Ron Paul's flub

First of all, I didn't get chance to see the debate, so I don't know what was said before or after this comment. The clip cut out when Paul was going to clarify his response. Without knowing what was said by Ron Paul afterwards, I can't comment on his remarks.

But if you think about it, didn't we in a real rough round about way invite these attacks?

How long has our borders been unprotected or under protected? How easy was it to get into the USA in flight before hand? How easy was it for them to take over the planes? Did anyone think about this ahead of time?

How protected are our borders today, after the fact? Can people still get in without us knowing? Are we still inviting something bad to happen again if we don't step up our protection of our own borders?

Just a quick thought off the top of my head. I will have to watch the debate online and then see what Ron Paul said after the clip stopped.

Jamie

 

The flub was by Rudy Giuliani. Evidently, he has a very poor knowledge of U.S. history after World War II.

In the example that Ron Paul provided, he simply told the truth about the United States replacing the elected government of Iran with the Shah in 1953. This action and the hardline rule by the Shah caused hatred of the United States and led to the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 and mess we have seen afterwards. I doubt that very many Americans know this history. After all, it's not covered on "American Idol".

I fear for the continued viability of this nation as a constitutional republic if we elect as president someone with as little knowledge of history and the concept of cause-and-effect as Rudy Giuliani.

Anyone who thinks that our federal government can run all over the world and stick its nose in the business of any country it wants to without there being repercussions is not dealing with reality.

Here's an account for those interested in the details:

www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php

 

In his response to Giuliani, he mentions the concept of "blowback." Rep. Paul suggested that we cannot act as if our actions have no effect on the motivation of our enemies.

I know the PC/sacred cow position on 9-11 is that the U.S. was just strolling in the park when Al-Qaeda just decided, "Why don't we hijack some airplanes?" This is not the case.

Is the US responsible for 9-11? No. Did the US invite 9-11? No.

Has the US taken actions that have incited many in the Middle East? Definitely. Have these actions helped to polarize groups against us? Yes. We have to realize that our actions have effects. That's what Ron Paul is saying.

---------

For example, I personally believe that our continued presence in Iraq is actually expanding the grip of the terrorist groups. The question is not what can we do to get radicals to stop being radical. There will always be unstable, violent people. However, we must take actions to make sure that we don't have a horde of impressionable people swinging to the terrorist side. Our actions DO have an effect on that.

What I hate is the whole "if we do that, the terrorists win" mentality. If we take our actions simply based upon what terrorists want or do not want, who is really in control? Isn't Al-Qaeda then dictating our policy? I don't care if something makes Bin Laden happy or not. If it is in America's benefit, we should do it. We have to escape our reactive national personality. We should chart our course and not let Bin Laden chart it for us.

 

Good points, Stefan. :thumbs:

I get really tired of the folks who say that if, after already accomplishing our goals in Iraq, we now leave that the terrorists will follow us home. How? Are 10,000 terrorists going to walk all the way across Africa and swim the Atlantic Ocean to get here? Hardly.

The real threat is our unprotected borders where 1, 2, or 3 terrorists at a time can come in undetected regardless of whether we remain bogged down in Bush's Folly in Iraq or not.

 

Bot you and Ron Paul will have more credibility if you stop repeating this, it isn't true. America replaced a government installed by Britain.

 

You do much better, in posts like these. It makes no sense to spend the $$billions overseas, and ignore this issue. Tancredo seems to be the only one beating this drum, consistently.

 

The idea was to have a consitutional monarchy as there is in Great Britain. Our CIA interferred with the Iranian government in 1953. That is indisputable.

But we have discussed this already in the Politics Forum so there's no reason to repeat that all here.

 

Here is a press release from Ron Paul:

[FONT=Verdana,sans serif] Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?

May 16, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."



[/FONT]Jamie[FONT=Verdana,sans serif]
[/FONT]

 

As long as you no longer insist we replaced an elected leadership. All your other points are valid.

 

I still insist that we did indeed replace an elected government. But we simply have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

Great News for you. That gives you an opening to vote for and actively support liberal and pro choice Giuliani

 

Oh now... You know he, and many others like him won't state who their pulling for. They want to go around and post thread after thread about how the "other" guy is so bad and yet they don't even have a general idea of who they would pull for.

Just ask.. They will give you any number of "rubber stamp" answers...

It's too soon to tell...
Nobody on either side....
I have to hear from all the canidates and they will have to pass my test....
If So and So runs, maybe I will pull for them....

etc etc etc...

I have asked several people around that love posting negative threads and have yet to get anythnig that resembles an answer.

Jamie
Slinging mud is so much fun I suppose....

 

His political posts are quite inconsistant. He constantly posts conservative causes, then turns right around and supports liberal candidates. It is more the mark of a republican apologist than a true conservative.

 

Bottom line is whatever government Iran had in 1953 didn't suit "us" so "we" decided it was time for a regime change by way of a little covert false flag terrorism. Which worked out so well for "us" that "we" did the same thing in Guatemala in 1954. From there it just sorta became standard covert practice, along with running guns and dealing drugs (Iran/Contra) until the neocons came along and made regime change standard overt practice. "We" still try and hide the false flag terrorism, drug dealing and gun running details though.

There's still three trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon, btw.

 

Now flip the coin...who do we blame for all our problems, Ourselves?

 

That's a red herring. Saddam Hussien asked permission from the United States to invade Kuwait and was granted it by George H. W. Bush, who turned around acted astonished on the tube and proclaimed..."this will not stand!"

Good question.

We have quite a long track record of supporting "friendly" dictators and puppets, (friendly to United Fruit Co., etc. not so friendly to the natives) don't blame us.

Why, we'd go after them and give them the worst "shock and awe" treament we could possibly muster pre emptively, before they could even formulate a decent plan to attack us! Lotta times before they even think about it!! Cooked and/or faulty intelligence and all. We gotta get them before they get us!!! A safe, sane and tidy profit making foreign policy if ever there was one.