right in that the various terrorist groups have had it in for us

Problem here is threefold I think. Paul doesn't seem to memorize soundbites so he shoots from the hip (sort of like politicians did when they used to tell the truth). Fox News Wendell Goler twisted his words to ask a question through insinuation Rep. Paul never said. Rudy Giuliani didn't keep his mouth shut and allow Rep. Paul to finish his statement.

[fortheDeclaration]

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

He was a threat to the region, which is of vital interest to us.

He was firing on our planes which were in place to enforce the peace treaty which was ignoring.

He had terrorist camps in his nation.

Had Israel not knocked out his nuke program he would have had nuclear weapons.

Getting rid of Saddam was long overdue, it should have been done after the Gulf War.

The problem was not that we attacked Iraq, but that Bush has flinched and not attacked Iran as well.

[Misterioso]

Giuliani was either lying,...

He's just not as good at it as some of the other politicians.

[presidio9]

Nobody wants to say it (except maybe Ron Paul and a few FReepers here), but if Clinton had taken the threat seriously, these days people would say "Osama been who?"

Irrelevant finger-pointing is a waste of time, and so is Ron Paul. What's done is done. If we left the Middle East entirely, tomorrow, do you suppose the radicals would just forget about us? Their stated intention is to kill all infidels, and Islamicize the world.

[Kaslin]

Neither would I

[Kaslin]

I wonder how many consider Ron Paul a Texan? Yet many say President Bush is not a Texan. Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, PA. He and his wife moved in 1968 to Texas (he was 33) President Bush’s parents moved to TX when G>W. was 2 years old. That makes him more of a Texan then Ron Paul

[free_life]

Neither Ron nor Rudy can win the GOP nomination, so why waste so much time on what these two say and do?

Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, and Bill Mahar should start their own little party. Bab’s can raise cash for them from the moonbat camp.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Apparently, you missed the debate.

[P-40]

Tancredo had it correct when he stated that the real issue was Islamic hatred for everything non-Islamic.

No, he only stated one common part of a much larger issue.

for attacking the other nations in the world, Spain, Germany, France, India, etc.

Do you know the history of these countries?