(Duncan Hunter)
After the debate tonight, hopefully Ron Paul will get the message and switch the party name after his own. He is clearly not in line with Republicans or the Republican base.
He aligns himself with us by opposing Roe vs. Wade and calling it a massive mistake.
He aligns himself with us by supporting strong border patrol.
But he trashes us and utterly embarrasses us on National Security. He is clearly appealing to the anti-war nuts and using the same talking points we hear from people like Rosie O’Donnell. Here are a few snippets from what he had to say:
“The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.”
“We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration.”
“We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”
“I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this.”
“The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy.”
“We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it.”
I’m not quite sure who said it was going to be a “cakewalk.” (Lie #1) Since all the liberal and Ron Paul-like types were carping about casualties during a war, Republicans have appropriately responded by politely reminding them what happens in a war. The enemies are afraid and they shoot back. We have also pointed out how incredibly difficult this war is compared to others because we indeed are not fighting ONE MAN or ONE COUNTRY, we are fighting an entire ideology and trying to get a strong foothold in the center of it all in Iraq to continue to minimize it. Nobody has called it a “cakewalk.”
(Lie #2) Next he lies again (pointed out by Duncan Hunter and quoted below) when he says that the “war has not gone well one bit.” Aside from Hunter’s list of accomplishments, Paul fails to mention ridding the world of Saddam, his lunatic sons, watching Iraq participate in three major acts of Democracy, and killing/capturing hundreds of thousands of terrorists and insurgents.
(Lie#3) He claims we did not go to war without declaration. Paul also denounces the idea of war in Afghanistan (the one even liberals pretend to support). Wasn’t 9/11 a hint? Wasn’t Saddam making a purposed bluff to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11 a hint? Pretending that 9/11 was not a declaration of war or a hint that this very sick part of the world was out of control with hateful fanaticism leads me to believe that indeed Ron Paul MUST be purposely trying to appeal to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts. After all, if 9/11 was not a declaration of war by our enemies, it must have been something orchestrated by the Government, right?
(Lie#4) He then declares that he is less safe and that every American is less safe. The fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 or that no major American interest has been attacked overseas (the longest span between attacks since they all began in 1979) directly disagrees with him. I’m a American, could we please leave the lying to what the American people really feel to the Democrats, Dr. Paul?
(Lie#5) He then says that neo-conservatives hijacked foreign policy. I wonder if he would characterize FDR as a neo-conservative?
The brilliant Duncan Hunter stated in response:
” first, let’s remember that we’ve got troops — those 157,000 folks in Iraq, lots of them in Afghanistan are watching us tonight, and let me just tell you what they’ve done.
In Anbar province, we were having 1,350 attacks a month last October. By the blood, sweat and tears of the U.S. Marines out there, we’ve pulled it down 80 percent. They’ve pulled down civilian casualties 74 percent. (Applause.) And I — I shouldn’t let this one go, because the Democrats made an entire debate in never complementing what the troops have done. This is how we do it.
We’ve got 129 battalions in the Iraqi army that we’re training up. We’re training them up, we are getting them into the fight. When those Iraqi battalions are battle-hardened and they start to rotate into the positions on the battlefield, displacing American forces, the American forces can then rotate out, come back to the U.S. or go to other places in Central Command.
That’s the right way to win; it’s called victory. That’s how we leave Iraq. (Cheers, applause.)”
“let me tell you, right now we’ve seen an 80 percent depression in the attacks in Anbar province, those tough towns of Fallujah and Ramadi — which were incidentally the toughest, most difficult towns, where gun battles were being waged daily. We’ve now knocked that down 80 percent. And my answer is, if you think we’re going to be there for a long time, you don’t understand the determination of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. (Cheers, applause.) We’re going to turn it over.”
I am sad we haven’t paid more attention to Duncan Hunter. I am also sorry Fred Thompson did not make this debate. Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and in fact did win a GOP straw poll in Texas (Ron Paul’s state). Hunter received 534 votes and Thompson came in second with 266 votes. Ron Paul came in third. But we can see early on in majority how much of an embarrassment Ron Paul is in his own state.
I’m sorry to all my Fred supporters (like my brilliant site partner) but until Fred comes out on these issues with more zeal, my support is now focused on Duncan Hunter.
Aside from reading Paul’s quotes above, Hunter was the guy tonight who finally articulated the fraud that lies within Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters. Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party. He is dangerous to our security and continues to holler out the same talking points we could have heard a year ago on the The View when Rosie was on.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
I would like to put you in someone else’s shoes tonight, Steve:
I would like Ron Paul’s critics to imagine for a second that several decades ago on this very day the Chinese intelligence agency, using their operatives located in Austin, assassinated the governor of Texas. I would further like you to imagine that as of today the Chinese have invaded both Louisiana and New Mexico and that Santa Fe and Baton Rouge are being routinely bombed as the Chinese occupation attempts to overcome the indigenous resistance. In response, the current governor of Texas is threatening that Texas will build a nuclear weapon to defend itself. Furthermore, the opinion widely circulated in the Chinese media is that there exists a Christian plot to takeover the world by conquering China and that Texans hate China for its economic successes. Also, the Chinese are funding to the tune of billions of dollars per year Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who is a sworn enemy of Texas. Lastly, the Chinese are demanding that they be allowed to station troops in and around the Alamo, in San Antonio. If you can even begin to imagine such a horrific, if contrived, situation, you have a glimpse at what it is like to live as a Muslim in a region dominated by U.S. foreign adventurism and interventionism.
The only cowardice towards truth on display at tonight’s Republican debate was the other Republican candidate’s. If they cannot comprehend how the fact that we support dictators (e.g., Hussein, Musharraf), overthrow democratically elected officials (e.g., Mosaddeq), fund Israel, have invaded two countries, are threatening to invade more, and station troops near Islam’s equivalent to the Vatican, Mecca, contributes to terrorism, then they do not have the intellectual depth to be the next president of the United States.
What Ron Paul did say tonight is true: Non-interventionism will not prevent terrorism; it will just stop provoking it. The other half of not intervening is building up the defenses of America itself. If we focused solely on defending just the U.S., and not Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, England, and all the other one hundred thirty plus countries in which we have troops, we would be as defended as a single country could possibly be. Switzerland has proven this; and America’s position as a superpower would leave a non-interventionist neutral America as the best defended country in the history of the world.
Hey,
I’m sorry, but you are clearly not a true conservative, and definately not a constitutionalist. I’ve been in the Republican Party for 46 years now and Ron Paul is the most Republican platform candidate I’ve ever seen. What’s more is, he is not a “Chicken Little” who runs around in panic in the face of danger. We need a true and brave conservative with a cool head to lead this country in times of danger. Not an ivy league momma’s boy who’s afraid to be strong and not give in to liberal spending.
Your article is interesting, but flawed. I want to address your “lies” that Rep. Ron Paul said in the debates.
“Lie#1″ – Ken Adelman – Washington Post 2/13/02 in his article titled, “Cakewalk in Iraq” Look it up.
“Lie #2″ – CBS News poll 12/11/06 titled, “Iraq going badly nad getting worse” Where 62% of Americans believe it was a mistake.
Look it up.
“Lie #3″-Only Congress can declare war. Congress has done no such thing.
Look it up.
“Lie #4″ – I agree that we have NOT been attacked here on OUR soil since 9/11, thank God. However, thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans are less safe from our Government. Do you know they can enter you house without a warrent, arrest you, hold you indefinatly (WITHOUT A LAWYER) and not charge you with a crime, all because “someone” said your a “bad” person? Look it up.
“Lie”#5″ The “Neo-Cons” he is talking about are Cheney, Rove and that crowd. Isn’t FDR dead? What does HE have to do with Iraq?
Look it up.
Finally I’m not trying to call you out, but most of your article seems like opinion, rather than fact, thats fine, it’s your website….but if you REALLY love this country, look stuff up.
Allan: The last time I checked, no Governor of Texas made a purposed bluff to the U.N. about WMD to get money for nuclear testing. The last time I checked, the Governor of Texas did not harbor and fund terrorists, the Governor of Texas did not slaughter hundreds of thousands of Texans while vastly trying to appeal to Christian-extremists who believed that slaughtering infidels was the best way to deal with them. At least present your argument with realism.
Billy, what qualifies as a chicken little? Just what should we have done in response to 9/11. Assume just for a second that Afghanistan was the only area we attacked…Paul opposes that, too! A Chicken Little in my opinion are Presidents like Carter and Clinton that yammer on about “peace” while really endorsing sticking their necks in the sand temporarily by ignoring these threats and making them more dangerous and then leaving it to Republican presidents like Reagan and Bush to clean up the mess.
Koz:
#1. Ken Adelman writing a column and explaining that removing Saddam from power would be a “cakewalk” does not explain Paul’s statement of broad-brushing the ENTIRE Republican party and war-supporters. Now, because of liberals and people like yourself, it has indeed gone on much longer than it had to if we were allowed to go in and fight as we once did back in the 40′s when we actually won wars without liberal media and carping about civilian casualties. In the end, this does not justify Paul’s characterization of “the people” — this is a difficult war and it’s getting better (no matter how much that annoys people like you) — based on one article written by one man.
#2. Your CBS News Poll over 1,000 alleged voters being asked a question does not seem to coincide with how your own Democrats are voting in Congress. By the way, does any war go “well?” Did WW2 go well? Would Paul say that 600,000 Americans dead justified a war “going well?” How about we re-structure the question for the CBS poll respondents to “Should we leave Iraq without victory” — I would love to see the results of THAT poll. Objective evidence is on our side, you have a phony CBS news poll on your side.
#3. Didn’t Kerry, Hillary, and all of your folk say back in the day that they would support their President? Didn’t Bill start the rumor of WMD during his tenure? Didn’t Stephanopolous advise Clinton in 1997 in assassinate Saddam? (look it up!)
#4. If the Patriot Act were so effective at removing Moonbats from society then perhaps you can explain to me, why are you still running around free to blather?
#5. Paul’s entire “message” blames Americans for intervening and cites death numbers to make his case. 3,000 dies in Iraq. 600,000 died in WW2. My queston still stands! Was FDR a neo-conservative on the basis of his insane argument.
Your entire “look-ups” were based on opinion that you chose to cherry pick and justify Paul’s Rosie-like statements. We got one article written by one man to justify an entire broadbrush by Ron Paul, we got a phony CBS news poll, we have a total disregard for Kerry and the Clintons involvement in taking down Saddam, we have a phony liberal hysteria-filled rant on the Patriot Act (while you miraculously remain free to blather your “opinion” without being hauled off by the big bad Republicans) and a psychic-like prediction of the specific individuals Ron Paul “meant” when he said that “neoconservatives” hijacked foreign policy.
For all the “looking up” you do, I have to say your “comment” seems like “opinion.”
Of course this is a website about opinion. That’s what politics is all about.
Look it up.
#1 I’m not quite sure who said it was going to be a “cakewalk.”
McCain said it:
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
#2 he says that the “war has not gone well one bit.”
The war was illegal, immoral, unethical, and unjust. And no, toppling every dictator is not our job, so that’s not a good thing.
#3 He claims we did not go to war without declaration. Paul also denounces the idea of war in Afghanistan.
We had no declaration from Congress. And no, wussing out and relegating it to the President (unlawfully) doesn’t count as a declaration. Paul supported the strikes on Afghanistan, just our continued presence and nation-building.
#4 He then declares that he is less safe and that every American is less safe.
We are less safe, because what we’re doing now in the Middle East is similar to what we’ve been doing. We’re toppling leaders, ignoring international law, and destroying an Arab country. This provides great propaganda for militant jihadists, and helps them recruit more.
#5 He then says that neo-conservatives hijacked foreign policy.
“preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
If someone murders my child and then runs next door, does that mean he can’t be apprehended because he’s not in my house? How about the people who willingly shelter the child-murderer? Are they responsible?
Such a story follows the same logic as the Texas anecdote above.
Further, leaving Iraq, leaving all foreign countries, will not change the fact that our intelligence guys are finding the blueprints for schools in America marked up for various terrorist activity in raids on Iraq compounds. It does not change the fact that our guys are finding information about terrorist cells in America among the effects of places raided in Iraq. It does not change these facts, or any of the others that show that a world today is a world that is absolutely interconnected through means of communication and travel.
I’m sure that many people, sometimes myself included, would like to go back to those halcyon days of Fortress America. But do you know, the only country that qualifies for “Fortress” status now is North Korea? Talk about the government taking away rights!
Look, it’s not going to happen. So deal with it. Sure, it sounds great, but unless we revert to Little House on the Prairie, the interconnected world is here to stay. And just as hackers take great delight in trying to take down the giant Microsoft, terrorists and their supporters want to bring down the United States from all sorts of bases outside the country.
We provoke them by EXISTING. By being the biggest. By having so much prosperity (even during our recessions). By having a cultural hegemony. So, we can withdraw troops all we like, it won’t change the equation. I’m sorry that Ron Paul supporters have so much myopia that they can’t see that.
My husband’s job requires him to talk to people in the Muslim fundamentalist world every day. They don’t want us to “leave them alone”, they want to crush us any way they can.
Go ahead, list the grievences the Muslim world can give about us. We have grievences, too. However, I’d be willing to set them aside if the Muslim world would say, “Look, we’re sick of fighting and we want to educate our children so we can have a generation of doctors and teachers, and engineers to rebuild our countries. In fact, we’d even give them money to help do so.
But they’re not. They don’t want to raise children to love life, they raise them to rever death, and that is the most dangerous element of all. They don’t want to have two cows, like we do. They want someone to kill our cows so we’re equal to them.
And leaving Iraq won’t change that in the least. Just look at what happened when we played nice in 1979. That’s a direct cause of the terrorism problem we have today.
#1.Kyle that’s all opinioned perspective. It is not what we would call cold hard fact. When McCain said it would be relatively easy, what context was it in? Was this before people like Cindy Sheehan came around that worked to begin to demoralize our country? Was this before our guys bagan rounding up and/or killing insurgents and terrorists by the thousands? With a correct strategy, it could have been wrapped up a lot sooner — meaning (as I keep saying) we could have went in and fought without the liberal regard for civilian casualty. That is a luxury and we certainly didn’t use it during WW2.
#2. We should have deposed of Saddam. Of course deposing every dictator isn’t our job — THAT’S WHY WE HAVEN’T DONE THAT! The illegal, immoral, and unjust part is more opinionated perspective. It would not hold up as cold hard fact.
#3. I suppose your position is the same as his — in response to 9/11, do nothing?
#4. No jihadists have been recruited. Just what do you think it takes to be a Jihadist? It takes the mind of a psychopath. To be this nuts is not something somebody teaches you to be. It means the insanity exists, these terrorists always were around — some were just hiding in the cracks. It’s much like the cockroach approach, put out food, put come the bugs and then we drop bombs on them.
It precisely proves the point that this insanity and ideology had to be met head-on! Now, and not later when not only did they “recruit” but they graduated successfully to the point of their insanity affecting others as it did on 9/11.
Paul’s sorry ass has been kept safe since 9/11. To say such a propaganized remark to appeal to the most insane people is disgusting and frankly worth disowning him over.
#5. Thank God you aren’t living under Nazism, huh?
When engaging in a-symmetrical warfare, whoever said, wrote, or thought what or when, or how so many voted get’s put aside. Ron Paul aside, candidates will pick their lines, even gamble with them.
But, accepting, as I do (like it or not), the reality that this is a battle of life or multiple deaths struggle. As we all indulge from time to time in quoting for advantage, I’ll skip the advantage and offer, if not food for thught, something to gnaw on;
“One death is a tragedy, six million is a statistic ” (sic) (Stalin). The days of the Iranian hostage crisis could then have been a calendar statistic; the Marines in Lebanon could have been statistics,
The “Towers” could have been a statistic in pyro-aero-physics.
It’s as though this country, that has gone the pageants processes of creating or interpreting laws ‘for’ feelings or exceptions, has relegated to dated philosophy feelings that once drove us.
I’ll join Air Force Wife in any street fight, battlefield or struggle. AFW raise some ‘feelings’ exceptions and interpretations;
“If someone murders my child and then runs next door”
“They don’t want us to “leave them alone”, they want to crush us any way they can.” (Citing “Hubby’s” [Thanking him for his service] experieince.)
And to join a couple of thoughts she represented, “We provoke them by EXISTING.” with ” And just as hackers take great delight in trying to take down the giant Microsoft, terrorists and their supporters want to bring down the United States from all sorts of bases outside the country.”
I have long since put the rhetoric of campaigns out the door, whom-so-ever’s it might be. Spin will play a JV pick-up end-game and in days it will be some starlet’s rash being commented on the CDC.
This is a combat for which few manuals have been written (and those that are, are in pencil). We are not so much facing religious extremists (or anarchists) but a lust for power which has been become a polemic culture nurtured through religion which would have a ‘world without forums’ (Shawmut). In that world, the part of a court with a dissenting opinion (for feelings about, for exceptions) are soon replaced. Some die of ‘natural causes (vehicular elimination via pyro-technic-phenomena) while taking their children to school or so.
I’m watching for the candidate, that can be effective, and yet, not so void of emotion, that I fear as I would trust.
Some candidates we witnessed last night are good men. Let’s remember, we all want the best.
The American voter will decide by their vote what they think we deserve. Hope rides on that prudent judgement, feeling, exception, or whim.
God save us from ourselves.
What I do know about Ron Paul, and this is fact, because you can listen to any debate that has aired, is that he always talks about the PAST, not the FUTURE.
You ask him about what he would do with the current situation in Iraq, and he sounds just like a Dem, always referring to what we did wrong and never offering a viable solution.
Americans look to a President who offers them a bright, clear FUTURE (reference Ronald Wilson Reagan)!
Even if the governor of Texas had done those things, how would that justify the Chinese intervention and how would we be rightly seen by the Chinese as a threat?
Since those things that you listed do not directly threaten China, the Chinese taxpayer should not have to pay to put things ‘right’ in Texas, as we are supposedly doing in Iraq. And that’s assuming that by doing the things I listed China as doing, they have the best intentions in mind (i.e., they want to install a ‘kinder’ regime in Texas).
We can go back and forth all day about who supposedly harbors terrorists, funds this or that group, wants to spread Islamic fundamentalism etc. but all that really matters is that we prevent terrorism on OUR shore, not who is in charge of Iran, or what kind weapons North Korea has, or what kind of regime is in place in Iraq.
When we make strategic national security decisions we need to recognize that we live in a risky world, but we should not try (in inevitable futility – talk about a lack or realism) to go around the world and abolish risk, which, like terrorism, is merely an abstract idea and not a concrete entity.
There will always be crazy men that want to destroy America. That’s why we have a military. But we do not have a military in order to abolish craziness. That’s what the full “war on terror” strategy of the other Republicans amounts to.
We should capture Osama and come home.
So I’ve been scouring the Web trying to find substantive arguments against Ron Paul. But all I’ve seen is straw man arguments and weasel words used to attack him. Combine this with the lack of specific plan the other candidates have (as opposed to Ron Paul’s) and I have now decided to support him. I kept an open mind and ironically, it was Ron’s naysayers who helped me choose him, not his supporters.
Well Geoff,
Perhaps you might want to take a look at Duncan Hunter’s last speech I posted.
Moreover; get a look at Allan’s last post of “we must catch ONE MAN” to end terrorism.
What Paul doesn’t get is that ignoring it and not intervening when we should have (Carter’s neglect in 1979 and Clinton’s in the 90′s) is what made this so “complexed.”
Liberalism caused 9/11. Turning a blind eye and then getting pissed off at a Republican president when he can’t fix it all in one day while we watch him fight back in both Afghanistan and Iraq, keep us safe everyday for six years, and simultaneously listen to liberals, the media, and blowhard-opportunists like Ron Paul literally blame him and the country he represents for the sheer purposes of “standing out.”
But to say other candidates haven’t offered anything specific is hideous. You obviously have not been watching the debates.
Ron Paul’s only message has always been and always will be: DO NOTHING in response to the deadliest attack ever on our soil.
Voters know this. That is why Duncan Hunter stomped Paul out in Paul’s own state of Texas last week in the straw poll where Hunter came in first.
I think my argument still stands:
I say we must catch everyone who directly commits a crime like 9-11, but that, along with attempting to prevent attacks on OUR shore by building up the defenses of America itself (and not stationing troops all over the world), is our only responsibility.
The strategy of trying to preemptively trying to prevent all terrorism ever will not work.
And I do not expect it to work.
That’s why I advocate heavily armed neutrality.
Additionally, I think you unrealistically equate a government (i.e., a group of people) with a single man when you say “when he can’t fix it all in one day while we watch him fight back in both Afghanistan and Iraq, keep us safe everyday for six years.”
I wish it were only Bush fighting in Iraq.
You know, Duncan Hunter has this problem too; I guess that’s why he’s your candidate.
‘The border fence I built.’
I wish he was building a border fence like he claims to be, instead of running for President claiming personal responsibility for something the taxpayers bought, paid for, and built.
Yes, I am one of those who has moved other’s to vote for Ron Paul.
Good luck, Ron Paul supporters. He is a losing candidate and, mostly, like Steve said, because he does not want to do anything against those who attacked us – it is the same old argument that it was the United States’ fault.
That is what I call a straw man argument.
Seriously… I think we can have a good debate here, if we just wouldn’t let it get personal. (“Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters”)
You cannot just discount me as someone who is uninformed and does not care about the security of this country. I don’t want to die at the hands of terrorists anymore than you do, and I was a supporter of the Bush candidacy and presidency when he ran in 2000 up until the war in Iraq in 2003. I’ve argued in favor of numerous Republican candidates in my life and I probably hate modern liberalism and what it has done to this country far more than you do.
But you are just not addressing my argument:
Since you seem to think the Islamo-fascists are bent on conquering the world, answer the following question. Do you foresee Switzerland eventually being conquered by the Islamo-fascists? And if you do, do you not think that countries like Britain and Spain, who have at times actually materially supported the U.S. war in Iraq,
would fall to Islamo-fascism much sooner than Switzerland? Is the Swiss defense strategy untenable? If so, why? And why, SPECIFICALLY, can’t neutrality be practiced successfully by the U.S.? I want GOOD arguments, and not the standard inane retorts I usually receive to that question, as I have written a treatise addressing these (e.g. ‘we’re so much bigger’, ‘a lot has changed since the days of Washington, etc.’) . I want the dirty details, especially since many neutrality scholars would argue that the exercise of neutrality is ostensibly easier for a more powerful nation to pursue.
You can’t scare me out of here by nit-picking my argument.
“Since you seem to think the Islamo-fascists are bent on conquering the world, answer the following question.”
Switzerland is really no different other than to say that destroying and defeating the United States of America would certainly accomplish their task of beating the fighting spirit of Christians and humanity everywhere.
Moreover; how about Osama’s last video? He advises us to stop fighting (Iraq and Afghanistan) and wants us all to convert to Islam.
Half of it sounds like Ron Paul supporters doesn’t it? Literally, shave off the beard and that’s really all you need. Like Ron Paul, Osama believes that in response to 9/11, we need to do nothing. So when I call them lunatics because they want to hinder the security of this country just so that their idol can be an opportunist, it’s very different from just saying something just to be saying it. I truly believe something has to be wrong.
The point is, and Steve made it perfectly.
It is lunacy to just bring all the troops home, sit and wait and do nothing about 9/11.
The terrorists have made their intentions known (even before 9/11).
It is now our turn to insure the success of the United States.
I have a question for you ALLAN:
Do you think that Ron Paul would ever send troops to defend this country if he is willing to do nothing after the attacks of 9/11?
Defense is never a good strategy after someone has attacked you. Principally, yes, but what happens after you have taken the high road?
Yes, they continually attack you. We have been down that road (1979-2001) and it didn’t work.
So, getting the troops out of Iraq is shared by among Ron Paul, his supporters and…yes, Osama bin Laden.
Again, it is lunacy!
Unlike you, I WILL directly answer your question(s):
“Do you think that Ron Paul would ever send troops to defend this country if he is willing to do nothing after the attacks of 9/11?”
To begin with, your dependent clause, (i.e., “if he is willing to do nothing after the attacks of 9/11?”) is factually inaccurate, as Ron Paul has stated that he would’ve, if President, requested Letters of Marque and Reprisal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque – as I don’t really expect someone like you to have actually read the Constitution on this particular matter) from Congress against Osama and other members of the Al Qaeda organization. Afghanistan, per se, did not commit the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and so it is smarter to address the culprit, i.e. Al Qaeda, more directly and not to devote unnecessary resources to merely removing an unsavory regime. This is Ron Paul’s argument, and I agree.
Secondly, yes, I do think Ron Paul would very quickly send troops oversees if he thought that this was the best way to respond to a direct attack on our national security. If, for instance, Iran sent one of its ships to our shore and began shelling New York City, I have a feeling that there would be little left of Tehran within hours with President Paul in charge.
The only lunacy on display is your own. Conservatives of your stripe do not address the issue of neutrality because they are not able to logically prove such a strategy is insufficient.
I do not listen to terrorists like Osama to hear their own personal opinions; he is a liar and a murderer, and I wouldn’t expect him to say anything of import. I don’t want to remove our troops from the Arabian peninsula because Osama wants us too; I want them removed because it is the right thing to do, having them there is irrelevant to defending this country, and their presence does indeed encourage Muslims on the fence, so to speak, to join in Osama’s cause. This is essentially Paul’s argument – the only confusion, I believe, is that while you think Ron Paul wants to remove our troops purely because Osama wants us to, the truth, I think, is that Ron Paul wants to remove these troops to deprive Osama of an effective recruiting tool. Subtle, yes, but of dire importance.
My questions remain substantively unanswered.
Good luck.
I was trying to find a means to express my interpretation of Ron Paul. Then it came to me.
Naom Chomsky Lite.
Allan, that was a dance.
A total dance…
We have been upfront and have described everything.
Osama’s message is no different than that of Ron Paul’s.
DO NOTHING. Paul blamed 9/11 on America.
So does Osama.
It’s not that hard.
“Ron Paul wants to remove these troops to deprive Osama of an effective recruiting tool.”
Amazing!
Ron Paul did not blame 9/11 on America.
Thank you, Steve.
By the way, ALLEN, on the contrary, I have read the Constitution.
A Devil Dog, by the way, ALLEN, is a United States Marine. This Marine has read the Constitution from cover to cover. Why? Because I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution “against all enemies FOREIGN and domestic.” I have taken the oath four times, ALLEN, so please don’t use your college professor attitude to explain the Constitution and its substance to me.
If Paul wants to remove the troops, in effect, to deprive Osama of a recruiting tool, it doesn’t change the fact that the lunatics out there (the terrorists, including Osama) will still come after us. Also, it doesn’t solve the problem of the bad guys still being ALIVE. I want the bad guys DEAD. That is where Ron Paul and I part ways.
Hey, ALLEN, let’s save some time. All you have to do is say that you hate Bush, it all goes back to the 2000 election (because it is the crux of all liberal ideals), and you guys can’t get over it.
That should settle it, PROFESSOR ALLEN.
By the way, the spelling of your name was on purpose. Only liberals would detract from the most common spelling of the name ALLEN by using an “A”.
Is that like the feminists who choose to hyphenate their last names?
“Ron Paul did not blame 9/11 on America.”
Rachel I suggest you refer to his interview with Bill O’Reilly tonight.
Yes, RACHEL, what Steve said.
I saw the interview and he never can answer a question directly.
He is in now way a Republican and we conservatives disassociate ourselves from anything that Ron Paul says and does.
It’s not an attitude – it’s called reason and logic.
And just because you are a member of the military does not mean you have some kind of monopoly on constitutional knowledge, love of your country, or a desire to keep this nation safe.
If we had a decent foreign policy, I would gladly serve this nation as well. I say that not as a college professor, but as a twenty-two year old with plenty of years ahead.
I remain the conservative in this debate, because even if you can’t see it, anyone else with – what was it? “a college professor attitude” – the ability to reason can.
ALLAN, you are hopeless.
Since you are twenty, trust me, you will grow up.
By the way, I never said I had a “monopoly” on the Constitution. I was responding to your “I- know-more-than-you-about-the-Constitution” statement criticizing my intelligence.
Sorry, but your conservatism that you dream about is still only in your head.
Friend, as soon as you have seen at least half of the world that I have seen out there, then maybe you can join me in a conversation about the realities of the world. Only by seeing the realities of the world outside of the U.S. will you truly understand the meaning of the Constitution.
You can now continue READING about places in the world!
STEVE, see, ALLAN is one of those who wants to “reason” with the terrorists.
That is really very funny!
What is even more hilarious is he calls himself a conservative.
Hey, STEVE, he also believes that serving your country only depends on who is in power.
I guess the boy is one of those that will only join the military for the educational benefits.
Ya know Devil, I can’t blame some of these young folks. We have so many versions of crazy out there supporting Ron Paul.
When I was in NYC last year, coming off of the train I saw folks holding signs that saif “9/11 was an inside job” and were simultaneously passing out literature on Ron Paul.
Paul refuses to fully denounce all of the support from this select group of internet folk because he knows its the main strength of his internet popularity.
I really feel he may be paid by Al-Queda or has been put up to something by someone we don’t know about.
Allan you seem like a reasonable person. What you have to reason with is reality. We don’t want to accept Paul’s plan of sticking our necks in the sand, being nice, and hoping that they won’t do anything.
Whatever the argument is of how America started it or the extremists did — (20+ years of relentless attacks) we have gone past a point. We cannot turn back.
I’ll let ya’ll have the last word – I will say no more, except:
Thanks for the debate.
Allan,
Thanks for your comments as well.
Your overall “plan” could sound good in theory. But sometimes theory doesn’t mesh well with reality.
I would have liked to have asked you how you view Al-Queda and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in comparison to the Nazis in WW2.
I’m sorry it ended so soon.
Thanks again.
Steve
I agree, Steve.
There is no turning back now.
Wait, stop me, Steve, my previous statement is a progressive statement. I’m a conservative.