Ron Paul on 9/11

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Agreed. I just don't get why people are afraid to look at a general historical context without taking the view that doing so is somehow ideologically dangerous. Of course I suppose the point here is that it is ideologically dangerous - for people who cannot see beyond the ideology.

UUHHH What he said!!

I think the reaction to Paul's statements is merely illustrative of what happens when you question the foundation of a person's world-view - people respond negatively, and viciously. None of what he said is particularly controversial or indeed 'radical', but it says something that people can't have a dicussion on the basis of some obvious truths without adding their own (negative) emotional subtext to the comments.

It says, quite simply, that a good number of people aren't ready or willing to give up a very insular world view. Of course it does explain quite a lot about our interaction with other countries.

I don't think it is just a reactionary response, all the while he is explaining his point of view, what is being flashed on the screen by that particular media outlet? "Blames U.S. for 9/11" of course anyone that bothered to listen to what he was saying would know that is not what he was saying.

My favorite part was when he was talking about had we stayed focused on the primary objective (OBL) we would not be in the position we are in today.

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

I agree with you there - Media misrepresentation is pretty common. As a emotionally-loaded headline its more immediately gripping than "Paul explains historical context of US foreign policy". Still I wouldn't blame just the media - there is at least a clear reason as to why they do that (even if it is disagreeable). People ultimately make the concious decision to be "led by the nose", as someone phrased it earlier.

[Marc and Olga 0]

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

Why, who are you voting for in the primary?

Previously I was registered Democrat, as of 2004...independant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing. No use in even arguing with you all about it. IMO your misled and wrong. But I also know you think I am just as wrong and misled. I can only pray people that think like this never get into power.

Why is it amazing? Could it be because you want to read something into Paul's comments that isn't there and is essentially of your own creation?

[Marc and Olga 0]

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing.

[joelunchbox 0]

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing. No use in even arguing with you all about it. IMO your misled and wrong. But I also know you think I am just as wrong and misled. I can only pray people that think like this never get into power.

Never said I would vote for him. But, does he have something to say? I think yes. In any event, because of him I am learning more about how we came to be where we are and how we came to be who we are. I am still sifting, and learning. It will be an interesting election. I tend to lean dem but...I keep hoping that the repubs will come up with someone centrist who cares about me, a moderate.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

[Geist 0]

Some of the opinions and ideas of what is happening are truly amazing. No use in even arguing with you all about it. IMO your misled and wrong. But I also know you think I am just as wrong and misled. I can only pray people that think like this never get into power.

Well, if you would provide some facts and reasons as to why our opinions and ideas are so misguided and wrong, perhaps some of us would change our minds...it can't be that hard to do, right?

[Heracles 417]

I agree with him on one thing. He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something. Hatred usually comes from someone, or the perception of someone, harming you..

America is now scapegoated for the world's problems because of so much interference with so many nations internal affairs. Then combine this with hollywood's constant supply of anti-US government films. Does anyone seriously expect all of this not to have a negative impact on people's perception of America abroad..

Edited November 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Geist 0]

I still say, IF he wins the primary...I will vote for him.

Why, who are you voting for in the primary?

Previously I was registered Democrat, as of 2004...independent.

Still doesn't answer my question, but as an independent, you have until Jan 1 to register as a republican to vote for him in the primaries

I was an independent until recently, or as they call it in NH, "undecided" (because picking between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum is so hard . I vote for the people, not the party.

I know some dems who are looking at Richardson pretty closely...apparently he's good on some issues.

He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something.

Or at least our foreign policy is. As for the buildup: well, they bombed our embassies in Africa, our embassy in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole...there was a lot of buildup way before the Bush Administration that pointed towards some serious resentment of American Meddling abroad

Edited November 5, 2007 by Geist

[GaryC 7]

I agree with him on one thing. He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something. Hatred usually comes from someone, or the perception of someone, harming you..

America is now scapegoated for the world's problems because of so much interference with so many nations internal affairs. Then combine this with hollywood's constant supply of anti-US government films. Does anyone seriously expect all of this not to have a negative impact on people's perception of America abroad..

I feel the way I do about it because I have a different premise for the reasons for the attack than others do. I don't think any of this is "revenge" for our past meddling in the mid-east. I see UBL and the terrorists as a group that is trying to gain power for themselves and using our past sins as a motivator/excuse. This is an attempt to start their own world power and since they don't have a powerful army they are using other means to attain their goals. The people that blow themselves up may be doing it for revenge/religion but the ones that hire them are in it for power, control and conquest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree with him on one thing. He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something. Hatred usually comes from someone, or the perception of someone, harming you..

America is now scapegoated for the world's problems because of so much interference with so many nations internal affairs. Then combine this with hollywood's constant supply of anti-US government films. Does anyone seriously expect all of this not to have a negative impact on people's perception of America abroad..

I feel the way I do about it because I have a different premise for the reasons for the attack than others do. I don't think any of this is "revenge" for our past meddling in the mid-east. I see UBL and the terrorists as a group that is trying to gain power for themselves and using our past sins as a motivator/excuse. This is an attempt to start their own world power and since they don't have a powerful army they are using other means to attain their goals. The people that blow themselves up may be doing it for revenge/religion but the ones that hire them are in it for power, control and conquest.

Not to put too finer point on it - but wasn't this our reasoning too? In fact, wasn't "power, control and conquest" the reasoning behind the direction of our foreign policy, and indeed the foreign policy of every major imperial power since ancient Rome?

[GaryC 7]

I agree with him on one thing. He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something. Hatred usually comes from someone, or the perception of someone, harming you..

America is now scapegoated for the world's problems because of so much interference with so many nations internal affairs. Then combine this with hollywood's constant supply of anti-US government films. Does anyone seriously expect all of this not to have a negative impact on people's perception of America abroad..

I feel the way I do about it because I have a different premise for the reasons for the attack than others do. I don't think any of this is "revenge" for our past meddling in the mid-east. I see UBL and the terrorists as a group that is trying to gain power for themselves and using our past sins as a motivator/excuse. This is an attempt to start their own world power and since they don't have a powerful army they are using other means to attain their goals. The people that blow themselves up may be doing it for revenge/religion but the ones that hire them are in it for power, control and conquest.

Not to put too finer point on it - but wasn't this our reasoning too? In fact, wasn't "power, control and conquest" the reasoning behind the direction of our foreign policy, and indeed the foreign policy of every major imperial power since ancient Rome?

That has been the goal of every country from the beginning of time. We are no different. That is just the nature of humans everywhere.

My point is this, We are not fighting aggrieved people on religious grounds or on a "jihad" of revenge of those that oppressed them. We are dealing with a world conquering "wanna be's" that doesn't have the backing of a large country. They are using other means to fight their war. Their version of "cannon fodder" is the religious nuts that are willing to blow themselves up.

We are used to fighting city/states and that is the reason we are doing so poorly. We need to adjust to this new kind of war.

Think of this comparison, after WW1 Germany thought it was being abused by the victors. That was the reason Hitler came to power and get his countries peoples backing. It was his "reason" for starting the war but it wasn't his motivation. His motivation was power. UBL is the same thing but the type of war is different. It is cloaked in religion and revenge, but it is a war none the less. We shouldn't be looking for reasons why they are attacking us, it only deflects from the real truth as to why we are fighting. We are fighting power hungry despots that are perverting a religion to fight their war. To practice self incrimination is playing into the enemies hands. Our hands may not be clean in the region but it isn't the reason for the attacks. It's is, however, the motivation for the terrorist soldier that is carrying out his orders. So in that regard we have given these leaders the ability to attack us but it is in no way the reason for the war that has been declared upon us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree with him on one thing. He is not blaming America but saying the country is partially responsible. Bin Laden did not wake up one day and say hmmm it would be nice to drive planes into NYC buildings. Clearly there is built up hatred towards something. Hatred usually comes from someone, or the perception of someone, harming you..

America is now scapegoated for the world's problems because of so much interference with so many nations internal affairs. Then combine this with hollywood's constant supply of anti-US government films. Does anyone seriously expect all of this not to have a negative impact on people's perception of America abroad..

I feel the way I do about it because I have a different premise for the reasons for the attack than others do. I don't think any of this is "revenge" for our past meddling in the mid-east. I see UBL and the terrorists as a group that is trying to gain power for themselves and using our past sins as a motivator/excuse. This is an attempt to start their own world power and since they don't have a powerful army they are using other means to attain their goals. The people that blow themselves up may be doing it for revenge/religion but the ones that hire them are in it for power, control and conquest.

Not to put too finer point on it - but wasn't this our reasoning too? In fact, wasn't "power, control and conquest" the reasoning behind the direction of our foreign policy, and indeed the foreign policy of every major imperial power since ancient Rome?

That has been the goal of every country from the beginning of time. We are no different. That is just the nature of humans everywhere.

My point is this, We are not fighting aggrieved people on religious grounds or on a "jihad" of revenge of those that oppressed them. We are dealing with a world conquering "wanna be's" that doesn't have the backing of a large country. They are using other means to fight their war. Their version of "cannon fodder" is the religious nuts that are willing to blow themselves up.

We are used to fighting city/states and that is the reason we are doing so poorly. We need to adjust to this new kind of war.

Think of this comparison, after WW1 Germany thought it was being abused by the victors. That was the reason Hitler came to power and get his countries peoples backing. It was his "reason" for starting the war but it wasn't his motivation. His motivation was power. UBL is the same thing but the type of war is different. It is cloaked in religion and revenge, but it is a war none the less. We shouldn't be looking for reasons why they are attacking us, it only deflects from the real truth as to why we are fighting. We are fighting power hungry despots that are perverting a religion to fight their war. To practice self incrimination is playing into the enemies hands. Our hands may not be clean in the region but it isn't the reason for the attacks. It's is, however, the motivation for the terrorist soldier that is carrying out his orders. So in that regard we have given these leaders the ability to attack us but it is in no way the reason for the war that has been declared upon us.

I agree that our current/previous foreign policy decisions are not an explicit reason for specific events - like 9/11. HOWEVER... the point I think you are missing here is that they do provide a general context of reasoning. Fostering dissatisfaction and resentment overseas is essentially what gives people like OBL the platform to seek power in the first place. As you say that's where the problems started after WW1 - Germany didn't "think" it was being abused by the allied nations, it was being abused; and many people clearly felt aggrieved enough about it that they were prepared to support someone like AH and give him a powerbase for his radical ideas.

[Geist 0]

That has been the goal of every country from the beginning of time. We are no different. That is just the nature of humans everywhere.

But we were different. Right up until Teddy Roosevelt, our forays into foreign lands were quite limited. Just because it didn't last doesn't mean it can't be stopped and we can't return to our roots. Or should our country be governed by the basest of human emotions, the desire to conquer and rule everybody?

We are used to fighting city/states and that is the reason we are doing so poorly. We need to adjust to this new kind of war.

So...perhaps we ought to become terrorists ourselves? Fight fire with fire? I'm sorry, but I cannot support any government or person that engages in terrorism, or that engages in torture. Where do we draw the line? Do we intend to destroy our village in order to save it?

Think of this comparison, after WW1 Germany thought it was being abused by the victors. That was the reason Hitler came to power and get his countries peoples backing. It was his "reason" for starting the war but it wasn't his motivation. His motivation was power.

Godwinned!!!1!!

The reasons behind Hitler's rise to power are complex, and for most people, power is but a means to an end.

[doodlebug 3]

We shouldn't be looking for reasons why they are attacking us, it only deflects from the real truth as to why we are fighting.

[DeadPoolX 9]

We are used to fighting city/states and that is the reason we are doing so poorly. We need to adjust to this new kind of war.

So...perhaps we ought to become terrorists ourselves? Fight fire with fire? I'm sorry, but I cannot support any government or person that engages in terrorism, or that engages in torture. Where do we draw the line? Do we intend to destroy our village in order to save it?

No one's suggesting we "become terrorists ourselves." However, fighting by a strict (and outdated) rulebook won't win the day, either. If the enemy is using tactics that are clearly effective against what we currently have to offer, then it makes sense that we modify our approach. To deny that anything needs to be changed is foolish and will only result in losses.

I've used this example many times before, but... during the American Revolutionary War, a similar scenario played out. The British Army adhered to guidelines that said "war fought this way and only this way." Meanwhile, the colonists didn't play by those rules; they used guerilla warfare and whatever else they needed to in order to defeat the enemy, since their military forces were outmatched in skill, experience, size, and technology. To go head-to-head would've been suicide, but that was the "order of the day" and what the British Army was expecting. It was how "wars were fought."

To make a long story short, the British Army's reliance on their superiority (and the fact they never once believed a bunch of "ragtag rebels could wipe the floor with them") earned them a stunning defeat and Great Britain lost their colonies in the New World. Had the British Army decided that they needed to modify their tactics and fight back against the colonists, using their own strategy, perhaps the U.S. would've never gained it's independence (at least at that time).

The point of this comparison is that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are now in the same spot as the British Army was all those years ago. We're fighting an enemy that will simply not play by our rules or how "war is supposed to be fought."