Ron Paul on 9/11

[GaryC 7]

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?

Your forgetting the native people that were here first. I am sure they felt invaded. All countries have done it and it isn't going to change, it's just part of the human condition.

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, but instead of concentrating on battlefields and more on infiltration and identifying cells before they strike. That was Bush's big mistake, to try and win this with brute force and not recognizing the enemy. This is now changing better late than never. That is why we need a strong Patriot Act. It's our first line of defense.

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.

To Hitler the end was personal power and conquest. He used the circumstances of the times to gain that power. Just as UBL and friends are trying to do now.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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 However, fighting by a strict (and outdated) rulebook won't win the day, either.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."

To be honest - I think the British losing in America had a lot to do with the fact that France, Spain and Holland sided against the British during the revolutionary war, rather than a specific failure to adapt to new tactics.

Battle of the Chesapeake

[mybackpages 0]

And if you want to remember history then remember that everything we were doing in Iraq prior to 9/11 was authorized by the UN and sanctioned by the world at large. Blowback my azz! UBL is a murderer that had no justification for what he did. To suggest otherwise is turning your back on history not remembering it.

Except for the invasion, of course, that wasn't sanctioned. And do you really think the US ought to be acting only when the UN tells us to? Does that mean you were against the war in Iraq?

What does Usama Bin Laden have to do with Iraq? He was not in Iraq when we invaded.

The fact of the matter is that the US has been interfering in countries around the world since the end of World War 2 to such a degree as we would never allow at home. What gives us the authority to go into Iran and overthrow their government, something we are apparently threatening to do again?

It is impossible to look at a terrorist and devine their motivations. Some of them may be acting because for religious reasons, some because they "hate us for our freedoms", others because they hate us for infringing on their freedoms, and their right to choose the government they want, without interference from the busybodies of the world.

I don't think he is saying its the fault of the US. I think Ron Paul is saying eactly what Geo. Washington said- avoid foreign entanglement. He is an isolationist.

Not exactly. He is a non-interventionist. Here, this is from an article he wrote for the New Hampshire Union Leader

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them...It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

'Nuff said.

Fair enough distinction. I think my point still stands- George Washington and the "isolatonaism/non-interventionism" policy of the US' first few decades is what Paul and others claim is the correct foreign policy path.