Ron Paul had his info wrong. Go back and see what Bin Ladin said was his reason. If you can’t get your history right,Ron, sit down.
Please explain this. While I disagree with Dr. Paul's conclusions, bin Laden has said that our military presence in the Mideast was the trigger. Dr. Paul's comments seemed to be taken out of context by Giuliani, e.g. when Paul said that Middle Eastern terrorists "attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years..." he was referring to all military presence (bin Laden has cited our Saudi Arabia presence, as well as our support for the state of Israel) and Paul made an example, "bombing Iraq for 10 years."
What I'd like to know is what Dr. Paul would have done to prevent 9/11, which I think I remember him suggesting could have been accomplished, and if not, what his response would have been. In other words, is he a speak softly/carry a big stick guy, or is he as weak as the Giuliani goons would have us believe.
I do guess that Dr. Paul would not try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. I do not believe this is a sound policy. If anyone can correct me on that, please do.
All I need to know about why we were attacked is in 1400 years of islamic history. American meddling in the mideast is simply the excuse of the moment.
India isn’t meddling in the mideast and they face terrorism more than we do. The same can be said for Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines and a growing number of African nations. Meddling in the mideast doesn’t account for islam overrunning north Africa or much of southern Europe hundreds of years before the USA existed.
Islam has always been bent on expansion and global domination. Sure we can curl up in the fetal position and hope they don’t hit us but they will.
It’s a fight we can’t avoid and frankly I would rather fight it now before they have nukes and ballistic missiles to deliver them with. Passing this fight off to the next generation is simply cowardly and irresponsible.