September 19, 2007
It's all over now, but down in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida , located in the very liberal Broward County (and where I grew up), the Value Voters Debate was held. None of the so-called Front Tier candidates showed up, but the rest did, including Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.
As we all have come to expect, Paul blames America's Foreign Policy for terrorism, eliciting the reply from Hunter of, "Don't blame America first!"
Listening to Paul lay the blame for terrorist attacks on our Foreign Policies got me to thinking and led me to recall when I was in Germany during the 1972 Olympics Massacre of the Israeli Team. So, I dug a little more and found what is very interesting in regards to America's Foreign Policy causing Terrorist acts.
If we really are to blame, as Paul keeps saying, maybe he could explain the following;
Munich Olympic Massacre, Sept. 5, 1972: Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany.
Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976: Members of the Baader-Meinhof Group and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) seized an Air France airliner and its 258 passengers. They forced the airplane to land in Uganda, where on July 3 Israeli commandos successfully rescued the passengers.
Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov. 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.
Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct. 6, 1981: Soldiers who were secretly members of the Takfir WalHajira sect attacked and killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during a troop review.
Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept. 14, 1982: Premier Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by a car bomb parked outside his party's Beirut headquarters.
TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for 17 days, during which one American hostage, a US Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.
Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, Sept. 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. One was killed, and three were later released.
Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov. 23, 1985: An EgyptAir airplane bound from Athens to Malta and carrying several US citizens was hijacked by the Abu Nidal group.
Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986: A Palestinian splinter group detonated a bomb as TWA Flight 840 approached Athens Airport, killing four US citizens.
Bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17, 1992: Hezbollah claimed responsibility for a blast that leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, causing the deaths of 29 and wounding 242.
Air France Hijacking, Dec. 24, 1994: Members of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) seized an Air France flight. The four terrorists were killed during the rescue effort.
Jerusalem Bus Attack, Aug. 21, 1995: Hamas claimed responsibility for the detonation of a bomb that killed six and injured over 100 persons, including several US citizens.
Hamas Bus Attack, Feb. 26, 1996: In Jerusalem, a suicide bomber blew up a bus, killing 26 persons, including three US citizens, and injuring some 80 persons, including three other US citizens.
Dizengoff Center Bombing, March 4, 1996: Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) both claimed responsibility for a bombing outside of Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall that killed 20 persons and injured 75 others, including two US citizens.
Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, Aug. 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the archbishop's meeting with the French foreign minister. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.
PUK Kidnapping, Sept. 13, 1996: In Iraq, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) militants kidnapped four French workers for Pharmaciens Sans Frontieres, a Canadian United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) official, and two Iraqis.
Paris Subway Explosion, Dec. 3, 1996: A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train as it arrived at the Port Royal station, killing two French nationals, a Moroccan, and a Canadian and injuring 86 persons. Among those injured were one US citizen and a Canadian. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected.
Egyptian Letter Bombs, Jan. 2-13, 1997: A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt, postmarks were discovered at AlHayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, D.C., New York City, London, and Riyadh. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kan. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the AlHayat office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage.
Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept. 4, 1997: Three suicide bombers of Hamas detonated bombs in the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing eight persons, including the bombers, and wounding nearly 200 others. A dual US-Israeli citizen was among the dead, and seven US citizens were wounded.
Tourist Killings in Egypt, Nov. 17, 1997: AlGama'at alIslamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor.
Somali Hostage takings, April 15, 1998: Somali militiamen abducted nine Red Cross and Red Crescent workers at an airstrip north of Mogadishu. The hostages included a US citizen, a German, a Belgian, a French, a Norwegian, two Swiss, and one Somali. The gunmen were members of a subclan loyal to Ali Mahdi Mohammed, who controlled the northern section of the capital.
Greek Embassy Seizure, Feb. 16, 1999: Kurdish protesters stormed and occupied the Greek Embassy in Vienna, taking the Greek ambassador and six other persons hostage. Several hours later the protesters released the hostages and left the embassy. The attack followed the Turkish government's announcement of the successful capture of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan. Kurds also occupied Kenyan, Israeli, and other Greek diplomatic facilities in France, Holland, Switzerland, Britain, and Germany over the following days.
Manila Bombing, Dec. 30, 2000: A bomb exploded in a plaza across the street from the US Embassy in Manila, injuring nine persons. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front was likely responsible.
Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of Hamas detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in Kfar Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.
Tel Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing of a popular Israeli nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.
Hamas Restaurant Bombing, Aug. 9, 2001: A Hamas-planted bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 people and wounding more than 90.
Although some US Citizens were caught up in these attacks, none were against American Interests. Some of the countries attacked were directly opposed to America's Foreign Policy.
The question to Dr. Paul is, how does America's Foreign Policy cause terrorist attacks in countries that oppose America's Foreign Policy?
The Incredible Naiveté of Dr. Ron Paul
Lew
Posts
51 comments:
Sir, the only terrorist attack Dr. Paul blamed on US foreign policy was 9/11. The CIA just so happens to agree with him.
As for munich, obviosly related to the Israel-Palestein conflict.
As for assasination of Sadat, obviously related to his brokering of a peace deal with Israel.
And so on, and so on.
Need I say more? Why are you looking at these events in a vacuum? 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum as you seem to presume. It's naive and it makes you look foolish. All of these things tie together, whether you like it or not. Become a student of history sir and you will then be able to analyze and critique Dr. Paul's assertion with better arguments.
No need to 'Sir' me, I was an NCO.
That being said, that is your interpretation of claims made by him. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America's history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism. He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier.
That goes well beyond merely September 11. And still, it doesn't explain why the attacks in other countries.
There's a simple explanation for all of the things you mention: America isn't the only country that meddles in the affairs of the Middle East.
Paul, there is an even easier explanation if you really look at it. That being that the radical Jihadists have spread out and are attacking anyone that doesn't follow their radical beliefs so they can one day rule the world under a misguided and radical inerpretation of their holy book, as they say.
In other words, Ron Paul is all wet on this.
Lew:
Thank you for helping prove that Ron Paul's statements on foreign policy are correct.
The laundry list of attacks are a perfect examples of opposition to oppressive regimes and foreign intervention.
LOL, Michael. That's a far stretch, even for you.
Poor little terrorists, huh? Everybody picks on the poor abused misunderstood terrorists?
You Pauliacs need to do better than that.
Sure, lets not actually read or learn anything about history. You know which country in the Middle East had a candlelight vigil after 9/11? It was Iran. You know which country the government is talking about going after right now? Yup, you guessed it, Iran. What a great way to unite a people against a common enemy.
You want to continue to ignore the US's intervention policy and come up with these lame excuses to attack the best candidate we've seen for president in a long time. I bet you're throwing your support behind Mr. Giuliani and his authoritarian views because he promises victory against an unknown enemy. He offers that promise at the cost of our freedoms and liberties.
Guess what, we can't be the police of the world for much longer. China is building up its Navy, Russia is increasing their technology in regards to warfare, the US dollar is now worth the same as the Canadian dollar.
Its only a matter of time before we go belly up and have to start fixing things on a basic level. Dr. Paul is trying to prevent this country from going to shit and when people like you attack him for presenting evidence and fact that support his claim by spinning his words, its sickening.
The plan fact of the matter is that we have been overthrowing the governments of many countries secretly over the years, and it has resulted in blowback at times. There is no denying it, no looking over it, and if you pretend such things don't happen or don't have blowback, you get 9/11.
When a country doesn't elect a leader we like, then we'd rather have a dictator who can be manipulated/controlled. Of course people over there are going to be upset.
You fail to realize you are just variables in an equation here. And instead of trying to change the equation you just want to blame the other side(variables on the other side of the equal sign). But in the end, it's equal and just the other side. In other words, it takes 2 to tangle.
We are going bankrupt, and we are fighting for another country at our own peril/demise. It's not a blame America as you put it to smear someone. It's a blame the people who have been in charge and LIED to people. And if you ignore it, then you allow it to continue.
As a vet, you took the same oath I did. And that oath was not to a president, nor was it to this country. It was to the constitution. People are so worried about government losing control, well if it's a government made up by the people, it should be easily replacable. In truth, it's only certain people who are worried about losing control.
Also, if your goal is to merely prove some of them would like to destroy us for other reasons, that is true. Of course, some in America would just drop a nuke on them and forget it. It's basically the same point of view, same equation on both sides.
But you have to look at what gives them the power to do so. And we are the ones giving them the power. Everything we do supports those who are against us and gives them power. When in truth, most people just want to be left alone and live their life in peace. Yet, leaders on both sides claim and do things to say, if you don't then you will die.
So why continue the cycle? Defend ourselves, our borders and end it.
ufc, if you paid attention to history you would see what ignoring a growing enemy has cost us. Once again we are faced with an ever growing enemy and Paul and his Pauliacs just want to bury their heads in the sand and once again, wait until it is alomst too late.
You cry about the US's "intervention policy's" but can't see that radical Jihadists areattacking all that are of a different belief than they are. They attacked the Soviet Union in the 1980's! When did the Soviet Union ever support our policy?
Oh, if you had looked over he site, you would not find any links to Guiliani, so I guess you were wrong there, too.
ilove, please expalin how we are overthrowing leaders we don't like and Castro is still alive and in Cuba.
I don't know what oath you took, but the one I took entering the Army said, "I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
If you think we can just withdraw into our own borders and wait for them to get here enmasse and then "defend ourselves," I hope you don't mind seeing a lot of blood. Isn't it incredibly naive to allow them to grow stronger and stronger before we decide to "defend ourselves?"
Radical Jihadists have been targeting western civilization for decades, not because were there, but because we are.
They want us and even other Muslims that don't adhere to their "pure" form of worship dead.
YOu better wake up and see just why they have been attacking so many for so long. It isn't because of our foreign policy. Paul is dead wrong on that.
Grow stronger? Reports are saying that Al-Qaeda is already 9/11 strength. Sounds like we've done a lot of good. You and others like you continue to live in fear and come to radical conclusions and react in an irrational way that results in thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths.
You say that Dr. Paul wants to bury our heads in the sand...shows how much research you've done. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan and believes in Just War. You want to declare war? Go through Congress the way the Constitution says.
Nobody will deny the existence of radical jihadists. However, the point you fail to realize is that when they claim our foreign policy is a major reason for their hatred, it makes sense to fix the problems.
I'm curious to know how you want to approach the situation when we can no longer afford to borrow $2 billion from China, a communist country, every day. We've had to bump our debt ceiling up five times since W has been in office (and I voted for him, and once supported this "war").
Also, if you want to know who the troops are supporting, you can look up the last quarter numbers. Lets just say it isn't Duncan Hunter or the former lobbyist.
ufc, does your lack of comprehension come naturally, or do you practice it? Clearly I said if we leave, they will grow stonger. Some reports have Al Qaeda in Afghanistan growing, but that isn't where you all demand withdrawal, just yet.
Last I heard, Congress did vote to approve this war. Did you miss that? Or, since Paul spoke against it, it never happened?
I just love how simplistic and gullible you Pauliacs are. You say "when they claim our foreign policy is a major reason for their hatred, it makes sense to fix the problems," yet you ignore where "THEY" say they desire to take over the world, where "THEY" say Iraq is the Central Front in the war, when "THEY" say they will destroy America and Israel (not that destroying Israel would cause Paul much grief) and only listen to "THEM" when they bash Aemrica, feeding your own Hate and Blame America agenda.
I just love how you Pauliacs think 21 contributors that claim Military Status of some sort, means all the Troops support him, yet never actually present the real numbers or the "report" you allegedly receive this info from.
It's really pathetic when someone starts believing their own spin.
And still, you cannot address how it is our foreign policy causing terror when they are atatcking countries that also disagree with our foreign policy.
It sounds like Lew Waters has been drinking the mainstream media koolaid for the last 6 years. He's hopelessly lost, that's for sure.
Iran has never replaced our government in order to control our resources. Iraq has never replaced our government in order to control our resources. In fact, no country has ever replaced our government in order to control our resources. We have absolutely no perspective of what we have been doing to the rest of the world, especially the middle east and latin america. If you want to continue to ignore what we've been doing for the last 60 years, then that means the koolaid has been working.
Go look up an interview with Ron Paul from 1988 on youtube. He wanted to disband the CIA because it is an illegal organization that fights wars for the United States without constitutional authority that a war neccessitates. Lew, I hate to say it, but you are supporting a completely unconstitutional government.
Sounds to me more like "Dan's" tin foil hat has slipped.
Like Ron Paul, you obviously hate America and instead of addressing the points made, you launch the normal Pauliac obfuscation and rant on about how bad America is.
Allow me to ask one simple question. Since we have replaced several Middle East governments to control their resources, as you state, why then is oil at an all time high along with our gas prices? Sort of blows your conspiracy theory all to hell, son.
You cling to Paul's 1988 You Tube speech if you must, I'd rather keep a firm foot in reality.
Care to address how can terrorism be America's fault, as claimed by Paul and faithful Pauliacs, yet several terrorist attacks I listed were in countries that disagree with American policy?
You and Paul can make all the hate and blame America cries you wish, they don't hold water with sane people.
I'm not very well read in history, nor do I have the moral courage to jump off the fence and pick a side.
All I do, perhaps, is to stand on the fence and daydream, use my imagination.
I believe that the bottom line is that everyone just wants to live their lives and watch their kids grow up strong and happy.
Imagine, one day, your country's leaders are deposed of because they disagree with a foreign nation's policies.
The country is thrown into turmoil. Curfews, crimes, bloodshed and unemployment, as far as your eye can see.
You live in fear daily, fearing the lack of food, safety and medical treatment, as the such facilties have either been destroyed, or have been taken over by groups that you do not belong to.
Soon, this fear becomes the norm, you begin to discover, from your neighbours, from your observations, who are the ones that are directly, indirectly, involved in causing you so much misery.
You have placed a face on your tormentor.
Naturally, most people will begin to blame this tormentor for everything bad that has taken place in their lives, beginning to hate this entity they believe has caused them to lose their friends, children and loved ones.
Now, imagine, the children who are raised in this hateful environment, will only know hatred for this tormentor.
They might even play games where the tormentor is the bogeyman.
When they grow up, some will eventually find groups of people who are, like them, so full of hatred for this entity, that they are willing to take the fight onto the "enemy"'s soil.
(These groups, could be just financing them against their enemies, or even have full and comprehensive battle plans.)
Their families, who have suffered as much as they have, will probably throw in their support and approval.
Of all the cultures in the world, this culture has long believed in the goodness of being feisty, of believing that one should never give up without a fight.
If one may call it, a "warrior"'s spirit.
How can such underdogs win a battle against a foe that has all the big guns, and has shown the willingness to use them?
Imagine fighting a long range battle against a sniper, while you are armed with little more than a knife.
You can't, if you charge right at him. You'll be dead the moment you walk out of your cover.
So, if you cannot stand up to the enemy's warriors man to man, but wish to give him a taste of the pain, the fear, that you have been raised in, where will you strike?
Even if you weren't a military fellow, you should have guessd the answer... by now.
Cheap shots, aka unarmed civilians.
The soldiers will feel the pain too, and the civilians, will begin to fear even more attacks on them.
Just the act of suicide bombings should give a clue on their resolve.
Most people will not want to throw away their lives deliberately, without a cause they believe in deeply, right?
Of course, you could mention brainwashing or peer pressure, etc.
But, if you learn that a group of people who are known to brainwash and cause people to kill themselves are in your neighbourhood, won't you try to do something to hunt these groups down before you lose a loved one to them?
Unless, of course, you believe that this group is beneficial to yourself.
All you wish, after years, generations of misery, is to strike back, however small the impact might be, at your tormentor.
I guess you have to break it down from the details you see, before you can get a better picture.
For me, it was 9/11. I was in high school when it happened.
I could still remember the shock I felt when my parents called me out from studying to watch the images on the television.
I have thought that my parents have pulled another one of those "critical thinking" pranks on me.
But what stood out were "suicide bombing" and "innocent civilians".
Since then, I have been reading up on why people are willing to give up their lives to hurt others.
From the ancient berserker to WW2's "kamikaze" pilots, all the way today's suicide bombers.
You have to hate a lot.
And such hate comes a lot from upbringing.. And this leads on to why the parents and leaders hate so much.. And why has this hate arisen?
You must spare me, as I was just a 14 year old with too much spare time on my hands.
Sigh, maybe now, I'm just a naive 21 year old who isn't even out of school, but I think all I have is perspective, as compared to all your invaluable experiences and knowledge about what makes people tick.
Terrorists, to silly little me, are people to use terror to spread their message and influence.
Some are better at spreading it effectively, with minimal bloodshed, and others, possessing lower tech, use means that are messier and cruder.
I believe a man of your experience and knowledge would have read both sides of the story, with an open mind, before coming to your conclusions, unlike immature kids who only listen to what their parents say, and not use their god given brains to think and analyse the stories themselves.
I know that my comment is running too long, but I had a college assignment about middle east history, and after reading articles from both sides for weeks, I cannot help but comment after reaching yours.
I guess I could no longer hold it in, after reading article after article in the same vein as yours.
Everyone knows that they are right, and cover their ears and shut out information that could affect their world view.
This is for sound mental health.
But one, I think, should have an open mind, and examine the many sides of a story before coming to a conclusion, or as some may call it, "indecisiveness".
Of course, the commonly taken path is to just pick the side that emotes the best to you, and throw perspective or fact finding out of the window, or "Truthiness" as one of your better comedians has coined.
After all, all the messy, troublesome work of reading up and thinking burns up too much time and brain power, when you can get all the knowledge you need from sound bites and news clips.
But knowledge (from my experience, though little) does not seems to come easy, one has to seek it through quite a lot of elbow grease, before one can even say, "I think I have a rough idea of what is going on."
You have picked a side, and I salute you, ignoring the fact that you are not a commissioned officer.
You have my respect.
I have to admit that I am not an American, but I am deeply concerned about American affairs, as what happens to America, has always had a deep impact on my country as well.
Hence, I have always wished America well, so that we can be well too.
However, looking at how American foreign policy has affected the world in the past 50 years, I cannot help but worry that the enemies you guys have raised will attack us, as we are a softer target than you guys.
While I disagree with what you say to a certain extent, I believe you care deeply for your nation, just as these other commentors, it's just that your views are different.
Keep up the good work with your blog, as everyone should have the freedom to express their feelings and beliefs, no matter what others may think of it.
Of course, through rational discourse like what I read here, and not through violence or the threat of it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6227528613497065845&q=michael+scheuer+ron+paul&total=34&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5
Enough said. It's not like Paul's claims are his own, it's from studying Scheuer and other people who have studied Islamic terrorism.
Chanting the phrase "don't blame America" is not an argument. Telling a girl not to wear a short skirt and walk down a dark alley is not blaming the victim.
It's not like Paul's claims are his own, it's from studying Scheuer and other people who have studied Islamic terrorism.
They are very much his own and against the safety and well-being of our country.
Radical Jihadists have been attacking America and American interests for three decades now. He refuses to see that and that makes him a dangerous man to occupy the White House.
Chanting the phrase "don't blame America" is not an argument.
No, it's more like a call to pull your head out of your collective asses and see what has been increasingly coming at us for so long.
Jackson, your reply is more like a post. I'll have to take some time to digest it and reply.
Good thing I'm on vacation this week, LOL.
For the first half of your comment, Jackson, I agree with you. You are not well read in history. I don’t mean that as put down, just what I see.
I assume you were taught all that by some professor or teacher who is teaching the usual hate America rhetoric.
The first fallacy you need to look at is the wealth of the radical Jihadists like Bin laden and Zawahiri. Neither are exactly paupers.
Suicide bombings isn’t always because of resolve. If you have ever been around any of the brainwashing religions you would see whom easy it is to entice some to commit unreasonable acts with the promise of a deeply held belief. If it was really a case of such oppression and resolve to free them selves, why don’t the leaders ever commit it?
Interestingly enough, Kamikaze pilots that survived the War and still live are highly insulted to have Jihadist suicide bombers compared to them. They claim that there is no comparison between them and today’s suicide bombers.
The hatred of some Muslims can be traced all the way back to the Biblical Days of Abraham. This isn’t new, just the latest phase between the west and Middle East. In fact, it has been ongoing for centuries, just not as severe as it has now gotten, again.
As for open minds, Jackson, do you really believe your Profs teach you with an open mind? Do they accept conservative thought and stances and values?
You might not realize this due to your age (we were all 21 once ourselves), but most of us weren’t conservative in our youth. It is usually a gradual transition for most, a little faster for those of us who went to war. We had open minds and looked at both sides for many years before finally seeing the futility of the liberal way.
As Winston Churchill famously said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
As to our foreign policy over the past 50 years, I urge you to step away from the computer and books in your library and seek refugees that fled from South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. Ask them if we were wrong and stirring up hate for trying to keep the free. Listen to them, not us and see what they tell you. I assume you are in Canada, but don’t know. Regardless, these poor people fled their nation after we abandoned them and deserve to have their stories heard. See what they tell you from first hand experience.
After that, research the Hmong peoples of Southeast Asia and what they are till enduring down to this day. Compare the lives of people in the former East Germany and currently in North Korea. Freedom has never come easy and is expensive, paid for by other people’s blood. Be thankful that those people have willingly placed themselves between you and your enemies for so many years.
I hope you do well on your paper and go on to a very good life. Trust me, at 59, sometimes I wish I had it all to do over again, but then realize that if I did, I would be where I am today.
If I can be of assistance in future projects, research or opinions, feel free to contact me.
I thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my comments/post.
I'm actually from Singapore, one of America's staunchest allies in Asia.
Our school curriculum, where history and other political related aspects are concerned, has, in fact, painted America in the best light possible, in most cases, other where President Nixon was concerned.
I have expressed admiration for what America stands for, from your country's freedom of speech and information, to trying to be the moral standard on what freedom is.
In fact, our news press has been ranked highly in freedom in reporting, up there with North Korea, Burma and Libya.
It is not hatred of this great nation, but a certain level of displeasure, at certain groups of people who wield the flag as
cover for self serving interests or goals.
Any attacks or challenges to such people, can and have been portrayed as attacks to the nation, which seems to be the raising phenomena of calling each other "traitor".
The very fact that there are so many blogs with so many views of how to run America, shows that there are so many Americans who
care about this great nation.
Just as there are hundreds of flavours of ice cream that people love, there are hundreds, even thousands, of ways of running America.
They disagree with you, but I believe they care as much about your nation as you do.
Although I am almost done with my paper, my curiosity has, in fact, been increased from the research I have done, not only from the net, but from books in the library.
You see, my lecturers have insisted that 60% or more of my sources be from recognised journals.
I guess, I just wish to continue this discussion with you, because you seem like a rational and reasonable man, unlike the rabids I have read from both sides of the
political spectrum.
I agree with you completely, that suicide bombings are not always because of resolve.
Brain washing does play a significant role in suicide bombings, but the first steps, of
joining a group obsessed with violence, or "vengence", is most likely one of free choice (given the circumstances), right?
The reasons why the leaders do not commit suicide bombings as well, in my shallow view of human nature, is manifold.
In this day and age, it seems, most leaders do not fight in the wars they declare.
It could be that they rationalised that they are the most experienced and are more valuable in terms of gathering intelligence, funds, as well as planning.
It could be that they, are in fact, pathetic power hungry men masquerading as holy clergymen. All they wish is for people to follow them wherever their whims desire.
It could be that they have higher agendas that we do not know of.
This is from the top of my head: The kamikaze pilots depise the jihadist, because of their strikes at civilians. Is that right?
If I have recalled correctly, the kamikaze pilots believe deeply in the divinity of their emperor, just as these suicide bombers do in Allah.
The actions they take, are in fact,
identical. The greatest difference, perhaps, is in the targets they chose to end their lives with.
Fundamentalism will always be with us. Most religions will always, it seems, give rise to a group of zealots who interpret their sacred
texts with extreme prejudice.
I have tried to search and read up on Taoist or Zen extremists, but could not find any that was not satire.
If you look at the geo political map of my region, Singapore is completely surrounded by Muslim nations.
Our short history has seen terrorist acts committed by various groups, Communists, Muslims and even Sepoy troops.
These acts, however, are based more on politics and nationalistic interests.
I may be naive, but considering that I have considerable contacts with Muslims, through schools, neighbourhoods and when I was in the army, the rectoric of Islam wishing to take over the world seems to ring hollow.
They are merely people like us, and I would have no qualms fighting shoulder to shoulder with most of them.
There are always bad apples in every cultural group.
Goodwill gestures, and carrots, might do more on the long run in removing the threat of extremism than violence, barring genocide,
which seems to be on the wardrums of a lot of people.
I do not consider myself either as a liberal or a conservative.
My current beliefs lie along the vein that everyone should be able to do as they please, as long as they do not harm or disturb others
in the process.
My current stand on pre-emptive strikes is that they can only be allowed, when there is no doubt in the threat posed by certain groups or nations.
If the strike goes through, and no threat has been found, heads must roll, as war is not something that is to be taken lightly.
While I agree that America seems to be on the side of being right in South East Asia, if we assume that Communism is wrong.
Communism is not wrong, in my thinking.
It is merely naive.
And democracy only works if the people counting the votes do just that, nothing more, nothing less.
And if the voters understand the implications of their votes, and not just pick a team to support.
Yes, the boat people are indeed a tragedy.
But maybe the path of minimal bloodshed..
"What if America was not in South East Asia in the first place?"
Of course, there will be the spectre of Communism all over again.
Coincidently, I do have some friends who are of Vietnamese descent, and while they do not
seem to bear a grudge against the Americans, some of their parents seem to express a feeling of betrayal.
Yes, I agree with you that freedom has a price, but only if you fight for your own freedom, I believe that you will only take it for granted.
I believe that it is my naivety that makes me feel this way.
I really believe that any group can come to a compromise with another, because we all have the same basic needs and desires.
And even if we are not able to see eye to eye with certain groups, we should be able to turn our goodwill to others, to rope them to our side, just as 9/11 united the world
behind America.
Once that takes place, the groups that we view as our enemies will lose most of their support, and will be forced to either die out
with a whimper, or pacify.
I see that my comments have become another "post".
This will probably be my last post, so that you can enjoy your well deserved vacation.
On a quick note: The Soviets were attacked by Jihadists in the 80s because of their occupation of Afghanistan, isn't it so?
The cultural meme was created when Rambo first hit the screens.
Jackson, you reveal my own naiveté for assuming you were from Canada. My apologies. Perhaps it is your excellent command of English that fooled me.
I will not dispute anything you say about Singapore, as my limited knowledge is restricted to short discussions I have with Health Care Provider at the VA Hospital, who is also from Singapore. From what I have heard, Singapore is a great place with great people.
While I agree that there is several ways to govern America, the current push seems to be a move towards Soviet style Communism, which is a very oppressive government. You see, after Viet Nam, I served 3 years in Germany with a unit whose function was border patrol. We flew the border between West Germany, East Germany and Czechoslovakia. It is true that there was a high fence and finely raked sand on their side, not ours. I didn’t test reports of mine fields, but don’t count it, either.
The fences weren’t to keep us out; they were to keep people in.
America was founded on and has existed on liberty since its inception. I see many of those liberties slowly being taken away and replaced with more and more government control. While many have the sound of something good, in practice they oppress people and rob people of their natural desire to better themselves.
I believe I said it before, but those radicals within a small sect of Islam have openly said they desire to rule the world and it has been granted them by their interpretation of their Holy Book. Of course, they won’t take part in martyrdom, as others as doing so would deny them their place of control in the new order, if you will.
There is a difference in believing in the divinity of a man and of a God. Many of my fellow countrymen can’t see it, but Allah is just another name for the God of Abraham, Jehovah from the King James Bible. Fortunately for us, the vast majority of the over one billion Muslims are peaceful, it is the 1% to 10% by estimates that buy into the radical Jihadist movement that are causing the trouble. That is still a significant number, though, but not all of Islam.
In a sense, our own Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist organization, although not very active currently due to being so heavily marginalized back in the 1960’s.
You misunderstand about the desire to rule the world. It is not all of Islam I mention, but that small sect of between 1% and 10% that make the claim. In fact, Muslims are in our Military fighting terrorists as are Afghanis and Iraqis standing up in their own Military’s fighting terror.
As for the pre-emptive strike in Iraq, given the available intelligence from around the globe and seeing what happened on September 11 and the 12 years of ignoring 17 UN Resolutions, I feel it would have been derelict of any leader to take a chance on what was assumed to be in Iraq falling into Terrorists hands. I have my thoughts of why so few were discovered and can’t believe that so many international intelligence agencies were that wrong about them. If only one, yes, I can see them being wrong, but there were just too many of them saying they existed. The unanswered question remains, what happened to them? To date, they have neither been found nor accounted for. That continues to trouble me.
I agree that true Communism is naïve. But, when I mention Communism, I actually mean the Soviet style of Communism that oppressed so many for so long. Two entirely different things, actually. True Communism is not only naïve; it is impossible as long as two different people exist under it.
I worry about many who vote here today. So many follow the group think instead of knowing who or what they are voting for. That goes for both ides of our Political spectrum. Personally, I grow tired of holding my nose casting my vote for the lesser of two evils.
The argument of “what if the US had not been in South East Asia in the first place doesn’t change the carnage of what was going on there for many years. It was not a Civil War, as many have portrayed, but it was openly an aggressive move by Communist Forces from the North, much like in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cuba. None of those countries has faired very well under those regimes, either.
China and Viet Nam are moving away from Communism and gradually adopting some Capitalistic policies and are fairing much better. Still, they have further to go, especially in environmental policies. In time, I feel they too will wake up and clean up.
I too have Vietnamese friends here in the US and they express appreciation for what we tried to do for them. I imagine some there don’t share those feelings, as I know some guys that served there harbor deep grudges against the Vietnamese, while others do not. In fact, my son in law is Vietnamese, but born here in the US.
We are reaching out with good will, always have been. Still, a small group of zealots misrepresent that and desire to implement their style of governing, much like the Taliban from Afghanistan.
If you really research it, I think you will find Afghanistan of the 1980’s against the Soviets is an entirely different situation from Iraq and Afghanistan of today. The main difference is we are not desiring to conquer and hold either country, but allow them the chance to build their own type of free nation. The Soviet Union desired to conquer them.
A minor point, but the Rambo movies didn’t address Afghanistan until the third of the series in 1988, as the Soviets were beginning to withdraw.
Thank you for your reply.
I am glad that after your explanations, I understand why you stand where you do today.
Your answers make sense, and surprisingly, are similar to my own beliefs, to a certain degree.
I agree that there are radical Muslims out there, who desire world domination, due the way they interpreted the Koran.
I wonder if these groups could be marginalised like the KKK in America.
I somehow think that, beneath the surface, you and the "Pauliacs" have more beliefs in common than
meets the eye.
Smaller government, more personal freedom, veteran care, the list goes on..
Key differences will be on foreign policy, and even there, you intend it to be a benevolent world police role, rather than a warlord's mentality.
I thank you again for taking the time to enlighten me on your viewpoint.
Hi Jackson. One way the KKK was marginalized was by infiltration and exposure of their workings from within and eliminating leaders and those who would easily kill opposers by imprisonment and letting the public see how they worked.
To accomplish that with radical Jihadists we need Muslims willing to infiltrate and place themselves in extreme danger. No American or westerner could easily join that group.
Another difference is the sheer size of radical Islamists compared to the KKK. Radical Islamists are spread worldwide and I fear hold a much deeper, although misguided, belief than did many KKK members. Many from the latter just didn’t have the stomach for the murder and mayhem radical members had to murder innocent Blacks, unlike many members of groups like Al Qaeda.
Radical Islamists can be marginalized, but it will take a great deal more effort and dedication than was required for the KKK. It will also take more cooperation from other western nations that so far have decided to just sit and watch.
I do have agreements with Ron Paul on fiscal ideas to improve and prolong our economy. However, his naiveté on foreign policy, primarily the War on Terror, is fatal not only for America, I feel, but western civilization. That trumps all other ideas he holds, in my estimation.
The world has been and remains a very dangerous place. What is happening today is not unique for our time, just the latest episode, I feel, but with weapons worse than ever before. I doubt they will bring mankind to extinction, but my greatest fear is what the world will look like when people as you reach my age, especially if we stop opposing despots and radicals that feel they are entitled to rule all.
No generation has escaped war. This one, however, is going to last through generations but must be fought if free people are to remain on the planet.
They are very much his own and against the safety and well-being of our country.
...? I posted the video of the guy who led the task force on finding Bin Laden for the CIA. He said exactly what Ron Paul says. Most likely because Scheuer is one of Paul's main sources. How can you say his ideas are his own with that evidence right in front of you?
Radical Jihadists have been attacking America and American interests for three decades now. He refuses to see that and that makes him a dangerous man to occupy the White House.
He DOES see that. He also gives a good reason for why they're attacking us. You'll also note in that video that Scheuer says they'd stop attacking us if we left the region.
No, it's more like a call to pull your head out of your collective asses and see what has been increasingly coming at us for so long.
Funny how I'm the one with source...
Sources, Stephen? One whole ex-CIA agent, respected as he is? And, isn’t that from the same CIA that said there were WMDs in Iraq that you all say was a lie? Yes, I know Scheuer wasn’t involved in that, just funny how ya’ll pick and choose.
Lest you think I’m down on Scheuer, I’m not. I find it very sad that a man of his stature would join forces with a nutcase like Ron Paul, but he has. What distresses me is reading where Scheuer now says in regards to Bin Laden, "Until we respect him, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary."
Yet, he previously stated in regards to one missed opportunity to “get” Bin Laden when he was believed to be “socializing” with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates and the worry was collateral damage, "The world is lousy with Arab princes and if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book."
Asked about not being able kill Bin Laden without also killing some Arab Princes he replied, "Probably not… If those princes were out there eating goat with Osama bin Laden, then maybe they were there for nefarious reasons. But nonetheless, they would have been the price of battle."
Doesn’t sound to me that he is as “respectful” of Bin Laden as he desires us to be.
“IF” Paul sees the three decades of attacks against American interests and even longer elsewhere, and still blames America, then he is an even bigger dullard that thought.
It would also appear your “source” is in a mutual admiration alliance with Bin Laden as Bin Laden, in his September 2007 video said, “And if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing of your war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer in this regard.”
Additionally, since we are urged by Paul to “listen to our enemy,” maybe he could also, but all of what they say, especially their ”definitive victory.”
But, I guess he and Paul should be together. Both like blaming Israel for trouble in the Middle East, even though Israel has the oldest claim on the land there and has had Jews living in the region since before the time of Christ.
Nice try, though, Stephen.
Don’t be surprised to see Scheuer turn on your boy Paul when he sees Paul doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of sitting in the Oval Office.
Don't know why you're lumping me in with people who think WMD's were a lie. I don't and am probably one of the few who still thinks there was a possibility Saddam did have them.
O'Reilly had Scheuer on and told us that he was the best guy he could get on the air to talk about Al Qaeda and Osama. He knows them better than anyone else and refutes what you're saying...
I don't know the context of the quotes you're giving. By themselves, they really don't make a point. I understand Scheuer's position to be attack them ruthlessly without caring about civilian casualties. "Respecting" an enemy can just mean not underestimating him... so there's not enough context for your point to stand.
And you never give any evidence as to why you think they're attacking us. Just that there's been "three decades of attacks against American interests..." And yet Paul says we started messing with their business over 5 decades ago... don't really understand your point.
Like I said, the guy O'Reilly says is the best, the guy you're not "down on", the guy I listen to (and the guy Osama likes too, don't really understand your point there) seems to think that just maybe we might have pissed some people off.
And notice Paul has never said we deserved the attacks, he simply stated their motivation.
And it's funny you point me to an article that backs up what Scheuer was saying in the video... he said we were playing in to Osama's hands by going into Iraq and threatening Iran.
"Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals."
So what are you trying to say? We ARE playing in to their hands by helping to mobilize the radicals? Sounds kinda like what Paul and Scheuer are saying.
Of course you don't understand, Stephen, you support a nutcase.
If you wish to see the context in quotes I've given, try researching the guy you hold up as the best expert there is. Pretty easy to find.
As to Paul's we started messing with them 50 years ago, perhaps the learned doctor never heard of the Barbary Wars early in the 19th Century.
Keep trying, Stephen.
So what are you trying to say? We ARE playing in to their hands by helping to mobilize the radicals?
C'mon, Stephen, I was just giving you some credit when you fall into this one.
Funny how you people seem able to "read between the lines" unless you think it supports your misguided view not to.
The Hedgehog Regrets
Also unfortunate is that the "awakening" he pre-planned isn't happening. Gradually,m starting in Iraq, Muslims are turning on his minions and siding with America. Perhaps just to get us out, which is alright with me, but they are walking awal from Bin Laden.
Sort of shoots Pauliacs admiration for General Bin Laden to hell, doesn't it?
Are we playing into his hands? No. To play into his hands would have been to give in like Paul desires and give him credence as a major world leader, allowing him to enslave he rest of the Middle East.
Of course you don't understand, Stephen, you support a nutcase.
It's hard to have a debate when you never make a point. You never say why Paul's a nut, other than he just doesn't understand. You never explain what he's supposed to understand, give any evidence to support your position, or do anything other than not have an intelligent conversation.
If you wish to see the context in quotes I've given, try researching the guy you hold up as the best expert there is. Pretty easy to find.
OK, I looked it up. Again, you have no point. Seems he was saying we should respect Osama as you would respect a capable enemy. Not that we shouldn't bomb him unmercifully.
As to Paul's we started messing with them 50 years ago, perhaps the learned doctor never heard of the Barbary Wars early in the 19th Century.
Do you think the attacks against "American interests" over the last 3 decades had anything to do with the Barbary Wars? I bet Paul doesn't think they do either.
I guess I overestimated you. I thought you might be able to support your side of the argument.
Hedgehog, Paul authorized Bush to go after Bin Laden and kill him (which of course didn't happen). It's this "Pauliacs" opinion that had Paul been president in 2001, Bin Laden would be dead right now.
What Paul did not authorize was nation building, which you so called Republicans seem to support now.
Sorry, Stephen, playing games like saying I never make a point isn't winning any debate, just showing your shallowness.
Typical, from pauliacs.
Something you failed to grasp in the link I supplied earlier was the date. Funny that the big plan drawing America into a fray didn't come about until after 9/11. But, why let facts interfere with a good tin foil hate conspiracy.
Why not just state what all this "American interference" has been? Could it be buying their oil and other products? Protecting Muslims in Bosnia/Kosovo?
You say it all started 50 years ago, yet Jews started pushing for a return to an Independent Jewish State very early in the 20th Century as the Ottoman Empire fell. Does it escape you and Paul that the land was the Jews long before Christ walked the earth? Mohammed didn't come on the scene until centuries after Christ was alive.
Jews ended up receiving a sliver of what they were promised then and had to fight for it. Oh yeah, the U.S. had no hand in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.
Makes one wonder why there is no outcry from General Bin Laden over the rest of the territory occupied under the British Mandate of Palestine. Look it up.
Scheuer thinks we "just might have pissed some people off" and yet you can claim that Paul isn't blaming America or that we deserved it. Where I come from, son, you piss someone off, you deserve what you get.
Since he listens so intent to his buddy Bin Laden how does Paul account for claiming the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was a direct result of installing the Shah in 1953? 26 years?
Yet, your pal Bin Laden only complains back to 1983 to Lebanon. Did he miss Paul’s memo to quote 1953?
You also claim we are playing into his hands by attacking him after 9/11. Yet, before that all he could say is what a Paper Tiger the US is for cutting and running from both Lebanon and Somalia.
And now, the plan from 'Paul'bearers is to "cut and run?"
Perhaps if you Pauliacs could comprise a coherent stand, you might get a bit more traction.
Pray tell, Stevie, just how could Paul, a whiny little insignificant buffoon get into the caves Bin Laden is hiding in to kill him?
You people are very misled if you think Bin Laden's death would have or will stop Radical Jihadists from their acts of terror.
This war is about so much more than just one man. Yes, killing him would be a great morale booster, but terror will not stop if he dies.
Funny how giving Iraqis and Afghani's some security so they can rebuild their government is now "nation building.'
I guess a free Iraq siding with us against terrorists is a real threat to Pauliacs.
Did you ever have a point? Your points seemed to rely on calling Paul a nutcase with no evidence. Seemed like you were wrong about the Scheuer quotes. The Barbary wars seemed like a silly comment. If I'm wrong, why didn't you respond to my points against them.
I support Israel kicking the crap out of anyone who wants to attack them. I don't support any silly notion that they have claim to the land because they were there first. Should we give up our land to the Natives?
Paul's claim about "50 years" ago wasn't about Bin Laden, it was meddling in Iran. I think you probably know that.
You call Scheuer's assessment a "good tin foil hate conspiracy." How can I take that seriously?
If you're going to call Bin Laden my pal, there's no reason to continue this.
Okay, Stevie, still want to play Pauliac games?
Perhaps you didn't study enough to know that the Barbary Wars were a result of Muslim Pirates (can we say terrorists) holding America hostage for payment for safe passage of American ships and when payment was refused, one was captured.
Can we say they started attacking us way back when?
While we are at it, why does Paul cry about 1953 being the cause of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and not allowing him into America after he left?
Incidentally, Iran has really faired so much better since then, hasn't it?
Tell all of us, oh great scholar of everything wrong with America, why so much Muslim unrest in France, Denmark, Germany and more in Europe when America is all to blame since 1953? Why Muslim unrest against nations that disagree with our foreign policy?
You do amuse me, though. You say you cannot take me seriously, yet it is you here trying to spread Paul's swill, not me going to your crib.
Oh yes, if you don't like being related to Bin Laden as his pal, stop advocating his position.
"Can we say they started attacking us way back when?" My question was, do you think the attacks over the last 3 decades that you spoke of, relate to the Barbary wars? Do you? If not, they don't help your argument.
Here's what I don't take seriously. I'm taking my position from the guy who headed the task force on KILLING Bin Laden. And you state that I'm taking Bin Laden's position. I think a reasonable person would see the contradiction.
Stevie, you get more ridiculous with each braying.
You, Paul and Scheuer now advocate Bin Laden’s stand, AMERICA MUST SURRENDER AND LEAVE THE AREA!!!!!
That is what Bin Laden wants and expected and you are playing into his hands, giving him and his co-horts Iraq and Afghanistan.
They have stated that Iraq is the central front on the war and once they have it, they will use it as the center of their caliphate.
I thought Paul said we should listen to them? Obviously, he and others aren’t.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288065,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008340.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/05/news/iraq.php
Failure to see and understand this is what disqualifies Paul for much above dog catcher.
Why do you think Scheuer is incompetent?
Paul and Scheuer's point is that we should never have gone in the way we did, because doing so makes the enemy stronger. Do you really think that's such a preposterous idea? That invading muslim countries won't turn tens of thousands of muslims in to radicals?
Strawman now, Stevie?
Guess what? It no longer matters how we went there, we did and we are there.
So, we either cut tail and run, as your buddy wishes. Or, finish what has been started.
Oh yes, I agree with the way and the why we went there. If they don't, that's their business.
It's not a strawman. That's the entire issue. Scheuer's opinion is that Bin Laden wanted us to attack because it would help him build his numbers for his Jihad. You think that's preposterous? O'Reilly at least thought it debatable.
This issue of cutting and running or "surrendering" is ridiculous. We're the frecking USA. We don't have to surrender to anyone. The reason you'd change policy is to fix a mistake, not run from someone. If staying in Iraq helps Alqaeda's recruitment numbers, we should leave because it helps us win.
People who continue on the wrong course just so they don't have to admit being wrong are insecure. We don't have anything to be insecure about.
Leaving the job unfinished leaves both countries wide open for take over by terrorists, Al Qaeda and others.
How we got there is academic. Leaving, as we have consistently done in the Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia and the First Gulf War is what Al Qaeda anticipates. Leaving before he job is done is surrendering to them, handing them a Victory at a time we are finally making decent progress.
No, we are not going to remain en masses forever, but you better get used to the idea of this war lasting a long time.
Another thing Paul is completely ignorant on is that even if we adopt his cut and run policy, regardless of what PC term he applies, they have no intent to stop fighting.
That Scheuer, of all people, doesn't see that leaves me flabbergasted. By the way, he isn't infallible either.
It’s time to wake up. This fight has been coming for a long time and is long overdue. It is a fight between western civilization and radical Islam from centuries ago. Fight them now or fight them later when they are stronger, we are going to fight them or be conquered.
What we need is a unified front and a strong endurance in opposing them. At the same time, we need to show other Muslims that we are not against Islam and that defeating the Jihadists is in their best interests. General Petraeus is accomplishing that in Iraq currently.
Paul says to listen to our enemy. Did he miss when Bin laden said in 1996, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse?”
That is how we get more of them on our side against Al Qaeda and other terror groups. Paul’s “weak horse” attitude will just send them over to the terrorists.
A Paul presidency would be a total disaster for us. No thanks.
I think Scheuer knows they wouldn't stop fighting. But he believes their numbers would be smaller and we'd stop being their target if we exited the middle east.
In any case, I think we've covered all the bases. In the meantime, we got another convert at my house tonight. All they've gotta do is watch Paul speak.
I wouldn't pay attention to Paul's fundraising totals tomorrow, I'm sure it'll piss you off.
If you have a convert, good for you. Now all you need is about 301,139,747 more ;-)
Perhaps you should read a little more whle you are looking for that many more.
Some quotes for your entertainment.
“He [Bin Laden] says basically our job will be to keep killing you and killing you faster if you don’t convert to Islam.”
[He says] "there [is] going to be another major terrorist attack on the U.S. He says nothing from bin Laden’s latest appearance dissuades him from that assessment."
“[Bin Laden’s] been working fastidiously on [another attack] since 2001.”
"Ayman al-Zawahiri, suggests another major attack could happen soon. [X] says he’s surprised that few in the West appear to be taking notice of what bin Laden and his surrogates are saying."
"This war is going to keep getting worse and the enemy is going to keep getting bigger."
“When we leave those places, it is over and in a sense, it’s going to be a new beginning for the enemy. It’s going to be a galvanizing event that people in the West don’t have any idea of.”
“I think that you might see a reduction in violence against us in Iraq if they are convinced that we are going to leave.”
He believes that if the U.S. withdrew, it would allow al-Qaida to focus on its real aim – overthrowing what bin Laden regards as police states in Arab nations.
[X says] that the U.S. faces a twofold threat – from al-Qaida itself, and from homegrown terrorists. “They are not going to attack us in our country unless it is bigger than 9-11. That’s the next step for them."
"People tend to forget that when al-Qaida first struck us in Yemen in ’92, they killed a couple of their own guys, a tourist and no Americans -- and it was only nine years between that and 9-11 when they did what they did in New York and Washington."
Yes, that is all from one person in one interview.
We're up to 6% in New Hampshire among Republicans. 10% among Independents. And his ads are just starting to appear. Paul gets more of the democratic vote than any other repub, more of the black vote than any other repub, more of the indepentent vote than any other repub, and would retain the social conservatives.
He's the only one that stands a chance against Hill.
Good for Paul if he is getting so many Democrat votes. That leaves more votes for Duncan Hunter.
BTW, the election is over a year away. That is a whole lot of time.
Personally, I hope Paul runs as a third party drawing even more votes form the Democrats.
Actually, I see little difference between Paul and Hillary. Both will be a disaster for America should they win.
Oh yeah, better watch those David Duke supporters and the 9/11 Truthers. You might lose a lot of those Black voters you brag about when they discover they have aligned themselves with the KKK.
Last week, the BBC ran a story that the 1976 highjacking of an Israeli jetliner to Uganda was a "false-flag operation of Shin Bet, which is an Intel arm of the Israeli government. The reason behind the operation was to sway American sentiment away from the Palestinians, which the Israelis viewed as growing.
Now, there are things that are going on behind the scenes that, due to the nature of covert action, pose a serious problem with the reality of consequences and the definition of that reality as it is presented.
Ron Paul is simply stating the obvious, that our actions, both covert and overt, have consequences that last for decades.
There is a very good book just published entitled A Shattered Peace, it is an amazing expose of how our intervention into WWI is still influencing our actions today in the world that was created through the Treaty of Versailles.
Few realize, but our government, in one way or another, has been intervening in Iraq for 87 years. In the last 109 years this government has intervened in over 200 countries around the world. Now, the question should be: what has this long-lasting policy produced? Has it produced a world that is now safer or has it produced a world that is now filled with the unintended consequences of that intervention?
Since we don't have the ability of foresight within a window on wisdom, should we not take extreme care when posing such interventions and lauding a policy that has not produced productive results for us or the world in which we live?
As far left and anti-America, anti-Israel as the BBC is, how can you trust anything they write?
Paul remains incredibly naive concerning world matters and how to deal with them.
You may list him as "non-interventionist," but he remains an "isolationist" to thinking people.
Lew....I dare say that if you look at history, you will find that we have been there. We have intervened in the internal affairs of the Middle East for decades. Such intervention has not been a collection an insular actions, but have caused numerous issues that have, in many cases, had a direct consequence on the formation of the world in which we now must face. The fact of reality is that there is no such thing as benign intervention!
It should be, for any logical mind, an obvious conclusion and in fact, it is. There is a cost to sticking our hand into a viper’s den, the folly is when we keep doing it and don’t expect to get bitten. Even today, we still pay the price in Cuba for an intervention that began in 1889 and ended in the late 40s and early 50s. If you read the history of our intervention in Cuba after the Spanish-American War, you will quickly realize that our polices, such as the Platt Amendment in and the various polices that formed a de facto colony of Cuba. These policies stratified Cuban society into extremes and led to the formation of a stage which Castro would later use to create his Marxist revolution.
Basically, the United States, and its foreign policy of intervention since 1989 have replaced the old-world colonialist empires with a different master. The problem with such an outlook is that there is a cost that few want to recognize because it shines a light upon our nation that is totally contrary to the ideals upon which the nation was founded. It is easy for us to cry liberty and self-determination, but it has been hard for us to reconcile the ideals with the created reality that has replaced such ideals.
While we have been conditioned that it is patriotic to accept a history that portrays our country in the best light possible, the real patriotism however, is looking at our history honestly and even critically, by doing so we will learn from those lessons, both from the successes and the failures it provides. It is shameful, and perhaps even dangerous, when we allow our history to be colored, misrepresented or manipulated to support ideologies, agendas, or causes. It is an absolute mistake to use patriotism as a factor in convincing the American People to choose a spirit of aggression and intolerance in policy making over than the traditional values found within our Constitution and the Founding Documents. If we are to profit from the errors of the last century in particular, then we would come away from our history lesson with a very clear understanding that the United States has strayed extremely far from its foundation and it has costs us dearly.
In viewing the history of the United States during the Twentieth Century, we can quickly see that it was a century characterized by numerous provocations and interventions; rarely did we contribute to widespread stabilization, but a generalized destabilization within nations and regions of the world. We rarely consider that our popular history seems to be written for our consumption, portraying a very righteous and amicable nation that has sought only justice for the nations of the world, a view that is totally contrary to the facts of history. It is impossible for us to justify our national aggression by stating it is a consistent philosophy while claiming to maintain a peaceful influence in the world. Such aggression is an anomaly of our traditional American character. Indeed, such aggressive intervention has proven to be a defect in our modern national character, one that is in a vital need of correction by returning to our foundational Constitutional philosophy.
In general, the American psyche, both politically and socially, has been distorted to such a degree that it now reveals a lack of tolerance and respect for the rights of other nations, all the while promoting our own version of self-righteousness wrapped up in a façade of Red, White and Blue. Such distortions are far from the reality of Patriotism upon which this nation was founded. We cannot expunge our own national history through palpable evasions or distortions of the truth while maintaining that by doing so we are defending our nation. Nor can we claim to uphold our patriotism by such contortions in our history; such mental gymnastics are little more than a contradiction to all reason and indeed to the meaning of patriotism itself. Until we openly confess our political sins of the past it is doubtful that we can prevent their repetition in the future.
Our national militarism has naturally lends itself to national expansionism and, in ways we rarely consider, to that of the glorification of executive monarchism. We have seen the Machiavellian philosophy take root in this country over the past 40 years, a philosophy that teaches that the State and its ability to render its power unabated is the real source of all happiness and security. It feeds upon the doctrinal plea that by strengthening the reach of the State it can, through the medium of militarism, provide for the necessary security of the People by spreading its particular ideological agenda and making the world safe for democracy. That philosophy however, ignores the primary source of our national security by subjecting our nation to the consequential dangers that such militaristic interventions entail.
The most important factor, one that is often overlooked in this Machiavellian ideology, is that the greatest source of national defense can be found by remaining entanglement free. This Machiavellian indoctrination over the last 109 years has effectively been engrained, not only in the mind of the political apparatus, but also in the minds of the People to the point that the government has been granted an unlimited license to proceed without the restraint of the People's consent. I feel that eventually reality will force a rejection of the Machiavellian ideology and the maxims that have blinded our national conscience to the point that we can no longer rationally see the options provided to us by the wisdom of the Founders. The Machiavellian Shibboleth should be considered an obsolete doctrine, dangerous in its application and perverse in the tenets of Jingoism that now dominates this current Administration and grips large portions of the American attitude. We must disavow such national war fetishes and the demands of imperialistic traits that not only fail to deliver real security but actually decreases our national safety.
In our seemingly persistent denial of our own imperialism, we are simply being untrue to ourselves and through such denials we turn our backs upon those tenets that our Founding Statesmen ascribed, for our benefit, to this Great Nation of Liberty and Justice. When our politicians lay claim to a peaceful disposition while promoting the cry for intervention, they not only betray our national conscience, but deceive the People with such contradictions of traditional national principles.
Our history has been filled with threats, threats to our way of life, threats to our very existence and while we must be diligent in meeting all direct and immediate threats with a strong rational response, we should avoid the tendency to face such issues with a charge of reactionary emotionalism. Reactionary decision-making leads to little in the way of constructive measures and usually only opens us up to an increase of potentially dangerous threats. In our nature we are afforded the ability to either look at our actions based upon reason or based upon fear.
Upon reason, we shall always find a sense of rational decisions combined with responsible actions that ultimately benefit us as individuals and as a nation however, if we are given over to irrational fears then our actions risk betraying our overall security through reckless actions both domestically and on the foreign stage. We would do well to consider that our actions are connected to events from times past and will always tie future consequences to the present. A policy of interventionism is usually accompanied by a swell of national pride, promoted, as it were, by the State and its corporate sponsors, who are always the beneficiaries of such polices.
It is rarely considered that a poor and potentially dangerous doctrine or policy, when consistently applied, will eventually embed itself deeply into the national character and influence that character in ways that will ultimately decrease all periphery vision, giving rise to unreasonable fears and trepidations that tend to blind us to other possible considerations. There has never, in all our history, been such a poorly defined doctrine as that we currently are witnessing with regards to our foreign policy. Its broad application has no real focal point, no perceivable goals and few effectual results that can be declared as successful in providing this country actual defense. The proverbial "can of worms" has been opened regarding our foreign policy and with that open "can" the "night crawlers" are finding their way into our domestic policies, creeping into areas that have always been held as sacrosanct to our traditional Constitutional values.
The common thread to all threats, throughout our history, has been the utilization of the fear, and the use of that fear is exploited by the government to increase its own grasp of domestic powers or to expand its global reach. Militarism is developed and defined specifically by tyrannical aspects within governments to support their own arbitrary authority and by designing such predatory ambitions the scope of government power is extended, usually pressed upon weak and relatively defenseless nations that have no real defense against facing such overwhelming force.
The primary driving ambition is, besides power, the control over vastly rich resources within certain regions. These resources are touted as essential to our national security interests and the rights of another nations' sovereignty appear to be rarely enough deter our government push toward intervention to pursue such national interests. Interventionist militarism has always promoted and utilized the development of pseudo-patriotism in the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they believe the push of military might is not only necessary, but, more times than not, it is portrayed as a noble cause. Rarely is there the consideration that such actions are not only used to maintain and grow the institutions of militarism, but that they are usually inimical to our own security. Of course, it is always in the interests of the Militarists to win the conflict, but even when a conflict is won the consequences of even victory are rarely considered.
The entry of America into World War I is a perfect example of the effects of militarism on a country. Prior to our entry, both sides of the conflict had almost exhausted themselves to the point of suing for peace, but with the entry of America the war was extended and the results of the war changed the power-structure around the world. Additionally, our entry and the victory that followed set the stage for several events that not only promoted a domestic extension of our government’s authority, but also created events that would ultimately lead to the rise of Hitler and therefore WWII.
Had America not entered WWI, both sides of the conflict would have settled for peace, Germany would have never faced the severe and shameful terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The economic drain of ruining reparations on Germany and the decades of national impotency would later give rise to the extremism of National Socialism and the disaster of WWII. This government rarely appears to take into consideration the consequences of its actions, its policies, and its interventions, if it would then not only would the world be a very different place, but our country would be a vastly different one then we see today. It would be far more secure, far more prosperous and far more respected.
Perhaps one of the most damaging results of our entry into the WWI was on the domestic front. The government created a truly massive propaganda machine called the CPI [Committee on Public Information] for the sole purpose of beating the drums of war, whipping the American public into an almost total acceptance of militaristic interventionism and repression of all dissent contrary to the war effort.
Those propaganda methods were extremely effective and they are still employed today by the government when seeking support for its militaristic agenda. The primary method utilized was fear and hate; fear of the enemy combined with hate, all epitomized by an inordinate demonization. The methods of the CPI portrayed Germans as the most dangerous enemy this country had ever faced, a threat to our way of life, depraved, brutal barbarians, intent of the destruction of our democracy and all freedom loving people around the world. Stories of atrocities and potential atrocities were common-place; the intent was to stimulate a national self-righteousness and complete indignation toward the enemy, it was very effective and produced the desired results within the minds of the people thereby making them pliable to the militaristic cause of the government.
The CPI propaganda arm of the government had no qualms about the distortion of the truth or outright subversion of the truth and blatant lies utilized for the greater good of the cause and the expansion of American military might. "So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about which the public is to hate. A handy rule for arousing hate, is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man." Lasswell-CPI.
Obviously, it worked so well that it has continued to be used to this day. It is not hard to find the exact wording today as was utilized during WWI and WWII in describing the enemy and the potential extreme threat that enemy represents to our way of life. It also appears that the American people remain equally as sensitive to such methods today as they were nearly 100 years ago during the Wilson Administration. In such efforts, the government needs hatred to fuel its war machine and it is extremely skilled in presentations crafted to elicit those darker emotions among the People, all for the cause, the government’s cause, whether justified or not.
After WWI, the CPI remained a very useful tool of the government, but instead of war, it used the same methods against potential political opposition, to enhance factions and special interest that government sought partnerships with in order to gain a far more powerful position on the domestic front. It became government policy to use such tools to mold American public opinion to fit the views and requirements of the State. The use of Militarism, and the propaganda tools used to support it, is contrary to the goals once espoused by this country and the traditions upon which it was founded. It is impossible for the traditional institutions of this country to continue if such tactics continue to influence and direct public opinion based upon certain agendas which may not always be exposed to the general public but are sold to them as an absolute necessity for our survival as a nation when in fact that may not be the case. Unless we are willing to not only maintain our Rights and defend our Liberties, we will lose them to a systematic distortion of truth created to generate a particular agenda contrary to our real national interests and the traditional Constitutional form of government.
“The abuse of official powers and thirst for dishonest gain are now so common that they cease to shock.”—Edward Bates-Lincoln’s Attorney General.
Of course, along with Militarism abroad comes an increase of political repression at home. Any government that gravitates toward Militarism tends to also move toward a Police State, especially when there is the advantage of an external threat or a potential internal threat. The two go hand-in-hand and rarely can Militarism be found without the backing of a degree of domestic oppression. It is also not unusual within such a mentality of such extreme views that those who promote it are ultimately gripped with the same fear it seeks to propagate. We have seen the shift in this country since the events of 9/11; it has been a drastic move toward dangerously irrational reactionary thought. We have lost much to those who seek an agenda other than those upon which this country was founded and yet there remains a strong tie, and even a yearning that now compels the People to return to the traditions instituted by our Founders. The message of revolutionary Freedom will not be silenced in this country, it may be battered, oppressed and dissent may even be criminalized, but the Cry of Liberty will continue to grow louder and the Cause of Freedom will prevail AT ANY COST!
Lew...The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is also on the story. It is not just a BBC fabrication. There is now talk of a Knesset investigation into the matter.
Sounds like a pretty reliable story.
Lew...
Let us now consider Pakistan, it would appear that our government has not learned the lessons of Iran. We seem to be backing yet another "Shah" and I dare say that we will see similar results from such actions.
If we really believe that our actions have such positive consequences then why does it appear that our government is always scrambling to throw a patch on situation after situation?
Concerning our actions throughout the Middle East and the consequences of those actions we need look no further than bin Laden himself.
Now consider this quote back in 1998 by Osama bin Laden concerning the reasons why they considered themselves to be on the defensive:
"The Americans impose themselves on everyone. … They accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists. Those children who have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time, they defend … with their airplanes and tanks, the state of the Jews that has a policy to destroy the future of these children. … In the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, … houses were demolished over the heads of children. Also, by testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American-led sanctions resulted in the death of more than one million Iraqi children. … We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means. … So, we tell the Americans as a people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers, and American mothers in general, if they value their lives and those of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and … does not attack others, their lands, or their honor."
Oh, without any doubt, the radical Islamic doctrine does play a role in the reason why they hate us, but it is not the reason given by bin Laden for the attacks against us, neither is it the reasons given by our own CIA, by the British MI6, the Israeli Mossad, or other military think-tanks and other committees like the Senate Special Sub-Committee on Intelligence or the 9/11 Commission itself. We can believe what we feel like we must to placate our needs for justification and ignore the actual reasons why we are being placed in such a dangerous situation by the actions of this government.
One of the keys to understanding that our actions in the Middle East is the primary reason we have been and will be attacked is to carefully consider the actions of those Muslim countries that assist us against Radical Islam. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and the rest in that region are very cautious about the aid they supply the U.S. government because they know that they will be viewed by their people and the extremists as collaborators with an invader and occupier of Muslim holy lands and sites.
The terrorists on 9/11 were not just committing terrorism for the sake of terrorism, they attacked not only because their religious beliefs consider us as infidels, but also because they view us as invaders and occupiers and indeed, bin Laden’s on statement about why the attacks of 9/11 occurred was that we occupied and in their view, defiled the holy land of Islam.
Those attacks were far more than just an act of hatred; it was, in their eyes, an act of revenge and retribution. To ignore those facts is to ignore and therefore excuse our own actions that place us in potential danger. To ignore those reasons is ignorant and ultimately self-defeating. Our interventions, and unfortunately our blind support of Israel, has increased the rage in the Middle East and in the rest of the Muslim world…that rage is growing and with the rapid increase of such rage so does the danger to our own safety.
In the words of a Middle Eastern journalist, Mohamed Heikal, speaking of the region and their view of America in the 50s and 60s: “"The whole picture of the United States... was a glamorous one. Britain and France were fading, hated empires. The Soviet Union was 5,000 miles away and the ideology of communism was anathema to the Muslim religion. But America had emerged from World War II richer, more powerful and more appealing than ever. I first traveled to the Middle East in the early 1970s, and even then the image of America was of a glistening, approachable modernity: fast cars, Hilton hotels and Coca-Cola. Something happened in these lands. To understand the roots of anti-American rage in the Middle East, we need to plumb not the past 300 years of history but the past 30.”
Of course, Americans have a very difficult time believing that we could be hated for what we do…the logic behind that is completely beyond the rational mind, but many people simply can’t come to grips that there might be a reason for the hated felt toward this government and it might not be what we think.
Many people cannot come to grips with the thought that something the good ole US of A is going might be part of the problem we are now facing. Self-examination is always the hardest, but once it is completed the rewards are usually substantial.
We have a hard time allowing our minds to wrap around the fact that since 1945 our government has attempted to overthrow over 40 foreign governments and assisted in crushing about 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling to overthrow repressive regimes. When you support the bad guys there comes a time when you, yourself are viewed as one of them…that’s what has happened to this country.
This war was lost before we dropped the first bomb, unfortunately the blind ideologies and ambitions of those within this Administration guided them into the abyss of overt stupidity. Certainly there was hope that we could release the people of Iraq from oppression, but when you think about it, how much of that oppression was a direct cause of our de facto support of Saddam for years? Recent polls in Iraq have revealed that over 63% of Iraqis now deeply feel it was wrong for the U.S. to invade and now, in their view, occupy their country.
Over 47% state that the U.S. should withdraw immediately despite the potential for sectarian violence because they feel that the U.S. occupation is only making things worst. When you have numbers like that, you have lost the war…without the support of the very people you intended to “liberate”, there is no way to win such a war because the insurgency has a rapidly growing pool of manpower from which to draw fighters. The conception of this war was totally off-base from the beginning and the execution of it has proved to be folly and the end of it will prove to be one of the biggest, most expensive mistakes the U.S. government has ever made.
We can believe what we want to, we can listen to neo-con shrills and blindly trust their prognostications, we can emotionally adhere to a philosophy that condones interventionism and we will ultimately pay the price for such attitudes and actions with financial distress and increased threats to our safety and security unless we, our government, changes the way we view the world and the way we interact with it.
Considering the limitations of interventionism, I think that Ron Paul clearly states that we need to seriously consider the possible repercussions of such interventions. In fact, it is easy to see, if we are look beyond the propaganda of the state, that our interventions have caused us a great deal of trouble over the years. The problem with covert activities is that you never know what auxiliary problems and issues they create due to the fact that, by the very nature, they are covert and for decades we have blindly placed our faith in the Intel community to do everything in our own best interest when that might not be the case.
If anyone considers the actions we have taken over the past 50 years have promoted peace then they should take a second look at the results of those actions. I don’t think Ron Paul has stated that we should limit our foreign relations because extremists hate us, just the opposite; they hate us because of our foreign relations and policies. Between the various factions we support on all sides of a conflict and the types of various interventions, there must be some accountability and yet there has been none.
Ron Paul has stated that we have created many of our own problems, by the way so has many of the various intelligence agencies and military strategist. Just look at the world we have created for ourselves, it didn’t just happen this way there are very definite causes and effects.
For instance, a particular type of intervention, which still haunts us today, used by the CIA, was pushing an extremely radicalized Islamic ideology among the population of Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s. This was not only used with the adult population, but the CIA also insured that generations to come would be radicalized through providing Islamic schools with textbooks which brought extremist ideology to children in the region, it worked. Between 1984 and 1994, the University of Nebraska, funded by United States Agency for International Development [USAID], produced some of the most disturbing textbooks for radicalizing Afghan children. Of course, millions of these textbooks not only found their way into the hands of Afghan children, but also were exported into Pakistan and other areas in the region; they are still being used today to indoctrinate students with extremists’ ideology that consist of hatred of non-Muslims, and Islamic liberation through terrorism.
Between 1985 and 1989, Osama bin Laden’s MAK opened branches in over 30 U.S. Cities with the assistance of his mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. Azzam made several trips to the U.S. and other countries to organize the MAK branches. With the knowledge of the U.S. Government and support from the CIA, the MAK branches raised millions of dollars from Muslim-Americans. Bin Laden assumes power over the MAK after Azzam is assassinated in car bombing. MAK, through bin Laden’s guidance is transformed into al-Qaeda and the branch offices continue to funnel money into the network right under the nose of the U.S. Government.
At the same time, the CIA, MI6 and the ISI launch guerrilla attack into the Soviet territories of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Targets include civilian factories, storage warehouses, and military installations. The CIA supplies the ISI with extremist Islamic literature and Korans to import into the Soviet territories to foment Islamic uprisings and destabilize the region.
Between 1986 and 1992, William Casey backed a plan to recruit Islamic extremists from around the world to fight in the Mujahideen Jihad and over 100,000 Islamic militant terrorists are trained in camps under the direct oversight of the CIA and MI6. The MAK [al-Qaeda] terrorists and future Taliban fighters are trained by British Special Forces units and become experts in bomb making, weapons, and guerrilla tactics. The leaders of the groups receive special training at a CIA camp in Virginia.
Between 1986 and 1992, William Casey backed a plan to recruit Islamic extremists from around the world to fight in the Mujahideen Jihad and over 100,000 Islamic militant terrorists are trained in camps under the direct oversight of the CIA and MI6. The MAK [al-Qaeda] terrorists and future Taliban fighters are trained by British Special Forces units and become experts in bomb making, weapons, and guerrilla tactics. The leaders of the groups receive special training at a CIA camp in Virginia. While the operation was originally intended to defeat the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, it was continued for several years after the Soviet withdrawal.
Jane’s Defense Weekly stated that not only did ISI operatives work directly with al-Qaeda, but also got direct assistance from “American Green Beret commandos and Navy SEALS in various U.S. training establishments.” Jane’s also reports that “with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda: (the Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries, but meantime Washington turned a blind eye to al-Qaeda.”
Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State under the Reagan Administration, later said with regret: “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were gone, [the U.S. funded and trained terrorists] were looking around for other targets, and Osama bin Laden has settled on the United States as a source of all evil. Irony? Irony is all over the place.”
President George H.W. Bush was told by the future deposed President of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto: “ You are creating a Frankenstein!” Indeed, we did just that and as one diplomat notes, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.”
Now tell me that any of that makes sense when we are trying to protect ourselves from a potential enemy? I am sure that “Statist apologists” will say that we were fighting the Soviet Union and anything was permissible, but in the CIA’s on estimation the Soviet Union was little more than a paper tiger and the threat was more political expediency then actual. The “state” will always manufacture a threat if one doesn’t actually exist; if we don’t realize that then we are only fooling ourselves.
From what I have read of Ron Paul he calls for a rational foreign policy while maintaining a strong, but practical defense. Currently, we have military bases in over 150 countries and the fact is that we simply can no longer afford to be the world’s police. That fact is becoming self-evident as this fading empire approaches the end of its ability to press the world into compliance with its wishes.
We are looking at the result of decades of haphazard policies, rashly ill conceived and poorly executed military adventures which have done more harm than good and in the process they have endangered this nation and its people.
Peace is the Enemy of the State. Without war the State cannot procure its desired control and social maintenance of the population. The Warfare State is a wasteful ideology that stifles Liberty, restricts the Rights of the Citizen and drains the nation of it potential. Such ideologies have always failed in the past and usually at the expense of the general welfare of the Citizens of a nation. We are only hastening the day when disaster strikes again.
During the entire period of this so-called “War on Terror” we have remained basically undefended with open borders, porous ports and policies and procedures that border on the ridiculous. Had this been a serious issue of national security there would be rational policies that were directed more toward actually securing this nation against attack instead of merely complicating the process of defense into an untenable monstrosity of bureaucratic incompetence.
When we consider that the measures of the Patriot Act were written long before the attacks of 9/11, should it not make anyone wonder about the pretext of the attack? Indeed, the Taliban’s fate was sealed long before 9/11 when they reneged on the UNOCAL pipeline deal with the U.S. Oil Barons. Is it any wonders why we have not captured Osama in the remotest parts of Pakistan… imagine a six foot-seven inch Arab who must have kidney dialysis on a regular basis just to remain alive…and we can’t find him, perhaps the government really doesn’t want to find him.
As a footnote to the events of 9/11, it is important to understand what the government desires were prior to 9/11. This desire can be easily seen in the writings of Brezinski: He states Eurasia is vital to the strategic interest of the U.S. and Central Asia is the key to dominating that region, particularly with its large oil reserves. He also gives a picture of the motive behind everything that points to 9/11: that in order for the U.S. to maintain its global supremacy, it must prevent, at any cost, a possible adversary from controlling that region. He gives an almost chilling prophecy of the future when he states: “The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” He goes on to predict that such an ambitious strategy in Central Asia cannot be implemented “except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” Of course, that has happened!
Perhaps, since our policies have been a dismal failure for decades that it is time to change not only the way we think, but also the way we act. From what I have read, Ron Paul has extensive knowledge of the foreign policy issues we face and the potential danger posed by such policies. He is far from being an Isolationist and would provide, finally, a logical and rational approach to not only our foreign policy, but social and economic policies as well.
One of the most amazing things that I read recently, is that some wizard in our government has decided to use the same tactics with FATAH as we did with the MAK and the Mujahadeen. We are now supplying arms, Intel, supplies, finance and training to members of FATAH. The problem is that within FATAH are also members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. So, once again we are providing this military support and training to those who would turn on us in a heart-beat. Does that make any sense to anyone with a rational mind?
"How convenient. Now that we've won the War in Iraq, the Lefty Libertarians are trying to spin things so they won't appear as Losertarians. Hey, Lefty Libertarians, you all were wrong. Turns out we didn't need "hundreds of thousands of body bags." We won this War in record time, and with a record low number of casulaties. Perhaps the greatest Military victory in the history of the United States."
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is also on the story. It is not just a BBC fabrication. There is now talk of a Knesset investigation into the matter.
Funny thing about this. From a Haaretz story from Jan 6, 2007, "a British government file on the incident quotes the unnamed source as telling a British diplomat in Paris that Israel was behind the hijacking. The claim is not known to be backed up by corroborating evidence, and the file does not make it clear whether the British government took the claim seriously."
It seems many of your fellow Jew Haters are spreading this claim without benefit of investigation or findings.
You neglected to give links or urls to your claims, but what I did find doesn't support your anti-semetic view.
Realizing how much Paul and his Paulistinians rely on support from Jew hating White Supremacists like David Duke, I wonder when we will see you all on your hooded robes in front of a burning cross?
Funny how you all see America, the freest country on the planet, as the source of all the worlds problems.
Yet, none can explain the radical Jihadist terror attacks on country's that have strongly opposed America's foreign policy.
I will agree that Paul does have a couple good ideas on the economy, but then again, so did Adolph Hitler. Didn't make him a good leader.
Post a Comment