Posted on 05/15/2007 8:49:20 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched to the attack nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul's suggestion that the U.S. bombing of Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.
As someone who lived through 9/11, the man who was New York mayor at the time, Giuliani said sternly, "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations."
His rebuke to Paul drew some of the loudest applause of the night from the partisan audience at the University of South Carolina campus.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The concise/bumper sticker/cartoon version of the right foreign policy (and the traditionally Conservative one) is Theodore Roosevelt's 'Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick'. We've not been doing that.
In 1946, the Muslim Brotherhood engaged in the “Great Killings” in Calcutta - at that time for many in the world, travel was limited, the world was “bigger” because the ability of many were limited to the town or village. But today, the world is “smaller” because today the distance from Calcutta to New York is “smaller” - and they do not attack us because we are in the Middle East. In fact, what we think of as politicized Islam, the Khalifate Movement (Caliphate) to revive the Ottoman Khalifate, started in India, not the Middle East. And now that the world is “smaller”, it is easier than ever for them to come here, and kill here. And so, unless they are stopped, unless we keep them really, really busy “over there”, oh yes, there are coming here. Perhaps we will NOT be able to stop that, considering how small the world is today. So the only solution is their total defeat. The “war” is on many fronts. Iraq is just one of these fronts in a very large war. If the enemy achieves in Iraq, they have made clear their plans: next is Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan. This is called the Khalifate. From Turkey they will be looking straight at the belly of Europe. Once they have Pakistan, they have the bomb. Yes, you have the Sunni of the Middle East in general against the Shite of Iran - this only means more insanity, not less. Do not think that as they kill each other, this will protect us. It was the same in Calcutta - there were Muslim factions killing each other. But this did not prevent the great killings as they also killed Buddhist, Hindu, Jew and Christian. You have to understand, once the killing starts, there is something about the culture of Islam that it always takes it to maddness, from the killings to the great killings. No one is particularly “immune” from this - and that is the point. Once they really start killing some of us, then the world can and will really get out of control. The great killings could be coming - and that is what we must stop. We must stop that by stopping them, those in our time who can cause this. It is Islamic Fascism that can cause this. It is very important to understand this.
My prediction is Ron Paul will not be returning to Congress in 2009.
I like predictions, particularly yours. From your keyboard to God's ears.
Perhaps you missed his point. History didn't start with 9/11. 9/11 was a consequence of OBL declaring war on the U.S. after the U.S. built military bases in Saudi Arabia and Middle East. The U.S. built the bases in response to the kingmaking desires of the 1990's. The borders, the royal families, even many of the regional dictatorships, trace their existence back to American and European meddling in governments of the Middle East.
Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, and an end to the cycle of military adventurism that begets interventions. Blowback refers to the unexpected consequences of our interventions. Whether it's the fall of the Shah and the rise of radical Islam in Iran after the CIA toppled the prior elected government, or nutjobs loading up in airliners like kamikazes in response to the the American government propping up middle eastern kings and dictators.
Apparently there are many Americans who like Ron Paul and his opinions. He is the only Constitutionalist on the panel. There's nothing "bizarre" about him. Maybe you don't recognize an American patriot when you see one.
Then there are conservatives who would have voted for Paul but don't because they don't have phone text messaging, like me.
not our fight? Just whose fight is it if not ours? The islamofascists certainly think it is our fight. If we don’t bring it to them, they’ll be more than happy to bring it to us.
You *still* need to explain how America is responsible for the 50,000 dead in Kashmir. And the thousands dead in Thailand. And the genocide in Sudan. And the Beslan school massacre. I can’t wait to hear it.
My explanation is clear and simple. It also agrees with everything the Muslim Supremacists themselves have been saying. That is, modernity is evil, and millions need to die so humanity can be cleansed. Then a Caliphate will emerge, Islam will rule the world, and the 12th Imam may even come back with Jesus to kill Jews and Americans. Ahmadinejad says a world without America is not only possible, but feasible. Allah has made the infidel too decadent and obese to care for his own wicked life.
Seeing people like you, I wonder if our enemies are right.
To switch gears, Communism at one point was poised to take over the entire world. At one point they had Russia, China, Eastern Europe. If people like you were in charge, they would have taken Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia in their entirety. The world would be a far different place today, but thanks to the courage of our fathers and grandfathers, it is not.
What is astonishing is that Revolutionary Islamists have done what the Nazis and the Communists you would turn the other cheek to never did — kill 3,000 Americans on our own soil. That alone should make their intentions crystal clear. But to moonbats like yourself, the wickedness of 3rd world fanatics is the measure of Western Sin.
To tie all of this together, as Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism put it— all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
Did instapundit pull a Giuliani and denigrate the comments rather than address the points Ron Paul made?
Did Thomas Jefferson invade their countries to topple their governments and setup a democratic one? Or did he defend the right of Americans to travel freely on the high seas? Can you comprehend the difference now that I've made you aware of it? Can you see that one is a foreign policy befitting a free republic, and the other befitting an empire of force?
How can you possibly be ***this*** ignorant?
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson
That’s hilarious. Do you TRULY believe Ron Paul won the polls? The only way he has a chance of winning the nomination, is if every dim in the country votes in the pubbie primary instead of the dim.
Thanks for your comments.
Paul’s “points” can be summarized as nothing more than the infantile rants of Noam Chomsky.
Actually, they're fighting because their border with Pakistan is ethnically mixed, and has heavy Islamic settlement. The partion of India in the collapse of British colonialism wasn't pretty, much like the borders of European strategic convenience that were branded on the middle east.
Now, in Kashmir you have Islamic radicals fighting against the ruling Hindu government and seeking seperation. How exactly is this analogous to the U.S. propping up kings and dictators in the Middle East and getting attacked by the people who want to overthrow those kings and dictators?
Did Jefferson obtain Congressional approval to initiate the use of aggressive military force against the Mohammedans? Nope. And don’t forget, it was Jefferson’s threat to put the ruler of Tripoli’s brother on the throne after military victories which brought our enemies to the surrender table. And note that Bush obtained more approval than Jefferson did— Bush went to the Congress and obtained approval, with large majorities in the House and Senate.
Where did Paul quote Chomsky?
Are you pulling a Giuliani too by just being negative without explaining your points of disagreement?
Where did Paul quote Chomsky?
Are you pulling a Giuliani too by just being negative without explaining your points of disagreement?
The Islamic supremacists see all of these conflicts as fronts in one global struggle.
Certainly you cannot be saying that violence in Kashmir, in Thailand, in Nigeria, in Chechnya, in Madrid, London, New York City, Bali — is a noble struggle for freedom in each case. Hell, the fact that Palestinians strap bombs to their kids demonstrates how fanatical these monsters are.
You need to face reality. There are people in the world who want to exterminate the Jews, who want a global Caliphate, and want to impose sharia everywhere.
They don’t hate the United States because it sometimes fails to uphold its ideals— they hate the United States *because* of its ideals— equal rights for women, tolerance of gays, religious freedom, et cetera.
I couldn't believe the reaction the crowd made when Rudy did that. They only reacted to the zingers, not the common sense. I guess they want more of the same in the White House. I don't.
I have explained my points of disagreement at length on this thread. And yes, Paul’s rants were textbook Chomsky.
Stop acting like a victim, man up, and provide an intelligent reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.