Now, Reagan certainly had what, at the time, seemed like good reasons -- he didn't want to get involved in a middle-east conflict while trying to win the cold war vs. the Soviet Union. Other long-term mistakes were made in that same vein -- such as supplying and supporting what eventually became the Taliban in Afghanistan, against the USSR.
Now, hindsight has the benefit of being 20/20, but if you want to use withdrawing from Lebanaon as an example of Paul's position, then be prepared to discuss the negative impacts such decisions made.
blame Ronald Reagan for 9/11
No, I blame the terrorists for 9/11. Ron Paul blames American policy for 9/11, which means he and his supporters are the ones blaming Reagan, since he was part and parcel of that policy.
It's a pretty commonly held view that pulling out of Beirut was a wise and courageous move, because it saved the lives of many US soldiers who would otherwise have needlessly died during an unwise, unnecessary protracted involvement in Lebanon:
Since you merely assert that Ronald Reagan's pullout cost many lives and ultimately led to "the two attacks on the WTC, etc.", but you have no proof of your argument, then your argument IS nothing but a base, detestable SLANDER against Ronald Reagan.
Who am I gonna believe -- a bunch of bungling Neo-Cons who have gotten us mired in trying to referee an Islamic Civil War and supporting an Islamic-Theocratic Government in Iraq which is dominated by self-confessed, and even Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists... or a wise and courageous man like Ronald Reagan, whose "neutral position and neutrality" foreign policy towards the Middle East is what Ron Paul is advocating?
No, I blame the terrorists for 9/11.
No, you said Ronald Reagan's pulling out of Lebanon led to "later attacks like against the USS Cole, the two attacks on the WTC, etc." You are blaming Ronald Reagan for 9/11.
Ron Paul blames American policy for 9/11, which means he and his supporters are the ones blaming Reagan, since he was part and parcel of that policy.
On the contrary. Ron Paul blames the terrorists for 9/11 -- and he warns against the "blowback" from the foolish interventionism of those, like yourself, who reject Ronald Reagan's wise advocacy of "a neutral position and neutrality".
Could you be more specific? Do you "blame" Reagan's policy (thus blaming the maker of this policy too) of pulling out the marines in any way for 9/11? Based on your other comments, it sure sounds like you do. Here is what you said at the beginning of your post:
It's a pretty commonly held view that, at least in hindsight, pulling out of Beirut was a mistake because it let the nutjobs think we could pushed around. (Hence later attacks like against the USS Cole, the two attacks on the WTC, etc.)
Based on what I see in these passages, you seem to want it both ways. Why not just let the chips fall where they may?