The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/06text.html?pagewanted=10&_r=1
Of course, he may hve meant someone by 'they' but I don't know who else attacked us on 9.11.. and I'm sure his cult will ignore this and just focus on his backpedaling..
If you want an even better quote from Paul last night, the best(sic) was:
...We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/06text.html?pagewanted=10&_r=1
Oh, and international law has done so much for us
Kick the UN out of New York, impound their illegally parked car until all the parking tickets are paid and send these useless bastards home.
I am so done with these wimps! let them find a new home in Cuba, Iran, or China.
Take the dues we would have given them and spend it on something constructive like providing for the soldiers and it's families who are/were protecting this Nation in spite of itself.
Exit soapbox.
(1) His (OBL) endorsement of Ron Paul
(2) Paul said that OBL was basically the authority on who has the right to be in the ME.
This leads me to believe you are lying.
Someone should have warned the poor nut that letting Kofi Annan ram his puppeteering arm up one's arse can make a candidate look a bit too stiff... did he learn nothing from Ahmed Dainternet Al-Gore?
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. At: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html
Looking at Paul's statements on Israel, the Iraq War, Iran and foreign aid, to mention a few, he seems quite committed to this manner of foreign nonintervention policy. He seems firm regardless of other nation's actions or policies.
As a supporter of Ron Paul, are you comfortable with the inevitable fall out in the Middle East just to name one region of the world? First, Russia and China have never had any intention of modifying their interventionist ways (except Russia for a brief period of chaos under Yeltsen). Israel is totally dependent on American support, armaments, and subsidies for its continued existence. Ron Paul's policies would eventually result in another Holocaust for the Jews. Too few against too many and they would be eventually unarmed by US "nonintervention". The rest of the region would eventually be entangled in a chaotic "all against all" battle of tribe vs. tribe, nation against nation, sect vs. sect with the eventual winner influenced but not controlled by Russia. A "religious" regional authority with weak control over a multitude of tribes and their warlords seems inevitable.
Good for us??? Hell no, the route to power for any warlord demands they keep America as the Great Satan. Any American or American business foolish enough to venture overseas would be an easy and attractive target. At home we might not care as we would be staring at the shambles of our economy after every tin horn dictator has nationalized overseas factories, mines and oil wells. Our military, brought home to guard our then half empty buildings, would have to be careful to avoid the falling bodies of investor leaping out the windows.