Ron Paul: Highways claim more than 9/11 killed

Baltimore Sun ^ | 9/22/07 | Rick Pearson

[LdSentinal]

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event,” Paul said today to more than 1,000 supporters who attended a rally at a downtown Chicago hotel ballroom.

“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”

More than 2,970 people were reported dead in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Federal highway traffic statistics show an average of 3,509 people a month were killed on the nation’s highways in 2001.

[donnab]

Let the countries on the borders of radical Islam fight them, they have the most to lose.

yeah that worked before didnt it. sometimes I just got to wonder where people are when they say the things they do.
In case you havent noticed...radical Islam is everywhere.

[Jim Robinson]

By the way, I’m neither interventionist or non-interventionist. Simply a commonsense conservative who believes we should defend the nation when threatened or under attack. And we’re definitely under attack. In case you missed the goings on over the last couple of decades, the entire free world is under attack by Islamic fascist jihadists.

[Designer]

"Nor can he distinguish between accidents and deliberate malicious acts."

null and void cannot distinguish between hyperbole and Ron Paul's message.

Missunderstanding the point is something many freepers are capable of, and some are even capable of missunderstanding on purpose!

Did you even read it?

[PGalt]

Roadkill Ron came to a fork in the road and jumped on it. He’s done.

[NavyCanDo]

“9/11 was an attempt to kill 50,000+ people.”

Lets not forget the visitors.

Some 50,000 people worked in the buildings, while another 200,000 visited or passed through each day.

And this was the second attempt. If the 1993 blast would of worked as plan when terrorists drove a truck packed with 1,100 lbs of explosives into the basement parking garage, the death toll would of been of much much worse. The blast was intended to topple one tower against the other bringing both down before anyone had a chance to escape. Thank God it did not go as plan.

[NavyCanDo]

This cult like following Paul has smells allot like a Lyndon LaRouche campaign.
I suggest this bumper sticker for them.

“Ron Paul: Because Lyndon LaRouche Isn’t Running”

[null and void]

When I joined the Libertarian Party way back when I signed a pledge that I would not advocate the initiation of force.

After 9/11 the Party, as lead by Ron Paul, stood against responding to the worst mass casualty attack aimed at the very heart of all I hold dear.

That's when I left the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul has pretty consistently stood in the way of every phase of the WOT.

That's his actions, not hyperbole, actions.

[ejonesie22]

I'll take up the argument.

In 2007, under the current world situation, we are taking an interventionist stance. If by intervening we can stop an attack on our people by weapons than can harm more than just a few in one single instance, that is good policy.

This is not the war of 1812, it is not the "Wilsonian" era engagements and it is not the 1940s. There are real weapons out there that can inflect great harm from a great distance. Though they have been around for decades they are now coming into the purview of nations and entities who no longer value self preservation as we do.

I have seen your post about the terrorist not being able to get nukes, or if they can, just a couple. They are pursuing them, that is somewhat obvious, be it the rogue group or nations. So what if they only get a few. How many is enough that would pierce the veil of taking a proactive stance? One, maybe used in Tulsa with 350K dead? How about two and we add Atlanta and another 300K dead?

The dynamics of warfare have shifted, and to be honest we have been late in realizing that and are still mired in our ways in our active pursuit of our enemies. We will have to deal with this at some point. I would rather not be doing it from beyond the grave. I know you Paul folks say we have been scared by the administration and all that rot. Sorry, it was before that. This has been growing for years and now is the time to stop it come hell or high water. The dead could care less about the finer points of Constitutional law...

[Jim Robinson]

It wasn’t just the WTC. Remember the Pentagon and the plane that was to target the White House or the Capitol building. 9/11 was an attempt to cripple America, knock out our government, our military command structure and our financial centers all in one fell swoop. And they came awfully close to doing it.

[Enchante]

"That is just silly. If an atomic bomb would be set off in NYC, some Muslim country (which ever one we thought was most responsible) would be wiped off the map. We wouldn’t be going in and trying to set up a Democratic government. We would be seeking vengence. If we invaded, there would be no namby, pamby rules of engagement. It would be more like, “kill them all and let God sort them out.”

You're the one that's being 'silly' -- first, you assume that there would only one WMD attack at a time, when 9/11 and the history of Al Qaeda attacks shows that they prefer multiple mass-casualty attacks simultaneously if/when they can pull it off (they would try to make their 1st WMD onslaught the worst thing in history, not wait for our response). 2nd, what if we truly have no idea "which country is most responsible" --- 3rd, once Al Qaeda or any similar group had acquired such capabilities, the idea that having any one (or more) Middle Eastern countries "wiped off the map" (even if we would do it, which is doubtful) would solve the problem is naive -- if we imagine a much larger and more dangerous Al Qaeda (or similar group) burrowed into many countries around the world due to liberal/libertarian resistance to rooting them out, then having one or any number of Middle Eastern countries "wiped off the map" is no longer going to solve the problem. Finally, our response depends a lot upon who is in the WH and Congress in the future, but I would not take it for granted that we would be allowed to "go Roman" on entire countries or why that would even solve the problem once terrorism had gotten to such a bad point.

Your argument (so far as I can tell) has the structure of "we can act as Ron Paul recommends now because if things got so bad that terrorists nuked NYC, well THEN we could get serious and one or more Middle Eastern countries would be "wiped off the map" -- I'd prefer not to wait for that extreme situation to deal more effectively with terrorism, thank you.

[donnab]

and it wasnt just 911 or the USA...how many other countries have been attacked, embassies bombed, train stations or mass transit attacks, school attack, shall I go on?

[Iwo Jima]

That is the distinction between an interventionist foreign policy (initiation of force) and a non-interventionist foreign policy (self defense and retaliatory force). Proper application of this principle is not always readily apparent.

[null and void]

Atlanta is probably safe. It’s CNN’s headquarters...

[Grampa Dave]

Time to check Paul's off shore accounts to see if he is being paid by Islamofacists to put this suicidal garbage out.

[null and void]

True. You and I clearly have different thresholds.

[Badeye]

Ron Turd seems to be unaware that there were 50,000 people in the Twin Towers on 9/11.
9/11 was an attempt to kill 50,000+ people.

That was the minimum. Had either tower come down a bit quicker, and gone ‘sideways’ the toll could have been much much higher.

Just another example of why Ron Paul isn’t taken seriously by rational people.

[ejonesie22]

True, OBL wouldn’t knock out his intelligence division...

[Iwo Jima]

“Explain how terrorists (not nations, but rogue terrorists) will get nuclear or chemical weapons. Also, even if they do, how will that make us follow Sharia law?”

First, some country run by some nutjob like Iran gets those kinds of weapons...

“Our government can and should track who has nuclear or chemical weapons, and act if their intentions are shown to be to harm us.”

In a non-interventionalist way of course.

By definition, the use of force under those circumstances would not be interventionist; in other words, it would be consistent with the defensive use of force and therefore non-interventionism. You are making the all too common mistake of thinking that non-inteventionism is equivalent to pacifism or never using force.

Whether the federal government would allow weapons on board is one thing. Whether the airlines would allow the average Joe to pack heat on a passenger flight is another. Do you really think AA or Delta would?

Well, they used to before the federal government made them stop. It is very easy to describe a policy by which all pilots are armed as well as certain passengers approved in advance by the airlines, resulting in dozens of armed persons on every flight. The airlines could announce whether their flights are armed or unarmed. I would only fly the armed airlines. The others could go out of business.

[Mr. Mojo]

“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms..."

What freedoms are those, Mr. Paul? The freedom to get through airports in one hour instead of two? The freedom to bring boxcutters on commercial airliners? The freedom to have telephone conversations with terrorist organizations overseas? The freedom to use mosques as terrorist fronts?

Gee, I can't imagine how any of us are getting by without those "freedoms."

Liberals invariably stumble all over themselves whenever asked to be specific about what freedoms we've sacrificed since 9/11. ...because deep down they know it's all BS.

[NavyCanDo]

This Ron Paul supporter “Iwo Jima” sure writes exactly like Ron Paul supporter “Extremely Extreme Extremist” who was asked by the moderator to stay out of Ron Paul threads. Could he be the same guy?