Ron Paul taking Giuliani to the woodshed

[TT]

And how could you be so simple-minded to not have read/scene the explanations, by Paul's own mouth which have all been posted on this board?

Yup, I’ve read the apologists’ attempts to rehabilitate Paul’s image- they don’t answer the question for me. If you buy the explanations, ok. But realize other people don’t buy it, and won’t vote for anyone who would say what Paul did.

And before anyone starts in- I’m not voting for Giuliani.

 

[GoSlash27]

…how can anyone say he is not justifying the 9/11 attacks and blaming the US?

Like this:
Nowhere, never, in any shape or form has Ron Paul ever tried to "justify" the actions of terrorists. What he's saying is the same thing many of us have said right here; misguided policy enables the enemy.
And blaming the U.S.? That's a little vague. He didn't blame "America", the American people, or even the politicians. He simply pointed out that it's a forseeable outcome that was exacerbated by bad policy. Which...you know..it was.

 

[GTSteve03]

and won’t vote for anyone who would say what Paul did.

So, you'll vote for whoever tells you that everything we say and do is right in the world. None of our actions are ever viewed negatively by anyone and the only reason anyone would choose to attack us is because they hate us for our freedoms?

 

[Lupinus]

how can anyone say he is not justifying the 9/11 attacks and blaming the US?

Gee we went to war with some people, they didn't like it (or were people with ties to the people we attacked anddidn't like), so they hit us back. Wow, going to war with someone over their actions and attacking them, what a concept.

Now, you may not agree wit hte type of attack, IE agianst civies. And ni ut wasn't Americas fault that some guys decided they were going to take out a huge civilian target. But when you play with fire don't be surprised if you get a little burn, reguardless of having a reason to do so or not, is the point.

 

[helpless]

Ron Paul 2008

 

[HiroProX]

Ron Paul did a good job explaining a concept alien to most americans in the time allotted. We have engaged in actions, such as deposing a democratically elected leader in Iraq and Iran, in the case of Iran propping up the Shah. As we can see, such actions do tend to invoke anger on the part of those in said countries.

Guess what, by supporting the overthrow of those democratically elected leaders, we're responsible for the results. In the name of *Insert the american cause of that time* we've meddled in their government to a degree that we'd never tolerate a foreign power meddling in ours.

Such actions, while they are not the primary cause of radical terrorist groups, are a major contributing factor and create an ability for such groups to widen their appeal. Such actions in fact can be construed as directly helping these groups. When you have a dangerous enemy, the last thing you need to do is to practically hand them ammunition to use against you.

I do think Ron could have used a better term than "blowback". A more apt term would be "unintended consequences".

 

[orionengnr]

At least one of the ten candidates has read and understands the 9/11 commision report. Unlike certain posters.

While I'm at it...
At least one of the ten candidates has read and understands the Constitution...unlike 95% of Americans.

Shameful. And we will once again get what we deserve.

 

[TT]

Well, I’d offer thanks for the replies but most of them had just a smidge more vitriol than I prefer.

The question remains- if the blockade and no-fly zone were unjust, and they resulted in thousands of Iraqi deaths, and 9/11 was in retaliation-as RP implied as demonstrated in my previous post- how can the 9/11 attacks not be what the US deserved?

For the record- I thought the US actions in question were not unjust.

 

[samtechlan]

It's bizarre to hear the neo cons attack Paul for his non-interventionst policy.
Many congressional Republicans strongly attacked Clinton's policy of intervention in the Balkans. Where they anti-troops when they did that? Where they anti-american? Of course not.

 

[TT]

At least one of the ten candidates has read and understands the Constitution...unlike 95% of Americans.

Shameful.

Maybe you’re onto something here- at your next Ron Paul meet-up why don’t you suggest an ‘Americans are so stupid’ advertising campaign? I’m guessing you’d have no trouble putting your heart into that one.

 

[samtechlan]

TT,

The issue is whether certain actions by our Government contributed to Anti-americanism in the Middle East which increases support among the general population in that area for attacks like 9/11. If you are going to quote the terrorists like Bin Laden and Zawahiri incessantly like the neo-cons do to justify their position you also have tp point out that the terrorists cite the actions against Iraq over a decade as partial justification for their extremism.

Bin Laden in particular emphasized the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia as justification for 9/11 and apparently the Bushies agreed with him because one of the first things this adm did after the invasion of Iraq was to withdraw the troops from that country.

 

[TT]

It's bizarre to hear the neo cons attack Paul for his non-interventionst policy.

You can make a fine case for non-intervention without smearing the United States- yet RP and quite a few of his supporters here took a different path. That says a lot to me.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's bizarre to hear the neo cons attack Paul for his non-interventionst policy.
Many congressional Republicans strongly attacked Clinton's policy of intervention in the Balkans.

What, you haven't noticed?

Hardcore political partisans ON BOTH SIDES have a rule about military action: if it's our guy in the White House, we're for it, and if it's the other party's guy, we're against it.

It's bipartisan disingenuousness. Yeah, it's lame. Really lame for the country, really lame for the troops in the field.

Then there are the "multilateral" lefties (war is good if the UN tells us to do it), the pacifists (war is always bad and we should turn the other cheek), the far-right-wing hawks (kick their ass, take their gas bumper stickers), the neo-cons (we're so smart we can go to war and come out ahead!), etc. Feel free to add some other simplistic thinking to the list; there's plenty out there. They're all lame, because none of these approaches can be relied upon in the real world.

However, when I read Paul's platform, I don't see him stating the criteria for military action. His platform (excuse me for not having heard everything he's ever said: put it in the platform on the Web if it's important, this IS 2007) is the old Libertarian promise: if we trade freely and use diplomacy (but no trade agreements and no international organizations or treaties) then there won't be war. That is ALSO simplistic BS.

(He also talks about Congressional declaration, and that's important, but it's generally the President who goes to Congress and says, "We should declare war." So that doesn't get a Presidential candidate off the hook. WHEN would he go to Congress for the declaration, and when would he stand down, if President? Inquiring voters WANT TO KNOW.)

Let's hear it. In the real world, the military is part of diplomacy, if only as a threat. It must be a credible threat, though.

So when would Paul seek to declare war, and when not? What ARE the criteria, if unilateral free trade and withdrawal from treaties don't provide an instant, peaceful world?

I want to know.

 

[samtechlan]

Criticizing the policies of Bush I and Clinton is "smearing the United States"?

Wow not only do we have to worship at the altar of the Great Leader Bush but now we have to refrain from criticizing his predecessors as well?

 

[TT]

Bin Laden in particular emphasized the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia as justification for 9/11 and apparently the Bushies agreed with him because one of the first things this adm did after the invasion of Iraq was to withdraw the troops from that country.

This can be true without considering the blockade and no-fly zone unjust.

The issue is whether certain actions by our Government contributed to Anti-americanism in the Middle East which increases support among the general population in that area for attacks like 9/11. If you are going to quote the terrorists like Bin Laden and Zawahiri incessantly like the neo-cons do to justify their position you also have tp point out that the terrorists cite the actions against Iraq over a decade as partial justification for their extremism.

You’ve generalized the issue to obfuscate it- I’m referring specifically to RP’s remarks at the debate as I stated earlier and I stand by my analysis.

 

[samtechlan]

AB,

You want to read more Paul, well this is the place:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

 

[pcosmar]

ArmedBear asked,

(He also talks about Congressional declaration, and that's important, but it's generally the President who goes to Congress and says, "We should declare war." So that doesn't get a Presidential candidate off the hook. WHEN would he go to Congress for the declaration, and when would he stand down, if President? Inquiring voters WANT TO KNOW.)

This may be what you are looking for.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm

When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

TT, you asked

The question remains- if the blockade and no-fly zone were unjust, and they resulted in thousands of Iraqi deaths, and 9/11 was in retaliation-as RP implied as demonstrated in my previous post- how can the 9/11 attacks not be what the US deserved?

If I called your mother something awful, then busted your car windshield, burned your place of employment to the ground, then killed your cousin, followed by your preacher, and you later tracked me down and put a bullet in my head, I think you would be guilty of first degree murder.

America has held some policies over the last half century which have resulted in unfavorable events in the middle east, these actions have resulted in the death of probably hundreds of thousands. When they come over here to strike at targets here, they are guilty of acts of Terrorism (almost exactly the same as Piracy).

Have you ever tried to quit smoking, quit drinking, or lose a lot of wieght? If so, then you know how hard it is to change your own behavior. How hard then is it to change someone else's? When we look at what factors contributed to the awful events, we are not accepting blame. We are looking to stop it from happening again.

There are two ways to do it. One, don't piss people off so bad that they line up to die for a chance to kill you. Two, kill everyone who might do so before they get the chance and prevent people from aquiring the necessary materials for those acts, to include weapons. Like sand, the tighter you grip, the more pours through your fingers.

 

[orionengnr]

Maybe you’re onto something here- at your next Ron Paul meet-up why don’t you suggest an ‘Americans are so stupid’ advertising campaign? I’m guessing you’d have no trouble putting your heart into that one.

Don't guess you read my post very carefully.

BTW, have you read the Constitution? Or the 9/11 report?

We get the government we deserve. If you don't read or understand the documents that matter, you listen to sound bytes. And vote accordingly.

 

[HiroProX]

Problem is, "just" and "unjust", particularly in the international arena are nominally subjective.

Doesn't change the fact that we have painted a target on ourselves by meddling in the region.

Makes a lot more sense than the "They hate us for our freedoms" nonsense. Frankly, most of the middle east could care less that we can say what we want or own firearms. They do care when our government meddles in their internal affairs, and they have every right to.

Would you tolerate foreign countries meddling in our internal affairs the way we have in the affairs of some other countries?

 

[GTSteve03]

You’ve generalized the issue to obfuscate it- I’m referring specifically to RP’s remarks at the debate as I stated earlier and I stand by my analysis.

Do you deny that the actions of US foreign policy in some way caused the 9/11 attacks?

 

[MrRezister]

orionengnr said:
At least one of the ten candidates has read and understands the Constitution...unlike 95% of Americans.

TT replied:
Maybe you’re onto something here- at your next Ron Paul meet-up why don’t you suggest an ‘Americans are so stupid’ advertising campaign? I’m guessing you’d have no trouble putting your heart into that one.

Woah, that's quite a leap, from "they haven't read the Constitution" to "they're so stupid". I would love to know how you made that connection, or failing that, why you felt the need to build such a crappy straw man. (Just kidding, I actually know why you'd build a crappy straw man.)
And what was that about a "smidge more vitriol than I prefer"? Pure class.

ArmedBear said:
However, when I read Paul's platform, I don't see him stating the criteria for military action. His platform (excuse me for not having heard everything he's ever said: put it in the platform on the Web if it's important, this IS 2007) is the old Libertarian promise: if we trade freely and use diplomacy (but no trade agreements and no international organizations or treaties) then there won't be war. That is ALSO simplistic BS.

'snip'

Let's hear it. In the real world, the military is part of diplomacy, if only as a threat. It must be a credible threat, though.

Nice job Bear. Those are the best arguments I've heard against Ron Paul's stance so far, and have given me reason to look closer at my choices.

I think the point that I and some others have tried to make is that rather than being used as a "credible threat", too often the US military has been used as a "whomping stick". The obvious result of these actions over a period of time is that we become viewed as a bully, rather than an ally who would make a very powerful foe.

 

[ServiceSoon]

TT

You are interpreting what Ron Paul said the same way antis interpret the second amendment. What did the framers really say about the right to bear arms? Ron is trying to explain what we [Ron supporters] believe is a simple case of cause and affect. This is the same logic that dictates that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

If you don't agree with Ron Paul maybe you will agree with either the former Chief of CIA's Bin Laden Unit or the 911 Commission Report?

 

[patentmike]

Many muslums believe that the US and Israel perpetrated 911 for their own sinister ends. Simultaneously, they believe that 911 was a great victory for islam. So Ron Paul, who I was starting to warm up to, thinks that it is safe to assume that jihadist foreign policy is based on rational thought? If only we had left the no-fly zone alone, the leading Saudi nutjob would have found something more constructive to do than attack us?

After I read the 911 report, I thought the general idea was that the weak responses to previous attacks (WTC 1993, USS Cole, Somalia) led Osama to miscalculate that all he had to do what hit us hard at home and we would immediately turn tail and run from the entire middle east.

How about this question for him: Now what?

After the snake bites you, there is no need for a charmer. Ecclesiates 10:11

 

[HiroProX]

Meh, the die was cast by US government decisions predating the Gulf War.

Once the die was cast, 9/11 or something like it was only a matter of time.