Wrong. BC had a BC approach which was essentially to do nothing. I don't believe Congressman Paul ever said we should do nothing. However if you can dig up a statement in which the good Congressman said the attacks on the Cole, Khobar, and the American embassies should go unpunished I'll happily concede your point.
Then, in addition, Paul blames us for the attacks
I don't remember him doing that. I remember him saying that the attacks were a response to some of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere. I think everyone pretty much agrees this is the case. AQ doesn't like our foreign policy. That's a fact. OBL whines and moans about it every time one of his 'greatest hits' tapes comes out.
Then when Paul says something along those lines you lot start shouting that he 'hates America'. What a load of crap that is.
One OBLs primary motivitions according to his own words was the presence of American troops in Saudi. Well Bush pulled our troops out of Saudi after 9/11.
Does that mean Bush was 'appeasing' Al Queda? How about Rumsfeld? He sure had to sign off on that decision. Is Rumsfeld an AQ sympathizer?
but he seems to forget that an armed pilot won't stop terrorists from blowing the plane in half at 40,000 feet over the atlantic with a liquid explosive IED.
Armed pilots sure would have come in handy against 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters, though. And if those mutts had been stopped we most likely wouldn't be worrying about other nuts with detonating Dentucream now would we.
Frist, the airlines (who Ron says "know best how to protect their property") opposed arming the pilots
Did they? Did all of them disagree? When was that poll taken? Got a link to the statements of each and every airline CEO to document that assertion?
he was NOT ridiculed by the administration
Maybe they didn't ridicule him openly, but they didn't do a damned thing to expedite the process either. Did Bush write an Executive Order demanding the FAA allow armed pilots immediately? That's within his power. But instead he put that bastion of right wing conservative thought Norman Minetta in charge of the 'program' to arm pilots.
So at this rate American commercial airliners should have armed pilots sometime in 2036...maybe.
I don't care if you two want to make fun of Paul. It's not like I'm supporting the guys run for President. What I don't like is the yards of bullsh** I see spewed about the guy.
Ron Paul doesn't hate America. Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was 'our fault'. And he certainly does support our troops.
L
Ron Paul wants to give into al Qaeda, except for maybe catching one man or two, and he wants to cut-n-run from the whole Middle East. As it is, Run Paul is more of a sissy than Bill Clinton. Run Paul is basically willing to give al Qaeda a veto over US foreign policy. He’s a dope.
Why did the Clinton Administration decide not to take bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him?
I don't believe Congressman Paul ever said we should do nothing.
He said that we've lost too many soldiers in Afghanistan...leads me to believe he's not going to go anywhere and hit the enemy, or that he'd go in (after all, he did vote for the 2001 Authorization) but pull out the minute it wasn't mirowave burrito warfare.
What is amazing to me is that Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to cede Iraq to Al Qaida and/or Iran, yet his supporters will claim all over the place that he will be a fierce terror warrior, and that no one else in the field will be his equal. Yeah, sure.
However if you can dig up a statement in which the good Congressman said the attacks on the Cole, Khobar, and the American embassies should go unpunished I'll happily concede your point.
Guess who else said we would deal with the people who did those attacks? Bill Clinton.
I don't remember him doing that. I remember him saying that the attacks were a response to some of our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sure, and the police didn't say the rape victim raped herself, they just said she shared some of the blame because she shouldn't have been in that part of town. I'll cover blowback in a separate post.
I think everyone pretty much agrees this is the case. AQ doesn't like our foreign policy. That's a fact.
Let me ask you a serious question. I mean, seriously think this one over: Have you ever, even once in your life, heard of a Jewish person asking "why did Hitler hate us? Shouldn't we figure out what was making him so angry so we can avoid doing it again?" Have you ever heard of someone saying, "If the Jews would have just done X differently, maybe Hitler wouldn't have put them on the cattlecars"?
Armed pilots sure would have come in handy against 4 or 5 guys with boxcutters, though. And if those mutts had been stopped we most likely wouldn't be worrying about other nuts with detonating Dentucream now would we.
No suprise to see a circular argument from a Paulestinian. In his message (specifically, the part you quoted in your post) Paul complained about the lack of guns in the cockpit and then said the government's answer was seizing toothpaste. So let's see if you're intellectually honest:
1. What is the reason you can't take toothpaste or shampoo on flights anymore?
2. Would armed pilots be able to stop a liquid bomb?
3. Would armed pilots on September 11th killing 19 guys who planned to die anyway have stopped Al Qaida from attacking airliners with explosives?
Did they? Did all of them disagree? When was that poll taken? Got a link to the statements of each and every airline CEO to document that assertion?
OK...are you actually going to try to claim that Ron Paul said "the airlines" and he meant half of the airlines, or two of the airlines?
But, since you asked, see the two links I provided in post 331.
Maybe they didn't ridicule him openly, but they didn't do a damned thing to expedite the process either.
I'll type this slowly so that you can understand it:
What...did...Ron...Paul...say?
What...did...I...say?
What I don't like is the yards of bullsh** I see spewed about the guy. Ron Paul doesn't hate America. Ron Paul doesn't think 9/11 was 'our fault'. And he certainly does support our troops.
Sure...Mussolini and Neville Chamberlain supported their troops, too.
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