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.

[The_Eaglet]

I’d like to know why Bin Laden hasn’t declared a Jihad against Amsterdam. They have legal drinking under age 21, legalized marijuana, and legalized prostitution...all major sins under Islam.

Their culture is much more sinful, atheistic, and anti-Islam...so why aren’t they being attacked?

Oh right...because they’ve never had never had hundreds of thousands of troops on muslim holy land...and they aren’t trying to “reshape the world” through military force.

Thanks for the points of contrast.

[af_vet_rr]

BS, Paul’s comments implied that it was correct to blame the USA. Paul is an isolationist. The USA cannot become isolationist in the modern world.

I don't think he was blaming the US, so much as he was blaming our presence. When I was in Saudi Arabia in the early and mid 90s, I came across plenty of people that despised us. People that held government or religious leadership positions. They hated us being there. They raised hell if our female troops so much as touched a steering wheel, etc., etc.

It's not only what we represent in a religious or moral sense (aka the Great Satan crap that Iran has spewed for decades), it's that we stand between them and a caliphate.

That's the truly scary thing, is that the only thing separating a large portion of the Middle East from becoming a caliphate is us.

That's not the whole story though - we also looked weak and vulnerable while under Clinton - by not taking OBL and his ilk seriously when they killed Americans, our enemies in the Middle East saw us as being too fearful of taking them on. Combine our reluctance to go after our enemies with our continued presence in Saudi Arabia, and it was only a matter of time.

[mtntop3]

What a joke of an article. These anti-war clowns act as though Iraq was chosen at random. Ron Paul is a lying conspiracy theorist and a traitor.

He most likely believes his conspiracy theories. He is also probably antisemitic, as many of his fellow travelers are. I would classify him as more fool than traitor.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

What a joke of an article. These anti-war clowns act as though Iraq was chosen at random. Ron Paul is a lying conspiracy theorist and a traitor.

And just who the hell is "Pro war"? Certainly not President Bush, and damned sure not anyone who has actually fought in one.

Unlike the rest of these clowns, (with the notable exceptions of John McCain and Duncan Hunter), Ron Paul was in the Vietnam War. He put a few of those kids back together as much as was possible.

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

And while we're on the subject, Just what has Paul "lied" about, and what Conspiracy theories are you talking about?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

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

i'm a Ron Paul supporter and a Pittsburgh resident, but with all do respect, i don't think that anybody on this thread gives a rat's @$$ where Paul, George W. Bush, or any other candidate comes from.

Pro Ron Paul, or Anti Ron Paul, Pro (fill in the blank) or anti (fill in the blank), it's about the issues, not where they were born or how long they've lived in their present home.

[Sam Gamgee]

Yes he did. Ron Paul as President would be a disaster. He would sit down with Al Queda and say “What can we do to have peace? Close all our embassies? Prohibit all Americans from tainting your lands with their products of trade? We are more than willing to remove our infidel presence from your lands”

[Sam Gamgee]

Libertarians are a strain of liberalism.

[Sam Gamgee]

You hit the nail on the head. Ron Paul wants to follow Al Queda’s wish list.

[fortheDeclaration]

You big-government interventionists kill me. We should not have gone to war in the first Gulf War. The defense of Kuwait is entirely the responsibility of Kuwait. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the use of the US military to fight on behalf of Kuwait or anyone else. The purpose of the US military is solely the defense of America. So we should not have been enforcing the UN no-fly zone in the first place. Conservative should want us out of the UN. You interventionists are whistling past the graveyard. No one except the already firmly committed still buys your rhetoric. Once firm interventionists are jumping ship or backtracking. (Sullivan, Kincaid, etc.) Those who have been anti-intervention but were afraid to speak up are now emboldened. Rightist anti-war, non-interventionist have always been out there but now we have a voice to rally around, Ron Paul. Paleos and libertarians alike are joining forces against the big-government Wilsonian interventionists who pretend to be conservatives. (Ha.) Just watch the Internet for proof. At conservative sites that post pro-Rudy content and disparage Paul the comments usually run heavily in Paul’s favor. They used to could safely get away with posting pro-war boilerplate. Now they can’t. Principled non-interventionists and Paul supporters are everywhere. Just look at FR. I used to be about the only person I ever saw posting anti-intervention comments here. Now I am not. Big-government Wilsonian interventionists, your reign is coming to an end.

The purpose of the American military is to protect American interests which are all over the world.

Kuwait was a vital part of those American interests.

Finally, I doubt you were 'alone' in advocating non-interventionist views.

There is nothing 'Wilsonian' in advocating a United States first policy, of protecting our allies and interests.

That is far different than a U.N. New World Order system pushed by Wilson, FDR and Clinton.

There is a middle ground between the two contrasting views.

[fortheDeclaration]

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?

And their history justified the attacks on them?

Tancredo stated the essential part, which is hatred for anything Western.

The radical Muslims attack because they can, just like the Communists and Nazi's.

The only thing they understand and respect is force.

[fortheDeclaration]

Do you have a link for that?

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.

[fortheDeclaration]

The point is, Maher didn't call them heroes. A person may be courageous yet a scoundrel.

No, the question was were they cowardly or not.

Taking weapons on a plane and holding helpless women and children hostage is cowardly.

Killing civilians is cowardly.

Bill Mahar finds this act brave since he never found anything in his life worth fighting for.

[fortheDeclaration]

What I find quite interesting is that these Arabs copied in such detail an ancient Jewish tactic (suicidally take down a building to kill 3,000 enemies), yet I don't think anyone debates Samson's "cowardice" in his actions.

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

He killed a cruel enemy that deserved to be killed.

Amazing that you guys can't distinquish the difference.

[fortheDeclaration]

Ron Paul is a lying conspiracy theorist and a traitor.

That is unfair.

Ron Paul is a loyal American who holds to a Old Right non-interventionist philosophy.

I think he is wrong, but it is unfair to impugn his motives.

[The_Eaglet]

Libertarians are a strain of liberalism.

I think that depends on the Libertarian. I am not a Libertarian, but I consider Ron Paul to be a conservative libertarian. For example, Ron Paul is pro-life, and he favors strong border security. These are not Libertarian platform positions, but they are conservative positions.

[The_Eaglet]

The purpose of the American military is to protect American interests which are all over the world.

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

[The_Eaglet]

You are welcome.

[NCSteve]

Ron Paul is a lying conspiracy theorist and a traitor.

Back that up with evidence or be exposed as just another juvenile, name-calling Koolaid-drinker.

[ballplayer]

I understand Pauls comments and the way I look at it ,if you feel as Paul does that our Foreign Policy has caused this terrorism ,fine then vote for him to change the policy,does that mean withdrawal form the world stage ?Are we going to run whenever countries or individuals complain about our policies which in most cases are undertaken for our national interest,or maybe we dont care about our way of life or what it takes to maintain it.
We are where we are in the world folks and we have made our Bed with the alliances we have made ,we can run from it now because of the dangers we face or run to the therapists and confess all the evil deeds that only The United States has perpatrated on the Naive world or stand up and defend our way of life .

[NCSteve]

Libertarians are a strain of liberalism.

That would depend on what kind of liberalism you are talking about. If you are referring to classical Seventeenth Century liberalism, the kind that the founders practiced, then you are correct. If you are talking about modern American liberalism then you couldn't be farther from the truth. Modern liberals are statists and socialists, libertarians are vehemently opposed to both ideologies.