What I didn’t miss is his stance on pulling out of Iraq to leave behind an unknown nightmare in the vacuum, and untold damage to the U.S.
We’re committed now after 5 years.
We didn’t leave Kuwait after the first gulf war. Kuwaitis are happy we’re there. We have a family friend, retired U.S. Army ranger Colonel that has his own business there providing security. Really decent people there that appreciate us more than alot of people here will ever know.
For all the horrible mistakes we’ve made consider:
When Rumsfeld suggested we remove our bases from Germany to Poland, the Germans freaked. We’ve still downsized quite a bit over the years.
Japan is a better place as well, even after 60+ years of so-called “occupation”. Yet they are of the same mindset.
The fact is the U.N. has proven time and again they’re just not going to do the job.
Iraqis are seeing that this time we’re there to ensure their freedoms as well.
People are losing their lives to GET here to taste freedom, not flee it. Maybe if other places had 1/10th of a chance at freedom, we wouldn’t be so overwhelmed. Just today I saw that Cubans are still missing at sea trying to get here and the numbers of Cubans fleeing are up.
Leaving Iraq now would be unconscionable for free Iraqis and a disater for the U.S. and middle east.
Thanks for your kind words!
Paul is blunt about this, to be sure. I'd rather hear it spoken by someone who has demonstrated respect for individual liberty and accountability throughout his career as a congressman than from a mealymouthed peacemaker who has no sense of the real world.
I don't think anyone can realistically and accurately assess what will happen in Iraq down the road. How long do we stay? Indefinitely? What do we expect from this venture? What's to prevent the freedom-loving people of Iraq from immigrating to the USA? Oh yeah. Closed border.
Should we really think a few hundred Al Qaeda fanatics will be relevant in a land of millions who despise their disregard for innocent human life, whether or not our troops are present? I reckon the news media would like to give them power they don't have or deserve, but that's about it.
The 9/11 attacks give rise to fears that may not be founded upon reality. Yes, they were well-planned, devastating, humiliating, and infuriating. The typical reaction would be to address them without asking hard questions. Ron Paul at least has the fearlessness to ask them.
Look at Al Qaeda's statements. Would they lie when expressing their reason for ill will? If it is world domination by Islam they seek, it just ain't gonna happen, Ron Paul or not.
But let's suppose we walk into someone else's life and tell them how to live it. They tell us, in so many words, to go away. But we don't like what we hear, so we stay anyway. We're bigger and better, after all. After so many attempts at saying, "Go away" with no result other than a more intrusive presence, there comes a response we may not like.
Now, we can pretend the response was totally unprovoked. And that is essentially what folks are doing who blather "Blame America first" as an excuse to avoid asking what caused the response. In this case it was not a nebulous principle like "freedom", but a physical, regulatory, culturally repulsive presence among people who ought to be allowed to determine for themselves how they want to live their lives.
Individually speaking, if I am invited to the home of someone who practices a faith other than mine, and I accept the invitation, I had better be willing to 1.) accept whatever stipulations they might place on me as I enter their home, or 2.) be ready and willing to leave if their stipulations prove too burdensome. It's just the reasonable way to be.
If we force other peoples to accept our liberties, we're not really granting them liberty, are we? Or are we? And this is not to say that our influence in world affairs has been wholly unsalutary. In general we have done much good in many places. But let us proceed with caution and high regard for differences between ourselves and others.