Replies

I see, he's changed his mind since 2006. Antiwar.com has a good index of his weekly columns. He wants an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, not a withdrawl when the job is done. As he proposes in Don't Delay: US Out of Iraq Now,by Rep. Ron Paul, July 14, 2007 and Support the Troops by Ending the War, by Rep. Ron Paul, February 1, 2007 . He supports a small, targeted strike on Osama, and considers Afghanistan a failure, one that simply inflames the Muslims. As I presume our presence in places like Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and our naval presence in the region do as well. If we withdraw completely, everything will be fine. Why are his supporters in denial about his opinions, they should be supporting an immediate and total withdrawl from the entire Muslim world.

The Law of Opposites by Rep. Ron Paul Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

He supports a small, targeted strike on Osama, and considers Afghanistan a failure, one that simply inflames the Muslims.

Obviously, it is a failure. A country ruled by the Taliban isn't going to become some sweet little democracy in a few years. As soon as we leave, they'll likely revert. And the American public isn't much interested in garrisoning them for fifty years.