Ron Paul is Right.
May 16th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |Well, about one thing anyway…
On Tuesday night, FOX “News” had it’s “Slugfest Down in Dixie” - the second GOP presidential debate. As usual, FOX reduced the debate to a silly affair with endless boxing analogies to make it seem exciting. However the broad, generalized questions for the “Big Three,” Guiliani, McCain and Romney, and tailored questions for the “Lower Tier,” like asking Tom Tancredo about immigration, made for an almost complete and total waste of time. Almost.
The biggest applause and hoopla of the nigh happened when Guiliani responded to an answer by Ron Paul, the Lower Tier maverick (who actually voted against the Iraq AUMF) from Texas. From the National Review…
It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” Paul answered. “They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for ten years…”
Questioner Wendell Goler, of Fox News, asked, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?”
“I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” Paul said. “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.”
Enter Giuliani. “May I comment on that?” the mayor said, interrupting the orderly flow of things for the first time in the debate. “That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.”
The audience loved it. As the applause built, Giuliani added, “And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that.”
Of course, the GOP audience was lock-step with Guiliani, going to show just how dellusional these people still are. But Ron Paul is right and he had the courage of his convictions to say it. Guiliani and the rest of the pile-on know damned well that Paul is right, but they lack the personal backbones to stand up and say it. On 9/11, America was attacked by an international organized crime syndicate whose main objective is to reunite the Muslim world in the vein of the Ottoman and Moorish empires by giving them a common enemy. We were the chosen common enemy. Why us? Because we have been meddling in their affairs for more than fifty years, propping up aristocracies and military dictatorships, sucking up as much of their oil as we could sponge, using the Mujaheddin in the Cold War then leaving them flat, and supporting the return of the Jewish diaspora to Palestine. If you don’t see what’s happening here, then you’re a fuckin’ moron - or a lying GOP candidate.
And there are several serious paradoxes in all this. Take Israel. We complain that the Muslim world is Anti-Semitic (how’s that for ironic?) and want to drive Israel into the sea. Yet the very reason Israel exists today is the European Holocaust (it was a lot more than just Hitler doing the killing) and the refusal of the Anglo world to take in the post-war Jewish refugees that led to the reformation of Israel. Take the Mujaheddin. Afghanistan had elected a secular, socialist government. The Islamo-fascists (as the GOP calls them) tried to overthrow the government. Russia steeped in to stop them. We funded the Mujaheddin to fight the Russians. The Mujaheddin took over the now ruined state. A job well done, we slinked away from the scene. A decade later Mujaheddin are flying planes into our buildings. And stated reason for flying those planes into those buildings? We had a base in Saudi Arabia that we used in the Gulf War. Is that enough for you dopey Republicans?
Anyway, Paul went on, undeterred…
“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback,…”
Blowback indeed. Now, try to imagine the Blowback from this latest debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ron Paul is right about this, was right about this, and will be right about this for a long, long time.
JMJ
25 Responses to “Ron Paul is Right.”
By SteveIL on May 16, 2007 | Reply
This whole post is a perfect explanation of why today’s “liberals” and some libertarians (Ron Paul) are such failures in dealing with crime, terrorism, and war. You know what, there is no why. They tried to murder us because that is what they do; murder people for their own purposes. There’s nothing magical about this. If any of you liberals have ever studied the Mafia at all, you’d get it. Instead, the “liberals” and the Ron Paul’s of the world try deflect the argument by saying criminals have a “reason” for committing mass murder. That’s bullshit and has always been bullshit.
Giuliani was absolutely correct to nail Paul on this, and nail him hard. Ron Paul should be ashamed of himself. So should anyone who believes Ron Paul was anything other than an asshole for saying what he did.
By Dr. Forbush on May 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveL,
No one will go and commit suicide for the Hell of it. People who take this option have convictions. They believe that what they are doing is for something greater than their own life. Regardless of whether they are correct or not, they certainly believe this to be true. Otherwise what is the point?
Osama bin Ladden was able to convince these people to take their own lives. He did this because he was upset about the Occupation of the US military in Saudi Arabia. This fact is well known. bin Ladden was able to use religion to convince the people who attacked us on 9/11 that the US should not be in his country.
Of course Ron Paul is correct. We were over there, and the mastermind behind 9/11 chose to attack us because of that. Of course, bin Ladden didn’t care about Iraq, which is where Paul’s “over there” statement isn’t quite accurate. But, to most of the country they don’t know that difference between Iraq, and Iran (as the song goes.)
And, of course the longer we occupy the Middle East the more people we anger and more people will be willing to give their lives to die for what they believe to be the greater cause.
By Jersey McJones on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Enjoy being the minority for a long time to come, SteveIL.
“This whole post is a perfect explanation of why today’s “liberals” and some libertarians (Ron Paul) are such failures in dealing with crime, terrorism, and war.”
Can you give me an example of “today’s “liberals” and some libertarians (Ron Paul) (being) failures in dealing with crime, terrorism, and war?
“You know what, there is no why.”
SteveIL, if you understand Newton’s Laws, you’d know that nothing ever happens in a vacuum. There is a reason for everything. Most ten year olds know that.
JMJ
By SteveIL on May 16, 2007 | Reply
You people don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about. We’re talking about criminals, not “freedom fighters” or “patriots”. If you can’t see the difference, then get out of the way and let those who do take care of the problem.
I can only imagine how you all would have reacted on September 4, 1939. At least Chamberlain recognized he was going to have to go to war the day before.
By Paul Watson on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Well, SteveIL, they’d probably react the same way most Americans did at the time: shrug, laugh at those stupid Europeans and get on with their business.
And what are you talking about? The only person who’s mentioned ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘patriots’ on this thread is you. And I thought we were dealing with terrorists who we had to kill before they killed us. Now they’re criminals? Welcome aboard, SteveIL. We’ve been saying that for a while now. It’s nice to see you finally agree with us.
By Jersey McJones on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Yeah!!! SteveIL finally admits that terrorists are criminals!!!
(I hope Satan and Falwell are wearing their winter coats!)
JMJ
By Charlie on May 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL:
This is the question they tried to avoid having us ask back in 2001. Why do they hate us?
It is a little more complex than they hate us for bombing Iraq, though that is part of it. They hate us for occupying thier land and manipulating their resources. Their ranks grow now due to the global war of errors.
Think about it Steve, after 9/11 when you saw the power of the terrorist thugs to kill 3,000+ (or less than 1%) of your countrymen, you just wanted to give up right?
So why should you expect the Iraqis to give up when thousands of their citizens and muslims around the world can point to the ME and say “the Americans are destroying our culture.”
By Charlie on May 16, 2007 | Reply
steve,
I spent most of my adult life doing something you know nothing about. I fought in Iraq and I have seen how the good will of the world was squandered. I spoke to Iraqis and have since been around this country learning and talking about those expieriences.
One man’s patriot is another’s terrorist. I would call people who come in the night and kidnap my family terrorists, wouldn’t you? It all depends on your point of view.
So when do you leave for boot camp or are you still too much of a coward to put your money where your mouth is?
By Lexington on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Regardless of what we call them, they call themselves holy warriors. And they fight because their religion says that the presense of an infidel army (ours) in the holy land (theirs) is anathma to God and should be punished by jihad and death.
These are facts. Make of them what you will.
By Charlie on May 16, 2007 | Reply
That does not explain the millions of peaceful muslems. Calling all muslems jihadists is like calling all christians klansmen.
By christopher Radulich on May 16, 2007 | Reply
I argued this with steve before. If I remember him right he thought that as long as the UN sanctioned a no fly zone over New York he was fine with it.
By Jersey McJones on May 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, here’s what I don’t understand: Why doesn’t Big Oil, Bil Refinery, Big Gas, Big Whatever, take these immense profits and tax breakes they’re getting right now and invest in new technology? In my humble opinion, they’re “tak(ing) the money and run(ning).” That’s a shame. There may not be as much profit in investment in the short-term, but the long term is brighter than bright. It’s a shame that you concern yourself more with the concerns of short-term profiteers over long-term philanthropy.
JMJ
By SteveIL on May 17, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, here’s what I don’t understand. Americans on December 8, 1941 didn’t concern themselves with why the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor or why the Nazis declared war on us three days later. Americans went to war against the governments of those countries.
I don’t concern myself with why the Islamofascists attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Any politician who dares present this as an argument has no business holding any office and should seek another line of work. Preferably in another country ready to commit national suicide by concerning itself with the “reasons” Islamofascist terrorists do what they do. The U.S. is not that country.
By Charlie on May 17, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL:
One of the most important lessons I learned during my nine years in the military is that you have to understand the motivation of your enemy. If you assume that your motivations are the same is his, then you will make yourself vulnerable to his strategy and tactics. That is why so many of us read the Koran, biographies of Hussein, biobraphies of Bin Laden, and Islamic history. We also rad about past wars.
To compare 9/11 and Pearl Harbor is a hollow comparison. The Japaneese had been waging an imperialist war accross southeast Asia and we were blocked from oil reserves in the South China Sea by us. Further, we had been in negotiations with them. We had also been trying to intiate an attack for some time. Same with Germany.,. An economic decision had been made long before they declared war on us. In fact it solved Roosevelt’s Europe First problem.
Islamic Terrorism is a completely different problem. We face an asymetric enemy that does not operate the way we do. Terror cells can and do operate without any direct connection to the terrorists we perceive as leaders. They operate on a small scale and are motivated in large part by the way we have chosen to prosecute our Global War of Errors. If you fail to address and understand that then you assure that we will be attacked again.
I assume that since you refuse to acknowledge my request, that you are still too much of a coward to actually fight your war and prefer to send poor folks off to die. Am I right or are you going to surprise us with a July 4, boot camp announcement?
By Jersey McJones on May 17, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, that’s why we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq never attacked us.
JMJ
By JT Davis on May 17, 2007 | Reply
It looks like repetetive traumatic brain injury got a day pass from the Little Green Fuckwad asylum again.
By JT Davis on May 17, 2007 | Reply
Osama bin Ladden was able to convince these people to take their own lives. He did this because he was upset about the Occupation of the US military in Saudi Arabia. This fact is well known. bin Ladden was able to use religion to convince the people who attacked us on 9/11 that the US should not be in his country.
Of course Ron Paul is correct. We were over there, and the mastermind behind 9/11 chose to attack us because of that. Of course, bin Ladden didn’t care about Iraq, which is where Paul’s “over there” statement isn’t quite accurate. But, to most of the country they don’t know that difference between Iraq, and Iran (as the song goes.)
And, of course the longer we occupy the Middle East the more people we anger and more people will be willing to give their lives to die for what they believe to be the greater cause.
It is far more complex than this, but I agree with some of this in the abstract. We were targeted by al-Qaeda because of who we are. A super-power. The sole super-power left on the global stage. The “freedom” crap is bullshit. We could have been the Soviet Union, their first target. No freedom there. The object, the goal, (and the plan worked quite well), was to draw us into the ME. To get us to “meddle”. Bush was played by OBL, and then played by the Iranians, through Chalabi, to get us to take out their nemesis, our natural secular ally, Saddam. Only an idiot could have been so willing. In point of fact, we are in a situation now where Ron Paul’s non-participatory isolationism will be as risky as the the Idiot-in-Chief’s cowboy diplomacy. We need something we are sorely lacking. A true statesman with a handle on the toolset of diplomacy and statecraft. We cannot go down the route of Ron Paul or “stay the course”. We are truly fucked and have very few good options. God love him, most of what Dennis Kucinich stands for, I have no problem with but he is a bit of a goof and I don’t see him as a viable option when it comes to being that competent at handling this mess. Richardson is the most skilled at this, diplomacy and statecraft, but he has no chance at the nomination, unfortunately.
By SteveIL on May 17, 2007 | Reply
Charlie, terrorism is war with a different name. The Islamofascists are waging a war not out of any altruistic of right and wrong, but to do the same as any other government bent on conquering others: power and personal wealth for the leadership. Those Al Qaeda and bin Laden “reasons” cited by Ron Paul and the liberals are excuses to wage this war. And the difference between what we’re doing in Iraq and what the Islamofascists are doing is that we don’t want Iraq to be an extension of U.S. territory; we want them to have their own government we can fairly trade with. Whether they get their shit together so that this can happen remains to be seen.
And I get that understanding the enemy is important. But only to use that understanding to destroy them, not for any other reason.
By Charlie on May 17, 2007 | Reply
When we went to Iraq it was very clear taht we were there for power projection. It was not a wholly humanitarian mission, it was about having a base of power within the ME. Humanitarianism was not discussed unitle the embedded reporters arrived.
We manipulated their culture to try to make a democracy in our own image. We unapollogetically invited evil terrorists to wage war with us in their country and we waged war on thier culture. Thus we created a rallying cry against us and allowed swelled the ranks of terrorists around the world.
You can call names and insult my intellegence all you want. But at the end of the day you asked me to defend you against all enemies foreign an domestic. You did it so you didn’t have to and now you attack me for using everything I have learned to carry out that mission. Frankly I wish you would either just say thank you and let me get on with my work or join the army. Your choice.
By Jersey McJones on May 18, 2007 | Reply
“And the difference between what we’re doing in Iraq and what the Islamofascists are doing is that we don’t want Iraq to be an extension of U.S. territory; we want them to have their own government we can fairly trade with.”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man, are you ever one naive little sucker!
JMJ
By G on May 18, 2007 | Reply
JT Davis,
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, at all. He just doesn’t believe in military (or covert) intervention when the security of the United States is at stake. He’s stated numerous times for the need for more diplomacy (and trade, those Middle Eastern counties would certainly like us better without sanctions on them) in situations like he is in now. Given how closely his policies seem to mirror what Michael Scheuer speaks about in his books, he’s got my vote.
By G on May 19, 2007 | Reply
Oops, that should read “unless the security of the United States is at stake.”
And SteveL, the problem isn’t the motives of the nut-cases like bin Laden. The problem is that our foreign policies are convincing other, more moderate, Muslims to join their cause. This is very well documented.
By Charlie on May 19, 2007 | Reply
You have to understand the SteveIL doesn’t really care about any of this. He is motivated consolidating power in the hands of those with a very narrow view. He sees the United States as the Great White Savior of the world and believes that we have a right to the world’s resources. The view all Islamic people as some sort of diabolical race is the only was he can justify his narrow world view.
By JT Davis on May 21, 2007 | Reply
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, at all. He just doesn’t believe in military (or covert) intervention when the security of the United States is at stake. He’s stated numerous times for the need for more diplomacy (and trade, those Middle Eastern counties would certainly like us better without sanctions on them) in situations like he is in now. Given how closely his policies seem to mirror what Michael Scheuer speaks about in his books, he’s got my vote.
If I’m voting for a Dr. It’s Howard Dean, but he’s not running. Believe what you like, you will anyway. You are crazy if you are going to trust a politician. If I could bottle it and sell it, I’d be a millionaire. (My bullshit detector).
“Charlie, terrorism is war with a different name.”
Good Job! War is a continuation of politics by other means (Clausewitz). You just equated terrorism with politics! Or gunboat diplomacy! Terrorism is a tactic. When you are in a real war, you’ll know it. You won’t have any gas and a whole bunch of other stuff. Don’t strain your brain.
By Jersey McJones on May 25, 2007 | Reply
JT, I was just per using and reread this. Some of your comments are quite telling. Who are you?
JMJ