Ron Paul defends the position he raised in the SC Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD9eO7qToTk

Great interview. Although John King asked questions that were clearly inappropriate (falling back on the Michigan GOP move to expel Paul from future debates after the move had been stopped and statements surrounding it withdrawn -- bad journalism) it gave Ron Paul a voice to defend the position he brought up during the SC Debate. As someone who is following his campaign closely this has strengthened my view that he is a viable candidate for the Republican nomination.

While some disagree with him, through honest disagreements with his political stance, or plain ignorance of the facts surrounding the issues being debated, I believe he has a golden opportunity to awaken truth in American political process. Too long has it been a field for campaigns run on the steam of marginalized agendas.

 

If my being friends with Jews makes people hate me, it's not my friendship that's the problem.

RP also forgets that the Democrats made the excuses first for their actions. Bin Laden then repeated them.

If you make excuses for the bad behavior of children they'll repeat them back to you as well as though they were justified.

Neat how that works.

While RP is making excuses for mass murderers maybe he should also reach deep into their minds and tell us why they're murdering people of every race and religion.

 

RP isn't making excuses, he's shining light on the real consequences of America aggresively involving itself in the Mid East political arena. He never absolved anyone of blame and has condemned terrorists since the get go. You must realize it's possible to condemn the wrong and examine the events that led to said wrong in the same breath? Why focus on the destruction and give in to hate when there are real solutions to these problems? Wrong is wrong, but refusing to evaluate the events that lead to these wrongs is wrong in the highest degree.

 

So in essence, RP is blaming America first again? This would surely attract those who like to blame America first, wouldn't it?

Did he talk about Bigfoot, the NAU or how is supporting kucinich for an investigation into WTC7 (conspiracy)?

 

There is no "first blame", there is blame for all and it isn't handed out in turns.

Unneccesary involvement in the Middle East gives flame for terrorists to work with. Replacement of the Shah of Iran, against the will of the Iranian people, is one example. There are dozens more. If America followed a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East these excuses wouldn't be available for terrorists to work with and the support for their anti-American ideologies would dissolve.

Terrorists are evil, but interventionist foreign policy fuels the maligned excuses behind that evil, no matter how benign said policy is. It isn't necessary for America to involve itself in the Middle East and it's clear that it would benefit greatly if it was to return to the nation it was, the nation it was built to be in the days of its founding.

 

I don't like to blame America first but I still like the guy.
If we are going to be over there, we need to start KILLING PEOPLE. Forget about this tip-toe around BS and start murdering people, or GTFO out. It's sick to see that PC has even leaked into the way wars are fought.

 

so what did I do that my country was attacked? I had never met those people, never said a bad word for Islam (till then), and never hurt them...so is it still my fault? What about my family? Was it there fault also?

Your arguments are weak and unfounded. Ron Paul is a nutjob, and attracts more nutjobs, which is maybe why you like him so much.

 

keyboard killer, its very hard to take you seriously

we should just start killing civilans , woman and children etc then we win

 

It's aggressive interventionist foreign policy that gives terrorists these excuses, not what you say or do in the comfort of your own home. You aren't responsible for anything, the administrations that form these policies are the ones responsible.

This isn't a hard concept to understand and it's agreed upon by the top members of the intelligence community. It's the farthest thing away from being unfounded and I'll debate you on it if you're so confident I'm wrong.

 

but you said "all were to blame"...so please tell me what I did??

 

All nations involved have their hand in the blame, I'm not talking about the individual.

 

oh, so it is the nation as a whole that Ron Paul is blaming?

 

He's saying that the aggressive interventionist foreign policy is responsible for a lot of the backlash seen in the Middle East. Like he said in the video, blaming these policies isn't a subjective belief, it's objective truth agreed upon by the 9/11 commission, and any other established individual/organization that has studied the facts surrounding these events.

 

But that fails to explain the rampant murder going on by the same people all over the world.

So please, enlighten us.

 

These terrorists are sick, there are no honest excuses for what they do. Aggressive American foreign policy simply gives them a reason to focus their hatred on America. If the US stopped involving itself in the Middle East the support for these attacks would die out. Muslims didn't hate America until America started meddling in their affairs, and like I said earlier, no matter how benign that meddling is it isn't appreciated and it gives Muslims a reason to support anti-American terrorism. If the US returned to the way it was before it started policing the world and participating in nation building, the hate would start to disappear. America doesn't need to fix the Middle East, the Middle East needs to fix the Middle East, and it's about time they we're forced to do it on their own.

 

There is no excuse. But here it is. Interesting.

 

I'm not excusing their actions. I'm telling you that when America intervenes in Mid East politics, terrorists use it to gather support for their terrorism. Non-intervention kills that support, intervention keeps the cycle rolling. Which option is wiser?

The way I see it, America should back out of the Middle East and let them fix their own problems. With all the extra resources at hand, America could finally fix its borders and improve the two things that actually stop terror attacks from happening, police work and intelligence gathering. These two things could be strengthened a thousand fold if all the effort used to police the Mid East was put to use at home.

 

Have you read the reasons why OBL attacked us?

One was because Israel defended itself in 1982. Should israel not defend itself?

Another was because Saddam decided it'd be a hoot to starve his people after the gulf war. Is Saddam not feeding his people our fault too?

Another reason was us defending muslims in serbia during the 90s. Should we not have defended them from genocide?

This isn't a police investigation. Police work starts after everyone is dead and criminals are gone. Is this a rational approach to foreign policy? Lookie, a city is in flames. Let's figure out what happened now.

 

Look, there are sickos in the world that are going to use anything to justify their hate, but when America involves itself in the Middle East they are giving terrorists the fuel they need to build support. The intelligence communty agrees on this across the board.

America should be defending countries when congress approves and the reasons to fight are justified, but it shouldn't be intervening in other countries willy nilly. This was the case for Iraq and Iraq is now one of the greatest problems America has ever had to face. There are bad people in the world and they have to be stopped, but America can't just cruise around trying to fix problems it wasn't asked to fix.

The Middle East should be solving its own problems. Jumping in and trying to play super hero only causes more destruction and this has been proven time and time again.

The evidence is there, the facts support what I say.

Police investigations have stopped countless terrorist attacks. You're either misinformed, or trolling.

 

Exactly. They don't need a reason. We could pick lint from our navels over here. But, until we are converted or killed, they are going to come after us. It is not our actions that are doing it. Nor it is the actions of buddhists or people in the philippines. So why give credence to what they believe. They kill us because they believe their religion tells them too. This is why Ron Paul is wrong.

You mean the CIA/FBI investigations. Police don't really factor into it. I understand the need for intelligence gathering. But you cannot stop anything if you are gonna hide behind a wall here and hope you catch everyone.

When have we been involved in a conflict when congress didn't approve at the time of the vote? They may not want to stick in the fight long enough; but I believe congress has to give some sort of approval for it.

Again; I've made this point before in other threads. What happens in other parts of the world comes home to roost here. Iran postures and inflames the region, gas prices go up. Damaging our economy. People start killing everyone is Honduras and prices for whatever we get from there go up. Intervening in these situations makes sense, not only for the loss of life but for our economy as well.

What you are trying to say is Darfur is the perfect example of an optimally exercised foreign policy. Isn't that your position here? Rwanda - a kick ass foreign policy decision. Don't you agree with that?