The Ron Paul Movement

reason ^ | July 16, 2007 | Jesse Walker

[SoldierDad]

Yes, it was, after all the U.S who attacked inself over the past 10 odd years in order to justify going to war against Islamo-facist who didn’t exist until after 9/11/01, right? And, after all, these Islamo-facists will lay down their weapons and go away if only the U.S. would ___________ (do what, do you think? Disappear off the face of the Earth?) So, the U.S. and the rest of the world that’s been subjected to terrorist attacks are suppose to ________ (what?). Not fight back? Sue for peace? Turn the other cheek? Bend over and take it up the tailpipe? Wait until the next 9/11/01 style attack? Wait until a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb destroys an entire city or kills tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? This is what the goal of the enemy is, is it not? Or, has someone on the other side given you information noone else has been privy to? Has all the attacks from Bin Laden and his minions been just a joke played upon us in order to get the U.S. and most of the rest of the world embroiled in an never ending war? That they don’t really have some end game already planned out? Perhaps cowards wish that this country would stop defending herself, but I’m ready to give my all in defense of liberty and freedom no matter how long the war takes or where the war is being fought. And you? What are you prepared to do to defend your family?

[flintsilver7]

Ron Paul’s 11/15/00 diatribe entitled “Our Foolish War in the Middle East” can be found at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm .

Paul repeatedly states that U.S. involvement in the Middle East is all about oil, not Islamic radicalism, and that they are essentially justified in attacking us.

[George W. Bush]

Perhaps cowards wish that this country would stop defending herself, but I’m ready to give my all in defense of liberty and freedom no matter how long the war takes or where the war is being fought.

Go ahead then. Who's stopping you? Or are you just guarding the home front at your keyboard, protecting FreeRepublic from terrorist infiltrators? Was there an actual point to your little tirade?

It's clear you have no grasp of the root causes of Muslim terrorism, their real goals, and their recruiting methods.

[George W. Bush]

Paul repeatedly states that U.S. involvement in the Middle East is all about oil, not Islamic radicalism, and that they are essentially justified in attacking us.

He's right. Our interest in the region has always been about oil. Gulf War I was fought to keep Saddam from seizing Kuwait's oil. James Baker, SoS at the time, came right out and said it very plainly.

Why should anyone care about the Mideast if it wasn't for oil? Are you suggesting that we are there only because of Islamic fundamentalism? Did you notice in Gulf War I, we were fighting to restore Kuwait's oil? Were we talking about the threat of "Islamic radicalism" back then? Of course not. The Kuwaitis and Saddam killed those types out of hand because the Islamic radicals posed a threat to their own corrupt regimes.

It's a medieval region whose inhabitants practice a sixth-century moon-god cult with murderous devotion. They have a dreadful history of barbarism which is the bane of the entire region. It's best to let them be occupied with murdering one another and living under the iron fist of their despots rather than to provide our soldieers as targets which can unify them against us. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we've been doing.

[George W. Bush]

My other objective is to help prevent a third party run by RP that could help elect HRC.

RP will not run third party. He promised his wife and the rest of us. Publicly. I don't think he would even want to. So the talk from the CP and the LP joining to back him as an independent is nice to hear but will go nowhere.

If the CPers and the LPers want to elect Ron Paul to office, they'd better register Republican for the primaries next spring.

[Puddleglum]

Paul repeatedly states that U.S. involvement in the Middle East is all about oil, not Islamic radicalism, and that they are essentially justified in attacking us

I think if it weren't about oil at some level, we'd just let the Muslim terrorists kill each other off (kind of like we handle to murderous scum in Africa).

[MichiganConservative]

Unlike the netroots, it has no particular attachment to the party whose nomination its candidate is seeking.

I wonder if that's because the elected leader of that party, Jorge Bush, recently insulted and gave the bird to the base of that party.

[John Farson]

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.
--William F. Buckley, Jr.
NYT interview (6/24/2004)

OMG, Buckley is clearly a liberal who belongs at DU!

[John Farson]

Do you know the conservative administration in Australia also admitted their involvement in the war is partly motivated by oil?

The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war..... Dr Nelson said defence was about protecting the economy as well as physical security. Dr Nelson also said it was important to support the "prestige" of the US and UK.
~ The Melbourne Age (July 5, 2007)

[dcwusmc]

One scarce knows where to begin to respond to your post. It’s such a target-rich environment. First, your “policeman to the world” comment: One question: where does the Constitution for the United States specifically authorize such activity by the Federal Government? (In your rush to read the Constitution and other founding documents, start with the Tenth Amendment.)

As to your derogatory comments about Dr. Paul, you’re entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but it would be lovely to have you express it in a less vitriolic fashion... and calling him part of the “Blame America First” crowd is pretty incendiary in many circles, for the primary reason that it is a LIE outright. It has NO basis in fact, as some basic research would reveal to you. Dr. Paul is about defending AMERICA, not about building “democracies” in third world cesspools like Iraq. Our troops should have been out of there the same day that Bush declared the mission accomplished.

And another homework assignment for you: Find the Constitutional authority for our (in your words) interventionist foreign policy. (Again, start your search with the Tenth Amendment.) Since it is essentially the same as “policeman to the world,” you’ll find the lack of such authority in the same place.

Our Constitutional Republic and its safety and well-being are much more important than anything else going on right now. Period. Because if we give up our liberty for the illusion of security, we condemn ourselves and our children and grandchildren to eons of darkness before mankind can climb back into the light of liberty... and I will NOT be a part of such a travesty as that. I want MY kids and grandkids to be even MORE free than I am. That is the most VITAL thing there is. No islamist can enslave free men and women, ever. They can only kill us. Only if we enslave ourselves in the name of security can these seventh century morons waltz in and take over our once-free nation. With the help of fifth columnists such as you who refuse to recognize what’s important and what is secondary at BEST.

[flintsilver7]

What on earth does this have to do with anything I wrote?

[flintsilver7]

It’s almost like you’re beginning to get it.

I long ago realized that the economic security of this country is heavily dependent on oil. It is actually necessary for this country to protect its economic interests on foreign soil. Of course, there is the curious fact that our economic interests seem to need a lot more protecting in Muslim states. Canada, Brazil, and Norway produce more oil than Iraq, yet we don’t have to depose their leaders. Why? Because they have relatively stable governments and essentially free people. Somehow, it seems strangely like the Muslim countries in the Middle East are the ones who are most prone to explode.

[George W. Bush]

"The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia's continued military involvement in Iraq. Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia's contribution to the unpopular war..."

What? Oh, the shock!! The horror.

We must all sit down and write President Bush a letter and tell him those bloody Aussies are in it for the oil. I know he'll be so disappointed at this distressing honesty news.

Clearly, we may be forced to invade Australia and do some nice nation-building Down Under as well. Is our work never done?

[George W. Bush]

It is actually necessary for this country to protect its economic interests on foreign soil.

It is a persistent U.S. foreign policy issue: how to extract our vital national resources which are so unfairly located beneath the soil of belligerent foreign countries. Their behavior about this is so vexing.

[John Farson]

It is actually necessary for this country to protect its economic interests on foreign soil.

And yet you just claimed Paul was a kook for acknowledging the economic incentives to war.

[JTN]

Sorry for the belated ping to the RP pinglist. Have you joined it yet?

I joined back on OrthodoxPresbyterian's very first thread.

[flintsilver7]

Wow! It would seem one would have a hard time figuring out how to respond to your post. (Reading your post, I don’t expect civil discourse in the future - feel free to continue with your ad hominem attacks.)

For example, I conclude my post with an open-ended question regarding America’s status as world police; You take this to mean I’m the figurative dispatch - quite a large jump to say the least. I’m well aware of what the Tenth Amendment says, by the way, so you don’t need to say pretty much exactly the same thing twice.

Second, Paul has said over and over again that U.S. policy, not radical Islam, is to blame for terrorist attacks against us. As some research might reveal to you (homework: read Paul’s statements on his U.S. House of Representatives website) Paul does, in fact, repeatedly blame American policy. It’s the simple truth. Until Ron and the Paulbots acknowledge that there are bloodthirsy Muslims who want to kill us regardless of what we do (outside, presumably, of converting to Islam) I cannot take them seriously. (Paul is most certainly not about defending America when he plays the role of suicide-bomber apologist.)

Your last paragraph is great, though - especially with gems like “No islamist can enslave free men and women, ever. They can only kill us.” Ignore the fact that I said nothing at any point about the topic. I’m merely pointing to the fact that Paulbots seem to either ignore the Islamists or would rather let them kill us instead of us killing them. (Forgive me if your “thinking” was hard to follow.)

[George W. Bush]

Yeah (blush). I finally checked my list, thinking two of you had escaped our Net Of Evil. But you were both already on the List From Hell. LOL.

But we did get another new member today, a solid conservative for the last five years here, great liberty guy, very strong on the Second.

[flintsilver7]

No, I didn’t - or at least I didn’t intend to. My position is that it’s a combination of many things, one of which is oil. The world today is a prime example of why. Iraq isn’t even a top ten producer of oil. They did, however, have a violent and unstable government in a violent and unstable region. They aren’t the only ones there, for certain.

[George W. Bush]

I’m merely pointing to the fact that Paulbots seem to either ignore the Islamists or would rather let them kill us instead of us killing them.

You are badly misinformed. If you have a chance, try to catch a replay of Tucker Carlson's interview of Ron Paul today. I'm afraid Ron Paul doesn't know anything about how he thinks we should ignore the Islamic radicals (pretty much all Muslims) or just let them kill us. He was supporting the president's legitimate constitutional authority to preemptively strike against an imminent threat (RP gave the example of striking against Bin Laden and other radicals ready to attack us from within Pakistan's tribal areas). RP was adamant about presidential authority, the need for formal declarations of war or for limited authority such as was granted with Afghanistan.

I wouldn't support RP if I weren't confident that he would use all means, including preemptive nuclear strikes, to defend us against any legitimate menace.

Hey, and Ron Paul has his first celebrity supporter today: Barry Manilow! LOL!!!!! When asked if he liked Manilow's music, RP replied, "I really like it now!". Charming.