I don't think you're crazy.
Posted on 02/21/2010 10:09:06 AM PST by Michael van der Galien
“To the Muslim world: We get the message. My imperialistic predecessors have caused a sea of anger against the U.S. that has culminated in this disaster,” President Ron Paul says as he addresses the nation on September 11, 2001.
Days later, President Paul visits the rubble of what was once known as the World Trade Center. Climbing on top of the rubble, he grabs a megaphone. The cheering firefighters and policemen nearby wait for their leader to speak their minds, personify their anger, and make the world shake with his words. Paul turns the megaphone on, and the high-pitch of his squeaky voice is magnified, resulting in a groan of pain from the nearby residents who have already suffered enough.
“We will offer a free trade agreement with Afghanistan in exchange for handing over all Al-Qaeda members guilty of attacking us,” President Paul says. “Should they refuse, we will target these terrorists with airstrikes and raids, but we will not be tricked into over-reacting and committing the same mistakes of aggression that got us here.”
Imagine if Ron Paul had been president on 9/11.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
There are enough living nightmares to go around without having to add this one...
OMG.
He is a irrational reactionary.
OHN!!!!
imperialistic? i’m sorry... which middle eastern country is a US territory again? which one did we conquer (and keep)?
call me crazy, but i prefer when people use proper words.
i believe the term for a country that pushed invading forces out of a country would be ‘liberator’
“To the Muslim world: We get the message. My imperialistic predecessors have caused a sea of anger against the U.S. that has culminated in this disaster,” President Ron Paul says as he addresses the nation on September 11, 2001.
He's an idiot... just as bad as those "truthers" .... what a bunch of loonies...
Ron Paul would never bomb anyone without permission from congress first, therefore, he would not threaten it.
Ron Paul would make Obama’s overseas Apology Fest look like a war.
Paul would withdrawl from the world, an isolationist and appeaser that he is.
Ron Paul may see himself as a modern day revolutionary in the spirit of America's Founders and Framers, and he may call himself a non-interventionist, but he's nothing more then an old school paleo isolationist. Another Pat Buchanan but with a larger and more obsessed band of political loyalists.
Paul and his followers wrongly blame America for 911 and give the terrorists a free pass for their WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 killings. Like the liberal Democrats, Ron Paul and his followers oppose direct military engagement with the terrorists and reject the Iraq and Afghan Wars, along with the Patriot Act, FISA, enhanced interrogation and the prison at Gitmo. All the actions since 911 that have kept America more safe and secure from Islamofacism, Ron Paul and his followers are against.
Without a doubt, implimenting Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda would be destructive to our Republic.
I don't think you're crazy.
“In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a “dramatic failure” as President. Paul also said, “I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration”, Reagan was “a failure, yes, in, in many ways”. Transcript of Paul’s remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.”
This is insanity. It may just be that that with this kind of thinking and the people who voted for this kook, that a true conservative party will emerge comprised of folks of all stripes to form a Tea Party or Liberty Party or how about the Constitution Party.
forgot my tagline..
Ron Paul diplays the bipolar characteristics of most Libritarians. On some issues he is normal. On others WACKO!
Been here... done this... have the t-shirt and bumper sticker... let me just say that I will NOT be voting for paul... romney or huckster ever and for any reasons. JUST SAY NO!
LLS
He would rather wait until they have amassed inside our country, then try to placate them.
Reagan Man wrote: Paul and his followers wrongly blame America for 911 and give the terrorists a free pass for their WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 killings.
That's a big lie. Rep. Paul has made it clear that he is not a "truther."
Like the liberal Democrats, Ron Paul and his followers oppose direct military engagement with the terrorists and reject the Iraq and Afghan Wars,...
Another lie. Rep. Paul voted for the authorization to militarily attack the terrorists in Afghanistan, and further introduced legislation to pay private entities to attack al-Qaida and its allies. Rep. Paul did not support the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that with regard to 9/11 we had more cause to attack Saudi Arabia than Iraq.
Exactly. I loved his speech during the debates preceding the bailout vote in October of '08.
But he's too looney on too many issues. Plus, I don't like the egotisitic little games he plays such as submitting pork for Texas District 14 and voting against it in Congress knowing full well it will pass. He simply does not have what it takes to be President.
While Ron Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, he later would oppose funding for US troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The evidence is in and the Patriot Act, FISA, enhanced interrogation and Gitmo all working together, kept America more safe and secure from Islamofacism and terrorist attacks. Ron Paul was deadwrong on all counts. JFTR, Ron Paul has never voted for an annual US Defense Appropriations Bill.
Truth is, Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. When Paul says that they attacked us on 911 "because we're over there", he's deadwrong. The Islamic religion opposes the US (western culture) because it opposes our way of life and our unalienable rights to freedom and liberty. The idea that America, through our federal government and military, has no right being involved overseas defending and protecting Americans and American interests, is simply not true and more a case of historic revisionism then anything else.
America has been here before. In 1784 the Continental Congress appointed Jefferson, Adams and Franklin to a special commission to deal with the problem of the Barbary States, the terrorists of that time. Jefferson and Adams were sent to London to negotiate a peace treaty with the Dey of Algiers. They reported the Dey's reason for his Islamically-inspired hostility towards America:
"[I]t was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
In 1801 President Jefferson dispatched a group of frigates (USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid) to defend American interests in the Mediterranean. Jefferson informed Congress of his war actions. Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute." In 1805 US Marines marched across the desert from Egypt forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves. As a result of Jefferson's actions, the Muslim Barbary States began to crumble from US naval bombardment and raids by US Marines.
"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."
Nothing has changed since Jefferson took military action against the Barbary terrorists. The only way for America to survive as a free nation against hostile forces of Islamo-terrorism, is to kill our enemies.
Ron Paul foreign policy is a weak, naive and dangerous to America's future. Thank God Paul will never be elected President.
Truth is, Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook. When Paul says that they attacked us on 911 "because we're over there", he's deadwrong. The Islamic religion opposes the US (western culture) because it opposes our way of life and our unalienable rights to freedom and liberty.
What is your evidence for that? I can give you lists of evidence to the contrary. Hundreds of terrorists have said time and again why they attack us and it is not what you just said. They intend to bring back the Caliphate. We support secular and less fundamentally Islamic regimes in the middle east. We have a western outpost in Israel. The regimes we support are very difficult to topple. We are the road block to their success in their goal of uniting the muslim nations of the world. That is why Israel is little satan and we are the great satan. Ron Paul is not incorrect as to the motivation of our attackers.
One can argue that Paul is wrong because we need to be in the middle east to prevent the extremists from toppling moderate regimes and reviving the Caliphate which would ultimately be more dangerous to us.
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.