Doesn’t surprise me about New Hampshire. Glad I escaped that political wasteland.
Posted on 12/19/2007 5:34:25 AM PST by 50mm
“I think Ron Paul drafted Bin Laden’s 11/2001 letter to America because that is precisely the excuse Bin Laden used for his attacks on us; our troops were in the Arabian Peninsula, forget the fact we were INVITED there.”
Kind of a no brainer there...SA invited us, not OBL. Since OBL has a beef with SA......and he was telling us as much...what part of the equation do you not understand?
One need not “draft” a letter, just read it. If OBL is indeed the one responsible then he might be the one sole person with the credibility on the matter.
If I walk up to you and punch you in the nose... and then write a letter telling you why I did so, would you not read the letter and then make the connection?
And no, I am not siding with OBL.
Ron Paul bends over and faces Mecca.
Doesn’t surprise me about New Hampshire. Glad I escaped that political wasteland.
“He basically said in this interview that the US was an occupying power in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War.”
That is the reason given by OBL for his attack on the US. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.
NEITHER of the Barbary Wars was declared, Congress authorized the use of force, just as they have done countless other times (including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress alone has the power to declare war, NOWHERE in the Consititution are they required to declare war. Nor does the Constitution require the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to seek a declaration of war. The time limits were put in by the founders so the exec branch could not use force for an unlimited time.
HUH?!
The Congress shall have Power To ...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
(Article I, Section 8)
NOWHERE does this mention "time limits."
I have no problem with the authorization of the use of force except, it leaves the door open to get bogged down in a open ended conflict
Let's take the most recent declared war, which would be World War II. On December 8, 1941, FDR said the following:
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces- with the unbounding determination of our people- we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
Not only did Roosevelt not talk about "time limits," he specifically said the words, "No matter how long it may take." If that isn't talking about "unlimited time" then I don't know what is.
No it isn't. The point is Ron Paul called us an occupying power. We were/are not. We are there by invitation of the Saudi Arabian government.
Just because OBL (0r Ron Paul for that matter) doesn't like the fact of our presence does not make the invitation any less valid. But the fact of the invitation invalidates Paul's viewpoint.
Of course even Ron Paul doesn’t believe the Ron Paul standard, having voted for an authorization for use of military force before he voted against an authorization for use of military force.
Now, lets put this in perspective considering that Paul called 9/11 an act of ‘air piracy’ and the Barbary Pirates were used as a terrorist-type tool of the Ottoman Empire to expand their Islamic Empire.
What was said about ‘those who fail to learn from history’?
My point exactly in post #54.
Ron Paul is a loon.
No it isn’t. The point is Ron Paul called us an occupying power. We were/are not. We are there by invitation of the Saudi Arabian government.
Just because OBL (0r Ron Paul for that matter) doesn’t like the fact of our presence does not make the invitation any less valid. But the fact of the invitation invalidates Paul’s viewpoint.
________________________________________________________
RP read what OBL wrote and relayed it. You can’t see that?
“If I walk up to you and punch you in the nose... and then write a letter telling you why I did so, would you not read the letter and then make the connection?”
If you wrote the letter B4 you punched me I might give a damn about it. The fact you wrote the letter AFTER you punched me just tells me you felt you needed to get your butt covered with some kind of an excuse.......
The full portion of pertinent text (nothing out of context):
Stossel: "Some people say that if we don't attack the enemy there, they'll attack us here.
Ron Paul: I think the opposite is true. The radicals were able to use our bases in Saudi Arabia and the bombing of Iraq (from 1991 to 2001) as a reason to come over here. If China were to do the same thing to us, and they had troops in our land, We would resent it. We'd probably do some shooting.
Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.
I don't think that's true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit. The litmus test is whether we are actually occupying a territory. In the case of Saudi Arabia, that was holy land.
Uh, excuse me. These are Paul's own thoughts and beliefs he's expressing; not his relaying OBL's judgments. What? You can't see that?
OBL stated on numerous occasions that we (infidels) were occupying SA (holy lands).
Where is the confusion?
Where is the confusion?
Only in your mind. Who cares what he states? He represents no foreign power; especially a power that has invited us into their country. His beliefs are to be taken with no greater weight than yours or mine. They are opinion and carry no diplomatic weight.
The fact that Ron Paul gives them weight shows just how naive and misguided he is.
The legal and historical fact is that the US never occupied Saudi Arabia, but was an invited guest and ally of the Saudi Arabian government.
Whether your friend Osama Bin Laden or your friend Ron Paul or you disagree with this historical fact is irrelevant.
No confusion, the question for me is, what gives OBL the moral authority we should listen to him and obey his will regarding those lands? If we capitulate to his authority on this, what would his next demand be?
“Is this case not different? Religious fanatics hate us and want to kill us because of our culture.
I don’t think that’s true. It is not Muslim fanaticism that is the culprit.”
Okay, I’ve tried to judge Paul on his record, but this...He’s just plain nuts.
So what? Maybe OBL should go back to Saudi Arabia and tell the government why he is opposed to the United States being there.
And it is my understanding (and hopefully someone with a better grasp of Semitic tradition can clarify) that we ARE NOT occupying any holy land in Saudi Arabia. The tradition, that began with the Jews and has been adopted by Christians and Muhammadens is that SITES (the Wailing Wall, the Nativity, the mosque in Mecca, etc.) are holy land, some cities (Jerusalem) have so many holy sites that the entire city is considered holy (also, I believe the Muhammadens have declared the entire city of Mecca off-limits to non-Muhammadens); however, there is NO SUCH THING as a "holy country" if for no other reason than the fact that Saudi Arabia didn't exist as a country a century ago, much less at the time of Muhammad.
“No confusion, the question for me is, what gives OBL the moral authority we should listen to him and obey his will regarding those lands?”
who cares about “moral” authority? Sheeesh....
Go back to my analogy...why should you care if I have or had a “moral” authority to punch you in the nose? What difference does that make?
The fact is...OBL made it well known before Gulf War 1 even....that he felt all infidels should exit the holy land.
RP merely believes that there were enough military powers in the area, between the Arab States to nullify Saddams efforts to occupy Kuwait. let the friggin Arabs deal with that jerk. What was he gonna do? Blow the oil wells?
Oh, forgot, he already did that... after we intervened.
If the Arabs can’t get their shit together and protect themselves.... well...they get what they deserve.
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.