“He may be making the case that focusing on domestic security can have a higher return than intervening in the affairs of other nations.”

That was the theory behind the Great Wall of China too. Sanctions exacerbate oppression and strengthen the hand of dictators. We could kill bin Laden tomorrow and it wouldn’t even put a dent in Islamic terrorism, which, BTW, has never been exclusively directed at U.S. interests, or solely a result of them, in the first place.

That said, the question of whether or not Ron Paul gets a seat at the Republican table (even I don’t actually consider him a Republican) is less important to me than whether the format and the questions are designed to elicit substantive comment from the candidates.

I FREAKIN’ LOVE THIS SHIT!!!!

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Exactly!

Remember Paul puts the constitution above everything else. If a bill or law violates it in anyway he will oppose it, wether or not the bill is good or bad.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:52 PM

That’s good. Hopefully it means that the sovereignty of the United States will become a priority and he will secure our borders. And the right to bear arms will be restored to the residents of D.C.

But – if a bill/law violates the Constitution, don’t we already have a mechanism for correction? I believe it’s called the Supreme Court.

And there’s also a small thing called a congressional override of a presidential veto. Even if Paul was to oppose a bill, it could still become law.

I believe all of these mechanisms are described in the Constitution.

Remember – just because you don’t approve of something, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And vice versa.

I do not see how that calls for the destruction of America.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM

The destruction of America is implied. As long as America exists, it will have an influence on the rest of the world. And that is unacceptable to the fanatics.

Even if somehow the destruction of America wasn’t implicit, when they reach their goals as stated they will then have to come up with a new set of goals. Most certainly the destruction of America will be laid out in those goals.

Mmmm – 1998 was a long time ago and many things have happened that have most likely enhanced their desired goals.
I’m sure Bin Laden has a updated fatwa in mind – if his mind isn’t buried in a cave in Tora Bora, that is.

Robert Pape is an extremeist and a leftist, thomas jefferson hit the nail on the head. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about, purely operating from a position of faith and hope, not reality.
jp on January 1, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Bin Laden issued a fatwa against the United States in 1998 and in it he said that the stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East.

I do not see how that calls for the destruction of America.

A Ron Paul victory would mean that the US would just sit on it’s hands. And Paul’s non-support of Israel would take the dog off the leash – no funds or support from the US would mean Israel could care less about our opinions on a first strike.

I dont really think so. Pauls biggest problem with the Iraq was is that it was not declared by congress. If congress declares war against nations that attack Israel thereby following our constitution I don’t think Paul would have a problem with it.

Remember Paul puts the constitution above everything else. If a bill or law violates it in anyway he will oppose it, wether or not the bill is good or bad.

You dont think they might be scared if Israels reactions too? Doesnt Israel have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 nukes? It seems like the US is the one holding Israel back from alot of preemptive strikes

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM

True. I’m talking a massive first strike on Israel that could cripple her response. Then we would take over.

Plus – even if Israel’s response wasn’t completely crippled, we would make sure that it goes over the pain threshold.

The fanatics over there realize there will be some losses on their side, but they don’t want complete annihilation. For Israel, yes – but not for them.

A Ron Paul victory would mean that the US would just sit on it’s hands. And Paul’s non-support of Israel would take the dog off the leash – no funds or support from the US would mean Israel could care less about our opinions on a first strike.

At least they would tend to be more surgical than the fanatics.

Global diplomacy is a curious and delicate thing.

Check out the book Dying to Win by Robert Pape

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM

Robert Pape is an extremeist and a leftist, thomas jefferson hit the nail on the head. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about, purely operating from a position of faith and hope, not reality. They want to capitulate based off Jihadist Propaganda instead of facts, its sad and pathetic.

even more so while having the label of the party of this man:

“[T]hey are the focus of evil in the modern world…. [S]ome would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom…. I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written.” (President Ronald Reagan, speech to National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983)

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated.
Probably because of the little closed-mouthed kisses they’ve been giving each other in their ads. I and another commenter mentioned it here in the past few days.

How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?
It makes me want to build an underground desert bunker.

baldilocks on January 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM

And people called us crazy for pointing out the Huck-McCain thing. :)

The only thing keeping them from wiping out Israel is our
inevitable retaliation for their actions.

You dont think they might be scared if Israels reactions too? Doesnt Israel have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 nukes? It seems like the US is the one holding Israel back from alot of preemptive strikes

The only thing keeping them from wiping out Israel is our
inevitable retaliation for their actions.

There’s a long line of dominoes that will fall if a first strike on Israel happens, so there are lots of people who’s
jobs are to make sure it doesn’t happen.

And that external restraint is making many muslims crazy – especially the fanaticals and the jhadis.

Just how much of that crazy ‘fanatical muslim / anti-zionist’ money is in Ron Paul’s coffers? It would make sense that Ron would get their support.

They’re making it a roundtable of the big five — or, more precisely, the big four plus Fred. I get the logic: Thompson’s outpolling Paul nationally by 10 points, but (a) this is, ostensibly, keyed to the New Hampshire primary, which Fred gave up …

the Anti-Ron Paul: Thomas Jefferson on Jihad

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [2] – Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul is a bigger fool than George McGovern

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

That is an extremist view point shared by only a very very small fraction of the worlds muslims. The vast majority of muslims do not like the US because they see our bases in the middle east as occupying holy lands.

Check out the book Dying to Win by Robert Pape

There, fixed.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered 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 Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [2] – Thomas Jefferson

Ron Paul is a bigger fool than George McGovern

How is that ignorant or naive? You dont think our presence in muslim countries allows them to drum up more support for suicide bombings and affords them greater support from the general populace when they do so?

muyoso on January 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM

yes, because its a false assumption and an Act of pure Faith(unless their are anti-american ulterior motives, possible). There is ample proof of ‘why they attack us’ that trumps any of Paul’s anti-american LIES of “Empire building” and “Occupation”, when the fact is we are there by invitation and agreements by Sovereign Nations.

Muhammed himself gave the following Imperative for World Domination:

“I have been commanded,” he said, “to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.”

a Jihadist the other day, as all of them do, backed this up clearly:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD179107

“The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there.”

Jihadist were conquering nations in the name of Allah and World Sharia Domination, long before the US ever existed!

Ron Paul is quite simply buying into their propaganda and wishing for National Suicide.

I wonder how many Phillipines and Thailand and Bali and Morrocoo, etc, have troops at one time in Saudi Arabia by invitation of the saudi govt. for protection from Sadddam???

answer: None, yet they are still under daily attack by Jihadist.

Besides, his policy positions on eduation and spending are like lonely voices in the wilderness for conservatives. Of course, his position on the war makes him persona non grata to the Foxes.

How is that ignorant or naive? You dont think our presence in muslim countries allows them to drum up more support for suicide bombings and affords them greater support from the general populace when they do so?

Wow, where do I begin. First you claim all Paul supporters are either white supremecists or conspiracy theorists, which is completely false. Then you mischaracterize his foreign policy 100%. Gonna make sure to catch your “insightful” comments in the future.

Ron Paul: Suicide Terrorism

He. Voted. For. Action. In. Afghanistan.

and according to his former aide, he only voted for it because his aides threatened to quit if he didn’t. And he claims Paul is a Rooseveltian conspiracist(re: pearl harbor) and against our involvement in WW2 in Europe against the Nazi’s.

interesting that the AUMF he voted for with Afghan was ok with him ‘constitutionally’, yet the AUMF for Iraq(in which there were 23 different reasons for war) is ‘unconstitutional’.

also, with Afghanistan he’s also spreading Anti-American War Propaganda and lies:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-on-afghanistan-oil-pipelines.html

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him. I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It’s been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well. Too often, whether it’s a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.

yes Michael Moore, errr Ron Paul, its about ‘oil pipelines’. So when are they going to start building those in Afghanistan anyway? its only been what, 6 YEARS NOW!!!!

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Dude, you must really be one of those Paulnuts you’re always complaining about because after reading your statement, it’s clear you’ve been smoking some good stuff.

He. Voted. For. Action. In. Afghanistan.

Hunker down? Nope. Better analysis of opportunity costs with our military budget? Yes.

Dude, study some facts. Please, for your own good.