Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(May 09, 2003) Interview with Paul Wolfowitz (U.S. Bases in Saudi Arabia Encourage Al Qaeda)
U.S. Department of Defense, News Transcript ^ | May 09, 2003

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; muhammadsminions; osamasmouthpiece; wolfowitz

1 posted on 05/20/2007 9:05:36 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

When Ron Paul says it, he is branded as the anti-Christ here. When Wolfy says essentially the same thing, nobody notices.


2 posted on 05/20/2007 9:06:39 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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.


3 posted on 05/20/2007 9:08:48 AM PDT by Jim Noble (We don't need to know what Cho thought. We need to know what Librescu thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

OH there are some who noticed.

Wolfowitz should NEVER have been left into the echelons of government. He is a dhimmifed puppet.


4 posted on 05/20/2007 9:09:19 AM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
When Ron Paul says it, he is branded as the anti-Christ here. When Wolfy says essentially the same thing, nobody notices.

You noticed that too, huh?

5 posted on 05/20/2007 9:10:48 AM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (My goodness, is everyone around here smoking crack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
When Ron Paul says it, he is branded as the anti-Christ here. When Wolfy says essentially the same thing, nobody notices.

That's because Wolfowitz isn't running for Commander-in-Chief.

6 posted on 05/20/2007 9:11:25 AM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Ron Paul was and is right.

I wonder how many people will keep burying their heads in the Saudi sand after Wolfy's statement...

7 posted on 05/20/2007 9:13:22 AM PDT by Maeve (Do you have supplies for an extended emergency? Be prepared! Pray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

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.


8 posted on 05/20/2007 9:32:32 AM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; Maeve

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?


9 posted on 05/20/2007 9:36:32 AM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
that when our troops are there by invitation of the local government

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

10 posted on 05/20/2007 9:51:52 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

They are both idiots.


11 posted on 05/20/2007 10:00:43 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

And most Saudis would replace them with a Wahabi caliphate. So, you advocating that, or is Ron Paul advocating that?


12 posted on 05/20/2007 10:02:39 AM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44

“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.


13 posted on 05/20/2007 10:14:54 AM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
And as soon as we removed our forces, al-Qaeda attacked Saudi Arabia. Does Ron Paul have an answer for that as well?

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

14 posted on 05/20/2007 10:30:25 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
U.S. Bases in Saudi Arabia Encourage Al Qaeda)

What -- and U.S. bases in Iraq don't?

How f#%&ing stupid can this guy possibly be?

15 posted on 05/20/2007 10:35:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
You can imagine how much grief I get from people here when I suggest that the U.S. should have allowed -- and even encouraged -- Saddam Hussein to invade Saudi Arabia in 1990.

That idiocy known as "Desert Shield" marked the end of any notion of a political party affiliation on my part.

16 posted on 05/20/2007 10:37:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

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?


17 posted on 05/20/2007 10:48:50 AM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
And most Saudis would replace them with a Wahabi caliphate. So, you advocating that, or is Ron Paul advocating that?

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

18 posted on 05/20/2007 10:52:09 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
"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" Most Saudis are Wahabist. And, yes, that is who would fill the vacuum. Are you expecting maybe Blair to be elected Saudi PM? :-) Anyway, so Paul is just advocating we run away from the middle east and let al-qaeda take over the oil fields, setup terrorist havens to launch attacks on the West, and allow Iran to run roughshod over the Gulf States and that somehow is in the US’s national interest?

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.

19 posted on 05/20/2007 11:06:04 AM PDT by bnelson44 (http://www.appealforcourage.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bnelson44
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

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.

20 posted on 05/20/2007 11:27:44 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

“That’s because Wolfowitz isn’t running for Commander-in-Chief.”

But he wins the award for “Chief-Stepping-On-Own-Johnson”.

Plus there’s the added iron of a “joo” being on the same page as Paul...


21 posted on 05/20/2007 11:30:23 AM PDT by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
When Ron Paul says it, he is branded as the anti-Christ here. When Wolfy says essentially the same thing, nobody notices.

This is satire, right? I mean you're not really that stupid? I wouldn't want to imply you are by responding seriously to the claim that endorsing al Qaeda rhetoric in a manner that damages U.S. interests is "essentially the same" as undermining al Qaeda rhetoric in a manner that advances U.S. interests.

22 posted on 05/20/2007 11:38:47 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Wolfowitz should NEVER have been left into the echelons of government. He is a dhimmifed puppet.

Wolfowitz lead the successful effort to topple communist governments and defeat communist insurgencies throughout South America under Reagan. He hasn't changed. Let's also be sure and ignore the fact that withdrawing U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia was Bush's decision, and was endorsed by MANY other Admin officials (e.g. Rumsfeld).

Let's just pretend it's all about the JOOOO instead.

Sheeesh.

23 posted on 05/20/2007 11:42:41 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

He’s a what? JOOO? Who cares? You do apparently.

Whatever the man is or is not he carelessly influenced our nation.

You’re just being defensive there Stultis. Our nation’s security is far more essential that any misperceived Joooobaiting.


24 posted on 05/20/2007 12:06:32 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Wolfy isn’t running for President of the USA. He’s allow to be an idiot. NO Presidential Candidate has any business out propagandizing for our enemies. If anyone on the LEFT said what Paul did the VERY people around here feverishly defending Paul would be screaming “treason” and demanding to know why Bush hadn’t arrest them yet.

Tehran Paul is doing the same thing Tokyo Rose did during WW2 and it is utterly pathetic that supposed Conservatives are making excuses for his idiocy.

25 posted on 05/20/2007 12:08:16 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maeve; CrawDaddyCA; Irontank; CondorFlight; Alberta's Child
It not the people who recognize terrorists need to be fought but the Paulites who think if they simply scream louder the whole world will simply shift back to accommodate their 1925 world view, that are burying their heads in the Saudi.

Yeah it would be REALLY smart for the USA to let the vast majority of the world oil supplies to fall into the hands of a megalomaniac that had all ready invaded 2 of his neighbor, was openly funding Muslim terrorist groups and had use WMDS against them and his own people.

Are you people REALLY this stupid or are you so use to screaming your dogmas at each other you simply cannot be bother to learn even ONE fact about the world outside your trailer park?

I know this is really hard for you Paul drones to grasp but Muslim Terrorist were killing Americans LONG before the 1991 Gulf War. Simply mouthing their propaganda and acting like good little Dhimmis is NOT going to stop them from trying to kill you.

26 posted on 05/20/2007 12:17:06 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
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 200

Did you bother to read this or do you just repost the talking points the Paul campaign sends yous with NO clue what it says? What the above says, which YOU posted, is a complete refutation of Paul’s, and yours, Neo-Isolationist dogma. It makes it quite clear that a “Do Nothing” policy on the part of the US Govt, which is what you and Paul are advocating, would actively HELP the Whabbhists acheive their political goals!

So is Paul merely stupid or actively a traitor?

Perhaps you MIGHT try actually reading and THINKING about the facts next time?

27 posted on 05/20/2007 12:23:49 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I know this is really hard for you Paul drones to grasp but Muslim Terrorist were killing Americans LONG before the 1991

Apparently, you were going to the fridge for a beer during part of the debate and missed part of what Paul said. He specifically noted that blowback (which would include "killing Americans" of course) has a LONG history. As an example, he cited the blowback from the U.S. sponsored coup to restore the Shah in 1953.

28 posted on 05/20/2007 12:24:45 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; Maeve; CrawDaddyCA; Irontank; CondorFlight; Alberta's Child
Perhaps instead of mindlessly clinging to your Cold War Era dogmas, you all might FINALLY learn something about Iraq? The world is a VASTLY different place then when the political dogmas you cling so feverishly to were formed. Please, ONE time would you all quit screaming your 1950s era dogmas and try actually joining the 21st Century?

Instead of clinging feverishly to your dogmas, try actually reading and learning something about the world.

Quit just screaming down anything that does agree with your emotion based preconceived notions about the world.

Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Winston Churchill

29 posted on 05/20/2007 12:30:50 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

U.S. should have allowed — and even encouraged — Saddam Hussein to invade Saudi Arabia in 1990


The more history happens the more I think this position is correct...tribes duking it out....and Muslims dying on each other...a good thing...what do we do now? and what about the oil? The Left has chained us to be submissive to muslim and lapdog oil


30 posted on 05/20/2007 12:30:56 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Yeah it would be REALLY smart for the USA to let the vast majority of the world oil supplies to fall into the hands of a megalomaniac that had all ready invaded 2 of his neighbor, was openly funding Muslim terrorist groups and had use WMDS against them and his own people.

You know what, come back with your political dogma when it's your son facing his FOURTH tour in that hellhole.

The people there are animals, aren't worth the life of One American serviceman.

And I work in the Oil & Gas industry...we have all the resources we need right here. Let those animals have their oil. If it weren't for their oil, they'd be back to wiping their asses with their left hands.

F them animals.

31 posted on 05/20/2007 12:31:25 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (My goodness, is everyone around here smoking crack?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA; MNJohnnie
Bump!

I think MNJohnnie is slightly off his rocker, to put it mildly.

Unfortunately we are once again involved in a half hearted nation building effort. History teaches that nation building (enemy nations) is possible but only after said nation was been throughly defeated and crushed. Neither happened (PC war fighting) in Afghanistan or Iraq so the "nation building" in Afghanistan and Iraq will fail. Sad but true.

The good news is that once the nation building fails and the usa retreats from the area, Europe will be the "front line" and Europe is very good a fighting unPC wars and killing enemies, so all is not lost. Maybe we'll get to help Europe in a real WOT.

32 posted on 05/20/2007 12:45:29 PM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Tehran Paul is doing the same thing Tokyo Rose did during WW2 and it is utterly pathetic that supposed Conservatives are making excuses for his idiocy

I really can't understand your position. Seeing as how OBL has cited the sanctions against and bombing of Iraq as one of the 3 or 4 reasons AQ "declared war" on the US in 1998...again cited it as one of the 3 reasons in his speech in October 2001...seeing as how the 9/11 Commission cited it as one of the 3 reasons...seeing as how Mike Scheurer has noted again and again the OBL has used the American bombing of Iraq to great effect for years in his public statements...seeing as how FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald testified before the 9/11 Commission about AQ that: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States"...seeing as how virtually every AQ expert as far as I can tell (Michael Doran, Jason Burke, Richard Clarke, Michael Scheurer, etc.) all will note the AQ has based its campaign against the US on a short list of political grievances against the US government (I say "note" because I don't think this is a controversial point...I don't know of any objective analysts arguing that AQ is attacking the US because, as Giuliani professes to believe, we have freedom of religion and women's rights)...seeing as how the Department of Defense has stated that the "US invites (a term that Ron Paul did not use) attacks on America because of its presence"....

What is it? You guys sound like you refuse to let any facts get in the way of your opinion...that you want to be kept ignorant by the US government...you don't want to know what motivates those who threaten the American people...you dismiss every expert as a "Jew-hater", an "America-hater", a "traitor", a "leftist" when they note facts and opinions that you don't want to hear...stop worrying about what the left is saying...whether they're right or wrong on this issue doesn't change the facts...worry about why your government insists on telling us that AQ hates "us" (I don't consider the US government and me as "us"...seeing as how they forcibly take half my money and constantly seek to further exercise control over me and my family) because of how "free we are"

33 posted on 05/20/2007 12:45:34 PM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
Oh my, would you just look at what Paul Wolfowitz has to say.

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.

34 posted on 05/20/2007 1:34:36 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk; Admin Moderator
So, where you trying to pass this off a something new, Cap'n, or did you really not know that the American military has been out of Saudi Arabia for years now?

In any case, Admin Moderator, please correct the falsely attributed publication date for this article. It should be May 09, 2003, not May 09, 2007.

35 posted on 05/20/2007 1:39:31 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Thanks for the correction....though of course, it does not change the point.

Saudi Arabia is an artificial creation according to Al Qaeda. Their concern is the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula as a whole where, of course, U.S. troops have continually remained since 1991.

36 posted on 05/20/2007 1:44:25 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Oh my, would you just look at what Paul Wolfowitz has to say.
" 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've already answered you in that RuPaul thread Phil, so you can knock off the stalking, I have no interest in this thread about Wolfowitz, and haven't even bothered to read it, let alone post in it.

Now bug off.
37 posted on 05/20/2007 1:56:35 PM PDT by mkjessup (Jan 20, 2009 - "We Don't Know. Where Rudy Went. Just Glad He's Not. The President. Burma Shave.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
...worry about why your government insists on telling us that AQ hates "us" (I don't consider the US government and me as "us"...seeing as how they forcibly take half my money and constantly seek to further exercise control over me and my family) because of how "free we are"

Um. What?

Do you dispute the fact that al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and like minded jihadists and radical Islamists generally, from Sayyid Qutb to the present, have prominently and repeatedly cited democracy as one of the major threats/conspiracies from the West?

38 posted on 05/20/2007 2:04:07 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
Just for the record, this 2003 Vanity Fair interview with Wolfowitz inspired, at the time, at least two major misrepresentations by mainstream (read: "leftist") media. Although granted that neither achieved quite the extremist lunacy of claiming that Wolfowitz was saying "essentially the same thing" as Ron Paul!

The Guardian Pulls a "Dowd" - Falsely Attributes War for Oil Claim to Wolfowitz w/ Misquote ^
  Posted by Stultis
On News/Activism ^ 06/04/2003 4:55:40 PM CDT · 154 replies · 713+ views


6 June 2003
Excuse the vanity. All the relevant information is in the following thread, but buried a hundred odd messages down. I wanted to post something with what you need to know right up top, without having to wait for the editorials to come out tomorrow. Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil (RUH ROH!!) [The Guardian, 6/4/03] Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed [...]. Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has...

...and...

What Wolfowitz Really Said: The truth behind the Vanity Fair "scoop." ^
  Posted by Pokey78
On News/Activism ^ 05/30/2003 11:06:20 PM CDT · 69 replies · 838+ views


The Weekly Standard ^ | 06/09/03 | William Kristol
AS THIS MAGAZINE goes to press, a controversy swirls about the head of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He is alleged to have "revealed," in an interview with writer Sam Tanenhaus for the Manhattan celebrity/fashion glossy Vanity Fair, that the Bush administration's asserted casus belli for war against Saddam Hussein--the dictator's weapons-of-mass-destruction program--was little more than a propaganda device, a piece of self-conscious and insincere political manipulation. Lazy reporters have been following the lead of the press release Vanity Fair publicists circulated about their "scoop." It begins as follows: Contradicting the Bush administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tells...

39 posted on 05/20/2007 2:32:23 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
Do you dispute the fact that al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and like minded jihadists and radical Islamists generally, from Sayyid Qutb to the present, have prominently and repeatedly cited democracy as one of the major threats/conspiracies from the West?

Yes...I dispute that AQ has ever expressed any care about the form of government under which we Americans live. Do you have any links to AQ statements to the contrary?

40 posted on 05/21/2007 6:52:03 AM PDT by Irontank (Ron Paul for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
Yes...I dispute that AQ has ever expressed any care about the form of government under which we Americans live. Do you have any links to AQ statements to the contrary?

See, for instance:

Al Qaeda Leader Fears American Democracy, Not Its War Machine ^
  Posted by rob777
On News/Activism ^ 07/24/2004 1:43:43 AM CDT · 25 replies · 841+ views


ChronWatch ^ | September 07, 2003 | Amir Taheri
''It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy.'' This is the message of a new book, published by Al Qaeda in several Arab countries yesterday. The book’s title is ''The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad.'' Its author is Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama Ben Laden’s closest associates since the early 1990s. A Saudi citizen, Al-Ayyeri, also known under the nom de guerre of Abu Muhammad, was killed in a gun-battle with...
 

Excerpt:

Al-Ayyeri argues that the history of mankind is the story of ''perpetual war between belief and unbelief.''

Over the millennia, both belief and unbelief have appeared in different guises. As far as belief is concerned, the absolutely final version is represented by Islam which ''annuls all other religions and creeds.'' Thus, Muslims can have only one goal: converting the entire humanity to Islam and ''effacing the final traces of all other religions, creeds and ideologies.''

Unbelief (kufr), however, has come in numerous forms and shapes, but with a single objective: to destroy faith in God. In the West, unbelief has succeeded in making a majority of people forget God and worship the world. Islam, however, is resisting the trend because Allah means to give it final victory.

Al Ayyeri then shows how various forms of unbelief attacked the world of Islam in the past century or so, to be defeated in one way or another.

[*SNIPPAGE* These are Modernism, Nationalism, Socialism/Communism, and Baathism which combined nationalism and socialism.]

And now the US and its British allies have destroyed Ba’athism in Iraq and may have fatally undermined its position in Syria as well.

What Al Ayyeri sees now is a ''clean battlefield'' in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief.

This, he labels: ''secularist democracy.''

Al Ayyeri asserts that this new threat is ''far more dangerous to Islam'' than all its predecessors combined.

The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy’s ''seductive capacities.'' This form of ''unbelief'' persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the ''unalterable laws'' promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic Shariah ( jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al Ayyeri, is to ''make Muslims love this world, forget the next world, and abandon Jihad.'' If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity which, in turn, would make Muslims ''reluctant to die in martyrdom'' in defence of their faith.

He says that it is vital to prevent any normalisation and stabilisation in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the U.S. does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government.

''If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target (for democratisation) would be the whole of the Muslim world,'' Al Ayyeri writes.

The Al Qaeda ideologist claims that the only Muslim country already affected by ''the beginning of democratisation'' and thus in ''mortal danger'' is Turkey.

''Do we want what happened in Turkey to happen to all Muslim countries?'' he asks. ''Do we want Muslims to refuse taking part in Jiahd and submit to secularism which is a Zionist-Crusader concoction?''

Al Ayyeri says, Iraq would become the graveyard of secular democracy just as Afghanistan became the graveyard of Communism. The reason is that most Americans are afraid of death while the overwhelming majority of Muslims love to die for the glory of Allah.

The idea is that the Americans, faced with mounting casualties in Iraq, will “just run away” as did the Soviets in Afghanistan. This is because the Americans love this world and concerned about nothing but their own comfort while Muslims dream of the pleasures that martyrdom offers in paradise.

''In Iraq today, there are only two sides,'' Al Ayyeri asserts. ''Here we have a clash of two visions of the world and the future of mankind. The side prepared to accept more sacrifices will win.''


41 posted on 05/21/2007 3:26:19 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
More:

Listen to Zarqawi: Our enemies do hate freedom. (agrees with Bush's view) ^
  Posted by baseball_fan
On News/Activism ^ 01/26/2005 10:21:24 PM CST · 4 replies · 382+ views


National Review Online ^ | January 26, 2005 | Jonah Goldberg
...Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote, "As the late Susan Sontag bravely pointed out in a New Yorker essay published right after Sept. 11, 2001, those terrorist attacks were in response to American policy in the Middle East — not, as Bush has said repeatedly since, because Islamic radicals cannot abide freedom." … Patrick Buchanan — allegedly on the other side of the ideological spectrum — has declared countless times, "Osama bin Laden and his crew up there in Tora Bora did not stumble on a copy of the Bill of Rights and go berserk that Americans are free in the...
 

Excerpts:

Earlier this month the Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote, "As the late Susan Sontag bravely pointed out in a New Yorker essay published right after Sept. 11, 2001, those terrorist attacks were in response to American policy in the Middle East — not, as Bush has said repeatedly since, because Islamic radicals cannot abide freedom."

And Patrick Buchanan — allegedly on the other side of the ideological spectrum — has declared countless times, "Osama bin Laden and his crew up there in Tora Bora did not stumble on a copy of the Bill of Rights and go berserk that Americans are free in the United States."

[...]

But before the cackles could reach their crescendo, the naysayers hit an inconvenient snag. Musab al-Zarqawi, the "prince" of al Qaeda in Iraq, appointed by Osama Bin Laden, came out and agreed with President Bush. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarqawi declared in a statement. "Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

You can almost hear Cohen and Buchanan snapping their pencils "Darn it, stop stepping on my message!"

Zarqawi's declaration came after a statement by bin Laden himself in December, in which he pronounced: "Anyone who participates in these elections has committed apostasy against Allah."

Now, this doesn't mean that bin Laden and Zarqawi aren't motivated by less lofty — or merely different — principles than an Islamist rejection of democracy. To be sure, bin Laden's initial grievances included America's relationship to Saudi Arabia, Israel and all the usual complaints. But underlying these gripes was an ideology — and remains an ideology — opposed to freedom and democracy. The intellectual founder of Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, wrote in 1957: "In the world there is only one party, the party of Allah; all of the others are parties of Satan and rebellion. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of the rebellion."

If you peruse the incalculably valuable website Memri.org — which translates articles, manifestoes, and broadcasts from across the Arabic world — you will find countless declarations from Islamist groups declaring that democracy is an "atheist" heresy that replaces the law of God with the law of man, and that anyone who advocates elections is ipso facto an infidel. In his December statement, Osama bin Laden "ruled" — as if he has any right to do so — that Iraqi forces who aid the upcoming elections "are apostates who should not be prayed over upon their deaths. They cannot inherit, and they must not be inherited from [after their deaths]. Their wives are divorced from them, and they must not be buried in Muslim cemeteries."

Sure sounds like someone hates democracy to me.

Those who pooh-pooh the notion that our enemies hate freedom believe that such ideologically totalitarian movements can exist within their own borders indefinitely. All we have to do is treat them like a hornet's nest and don't upset them (no matter that they topple their own governments and seek ever more conquests).

Unfortunately, we live in a world where a bunch of antidemocratic and homicidal zealots can make life dangerous for all of us. "Not our fight," the president's critics seem to say. But if they're wrong, thousands or millions could die as a result. And, like it or not, that fight is in Iraq right now.


42 posted on 05/21/2007 3:38:46 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Quick, someone call RINO One Note Rudy Guiliani so he can compare Wolfovitz wih a Arab shiek!


43 posted on 05/21/2007 3:42:23 PM PDT by jackieaxe (This one hour pre-flight security screening is brought to you by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson