If Ron Paul did have a chance, it died during the last debate.

Funny how that had nothing to do with the post you quoted.

Feel better?

 

But it wasn't our "aggressiveness" that brought them to this conclusion. We weren't being "aggressive" when we stationed our troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm. We were there at the behest of the Saudi government. Osama bin Laden felt slighted by the Saudis because they choose us to protect Mecca and Medina over him and his Mujaheddin. He claims our presence there was an assault on Islam, but, in reality, it is was just an assault on his massive ego.

Our "interventionism" in this case can be more accurately characterized as "international diplomacy and cooperation". The fact that our military and economic ties with allies and regional partners angers these barbarians is inconsequential. We will not allow them to dictate the terms of our role in the world. We can't alter our entire foreign policy because we're afraid that some backwards-ass religious extremists will get angry at us. They can go to hell, and our military will be happy to send them there.

 

I'm aware. I respect Ron Paul a great deal, but I do have some disagreements with him on foreign policy. However, I do think his foreign policy views are informative; foreign policy is multifaceted and I believe Ron Paul has something to contribute.

 

Yes. Very much so. He is a man of character and integrity.

 

I felt that I should share this video here. Seems like the best place for it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo&feature=related"]Ron Paul - Imagine - Kinetic Typography - YouTube[/ame]

Edit: Please watch this video with intelligence and don't try and take things out of context or misinterpret them. Somehow I still get the feeling that someone is going to do that anyway.

 

This is a good video and one of my favorite RP speeches. You've likely wasted your time posting it though, it's beyond the perceptive abilities of the brainwashed.

 

they'll be too busy thinking that the "liberals" in washington differ from the "conservatives"

 

I think it was a plus that debate.

Notice how Blitzer ask Perry and Romney about the FED and not Paul who has written a book on the subject....everyone saw that. The overt demonstration of BIAS I personally think was a plus.

 

AQ's stated motive certainly was not a lie. If it was, it was "bought into" by the Saudis as well...they exiled him over that little "lie".
Or has one forgotten that it was KSA as well, and not just USA, that was on UBL's hit list?

Paul is absolutely correct in his assertion. We had/have bases (with infidels, and worse, unveiled females) on Holy soil...and this is what sets KSA/Islam apart from the other 129 countries around the world where we have bases. doh. Germany, Japan, or Spain have no religious objections to our bases.

Anyone who believes that there are no Muslims who hate America on its face, have simply not gone to an English-Muslim website, or read anything on the matter beyond these forums.

The whole "either/or" approach to understanding Islamic motivation is a waste of time, and worse, self-inflicted misdirection.

As for "Ron Paul ... operating under that lie", rest assured, Paul has something far more concrete and time-tested to guide his "operations"...it is called the Constitution.
In case you haven't been listening (for the past 30 yrs), he's real big on adhering to the Constitution.

That means he would use the military for defense of the nation -- not as global policemen.
It means he would go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war before embarking on "not-a-war-let's-call-it-a-humanitarian-mission-even-though-we-are-dropping-a-billion-bucks-a-week's-worth-of-ordinance-on-them".

Console yourself with this knowledge -- any president, any man, can make a mistake in foreign policy (Iran 50's, VN 60s, So. Am. 80s).
If Paul makes one, his mistake will not be un-Constitutional!

 

Based on (interrupted) 90 second sound bites?
Read a book.

 

yup, yup, yup. (I smell another ole geezer with a working memory)

 

I wouldn't call it selective focus, it's just one more example. I added VN and the South American follies to the list, there are others.

Interventionism has definitely added to our issues with Muslims (as has the very nature of Islam).

Your points are well taken, and the very reason I said earlier that the "either/or" argument regarding motivation is useless.

 

Quite right. They intend to use our own liberal laws against us -- mark my words -- think AIG and shariah courts and lawsuits against legally passed legislation. oh yeah...no bullets, not even babies, just law books and pc tools.

 

I think you are putting too much emphasis on "aggression".

The more pressing issue, beyond religious fanaticism, is the fact that we prop up dictators in oil-producing nations. Oil companies require a stable environment in which to produce. Our govt assists by propping up whomever holds the power, not in approval of any particular regime, but to promote a stable, productive environment for oil production.

Oil sheiks grow richer and richer while average Muslims view all the freedoms, opportunities and baubles available to those with opportunity...and their own societies provide no opportunities.

How many Muslim graduates of American universities do you imagine have gone home to find there is no meaningful work, esp in their fields, available to them? Plenty.

Again, there is no One Reason why Muslims hate the west, there are many. What purpose is served in denying any one reason to hang one's hat on another?
If only life could be that simple; all could be resolvable in 60 mins, adverts included.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU"]Osama/Usama Bin Laden On 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Words from Bin laden himself.

 

Interested in comments on what Bin Laden had to say.

 

well, you'll just have to wait until the debate is over.

Yes, he speaks for himself.

But it would be incorrect to assume that this is the whole Islamic story. UBL was a young man, a student of others. Those others were students of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood goes back to the 1920's. Their roots and branches are deep and wide, their causes and methods endless.

Additionally, again, you can't discount the oppression and frustration bred by societies where enormous wealth is created for a very few entitled people. Certainly they do not discount it. No one has more efficiently kept their cauldron from boiling over than the Saudis, and they do it by redirecting the venom to America.

This isn't news to Muslims in Muslim nations, that is the genesis of The Arab Spring. They do not want us propping up their Mubaraks any longer.

And then there is religious dogma, a whole other can of worms.

 

Too funny.
You expose your own ignorance accusing Ron Paul of ignorance.

Dr. Paul absolutely understands both, economics and foreign policy.
You want to educate yourself or are you happy exposing your ignorance to other ignorant people who agree with you and those who know better but consider it a waste of time to educate you?

Read our own commissions report and summation of 9/11.

Look up the Iranian coup d'etat in 1953
The CIA in their own documents acknowledge the overthrow of a democratically oriented Iranian government directly contributed to the Iranian Revolution culminating in 1979 with the Ayatollah Khomeini (A Radical Islamic Fundamentalist) gaining power in Iran.

Understand who the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is and our history with OPEC.

Research the origins of Osama Bin Laden, not just that he was a US ally freedom fighter opposing Russia in Afghanistan but his ties to the Saudi family and Saudi Arabia's ties to OPEC and their relationshp with the US.

and no, I'm not a truther or other conspiracy theorist.
This is history and easily verifiable by anyone willing to do a little research.

Our problems with the Middle East started 60, not 10 years ago.
9/11 was an exchange in a conflict that has been going on long before you or even I were born.

 

It's delicious watching the hate crowd devour their 'best', as there are SO few (none really) of them, and to know there's still a year + of these cannabalistic farces yet to come means 0 chance of the final guy going anywhere but straight to their crying pillows. And so will the crybaby cons here.

 

If Ron Paul did have a chance, it died during the last debate.


Yeah...suuure it did;

Ron Paul in third place, polls say

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/20/news/la-ron-paul-comeback-20110920