[traviskicks]

Quite a good piece on this subject. IMO

[traviskicks]

And for those who argue Ron Paul is not ‘Conservative’, I suggest reading the following:
Scandals are a Symptom, Not a Cause
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1554737/posts

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[traviskicks]

GRPL ping

[Names Ash Housewares]

They come to attack us because we are free to choose to stand in their way of their murderous ideologys goals.

[ForOurFuture]

It's about time someone injected some cool reason into this fracas and came to Paul's defense. He said it clumsily and it was inevitable that the other candidates' ambition, sound bite journalism, and simpleton conservatives would make him out to be a leftist America-hater, but what he said is fundamentally true. Islamic hatred towards the US did not emerge out of a vacuum. Somewhere along the line some episode or general policy of interventionism contributed to it. Given that many of the followers of a large religion would more or less like to see us all killed, perhaps our inclination to constantly control and intervene in world affairs is not always in our best interest.

This is not to say we should cower idly for fear of offending people, or surrender our mantle of world superpower. But perhaps we should be more cognizant of the fact that actions have unintended consequences, and that defending our vital interests in the world is a bit like using one finger to plug a dam with many holes.

[Always Right]

Indeed, beneath his awkward syntax, Ron Paul was making a serious point: that less intervention in the Middle East would ultimately improve American security.

Which means giving up any and all support of Israel. There were Islamic terrorists attacking us long before we were in Iraq. No thanks, we don't give into the terrorists. Besides, they do hate us for simply not being Muslims. Once they finished the Jews, we would be next anyways.

[jrooney]

Problem is he is not right on the WOT, far from it. You all Paulettes spamming FR with threads is not going to help Pau lone bit but hurt him even more.

[sauropod]

But what Ron Paul said is, in fact, utterly uncontroversial and utterly true. Nowhere did Paul suggest ala Ward Churchill that the U.S. deserved to be attacked, he merely sought to explain the motives of those who attacked us. His explanation was certainly incomplete and a bit ham-handed, but it was not inaccurate or blatantly false.

Male Bovine Fecal Effluvia. The Jihadists would have attacked us because of our culture and our freedom regardless if we were in Saudi or not. They hate us because of who we are.

Ron Paul said that it was because of American interventionism that we were attacked. I'm not buying it.

What about the first WTC attack? What about the Marines that were killed in the early 1980s in Beirut? Were we in Saudi back then?

What about the hostages the Iranians took in 1979? It's true you can argue this was in reaction to the Shah and his policies and that we were supporting him, but I don't think by any stretch this is the complete answer to the question.

[jveritas]

Do you understand that Ron Paul is a defeatist who wants to surrender us in the war on terror? How can you support such a person?!

[Silverbug]

Paul definately broke a taboo in America. I can’t remember the last time a politician suggested all foreigners might not be completely happy with US foreign policy over the past 50 years...It took courage, and it’s a shame he is being smeared for pointing out the obvious.

[montag813]

In a now famous November 6, 2003 address, President Bush explicitly linked U.S. policy with the rise of Islamic terrorism: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe

This is where Bush's naivete got him into trouble. The idea that every nation in the world needs democracy is fatally flawed. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

[presidio9]

Conservativism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed. This article doesn’t belong on this website. Neither do you.

[Steel Wolf]

It would be OK if Ron Paul were right, but he's not. UBL's stated reasons for declaring war on the U.S. are good PR in the Arab world, nothing more. He's selling an ugly Salafist product, wrapped in sexy packaging of Resistance to Foreign Aggression!

Bin Laden was not then, is not now, nor will he in the future, open to being placated by a U.S. withdrawl from the Middle East, troops, aid, and politically speaking. No apology will appease him. No action or inaction will prove our contrition to him.

Ron Paul isn't wrong, as far as remembering how the transcript of Bin Laden's fatwa reads. Paul is wrong because he's taking UBL at face value.

He's wrong because he believes him.

[rlmorel]

"...They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there..."

I am sorry folks. Nothing out of context there. This was not clumsy. He said what he said, and it is just, plain wrong.

Make all the arguments about his possession or lack of conservative credentials, but this is not the battleground you should choose to fight on.

[eleni121]

Another Rue Paul thread...we’re getting flooded with the 1%centers..

[kevkrom]

less intervention in the Middle East would ultimately improve American security

False. These people are out to conquer the world. They can use whatever excuse they want, but ultimately, their intent is to take over every country, either via warfare or internal methods, and make the world one giant Islamic Caliphate.

They are willing to be slow, patient, and methodical -- attitudes the modern West, and especially the non-interventionist subset of the population, sorely lack.

[tophat9000]

You can alway say the policy caused it because it's true but also not the question... the question is, is the policy right?

If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?...No

OK So we set a policy based on the assumption if we don't bother them... they won't bother us.... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption ...no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with Islam... no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with militant Islam?...hell no

So how about if they don't bother us.... We won't bother them... problem is they have a habit of uses these times of peace to prepare for the next time to bother us...

Of course you can say it not us it our friends (Israel)

Well has Israel try the same policy if we don't bother them... they won't bother us... yes... did they get the same results as us... yes....

Well maybe in just Jews... if we "Christian" just were not friends with Jews...then militant Islam would not bother us...

But Hindu and Buddhist are not and particular friends of Jews and Christians yet militant Islam seem to bother them... so maybe being a Jews or Christian is not the issue for militant Islam ... maybe militant Islam issue is with anybody thats not militant Islam... because militant Islam seem to even have issues with non militant Islam (hell militant Islam has problem with other branches of militant Islam ...

So you can alway say the policy caused it because it's true ...If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?... We say No so it our own dam fault...

It kind like saying "no" to putting out is the reason the women got raped and therefor it's her own dam fault

[Rick_Michael]

Ron Paul=Idealogue

[Moby Grape]

But Ron Paul is NOT right...Our first FOUR Presidents had problems with ATTACKS from the Barbary Pirates (MUSLIMS) who would take our ships, make slaves of the “Christian” seaman, and demand ransoms and “protection” bride monies.

Jefferson finally had to send the military to put an end to it. (do the math, this was BEFORE we invaded Iraq in the early 1990’s) and it was UNPROVOKED....The Muslim leaders of the day said it was the duty to make “war” with the “Chritain” nations of America, England, Demark, etc”.

In 1799, Winston Churchill wrote of the Mullahs desire to kill ANY western leader to avenge the Crusades...

Ron Paul is wrong....we have more than three hundred years of Muslims attacking the west JUST becuase they think it the right thing to do.

[DesScorp]

I think it’s a good time to unsubscribe from TCS’s mailing list, if they’re jumping on Paul’s “Blame America” bandwagon.