Posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
Since you hold that it’s okay to break contracts, I do not believe that we have the same definition of “non-interventionist.”
I’m not a lawyer, just someone who believes that promises and agreements should be kept. Contracts may be amended by mutual agreement, they can be thrown out by courts or higher authorities, but they can’t legitimately be broken by one side.
The refusal or inability to restrain Saddam within the peace terms was seen as weakness. It endangered us all by supporting the position held by bin Laden in his communications that the US would cave to terrorism.
I actually have to go do some work now. Nice chatting with you.
If the 9/11 attack had come 30 minutes later and the planes had hit 15-20 stories lower, the death toll probably would have been 10-15 thousand.
*****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.*****
It took N. Korea how long to get the bomb? Iran might have the bomb in 5+ years. Yet you expect the “terrorists” to come up with multiple bombs and be able to set them off in the US at the same time. The technology and mechanics of making a A bomb have been around for a long time, but it is still a very difficult thing to do and requires a lot of precision equipment and parts.
9/11 was a fluke. Even the Empire State building, built in the late 1920’s-30’s was designed to withstand a hit by the air craft of its time. And, as I recall, an air plane did crash into it at one time. The World Trade buildings were designed to withstand a hit by the aircraft of the time it was built. However, the upper super structure of the buildings did not have their supporting super structure heat proofed because the government had outlawed the use of asbestos when that part was going up.
***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.****
Only problem is that our present way of dealing with the problem is not that effective. Al Qaeda is still about as strong or stronger than it used to be. Our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an important recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Look at how long the British were fighting the IRA. Look at how long the Israeli’s and the Palestinians have been fighting. Do we really want to commit to a 40-50 year occupation of Iraq?
In the meantime, the government will be looking to take more and more of our liberties in the name of security.
Seems to me you really don't want to know, much like Ron Paul.
Hint: It's called killing the A, B, and C teams of Islamofascists pre-emptorily with our "interventionist" foreign policy. Those that aren't dead are running or in caves and can only spout KOS and Dem talking points in F grade videos.
Claiming it's our "interventionist foreign policy" to blame as you do is so lame. If that's so, why don't the Poles and Czechs and Australians go after us with the Islamofascists? Doh! Perhaps it's because it's Islamofascism that is the true aggressor. Doh! Never thought of that, did you? Perhaps you should spend more time actually reading about this war we're actually in, one that was waged on us for over almost a decade before we had to respond.
Your man Ron Paul has no clue what to do, and you should know better, but you don't want to know, you just want to believe in Ron Paul as savior. BTW......I only called Paul's supporters morons about foreign policy because they appear to be so ignorant and allow him to say all these ignorant things so worshipfully, I never directly called you one.
It's becoming more evident that perhaps I should have.
You’re right. My original point was simply that we can simply depend on miracles to protect us from terrorism.
ping
BTW, have you heard that Traitor John "served" in Vietnam?" Of course, he served the NVA and VC, but never mind.
Poor Paul. He hits some facts that would indeed mean that we should not , not be tired in fighting our war against Islamofascism in the Iraq battleground. We in the USA kill more people by cars than our brave military have suffered. The USA can take hits though they are sad and horrid because we cannot afford to lose any battles against these evil murdersome Iranian supported Islamofascist war in the ME. After all, we have freed two ME nations. We have pointed out that these murderers are in a generational war and we must not lose it. Only liberals believe that this is not a war and now Paul sounds like the isolationist that he is being a sounding board for the very leftist tripe that he says he avoids.
Terrorists can only screw up a few of us. An out-of-control government can screw up all of us.
What's wrong with that assessment?
How nice it must be to be so self-centered that you only think about the security of the nation in terms of how it effects you individually.
He’s delusional.
Just wondering if you’re going to reply to my questions about why letters of marque are a ‘brilliant idea’?
OK, someone has to ask ... what is the weapon of choice for the highway? and ... Why haven’t we banned or at the very least restricted it?
I assume he is hard at work on the analogy for wiping out Israel right about now. Let’s see, 8 million, divided by 50,000 that’s 160 years ... got to do better. Let’s see, tsunamis killed ... hey just a few tsunamis short of a full load. Go with it.
Does dumber than a box of rocks apply?
I don’t think he’s written a ‘letter of marquee act’ or anything in bill form, I think he’s just talked generally about the idea. So, I don’t know the specifics, but the fundamental concept makes sense, IMO.
The last time I heard him talked about it was during an interview with Hugh Hewitt(sp) and he said that he would issue a letter of marquee to get osama and the US government would authorize a billion dollars as ‘prize money’ and various private groups would have free reign to violate the territories of other countries, Afghanistan/Pakistan to destroy Al Qaeda and capture/kill the various top members. How they did this would be up to them, whether bribing the leaders, paying off tribes, undercover cia style, or brute force invasion. They wouldn’t be hindered by rules of engagement, military bureaucracy, diplomatic niceties etc.. He said that he or his staff had talked to several groups who expressed interest in this sort of thing.
Some Americans are taking matters into their own hands regardless, do you recall the story a while back about the Ex special forces guy who with a few palls went to Afghanistan and got busted for having an ‘illegal jail’, with apparently a bunch of captured terrorists in it? They did it on their own, forget the exact story, American individual can-do; what this country was founded on. But, they got in trouble cuz the military has a monopoly on the use of force in these situations. I think the guy went to jail actually…
His thought was that the US government could accomplish using 1 billion dollars what it has spent trillions upon trillions on today, especially the nation building aspect.
The specifics notwithstanding, I think the idea clearly has merit, and certainly doesn’t deserve some of the derision expressed by some here at FR, and the same with this idea that Ron Paul is ‘soft’ on the war on terror or seeks to ‘appease’ the terrorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.