Bill O'Reilly vs Ron Paul (Video. Paul Should Realize That Radical Islam Precedes The U.S. Itself

The Liberty Papers ^ | 9/10/2001 | Kevin

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly had a lively debate about foreign policy. I think that O'Reilly, while granted he kept interrupting Paul, got the best of him in this debate. In the final minute or so, while O'Reilly did falsely accuse Ron paul of opposing the Afghan war from the beginning, Paul did come back & call for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan.

O'Reilly also got Paul when O'Reilly made the distinction between Saudi & Iranian policy toward terrorism...the Saudi government does not sponsor terrorism, unlike Iran. Also around 3 minutes or so left, didn't Paul condone the klilling of American soldiers in Iraq by Iranian surrogates as "logical and defensive"?

[lormand]

They created a new district to cover North of Austin (Williamson County & towards Killeen).

I could not be more proud of my Congressman, John Carter. Although he has a background in Law, I don't hold that against him. There are always exceptions I guess.

[picard]

It was like Bill was inteviewing Al Quada’s defence lawyer.

[sheik yerbouty]

A very useful infidel..

[Domandred]

From that speech I can tell Ron Paul didn’t understand the first Gulf War either. Not one mention of Saddam invading Kuwait. Not on mention of Kind of an important factor in 1991. It was all our fault apparently because we wanted the oil of Muslim nations.

Nobody that claims the wars have been for oil has been able answer this properly. If we went to war to take oil, then why are we still paying those countries for the oil we supposedly took?

Now Iraq, they invaded Kuwait for oil and they owned Kuwait around 15 billion dollars that they couldn’t or didn’t want to pay. Saddam had no intention of paying Kuwait for that oil, he was just going to take it.

[JasonC]

Hopelessly naive. The hardliners in Iran, and there aren't anybody else in the government, have not needed the slightest pretext to attack the US and anyone else they pleased for nearly 30 years running. Under presidents of both parties, following policies of appeasement, engagement, disengagement, pinpricks, diplomacy, backdoor support, you name it. Their uniform continuous reaction to every variety of US policy imaginable has been one continuous and resounding "death to America".

[George W. Bush]

We are talking about Shi'a here. Among a hardline crowd like the Muslims, they're more radical than the rest.

They're in conflict with the rest of Islam as suspect heretics. And they seek to distract from that by attempting political solidarity against common enemies of Islam like Israel or America. It distracts from their own heresy as seen by other Muslims.

It was this difference with the Persians that caused us such confidence in the Shah's regime and its durability. They were outcasts in the Muslim world (and still are). And our greater involvement with them and their alliance with us produced a far greater bitterness toward us on their part.

[DugwayDuke]

“...when he references that conflict empowers hard-liners in both our country and in a country like Iran that we are pressuring and whose hardliners then conclude that the best defense is a good offense...”

Ron Paul makes two serious errors wrt Iran. First, Iran doesn’t need our actions to justify their internal suppression. Their governmen fully believes they are doing ‘Allah’s work’ and they will oppress any one who oppposes their vision of ‘Allah’s work’. Second, his insistence that Iran could be deterred as we deterred the USSR. This insistence assumes that the Iranians are rational. See any of the statements made by their President and get back to me on his rationality.

[George W. Bush]

First, Iran doesn’t need our actions to justify their internal suppression. Their governmen fully believes they are doing ‘Allah’s work’ and they will oppress any one who oppposes their vision of ‘Allah’s work’. Second, his insistence that Iran could be deterred as we deterred the USSR. This insistence assumes that the Iranians are rational.

I invoke Rule 6.

---

Rule 6: In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East

---

Second, his insistence that Iran could be deterred as we deterred the USSR. This insistence assumes that the Iranians are rational.

See his many remarks on the essential irrationality of Mideastern politics. This is why Reagan left after the Beirut airport bombing. It's not that we can't prevail over any assembly of Arab armies. It's what do you do with these countries once you conquer them? They're not orderly and rational societies in the way that European or Japanese societies are. It's the influence of their totalitarian religion. As bad as communism if not worse.

[JTN]

Only a buffoon would say that American foreign policy is to blame for 9/11, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and the attack on the Khobar Towers.

Rather than respond to this statement in detail here, I'll simply point you to a previous post of mine on the subject. Suffice to say, what you say here goes against what just about any foreign policy expert accepts as uncontroversial truth.

[emptyground]

I’m a bit surprised at those here at the ‘free republic’ who don’t realize that RP is the only Pres. Cand. who truly stands for a Free Republic (and always has).

BO is freaking out trying to argue about a ‘tree’ and RP is trying to tell him that you can’t understand that ‘tree’ without seeing the ‘forest’. It is very relevant that RP point out the overthrow of Mossadeq...do you think that the CIA just stopped its covert ops, destabilization programs, and general interference in the Middle East? There are, as of right now, US forces at work seeking to destabilize and incite conflict. Just google “P2OG” or “operation gladio”.

Oh, and to equate RP with Establishment Dems is in one sense an insult, and in another a display of complete lack of understanding.

[DugwayDuke]

:See his many remarks on the essential irrationality of Mideastern politics.:

Didn’t he say that Iran would be deterred by Israel’s nukes?

How does one deter an irrational man?