Replies

Actually if Ron Paul were president, the USS Cole bombing wouldn’t have happened.

I’ll quote him on it.

“No one should be surprised by the terrible USS Cole tragedy. If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port....The USS Cole disaster was needless and preventable. The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy. This policy has led to a lack of military readiness by spreading our forces too thin, increasing the danger to all Americans and our servicemen in that region in particular. It’s positively amazing we do not have the ability to protect a $1 billion dollar vessel from a rubber raft, despite our $300 billion military budget. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets, and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane. It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event. It is incapable even of investigating the incident, since the FBI was brought in to try to figure out what happened.”

The problem with that Paul comment is that it was made in hindsight, and unless you are telling me that he had a time machine, I really doubt Paul would have proactivly taken the steps he claims he would have. His hindsight comments are in line with pretty much everyone after the Cole was hit.. If I want confidence in Paul, I want to see one case, just one, where he asked for proactive action to prevent an attack like the Cole.

That’s a much more coherent position than the fiction that Paul would have attacked bases, presumably in Yemen. The Cole shouldn’t have been there and the rules of engagement were insand. But under President Paul our Navy wouldn’t have been in the region at all, it would have been a Soviet/Iranian lake, more likely Soviet/Iraqi since sanctions would have been off for years. The Soviets would have gone for Sadaam. Needless to say Kuwait would be a provence, the Saudis, they could have cut a deal.

If the administration understood the history of the region, it would see the total folly of anchoring a war vessel in an enemy port....

Yemen wasn't our enemy. We weren't at war with Yemen. We have an embassy there and Yemen has an embassy in Washingon. Other ships had gone into the port for services. More Paul logic....

The loss of this vessel and the tragic deaths of 17 Americans were a direct consequence of an interventionist policy

Blame America again. The deaths of our personnel are our fault. US warships travel the globe. We have a right to do so. It is not a provocation. And so I guess the Paulistic solution is to keep our ships at home and not venture abroad. Then there would be no attacks.

post #245

“It is obvious that our navy lacks the military intelligence to warn and prevent such an event”

Now why exactly did we not have that intelligence. That could be answered when you examine Bill Clinton and Senator Torricelli bill they passed through the Senate that limited our intelligence.

Our Navy performs well when they recieve support from leaders that don't loath our military.