Posted on 05/16/2007 4:24:00 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Only an complete idiot would trust the word of a terrorist.
He’s willing to kill millions of innocent people to further his fascist cause, but you think he’s not willing to stoop to lying... Wow! You must be supporting Ron Paul, huh?
So whose word should we take as to someone’s motive?
Should we try to figure it out for ourselves? Because if we’re wrong, the consequences could be not too good.
“Because if we’re wrong, the consequences could be not too good.”
Are you nuts?
“Because if we’re wrong, the consequences could be not too good.”
Are you nuts?
“Because if we’re wrong, the consequences could be not too good.”
Are you nuts?
I’m not sure a) why you’re questioning my sanity, or b) why you felt it necessary to do so three times.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that something awful happens to us. Like, perhaps, a terrorist attack on big buildings.
If, for the sake of argument, we as a nation are doing something that irritates one group enough that they attack our big buildings, would it not behoove us to KNOW that our actions are irritating someone to that extent?
Or would it be better to pretend that although we are told we’re irritating, we ignore it and proceed on our irritating way?
Just for the sake of argument, mind you.
Because where I come from, it’s one thing to defeat the enemy from outside. It’s another entirely, and often far more effective, to get inside his head, learn what he thinks and why, and use it against him.
You don't know anything about him.
You just proved it.
I’m not “reading into” anything. His statement at the debate is nothing new or earth shattering for him. He has been taking this approach since shortly after 9/11. He isn’t merely telling us why he thinks 9/11 happened -— he is telling us to acquiesce based on that “why”.
Indeed. In this video, Paul explains expressly that, of course, the American people are not to blame for 911, but even the 911 commission suggests the policies of the US Government arouse the anger of foreigners, even the CIA agrees. All that Ron is saying, is if American policy is detrimental and creates blowback, maybe we should think of changing the policy. It is too bad he has to condescend to explain that to the demagogues, supporters of current policy, who cynically accuse him of blaming America, but politics is like that.
The part about asking Rudy to apologize after he reads the 911 report and sees Paul is right, its obvious he's joking but I expect the Paul haters to take it seriously and criticize him for that too.
“Again, the simple ‘we exercise influence in the Mideast so they hate us’ does not validly describe history or human affairs.”
This I would agree with and you all make good points. I guess each past war needs to be judged on a conflict by conflict basis, and my opinion is that there are many past conflicts we should perhaps not have been in and that much of our government’s foreign policy and ‘grand schemes’ have been counter productive.
But I also think the US could have been more aggressive in past conflicts, if we are going to war we need to go to full war. But this piddle paddle here and ‘support’ and ‘advisors’ and arments and money etc... and cia undercover stuff as a nation building exercise is not a good idea. Someone on another thread termed the ideal, ‘ferocious isolationism’, a term I sort of like, as it distinguishes from a more liberal, ‘reckless pacifism’.
And you’re right, most of the hate from the middle east stems from their governments, governments much more oppressive than ours. Paul did not address this, and perhaps he should have. But even if there is far more blame lying over there, it is still worthwhile to look to improve on our own contributions to the problem. So, I still think there is good truth to what he said, moving in that direction, returning at least somewhat to the roots of isolationism, even if not all the way would surely generate positive results.
You don’t seem to understand that Islamic terrorism has been going on for hundreds of years. What’s “irritating” them is our prosperity, freedom, and power.
He, like Arafat and Islamic terrorists and any number of fascists that preceded him, gain power by creating a “boogie man” to use to make people believe like they’ve been victimized. Hitler did it, and even people in this country do it.
It’s an easy way to gain power from the people you “represent” without having to do anything to improve their lives.
If you want to give credibility to their bull$hit, go ahead. I don’t see much difference from one fascist to the next...despite minor modifications in their propaganda.
No you miss the point, the Versaille treaty was too punitive, but soccermom is pointing to the more salient international failing, that of not enforcing the arms limitations. For example in 1935
Hitler Begins Military Draft
Hitler begins military conscription in Germany. This is a direct violation of Versailles treaty.
http://www.decades.com/Timeline/n/250_2719.htm#
This was compounded by the weak response to his aggression in particular his move into Chekoslovakia. I have read that his generals were ready to depose him for this action for fear that he was unleashing war with France and Britain, but when they failed to make the strategically wise decision to oppose him at that juncture, they flipped and followed him.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/causes-of-world-war-2.htm
Thus, analyzed as a proximate cause, soccermom is correct - failure to band together with the western powers to enforce a treaty led to WWII.
Thank you — it was the arms build-up in particular to which I was referring.
What are Ron Paul's views on open borders and shamnesty?
send every dang one of them to North Korea and hope that twit is stupid enough to keep them.
So what? Andrew Napolitano and Pat Buchanan have both appeared on that radio show, too.
I care about the Constitution but I certainly don’t care about that POS Ron Paul or his beliefs. Your generalizations are extremely extreme.
This is where Ron Paul made his biggest mistake, that is, up until now he has been fairly quiet, in fact, up to recently I never heard of him. Now that he made a total ass out of himself on National Television and more than once, not only will he not be president but he will not even get reelected back to Congress. He fits that old saying about, you can keep your mouth shut and let people think you an idiot or you can open your mouth and prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.