Posted on 05/20/2007 9:05:34 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
There are a lot of things that are different now [that the U.S. occupies Iraq], and one that has gone by almost unnoticed – but it’s huge – is that … we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.
“In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
“I don’t want to speak in messianic terms. It’s not going to change things overnight, but it’s a huge improvement.”
(Excerpt) Read more at defenselink.mil ...
When Ron Paul says it, he is branded as the anti-Christ here. When Wolfy says essentially the same thing, nobody notices.
If you start from the premise that a Moslem “holy land” exists, and that within that alleged “holy land” that Christianity and Bibles can be legitimately banned, and that when our troops are there by invitation of the local government that we become fair game, you can arrive at a lot of screwy conclusions.
OH there are some who noticed.
Wolfowitz should NEVER have been left into the echelons of government. He is a dhimmifed puppet.
You noticed that too, huh?
That's because Wolfowitz isn't running for Commander-in-Chief.
I wonder how many people will keep burying their heads in the Saudi sand after Wolfy's statement...
And as soon as we removed our forces, al-Qaeda attacked Saudi Arabia. Does Ron Paul have an answer for that as well?
I wish he would stop being a shill for the enemy.
They say Ron Paul also believe the myth about the North American Union. Is that true?
Why does he think the government will create a new Gulf of Tonkin incident with Iran?
And why does he continuously appear on conspiricy shows? Is he a Truther as they say?
Again, one of the problems (and one of the facts that OBL has exploited for years) is that many Muslims view the Saudi royal family as illegitimate rulers of Saudi Arabia....still in power only because of US financial and military support in exchange for a guarantee of cheap Saudi oil
They are both idiots.
And most Saudis would replace them with a Wahabi caliphate. So, you advocating that, or is Ron Paul advocating that?
“Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda.”
The way to fix that is to send MORE troops and outsiders there, to help bring the culture of the country into at least the 19th century, if we can’t bring them all the way into the 21st.
Because AQ and many Islamists consider the Saudi royal family as corrupt (no question that is true), illegitimate rulers that rob Muslims of oil wealth by selling it cheap to the West in exchange for Western and US support financial and military for the regime. The real aim of AQ (at least according to its many public statements over the last 10-15 years) is to topple what they consider to be corrupt and illegitimate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, etc....one of the key steps in accomplishing this is to force the US from the region.
The American people need to evaluate whether US support for these regimes and 50+ years of US and British involvement in the region (toppling some regimes, propping up others in an effort to control the region, to a large extent, and ensure that there are always pro-Western governments) is now worth it. That is why Ron Paul should be applauded...if nothing else, he is the only one reminding the American people that there is a cost to American government interventionism in the region (the ever-present threat of terrorist attacks against the American people). You may not agree with Ron Paul that the cost of US government interventionism in the middle east is not worth the benefits it brings the American people...but, man, how does anyone have anything other than contempt for the rest of the candidates who think that the American people are idiots who can be persuaded that there is no connection between the 50+ years of US government interventionism in the middle east and the threat against the American people...that the terrorists have targeted the American people because of how good and free we are?
As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States
--The Defense Science Board 1997 Summer Study Task Force on DoD Responses to Transnational Threats
What -- and U.S. bases in Iraq don't?
How f#%&ing stupid can this guy possibly be?
That idiocy known as "Desert Shield" marked the end of any notion of a political party affiliation on my part.
In other words it didn’t make any difference that our forces were in Saudi Arabia and what Ron Paul said was al-Qaeda propaganda.
Al-Qaeda, and most Saudis want a Wahabi caliphate in Saudi Arabia. You know, like the Taliban, is that what Ron Paul wants?
I've never heard Ron Paul advocate that...have you? What he does recognize is that the US government may not be able to control things to its liking in Saudia Arabia...or the broader middle east. I'm not so sure that "most" Saudis would replace the Saudi royal family with a Wahabbi regime...at least not if that became a realistic possibility. Wahabbism and a strict sharia-governed Islamic caliphate is like Communism...a repugnant ideology that would need to be forced on the Muslim people. As last years NIE stated, the jihadists greatest vulnerability is that the vast majority of Muslims
Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit. Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
The jihadists greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an ultra-conservative interpretation of sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade
--Declassified Key Judgments Of The National Intelligence Estimate, April 2006
Do you realize what you are advocating here? Does he? Sounds to me he hasn't thought this through, or worse yet, doesn't care that Western civilization just might be adversely affected.
Who knows how important it was to OBL that the US military maintained bases on Islamic "holy land"...it may well have been propanganda that AQ was able to exploit. No one is arguing that AQ isn't selectively exploiting examples of American intervention in the middle east that it knows will resonate with Muslims while ignoring American policies that could be described as pro-Muslim (intervention in Kosovo for one). All that only proves that intervention is almost always thankless and usually costs much more than one would have intially thought.
And really...if Wahabbis assumed control in Saudi Arabia and the US government had no military presence in the region...who knows what the long term effects would be on the American people, if any? Central government planning...whether domestically or in foreign affairs seems to provide endless examples of unforseen consequences and results exactly the opposite of what the government was ostensibly trying to accomplish. If you don't trust the US government to run the US economy or the American healthcare system...what makes you think it will be able to successfully manage the geopolitics of a region on the other side of the world? The Taliban to which you refer is a perfect example. The Taliban is a mortal enemy of Iran...another spoke in the Axis of Evil. The US did quite a favor to Iran...taking out two of its mortal enemies in the Taliban and Saddam...now the US tells us that Iran is a serious threat to the American people...of course, after the US government invaded Iraq because it was thought to be weak and potentially subject to be taken over by Iran...5 years later...3000 dead Americans and half a trillion American taxpayer dollars later, we have only strengthened Iran's role in Iraq to the extent that the US government requires Iran's help in trying to get some contriol over the country. Iraq is just one more example of how government foreign policy "experts" find that all their best laid plans didn't work out as they thought...just as seemingly always happens to the plans and policies of government's domestic policy "experts."
Do you know what country was the world's largest provider of foreign aid to the Taliban government in 2001? That's right...the US government...or more accurately, you and me and the rest of the American taxpayers...$125mm to the Taliban...sent over practically right up until 9/11.
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.