Posted on 08/28/2007 2:11:50 PM PDT by NapkinUser
No one supporting a candidate who wants to quit in Iraq should ever use the words "willfull ignorance."
Bravo!
This is an absolute fact! No thinking person can argue with it. They will.........
Osama Ben Laden sends his best wishes also and best of luck in your campaign. May you live a long life and defile many camels.
Actually, between the two of them, wideawake and Ramesh Ponnuru have debunked Ron Paul pretty thoriughly on this issue. The comment in brackets is mine.
Al-Qaeda hates and targets America because America is : (a) powerful and (b) not Muslim.Al-Qaeda's goal is a restoration of the world to what they perceive to be its golden age: an era when an armed Islam united under a supreme Caliph was the world's uncontested superpower.
Anything America does or fails to do is a sufficient excuse for their hatred.
Modifying our policies in any way will not change the fact that we are powerful and not Muslim.
16 posted on 05/17/2007 11:58:35 AM PDT by wideawake
_____________________________________________
It is one thing to make a case on the merits that our foreign policies should be changed. Perhaps we should end our alliance with Israel. Perhaps we should remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, or lift the sanctions on Iraq. But not under duress. A policy designed to keep from offending people who might be inclined to attack us is a policy of preemptive capitulation to terrorists. In his address to Congress, President Bush explained why the terrorists kill: "With every atrocity they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." The terrorists' hope is the frank advice of those who would have us back away from Israel because of the September 11 attacks [or run out of Iraq like scalded dogs].
Dishonorable in principle, such a policy would also fail in practice. There would be no obvious stopping-point to it. Having seen terrorism accomplish its objectives in the Mideast, why should North Korea not use it to make us withdraw our protection from South Korea? Beijing could sponsor terrorism until we let it swallow Taiwan. In the past, Puerto Rican independistas have resorted to terror. Etc. Shall we capitulate to them all?
Here, then, is the true strategy being recommended to America: Curl up and die.--Ramesh Ponnuru
Yep. If we leave Iraq before we’ve finished winning, the only question is whether Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs will fight Al Qaida for the place. My bet is they don’t, and take a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach for now, especially given the intel that says Al Qaida is already welcome in Tehran. However, either way we go from having an aircraft carrier docked in enemy territory to the enemy having Afghanistan Part II. Not smart.
No BS at all.
Several Sundays ago there was a debate and he stated he wanted to cut and run.
Surrender and cry, limp home like pansies.
He's a cowardly islamic apologist kook.
I doubt that E.A. Poe could state it any better.
A nuclear Afghanistan. There's a warm fuzzy for ya.
Yikes.
As far as Paul understanding the true Islamic threat that's a point against him but I'll bet you dollars to donuts he'd fight a real war, if God forbid we were attacked assuming he's POTUS, without worrying what the "international community" thinks of America.
So your post #25 is nothing more than speculation as Paul doesn't really have an official policy on Islamic terrorism.
We've came close with the Fort Dix incident (thanks to our open borders). Actually the D.C. sniper, Anthrax mailings, and the Salt Lake City mall shooting by a Bosnian Muslim could also qualify as domestic terrorism.
If we were attacked? We've already been attacked. That's why we're in Iraq yet Paula as POS... er POTUS would tuck tail and run like a little girl allowing al Qaeda to completely take over.
That's simply not true. Paul would ask for a declaration of war from Congress. And I don't think he would let our troops get handcuffed by the media or get involved in nation-building.
Ru's policy on Islamic terrorism would be to take the same position as a dog that just had his butt kicked in a fight.
Paul's foreign policy is still tougher than the Democrats. That's good enough for me.
I'm sure he's not crying over the fact that you don't support him and lob the same-old BS allegations that's been already debunked.
You are sounding like a Liberal. By all means, don't let the truth bite you in the butt. I have seen this nut in the debates, I have listened to him and read the transcript of what he has said about 9/11. And Youtube has a video of what he has said.
"They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East"
I don't see how this man can appeal to people who supposed to be thinkers like most of us on FR
He is will be irrelevant in 6 months. But not to worry, the Dems like him, too.
Acknowledging that thousands of grassroots supporters supporting Paul means I'm a liberal? YOU can deny the huge grassroots support Paul is getting but don't pretend it doesn't exist.
I have seen this nut in the debates, I have listened to him and read the transcript of what he has said about 9/11. And Youtube has a video of what he has said.
You are sadly repeating the pro-Giuliani spin of what happened in that debate. If you think Paul blamed America for 9/11 then you also think Bill Clinton is a Saint.
"They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East"
Enforcing U.N. resolutions and no-fly zones, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, humanitarian mission in Somalia that later turned into a cut-and-run by Clinton... in this context Dr. Paul is correct. Stop meddling in the Middle East, period.
I don't see how this man can appeal to people who supposed to be thinkers like most of us on FR
Because there are still folks out there who care about Constitutional government, limited government, and free markets, you know, the stuff Republicans and the other GOP candidates are supposed to give a damn about. That's why Paul has the grassroots support he has. Folks don't want to see their tax dollars going to build Iraqi roads and schools when it can be used here. I don't agree with Paul on an immediate withdrawal but there should be no long-term committment in Iraq or in the Middle East either.
He is will be irrelevant in 6 months. But not to worry, the Dems like him, too.
Sure he is, toots. Paul has the GOP by the groin. He can easily run as a 3rd party candidate and throw the election to Hillary. Ignore him or trash him at your own peril.
BTTT
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.