Al-Qaeda's Useful Idiot Ron Paul: "They Hate Us Because We're Occupiers" (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, December 31, 2009, 10:34 AM
Shameful.
Ron Paul tells CNN that Al-Qaeda hates us because we’re occupiers:
And, that is exactly the reason why Ron Paul can never be taken seriously on foreign policy.
We weren’t “occupiers” when they blew up the Twin Towers, Ron.
As Tass says below, “Bin Laden declared war against the United States in 1996, long before 9-11. They were fighting a war and killing Americans long before we joined the fight.”
AllahPundit has more on Paul’s disgraceful and inaccurate statements.
More… MRT added:
“They bomb us because we’re occupiers.”
“We’re occupiers because they bombed us.”
“You got chocolate in my peanut butter.”
“You got peanut butter in my chocolate.”
What. An. Idiot.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Horrible… Obama Tells Foolish Supporters: I’m Not Over-Spending… “I’m Running to Pay Down Our Debt”
Published May 23, 2012 at 11:51 pm - 59 Comments
AuntieMadder commented:
I used to think Ron Paul was all right. Not anymore.
Sultan Knish commented:
Disgusting, but he’s been saying this all along. He was repeating the same kind of rhetoric during the debate.
It’s odd that he keeps making excuses for Al Queda terrorists instead of standing up to them.
But when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul can’t help channeling his inner Ward Churchill.
Mark D commented:
Ron Paul is a Racist and Jew hater plain and simple. His own news letters he sent out years ago, read like Neo-Nazi/Klan recruiting pamphlets.
bill-tb commented:
The trouble with Ron Paul in one sentence, just reread the title of this post.
Pat the First commented:
Ron Paul is about as clueless as B.O. I find him very scary. I can’t believe people still give him any time at all.
YeahRight commented:
This is the only thing I disagree with RP about…I really think he needs to bone up on the history of islam. They have been at war since its conception.
RonPaulFan commented:
This is the one area that conservatives don’t make any sense. We (I consider myself conservative) have to wake up from the govt. induced fog we live in. The USA is NOT seen as this beacon of hope especially when they are raining death from pilotless drones. Imagine living in one of the countries under the US empires thumb. We have got to quit sh*&ting in others backyards and not expect to get the neighbors upset! Ron Paul is exactly right. Ben Stein is a fool. They kill us because they are crazy! What nonsense. They kill us because they are crazy AND we are bombing their countries.
And another thing doesn’t make any sense to me…that conservatives can be for fiscal responsibility, however it is ok to outspend the world 10-1 on defense. Isn’t the ability to destroy the world 2 or 3 times over enough? I agree that we should defend the country, but we defend our “interests” instead. Who’s interests?
cal rifkin commented:
cnn knows exactly what their doing when they put a dipsh!t like him on.
AnnS commented:
This isn’t the only time he has been anti-Israel; he voted in favor of the Goldstone Report in the UN and against Israel’s right to defend their country during the Gaza War last year.
And he has always been against the US supporting Israel.
Why did CNN keep flashing Ron Paul as a Republican on the screen?
olm commented:
Ron Paul is a loon and frankly those who support him are starting to look pretty darn loony as well.
mrt commented:
“They bomb us because we’re occupiers.”
“We’re occupiers because they bombed us.”
“You got chocolate in my peanut butter.”
“You got peanut butter in my chocolate.”
What. An. Idiot.
Scott Jerome commented:
It is very disturbing that so many young people in this country are actually attracted to this moron’s point of view. It’s almost as though they never got a decent education in our public schools. It’s almost as though they never learned about American Exceptionalism and the founding documents. It’s almost as though they were educated by people who do not love America as it was originally constituted.
Repeal the DOE.
TaSS commented:
Bin Laden’s declaration of war against America
Bin Laden declared war against the United States in 1996, long before 9/11. They were fighting a war and killing Americans long before we joined the fight.
Realize Al Qeada will claim all American actions to be against civilians. All part of their propaganda, that people like Ron Paul seem glad to perpetuate. Al-Qaida timeline: Plots and attacks
Solaratov commented:
RonPaulFan
December 31st, 2009 | 10:52 am | #7
How about a little hint as to what we were “occupying” that caused al queda to hijack airplanes and ram them into the WTC and Pentagon?
Or was it because we were allied with Israel? RP doesn’t seem to care for that too much, either?
Paul is a nut job who should have been institutionalized long ago – and he would wreak the same sort of destruction on America as obama is, if given half a chance.
greenfairie commented:
I agree with Paul on many things but not at all on foreign policy. He makes Pat Buchanan look like a Zionist neo-con by comparison.
lester commented:
you guys all seem to agree with ron paul that al queda hates us because of our support of israel, among other things. what’s the disagreement here?
Dell commented:
It doesn’t really matter what Ron Paul thinks; Israel will take care of it’s own business and I doubt they’ll even seek his opinion.
And as for those who “hate us because we support Israel”???
Tough! Israel is one of the VERY few true allies the United States has in the world. I would stand by them, come Hell or high water. Unfortunately, the fraud in the White House WON’T.
spayandneuter commented:
“We weren’t “occupiers” when they blew up the Twin Towers”
What was the excuse for
Us Embassies?
USS Cole?
1st World Trade Center Bombing?
and all that have happened since
London?
Bali?
Russia?
They change the reasons and excuses for their attacks as often as most people change underwear.
Anyone who uses the “occupation” excuse doesn’t understand that they are “terrorists” and just want to kill. It is like trying to understand the Unibomber, McVeigh, etc. I’m not sure you can understand crazy, you just have to deal with it. It reminds me of a cult where the leader says something and they follow along blindly. I’m not going to say who else this reminds me of (Hint: hopeychangies).
–
Franco commented:
Leave it to CNN to put these three together. Talk about muddying the debate!
I don’t know if Ron Paul is “anti-Semitic” he is however WRONG on his understanding of Islam.
He calls this bomber a “gentleman”???
Joe commented:
Ron Paul is a complete whack-job, and his merry band of followers are cult-worshipers, worse than Obama cult-worshipers. That man literally parrots Al Qaeda. A video tape from Ron Paul is almost, word for word, like a video tape from Osama Bin Laden himself. He is a ‘blame America firster’. Most of his folowers are conspiracy theory lunatics. Disgusting, disgraceful and pathetic. I would liverally vote for Obama over Ron Paul, that’s how disgusting and revolting I find him and his followers.
An American of Iraqi Christian Descent commented:
We have been meddling in Middle East politics since the late 40′s.
It was the British that arbitrarily drew the lines in the sands making today’s borders.
We overthrew the Shah of Iran in the 70′s.
We have been in the Saudi Arabian peninsula since the first Gulf War.
This is why they attack us.
This is what Ron Paul is referring to.
If we left the Middle East, the extremist would not quit — but the moderate Muslims will, and the extremists are nothing without the support of the people.
maverick muse commented:
Ron Paul was acutely sensitive to the criticism of antisemitism after saying that America has no right to defend our allies. Protective Isolationism only works for Ron Paul so long as our marvelous Military sacrifices to protect all of America. Rep. Paul would be outraged should his district be ostracized, excluded from national defense. The Constitution provides America with local militias and a national Military; so who is Ron Paul to dissolve the Constitution’s integrity?
As per who wronged whom first, or who is whose infidel, history’s chronology is against the Muslim claim that the West birthed all infidelity, Mohammed having usurped existing holy scriptures corrupting records in order to ordain himself the only reverend profiteering prophet, his own corrupt word as God’s law. Furthermore, the Muslim pirates invaded Europe’s coastal communities for their Islamic white slave trade long before any Crusades occurred in retaliation to Islam’s offensive aggressions.
anon commented:
I liked Ron Paul because he made himself to be more libertarian and less religious fanatic, but once I started following him and seeing the bs he voted for (like Obama’s Hitleresque Children Army) I realized he is a moonbat.
lester commented:
“And as for those who “hate us because we support Israel”???
Tough! Israel is one of the VERY few true allies the United States has in the world. I would stand by them, come Hell or high water. Unfortunately, the fraud in the White House WON’T.
”
see this is what I’m talking about. you guys, hawks I guess I’d call you, acknowledge or in your own warped language “agree with osama” that our support for israel is why muslims hate us.
then you pretend you don’t understand why they hate us!
” is like trying to understand the Unibomber, McVeigh, etc”
I thin mcveigh wa also animated by hatred of our government wasn’t he?
spayandneuter
this is from wikipedia
“Yousef’s view of the attack
According to the journalist , Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to ‘Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion’.[7] These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference “with any of the Middle East countries’ interior affairs.” He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because “the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.”
”
so….can we acknowledge that our foreing policy in the middle east, in particular our support for israel, is why they hate us, primarily?
we are the land of the brave are we not? we can call a spade a spade, so to speak
Mike commented:
Well I guess my support for RP is gone now. How can he be so savvy om economics and the Constitution and so wrong on American Exceptional ism? Many pure Libertarians hold his same view of the Empirical U.S. I have many Libertarian leanings, but RP is being ridiculous. I do not think we should have a standing army that is funded for more than 2 years at a time (Article 1, sec
only a Navy same article/section (with the Marine Corps)
mah29001 commented:
Apparently to someone like Ron Paul who pretends to be a non-interventionist, it’s only non-interventionism for some, interventionism for others is fine if you’re a terrorist who happen to be an Islamic fundelmentalist.
anonymous commented:
Ron Paul’s son Rand is running for the US Senate from Kentucky. I don’t think they both are not a true conservative for the Republican Party. I hope that Rep. Ron Paul will not try to run for President again in 2012. I prefer Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana or former Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Darwin Akbar commented:
The most intelligent thing Ron Paul ever did was running away from “Bruno” before “Bruno” could show him his wide stance.
…and for those who didn’t see “Bruno,” it was absolutely hilarious, although I am not sure it is “appropriate” for anyone, regardless of their age.
AnnS commented:
Before America, Islamic Muslims hated. They hate free and sovereign nations everywhere.
Where was American in the 7th century AD?
By the eighth century, just one hundred years after the death of Mohammed, the Arabs had converted most of North Africa to the Muslim faith, crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, and overrun Spain. They then entered France, but were decisively defeated by the Christians at the Battle of Tours (Poiters) in the year 732 A.D. From the eighth to the fifteenth century, the Spanish Christians slowly pushed the Muslims back, and during the reign of Queen Isabella in 1492, the same year Columbus reached the Americas, they drove the Muslims off the peninsula.
Love the Gates of Vienna.
spayandneuter commented:
TaSS
December 31st, 2009 | 11:23 am | #14
That timeline was a great link. And I did not know that all these attacks were Al Qaida linked.
–
reliapundit commented:
rp is part right: they do hate us because we are occupiers – occupiers of europe, north America, south america, asia, africa, australia, antarctica, … and so on:
in fact, they kill thais and kashmiris and each other more than they kill us or israelis.
this is the way islam is – always has been.
islam is incompatible with modernity and the west.
they want us to become mulsim, dhimmis or dead.
they’d love to turn the world into a talibanistan or gazastan.
idiots like ron paul unknowingly aid them
lester commented:
that is a good timeline, unfortunately it totally undermines your point that we weren’t occupying anyone or doing anythign in the ME pre 9/11
Mr. Bear commented:
Rule #1: it’s always America’s fault
Rule #2: it’s always the Jews’ fault
Rule #3: it’s always Bush’s fault
I hurt my toe earlier. Must be America’s fault! I hurt my toe because America occupies… uh… duno… America? Or maybe Bush did it. Or the Jews. Yeah, Bush, the American imperialist paid by the Jews constructed my cupboard in a way that I would stubb my toe. Yep, that must be it!
Islam is stuck in the 7th century and has been stuck there for 1,400 years.
Ron Paul… he should move into Gaza and live among the Hamas with JIMMEH.
T. Shaw commented:
I don’t care for Dr. Paul. I don’t know where is CNN.
BUT, Al Qaeda’s most useful idiot is LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
You people are easily distracted.
Mr. Bear commented:
An American of Iraqi Christian DescentNo Gravatar
December 31st, 2009 | 11:43 am | #23
No.
They attack us because the quran orders them to attack us.
Kill the infidels wherever you find them. It’s all in the quran. Kill everyone who’s not muslim. Why? Because being an infidel is the worst possible crime, worse than murder and rape.
That’s why islam spread, that’s why the started to occupy Christian kingdoms and territory in the Middle East. Turkey was once a Christian empire. Egypt was Christian too. They all were. Islam tried to take Spain, but the Spanish and Portuguese never gave up. They fought the oppression and threw out the muslims. Then islam came. Look at Christians there now. They’re being oppressed, often murdered. Why? Not because of the Americans, but simply because of islam.
That’s where the muslims and the leftists meet. The leftists think exactly like that. They believe that everyone who’s not “left” is an enemy. And enemies have to be destroyed, as the horrifying death toll of socialism in the 20th century proves.
spayandneuter commented:
“lester
December 31st, 2009 | 11:45 am | #26
“Is like trying to understand the Unibomber, McVeigh, etc”
I thin mcveigh wa also animated by hatred of our government wasn’t he?
spayandneuter”
The point I was trying to make is that they make any excuse to kill.
My city has to put down 2,000 animals a month, approx 25,000 a year, because we can’t find enough homes for them. I HATE THAT!!! Do I kill somebody? No, I volunteer, I foster, I rescue, I petition, I give all that my time, heart and money can handle to help.
–
lester commented:
mr bear- so why are we trying to help them set up democracies? if they are so unbelievably crazy it seems israel is totally doomed. they should leave because there is no hope with such peopel as neighbors. thank you for convincing me zionism is such a bad idea.
that’s what you’re saying ,essentially
lester commented:
spayandneuter- oh I’m not saying it’s a good JUSTIFICATION for it. I think al queda should have protests, write books, make movies etc. to get their message across. i think ron paul is saying the same thing. it’s not RIGHT that they are doing this but it IS WHY they are doing it and we should say so, not pretend the elephant in the room isn’t there.
moreover, we shouldn’t go to war with them unless it is worth it. If al queda were trying to take over america I’d say do whatever it takes to repel them. but they are fighting us for the middle east, which I really would have no problem leaving so, what are we fighting over?
Israel? then lets say so and have that debate and make israel a part of the US or something so it’s constitutional, rather than saying all this stuff and puffing our chests out.
Alice L. commented:
Paul is a dope and an anti-Semite. His followers are moonbats who support 9/11 Truther conspiracies. Maybe Charlie Sheen can be Paul’s running mate if he runs for president again. He is not a “libertarian” – he is a libertine.
LibertyMinded commented:
I am deeply saddened by this websites comments on the good Dr. Paul.
No, nevermind I am wrong.
I guess Ron Paul is just a crazy nut, what with all his talk of auditing the fed, his work in trying to prevent Obamacare, his crazy idea that the income tax should be abolished, and apparently he is as crazy enough to suggest that the USA is not the policeman of the world!
Obviously I am just joking.
It is very disheartening to see many of my friends on the right not take heed to Dr.Paul’s advice.
“If only they listened to him”
our children will say once the USA is bankrupt due to our unconstitutional empire overseas, the federal reserve, and the welfare state we live in.
AnnS commented:
spayandneuter
Still think McVeigh had ties to the ME and/or a Islamic terrorist group. Read the book in “The Third Terrorist”.
IMO: Tery Nichols married a mail order bride from the Phill…just so happen that was Ramzi Yousef and Company’s camping grounds. Marrying someone from an ethic group isn’t in the white supremist racist MO.
AnnS commented:
OT; 7 of the 8 murdered in the Khost suicide bombing were CIA agents.
Ripped commented:
Going back to the article at hand, Ben Stein resorted to the anti-S (race) card because he has no argument. Ron Paul is partially wrong too because he gives the “we are there” excuse.
Quit having people think for you. I disagree with everyone. Dissent is good.
ANTI-SEMITE… ALL DOUCHE NOZZLES HIDE BEHIND THIS MANTLE!
averagemelon commented:
Ah, Lester.
In a world full of homes, America is the golden mansion everyone else wishes they had the keys to.
They hate us because we are. It is human nature to hate the one you precieve is better than you. I do not think America does not make mistakes and some of them are serious. We might be loathed a little less if we did not butt our nose in so often but then, we did that with Hitler for awhile, didn’t we?
America is LESS EVIL than most of the world because of its CITIZENS not its government. But, alas, I fear this is changing and should America ever be ruled by an evil hearted administration, the dark ages of a new kind will sweep the world that should terrify all of us.
Pat the First commented:
Isolation never works. Didn’t work in WWI and it didn’t work in WWII. Eventually, the US gets hurt. Had Slick Willy hid his head in the sand, we might have been able to have avoided 9/11.
Bottom line . . . Radical Islamics will NEVER, EVER like us. We could turn over Fort Knox to them . . . they still wouldn’t like us. We could put bin Laden in the WH . . . they still wouldn’t like us. Their goal in life is to kill us and our lifestyle because in their warped viewpoint, we are the ultimate evil because of our lifestyle. It has nothing to do with any occupation of anything.
Read “Inside the Revolution” by Joel C. Rosenberg. Better yet, Paul needs to read it. He needs to learn the truth.
Pat the First commented:
“Had Slick Willy not hid his head in the sand, we might have been able to have avoided 9/11.”
spayandneuter commented:
“lester
December 31st, 2009 | 12:18 pm | #40
spayandneuter-
“I think al queda should have protests, write books, make movies etc. to get their message across.”
Gee, I wonder why Bin Laden hasn’t thought of this? He could do one of those ads, like the starving children or the abused animals, but show the jihadists and ask for monthly donations. “For just $19.99 a month, you will support a poor jihadist. We’ll even send you a photo of him going to terrorist school so you will see how your donation is helping.”
“but they are fighting us for the middle east”
IMHO, we have done more to stabilize the Middle East than Bin Laden or the Taliban. Sadam was killing his own people and the Taliban were killing people and taking all the young men to fight for them. A stable country will not want terrorists, but growth and opportunity for its citizens.
–
LibertyMinded commented:
@Pat the First,
it is not isolationism, isolationism is what we do when don’t trade with Cuba and sanction countries, something Ron Paul does not support.
“Radical Islamics will NEVER, EVER like us”
There has been radical islamists ever since Islam was established. Of course they will never like us, but were they attacking America from 1700′s to the 1800′s?
No, and that is because back then we knew(for the most part) not to meddle in other countries businesses.
RonPaulFan commented:
Solaratov
December 31st, 2009 | 11:25 am | #15
How about a little hint as to what we were “occupying” that caused al queda to hijack airplanes and ram them into the WTC and Pentagon?
Well Solaratov, Bin Laden made it pretty clear that the reason for the attacks was our presence in Saudi Arabia after GW1. We just don’t know when to leave a party…
Again, every terrorist that is attempting to harm American citizens should be thwarted by whatever means possible. We just have to wake up to the fact that our foreign policy dreamed up by our ruling elite is causing the blowback on us the citenzenry. You have got to stop blindly following the leadership and think for yourself!
LibertyMinded….well said!
Pat the First commented:
LibertyMinded
December 31st, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #50
Isolationism has a part of it that is economic. However, the largest part of it is in the international political arena. Isolationism in the political arena is beyond frightening.
If you really want to understand Radical Islamism, read “Inside the Revolution”. This form of radicalism had its birthplace during Cahtah’s policies in the 1970s. Khomeni was its father.
Tim Hoft commented:
Paul is a nut in a similair fashion to Jim. I’m surprised he’s not a follower of Paul. What are Jim’s foreign policy credentials? I would be surprised if he had a passport.
Christoph Rebner commented:
Pundit, do you think they are neutral because of being occupied or would you be?
Boogy commented:
Obummer: Bush was a meddler in other peoples countries and lives. Fact: Obummer is a meddler in other peoples countries and lives. End Game — Obummer is a fraud, and a failed economist.
Obummer orders drone strikes on women and children in Pak/Afg as reported even by NYtimes.
Ron Paul said this even when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. So obviously, Democrats are evil persons and must be eliminated from the earth.
Mark L Harvey (aka Snooper) commented:
I posted this a ferw days ago and he IS a quack…
http://bit.ly/4rvDVO
Smorfia48 commented:
To the paranoid antisemitic wackos and smirking “sophisticated” leftists alike who push the idea that Islamists only attack us because we’re attacking them, I give you the words of former jihadist Hussein Butt:
“When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology”.
Got that? Their violence is caused by Islamic theology. And the terrorists you are shilling for are laughing in your faces.
Blacque Jacques Shellacque commented:
AllahPundit has more on Paul’s disgraceful and inaccurate statements.
And to think, there were/are a number of people on the right that actually supported this guy.
thetimman commented:
Ron Paul is right, if you take his statements as far as they go and no farther. Meaning, the fact that we have troops in these far-flung places where we have insufficient national interest is a reason we continue to be targeted for attack. Is it the only reason? No. Radical Islam is a threat, to be sure. But Paul is right on when he says we shouldn’t be in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that we should get out.
lester commented:
spayandneuter – I KNOW al queda doesn’t use normal forms of activism. I’m not saying they are, don’t misconstrue my point. I’m saying they have chosen terrorism RATHER than those means to convey their message.
“IMHO, we have done more to stabilize the Middle East than Bin Laden or the Taliban.”
look the western way of life as practiced by us and by israel IS the superior way of life. that’s obvious. that’s not the issue. the issue is LAND. I am smarter than my neighbor, that doesn’t men I can have his house. actually my neighbor teaches at MIT, I’m serious, and is smarter than me. we don’t parcel out land or responsiblities on the basis of merit.
they don’t want us in their countries and we are, via our support for israel and our subsequent support for egypt, saudi arabia, etc
you think it’s worth it for us to do all that. I don’t, but lets not cloud the issue. the mujahadeen weren’t driving the soviets out of afghanistan because russia had so many freedoms , the algerians didn’t drive the french out and on and on.
we support israel and alot of unelected unpopular dictators and also physically occupy two of their countries. why ar we talking around this? because we’re afraid of offending s jews? why would they be offended?
Joanne commented:
Al Queda is a Muslim terrorist organization that kills infidels and any Muslim in the way. It is all about power and control, and it has nothing to do with the Americans being perceived as occupiers. They want to control the Muslim masses, and the Americans are a thorn in their side, which they are hell bent on destroying, over-taking, and controlling.
Ron Paul is a bone-head.
roger commented:
Ron Paul is the only true Republican left. The rest of you are Fox News zombies.
squeaky commented:
after 9-11 part of the reasoning for the attack was american culture that was infiltrating islamic nations by satellite tv, etc. while hollywood rails on the politics they ignore their
own contribution…….
sayyid qutb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
squeaky commented:
US/saudi connections
http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1421.200908.ottaway.ussaudiarabia.html
Marsh commented:
Ron Paul also decried Thomas Jefferson’s decision to create the U.S. Navy in order to defeat the islamic slave empire in north africa which was raiding coastal American towns and enslaving thousands of Americans for decades. He called it “foreign adventuring” on Jefferson’s part… So apparently if any American city was invaded and enslaved by muslim imperialists Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything about it. He also constantly refers to America as an empire and he’s constantly apologizing for terrorists. He actually said during a Presidential debate that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because we built a U.S. Air Force base in Saudi Arabia. He actually said “how would we respond if Saudi Arabia built a base in America?” Implying that Saudi Arabia is equivalent to the greatest country in the history of the world and that Americans would respond by flying passenger jets into Saudi skyscrapers while screaming “God is great!” Nevermind that the Saudi government WANTED us to build that base in order to help protect them from Saddam who was threatening to steal their oil fields. And not to mention that most people like the presence of U.S. military bases in their country. It boosts their economy and provides them free security and we don’t really meddle in their affairs. All of that context escapes Ron Paul in his insane rants. He also wanted to abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and a whole host of other important government agencies. He thinks by adopting an isolationist foreign policy then we’ll no longer be in the crosshairds of islamofascists or other hostile nations. What an act of cowardice and stupidity. The world has changed. An ocean no longer protects us like it used to. You can’t simply ignore the chaos that would erupt if America became a recluse. Eventually that chaos would come to our shores. But don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of the federal government and they’re often incompetent and wasteful. But I only want them reformed and improved. He wants them completely destroyed. He has absolutely zero sense of pragmaticism. He’s a libertarian ideologue and his ignorant followers are just as moronic as he is.
TaSS commented:
Roger if you are going to defend Ron Paul at least get it right.
He is a libertarian.
Most here are conservatives.
There are also neo-conservatives.
All part of the Republican party.
Libertarians only account for approximately 15-20% of the Republican party while over 50% describe themselves as conservatives.
So it is Ron Paul that is not indicative of the Republican party.
TaSS commented:
Ron Paul has some points however with his conspiracy theory followers and his complete failure to understand tthe threats that confront us, it is hard to take him seriously.
Too bad.
RonPaulFan commented:
Roger was half right. Ron Paul is the only TRUE “conservative” left. As he said in the debates, he was the most conservative candidate running. The rest would spend us into oblivion trying to keep up with the neo-con war plans.
I am really disheartened with what I’m reading here. After Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Gulf War I, Iraq and Afganistan do people still really think they are sending their sons and daughters to fight for Chevy, Mom apple pie and the good old USA when they get shipped overseas to die on foreign soil?
Bogdan from Australia commented:
Stupidity fester in the head (empty) of Lester (and other pro-RP hacks).
So Lester, if a jerk is trying to rape your wife will your stay neutral, because taking on a jerk would mean an unprovoked agression against him?
That is a political consciousness of the confused, seven-years old child.
It is worthy to remaind all those isolationist idiots that an ISOLATIONISM and an advanced disengagement from international affairs was Bush’s and his “Neo-Cons” original idea.
Bush was enthusiastic about that to such a degree that it made the “European” leaders worrying.
How has it worked for the US, you bloody isolationist idiots?
It resulted, first, in a Chinese provocation with the survilance plane 3Pc-Orion, because the Chi-Coms regarded Bush as a weak fellow and decided to test him.
It was subsequently a very polite and excesively restrained response to Chinese bad play which convinced Al Qaida that the time was ripe to attack the US.
Everything else is a know history, but the cretins like Ron Paul and his ignorant folowers will never learn from it.
Ladue Pundit commented:
Well said, Bogdan. Few remember that in Aug of 2001, the Chi-coms took our surveillance plane and crew hostage. It was a test.
Too bad Ron Paul wasn’t president. He could have let them keep the plane, crew, and all the technology. That will teach them to protect America’s interests.
As for occupying the lands of others, Muslims have been doing this since 632 AD (that’s anno Domini, for you heretics). Our country is next on the list.
You fools who love Ron Paul can muse about less government and the other promises he makes. But the whole package he offers–paranoia, xenophobia, isolation and general stupidity–eclipse anything positive he may have ever said.
Go read the history of the Ottoman Empire–European Christian men-tortured and killed. Their wives and children–used to stock the harems of the caliphate, and die in their front lines.
Then read about the Barbary Pirates. Ron Paul would not have lifted a finger to save those Americans attacked and enslaved by Muslims. They should have stayed at home and out of trouble.
Our American Empire was built on the greatness of protecting our interests here and abroad. And protecting our allies. Ron Paul is another Jimmy Carter who believes in tax cuts. No thanks.
Publius Cato commented:
The fact is American forces have been in Saudi Arabia since 1991. The fact is the US sponsored embargo on Iraq left a sour taste in the mouths of many arabs and arab muslims. The fact is al Qaeda was planning 9/11 for at least a year (probably as long as 3 years). The fact is Israel spies on the US, and sells US military technology to American adversaries (PRC). The fact is US didn’t take a stronger stance against either the PRC or DPRK during the past 20 years because US military is afraid of a land war with a 10 million man army and the fears of MAD.
The US certainly did not create the core of radical muslims, but blowing whatever “peace dividend” earned after the Cold War on international hegemony gave the radicals a lot of propaganda for recruitment. The US cannot financially nor pragmatically continue this foreign policy based on power projection and ideology. The idea that the US should vacate or surr
Publius Cato commented:
The idea that the US should vacate or surrender its pretensions and/or aspirations for world hegemony are only unseemly to imperialists. But the US is a republic, not an empire. The international leadership of the US should come from the example of its prudent citizenry and the administrators they choose, not its force of arms.
Ladue Pundit commented:
Publius Cato
December 31st, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #72
The international leadership of the US should come from the example of its prudent citizenry and the administrators they choose, not its force of arms.
…………….
No matter how prudent its citizenry, the U.S. cannot control adherents to a 7th century blood cult bent on destruction of anything un-Qu’ranic.
If you are not prepared to defend your freedoms at the point of a gun, be prepared to lose them at the end of a shoe bomb, or an underwear bomb.
Ron Paul, and his foolish followers posting devotionals to him here, are all too ready to blame America (imperialists!) for defending her interests and those of her allies. There was no peace dividend to blow, idiot.
Constitutionally we must protect ourselves and we could more than afford to if the baboons who believe in peace dividends wouldn’t squander our taxes on the windmills at which they tilt.
Solaratov commented:
lester
December 31st, 2009 | 11:45 am | #26
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know as well as I, that if we withdrew support for Israel tomorrow (which d’ohbama could well do), the islamofascists would still hate us and want to “conquer” us. So, you can stop harping on that.
And, I’ll tell you right now, little troll, that you are not going to win any converts to your anti-Israel, anti-Jewish worldview here. You can play all of the “well-reasoned arguments” that concern trolls always try to run past us – but they don’t hold up. And, sooner or later, your anti-Jewish hatred will surface. You people can’t help it or hold it back.
You might as well give it up now, kid. It’s all been tried before – and it never works. We’ve seen your kind too often.
bg commented:
++
via WSJ
A Cold-Blooded Foreign Policy
No despot fears the president, and no demonstrator
in Tehran expects him to ride to the rescue.
DECEMBER 30, 2009; By FOUAD AJAMI
With year one drawing to a close, the truth of the Obama presidency is laid bare: retrenchment abroad, and redistribution and the intrusive regulatory state at home. This is the genuine calling of Barack Obama, and of the “progressives” holding him to account. The false dichotomy has taken hold—either we care for our own, or we go abroad in search of monsters to destroy or of broken nations to build. The decision to withdraw missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic was of a piece with that retreat in American power.
In the absence of an overriding commitment to the defense of American primacy in the world, the Obama administration “cheats.” It will not quit the war in Afghanistan but doesn’t fully embrace it as its cause. It prosecutes the war but with Republican support—the diehards in liberal ranks and the isolationists are in no mood for bonding with Afghans. (Harry Reid’s last major foreign policy pronouncement was his assertion, three years ago, that the war in Iraq was lost.)
As revolution simmers on the streets of Iran, the will was summoned in the White House to offer condolences over the passing of Grand Ayatollah Hussein Montazeri, an iconic figure to the Iranian opposition. But the word was also put out that the administration was keen on the prospect of John Kerry making his way to Tehran. No one is fooled. In the time of Barack Obama, “engagement” with Iran’s theocrats and thugs trumps the cause of Iranian democracy.
In retrospect, that patina of cosmopolitanism in President Obama’s background concealed the isolationism of the liberal coalition that brought him to power. The tide had turned in the congressional elections of 2006. American liberalism was done with its own antecedents—the outlook of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. It wasn’t quite “Come home, America,” but close to it. This was now the foreign policy of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. There was in the land a “liberal orientalism,” if you will, a dismissive attitude about the ability of other nations to partake of liberty. It had started with belittling the Iraqis’ aptitude for freedom. But there was implicit in it a broader assault on the very idea of freedom’s possibilities in distant places. East was East, and West was West, and never the twain shall meet.
We’re weary, the disillusioned liberalism maintains, and we’re broke, and there are those millions of Americans aching for health care and an economic lifeline. We can’t care for both Ohio and the Anbar, Peoria and Peshawar. It is either those embattled people in Iran or a rescue package for Chrysler.
The joke is on the enthralled crowds in Cairo, Ankara, Berlin and Oslo. The new American president they had fallen for had no genuine calling or attachments abroad. In their enthusiasm for Mr. Obama, and their eagerness to proclaim themselves at one with the postracial meaning of his election, they had missed his aloofness from the genuine struggles in the foreign world.
It was easy, that delirium with Mr. Obama: It made no moral demands on those eager to partake of it. It was also false, in many lands.
Thus Turks who loathed the Kurds in their midst, who denied them the right to their own memory and language, could identify themselves, or so they said, with the triumph of Mr. Obama and his personal history. No one questioned the sincerity with which Egyptians and other Arabs hailed Mr. Obama as they refused to be stirred by the slaughter in Darfur, and as they gave a carte blanche to Khartoum’s blatant racism and cruelty.
Surely there was something amiss in Paris and Berlin—the vast crowds came out for Mr. Obama, but there were millions of Muslims in France and Germany, and the gates hadn’t been opened for them, they hadn’t been swept into the mainstream of European life. Postracicalism, rather like charity, should have begun at home, one would think.
Everywhere there is on display evidence of the rogues taking the Obama administration’s measure, and of America’s vulnerable allies scurrying for cover. A fortnight ago, Lebanon’s young prime minister made his way from Beirut to Damascus: Saad Hariri had come to pay tribute to the Syrian ruler.
Nearly five years earlier, Saad Hariri had insisted on the truth about the identity of his father’s killers. It had been a tumultuous time. Rafik Hariri, a tycoon and former prime minister caught up in a challenge to Syria’s hegemony in Lebanon, had been struck down by a massive bomb on Beirut’s beachfront. It’s obvious, isn’t it, the mourners proclaimed, the trail led to Damascus.
In the aftermath of that brazen political murder, a Syrian tyranny in Lebanon that had all but erased the border between the two countries was brought to a swift end with what would come to be known as the Cedar Revolution. The Pax Americana that had laid waste to the despotism of Saddam Hussein frightened the Syrian rulers, and held out the prospect that a similar fate could yet befall them.
We’re now worlds away from that moment in history. The man who demolished the Iraqi tyranny, George. W. Bush, is no longer in power, and a different sentiment drives America’s conduct abroad. Saad Hariri had no choice but to make peace with his father’s sworn enemies—that short voyage he made to Damascus was his adjustment to the retreat of American power.
In headier moments, Mr. Hariri and the leaders of the Cedar Revolution had been emboldened by American protection. It was not only U.S. military power that had given them heart.
There was that “diplomacy of freedom,” the proclamation that the Pax Americana had had its fill with the autocracies and the rogues of the Greater Middle East. There but for the grace of God go we, the autocrats whispered to themselves as they pondered the fall of the Iraqi despot. To be sure, there was mayhem in the new Iraq—the Arab and Iranian rulers, and the jihadists they winked at and aided, had made sure of that. But there was the promise of freedom, meaningful elections, a new dignity for men and women claiming their own country.
What a difference three or four years make. The despots have waited out that burst of American power and optimism. No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue. To be sure, it was in the past understood that we can’t bear all burdens abroad, or come to the defense of everyone braving tyranny. But there was always that American assertion that when things are in the balance we would always be on freedom’s side.
We hadn’t ridden to the rescue of Rwanda and Burundi in the 1990s, but we had saved the Bosnians and the Kosovars. We didn’t have the power to undo the colossus of Chinese tyranny when the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square, but the brave dissidents knew that we were on their side, that we were appalled by the cruelty of official power.
It is different today, there is a cold-bloodedness to American foreign policy. “Ideology is so yesterday,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed not long ago, giving voice to the new sentiment.
History and its furies have their logic, and they have not bent to Mr. Obama’s will. He had declared a unilateral end to the “war on terror,” but the jihadists and their mentors are yet to call their war to a halt. From Yemen to Fort Hood and Detroit, the terror continues.
But to go by the utterances of the Obama administration and its devotees, one would have thought that our enemies were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, not the preachers and masterminds of terror. The president and his lieutenants spent more time denigrating “rendition” and the Patriot Act than they did tracking down the terror trail and the latest front it had opened at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen. Our own leaders spoke poorly of our prerogatives and ways, and they were heard the world over.
Under Mr. Obama, we have pulled back from the foreign world. We’re smaller for accepting that false choice between burdens at home and burdens abroad, and the world beyond our shores is more hazardous
and cynical for our retrenchment and our self-flagellation.
this administration is so bad, everyone but Obama & his ilk
recognize the fact that he is not on the side of FREEDOM..
let alone America’s.. *sigh*
==
Solaratov commented:
LibertyMinded
December 31st, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #50
@Pat the First,
Of course they will never like us, but were they attacking America from 1700’s to the 1800’s?
No, and that is because back then we knew(for the most part) not to meddle in other countries businesses.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why don’t you take a few minutes and look up Barbary Pirates? It would add to your knowledge of history immensely.
The FIRST war that the then-new USA got into was with the islamists. Look it up, kid. Learn something new.
Where do you think the line “…to the shores of Tripoli…” in the Marine Hymn came from? It wasn’t picked just for the rhyme scheme.
Solaratov commented:
RonPaulFan
December 31st, 2009 | 1:14 pm | #51
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We’re “occupying” Saudi Arabia? Has anyone told the king about that? He should be made aware of these things.
The “occupation” nonsense is just a load of crap. Al queda was attacking Americans long before GW1, and you *should* know that.
You’re just making excuses.
Patrick Chester commented:
LibertyMinded viciously swatted strawmen with:
“I guess Ron Paul is just a crazy nut, what with all his talk of auditing the fed, his work in trying to prevent Obamacare, his crazy idea that the income tax should be abolished, and apparently he is as crazy enough to suggest that the USA is not the policeman of the world!”
Odd, I don’t recall anyone (besides you) citing those as reasons why Ron Paul is nuts.
Though the “not the policeman” bit is rather misguided. If not us, who? China?
bg commented:
++
AnnS @ 11:50 am #31
Imperial History of the Middle East
==
Winston commented:
Roo Pul is a garbage piece of crap. I hate his voice
Ed Godard commented:
Ron Paul is the one guy who could draw me to the Republican Party, but the Republicans- with the same kind of interventionist foreign policy as the Democrats- do a good job of reminding me what a losing proposition they are, and how much scorn they have for the Founding Fathers.
oldguy commented:
I am against occupation in the Middle East (read Diana West) and I will give Clinton his due for his actions in Bosnia even though he bombed the wrong side. I would bet the vast majority of Americans would go along with carpet bombing of terrorist countries.
syn commented:
America does not have the heart to be hegemonic, imperialistic conquers.
If we were hegemonic, imperialist conquers we would not be on our knees begging for the world to love us nor would we be bending over backwards to give civil rights to those who attack and kill not just Americans, not just Isrealis but Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, atheists and non-atheists around the world.
Besides; Ayers-Dorn & Code-Pink Company are doing a excellent hegemonic, imperialistic job undermining all democratic movement towards Liberty therefore Ron Paul and his band useless idiots are on the wrong side once again.
syn commented:
Code-Pinker RONPAUL!!!! aside, I would be a Libertarian except for the fact that The Libertarian Party of Porn, Pot and Doing Dirty Dealings with Dictators Because the Personal Profit-Margin is Greater’ offers nothing remotely familiar to what the America’s Founding Fathers envisioned.
I get the ‘dealing with dictators for the higher profit-margin’ crap (people are greedy) however why are Libertarians soooo obsessed with porn and pot?
Is it Libertarian’s obsession with pot which makes Libertarians obsessed with porn, or the other way around?
Chisum commented:
Paul Rahe: Jerusalem revisited
If there is an alternative to Islamic revivalism on the horizon, it is to be found in Iraq. The simple fact that there are free elections in that country, that there is open debate, and that it is drifting in the direction of genuine prosperity — this stirs dissatisfaction of an entirely different sort in the Arab world — and, as is abundantly evident in Iran, it does so in the larger Muslim world as well.
As time passes and the dust settles, George W. Bush may come to look more and more like a hero — both in the Arab world and here in the United States. For, if the Iraqis remain steadfast and succeed, it is to their example that those fed up with Islamic revivalism will look, and it will be remembered just how adamant the second Bush was in his support for the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025282.php
Ripped commented:
Ron Paul believes in having a strong defense for the U.S., but his foreign policy is based on diplomatic relations and trade with all nations, not on launching preemptive strikes, and attacking other nations for access to resources. The lesson should be very clear from what happened to the former Soviet Union, that trying to maintain and expand an empire can collapse a nation’s economy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeEOy4EukdI
syn commented:
“but his foreign policy is based on diplomatic relations and trade with all nations,”
Are you saying that trade with Iran will end Islamic Jihadist war against Western civilization?
Ron Paul’s ‘diplomatic’ approach seems to me would encourage, embolden and enrich Islamic-Jihaists who wage their imperialism upon the world with their hegemonic ideology and who, IRONICALLY, kill as many Muslims as non-Muslims.
I think Ron Paul has been smoking too much pot to get his porn- on for him to make any sense.
RonPaulFan commented:
Solaratov
December 31st, 2009 | 9:09 pm | #77
RonPaulFan
December 31st, 2009 | 1:14 pm | #51
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We’re “occupying” Saudi Arabia? Has anyone told the king about that? He should be made aware of these things.
The “occupation” nonsense is just a load of crap. Al queda was attacking Americans long before GW1, and you *should* know that.
You’re just making excuses.
I do know that. We have also been meddling in the middle east long before that also. You asked why the twin towers were attacked and I told you it was reported that Bin Laden said it was due to our establishment of bases on Saudi soil.. You can call it what you want. Even if the Saudi king is all for it were “occupying” their country.
syn commented:
“The lesson should be very clear from what happened to the former Soviet Union”
I lived in Moscow, Russia in 1991; the Russian mafia was then and is still today earning great profits from their ‘trade’ with mid-east dictators, Plutocrats and genocidal mass murders.
Russian mafia must have read all that is written by Dr.Ron Paul
From my perspective, Ron Paul is foolishly obtuse about the world around him.
The case can easily be made that because of the philosophy held by Ron Paul and his minions, the necessity for war is increased rather than decreased.
In other words; Ron Paul philosophy creates more war, death and destruction rather than creating peace and trade.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”.
WSmith commented:
When a murder is committed we blame the murderer. When a bombing is done we blame the bomber. We do not excuse their behavior.
We still ask the question – what motivated the person. What did they see as the reason they did the horrible thing.
That is the question Dr Paul is asking.
In this case they said that they wanted the US forces out of Saudi – which we removed after the twin towers. Remember the bombers had Saudi ties?
The individuals are still responsible for their actions and they are dead.
Going forward a foreign army on their soil may be seen as occupiers especially as the years drag on. To some it may be seen as the motivation for revenge especially if one of their neighbors was killed through a misguided missle.
Do we still think that killing more neighbors will make them love us more?
If we kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions – will that even the score?
syn commented:
“We have also been meddling in the middle east long before that also. ”
RonPaulFan,
Your problem is your assumption that America is only ‘bad’ in the world.
You cannot understand that the human condition has never operated from such a myopic, provincial state.
Perhaps if Libertarians would stop doing dirty dealings with dictators around the world there would be no need to send military to protect your ASSets.
syn commented:
“Do we still think that killing more neighbors will make them love us more?”
why don’t you ask the Iranian people .
As for ‘killing more neighbors’ devout Catholics Pelosi and Kennedy show us that yes, ‘killing’ is all about ‘loving’ every time they ‘Thank God’ they get to vote for abortion.
RonPaulFan commented:
syn
January 1st, 2010 | 9:49 am | #91
“Perhaps if Libertarians would stop doing dirty dealings with dictators around the world there would be no need to send military to protect your ASSets.”
Since when is Dick Cheney a Libertarian? I recall seeing film of Cheney shaking hands and backslapping Sudham Hussein in the good old days when Iraq was beneficial to the US ruling elites needs for Middle East intervention. Now that Hussien’s usefulness is over and he got a bit too big for his britches…he’s dead.
“AMERICANS” are good. They have been led to believe that what their rulers do is also good. You say they send the military to protect MY assests.. do you have assests over in the middle east? I don’t. Amazing how the ruling elite convinces the populace that whats good for the ruling elite (that which makes them richer) is good for you also. We march right down to the recruiting station to fight for their a$$ets.. Amazing
John Q Public commented:
I’m not entirely sure what a Conservative is anymore. The likes of Robert Nesbit would nolonger be welcome in the Republican Party anymore. I find that the more literate people are, the less inclined they are to be a Conservative or a Liberal. If you put any sort of discipline in reading I’d think most of you would come to the conclusion that Politics nolonger hold to any principles in Modern America.
lester commented:
bogdan
“So Lester, if a jerk is trying to rape your wife will your stay neutral, because taking on a jerk would mean an unprovoked agression against him?”
analogy is the weakest way to make an argument. islam isn’t a jerk raping my wife.
besides, couldn’t your argument be used to JUSTIFY terrism just as well? thus, I say “analogies are..” etc
“It was subsequently a very polite and excesively restrained response to Chinese bad play which convinced Al Qaida that the time was ripe to attack the US.”
??? no idea what you are talking about. between that and your disrespectful tone I feel safe ignoring you
solaratov”You know as well as I, that if we withdrew support for Israel tomorrow (which d’ohbama could well do), the islamofascists would still hate us and want to “conquer” us. So, you can stop harping on that.
And, I’ll tell you right now, little troll, that you are not going to win any converts to your anti-Israel, anti-Jewish worldview here. You can play all of the “well-reasoned arguments” that concern trolls always try to run past us – but they don’t hold up. And, sooner or later, your anti-Jewish hatred will surface. You people can’t help it or hold it back.
You might as well give it up now, kid. It’s all been tried before – and it never works. We’ve seen your kind too often.
”
?? you are acting like ben stein?? what are you talking about? the united states is a country like any other. should we bring up judaism when discussing health care or education??? I don’t belive in intevention period, into the economy, into other countries, I don’t like the government.
it’s not anti semetic to not like the government! if you want to think I’m an anti semite go ahead. I could care less, but i’m not. I don’t care about religous issues. I live in a heavily jewish area, have lots of jewish friends and I’ll have you know i spent alot of last night watching the sarah silverman show!! so can the political correctness we have the serious issue of protecting our country to discuss here
“Are you saying that trade with Iran will end Islamic Jihadist war against Western civilization?”
It will raise the standard of living for people in Iran and here. that’s what trade does. nothing will end the islamic jihad war against western civilization, least of all us decimating our treasury to try and physically fight it. we did that all last decade, we’re out a few trillion and terrorism is as big as ever. there is literally only one thing we can do and that is to make joining those groups a less attractive option to individuals in the middle east by a combination of things involving tight security here and not making al quedas job so easy by being over there in their face. Unfortunately, some people would rather beat their chest and bloviate than actually solve the problem. I nearly lost members of my family on 9/11 and I’m not interested in symbolic gestures, jingoism and other nonsense, I’m interested in actually preventing another 9/11 attack. that’s all I care about.
is that all you care about?
RonPaulFan commented:
Lester, John Q, WSmith, Ripped all give me hope.
Thanks
Scott commented:
Before Bush’s invasion of Iraq, there was 9-11.
So blame American ‘meddling’ in the Mid East.
Before America bothered about the Mid East, there were the Barbary pirates.
So the last resort, blame the Crusades.
But before the Crusades, there were 461 years of unprovoked Muslim pillage, conquest and enslavement.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/christianity-vs-islam-who-started-this-whole-mess/
Mike commented:
As a traditional conservative, this is my view of foreign policy:
If you are a real small government conservative, you have to be anti-war. We should have troops protecting the borders of this country, not fighting questionable wars. Fighting wars “for democracy” as we are doing now is something Woodrow Wilson (a democrat) pursued, and wilson was a very progressive president. I view fighting wars for democracy as a very progressive and lofty idea, not something down-to-earth conservatives would endorse. According to the “just-war theory of Christianity” a nation only fights wars if it is attacked. It is not supposed to initiate the aggression.
You have to understand why terrorists attack us. It has nothing to do with our freedoms or that we have gay people. It is because we have military bases all around the world, especially in the middle-east on land deemed “holy land” by the muslims. We must look at the situation as if other nations had bases in Chicago, or New York, or LA, because that is essentially what we are doing to them. Right or wrong, our foreign policy has “blowback” and no matter what your position you must understand that what we do around the world will have consequences. I mean this very sincerely. Countries around the world view us as a bully fairly or unfairly. It’s just a fact. So I take the Founding Father’s advice of a non-interventionist foreign policy as the correct way to approach foreign policy.
Freedom Now commented:
ummm… what is the use of being “anti-war” when we don’t have the luxury to be anti-war?
The term “anti-war” is thrown around so carelessly.
Were the founding fathers anti-war when they killed British soldiers?… wait before you answer… because if you claim that British “oppression” justified the violent revolution, then how can you justify the claim to be anti-war?
If you are truly anti-war then a violent revolution is not the answer. Peaceful protests and activism would be the true answer.
And was it wrong for our founding fathers to fight the Barbary Pirates?
The inhabitants of our planet are primitive compared to our utopian dreams. No matter how idealistic or hopeful we may be, we are still stuck in reality.
Joey commented:
There is a common statement made for the oath of offices for presidents, congress, and even the US Military. “…..that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies; foreign and domestic…”
So many people here get so caught up in our military operations in the middle east and defend them as if we are on some holy crusade.
I don’t care for the islamic terrorists and despise them as much as anyone, but……..
Islamic terrorists aren’t the ones voting to socialize healthcare, supporting the marxist and unconstitutional cap & trade, instilling and ever more suppressing and tyranical progressive tax system on our people, appointing all these marxists “czars”, forcing an ever increasing socialist and anti-constitutional government (re)education system on the people, giving unlimited and unchecked powers to the Federal reserve, EPA, Homeland Security, ATFand so on…, spending our country into oblivion and therefore ensuring that future generations will be born into some perverse endentured servitude to the fed to pay it off, the constant assault on the 2nd ammend. rights, and even after attacks refusing to follow the constitutional mandates to maintain and secure the borders of the United Sates.
I’m not a chapter verse type of guy….but the Bible says something like ….what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?
What good does it do us if we can protect the Constitution and our freedoms from all the external forces of the world that assail us, only to lose these same things from within?