This is funny, there were more people at my bingo hall yesterday.I hope he at least apologized to the 216 people for blaming the USA for 9-11.
You should have done a straw poll between games...
Bear with me for a moment, please.
I like many things about Paul but not his anti war stance about Iraq. I’d prefer Duncan Hunter, but here is my question:
Let’s say that you see your next door neighbor beating the tar out of his wife and you intervene to protect her.
Did you do the right thing? Absolutely.
Is this man likely to like for for intervening. NO!
Will he take action against you at some point? Possibly.
What does this have to do with Iraq?
We have intervened (rightly or wrongly, but mostly rightly IMO) over the years. Have we angered some Muslims because of it? Sure we have. Does that mean that we were wrong? No, but the fact remains, our actions brought about retaliatory attacks.
We are dealing now with the consequences of policies that have been in place for years and that may distance the cause and effect relationship, but actions have consequences as surely as words have meaning.
We must protect our national security and our national interests but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be blowback. We do need to be more circumspect in making entangling alliances as our Founders warned. That doesn’t mean isolationism. You can trade with our countries without taking sides.
Am I missing something? Is this not what Ron Paul is saying?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
PS — Allow me to say this. Constitutionally, I believe RP is right about the war but I believe that we have a real threat on our hands with this brand of Islam and we must extinquish that threat. That’s why I support Hunter.