I have done alot of looking into Ron Paul in the last few months. This is what i have learned (as the sound bites from debates don't give it all) First and foremost RP DOES acknowledge terrorism is real. In fact, he predicted it. 1. Ron Paul soon after 9/11 introduced legislation for letters of Marques and Reprisal (in the constitution) for the apprehension of Bin Laden. Obviously this didn't go anywhere. He did support the War in Afghanistan for the purpose of apprehending bin laden. IMHO, the letters would've have been the most effecient way to apprehend the head terrorist. 2. Pay attention to the 9/11 commission report regarding Al queda (sp) own reasoning for the attack. It DOES state our presence on the arabian peninsula (their holy land) as one of at least 4 reasons and demands (one of which was that we convert to islam....) 3. As a result of #2: a non-intervention policy comes into play. Bring our troops home from all over the world. 4. Defend the homeland, as OUR LAND is what is most at threat. Strengthen our defense here at home. Secure the borders with our military. Fix intelligence gathering. Prevent terrorism. Prepare our defenses for attack. My own opinion: Better to Prepare and prevent, than to Repair and repent.
His anti-terrorism policy is to change foreign policy so that the US stops interfering with foreign governments. The reason today that there is an Islamic Jihad is because in 1953, the United States overthrew the Iranian DEMOCRACY in a coup using the CIA with the help of British Military Intelligence. The purpose of this coup was to prevent the Iranian government from nationalizing oil. The Iranian government was nationalizing oil just as the British were at the time - which is where British Petroleum came from. The coup was successful (our first!) and the British and the US put in the Shah, a corrupt evil despot that was widely and justifiably hated. He was so corrupt that a bunch of religious fanatics were able to rally enough support in order to overthrow him despite horrible and violent tactics used by the Shah to try to end dissent. The Iranian hostage crisis was a direct result of this overthrow. The US hostages that were held were widely believed to be nothing more than CIA spies, and they very well may have been. This is where terrorism comes from. If China were keeping a government in power in the United States that we all hated and wanted replaced, but China prevented it through the us of black ops, money, and military intervention, what would WE do? This is only one case. The US put Hussein into power because he was a secularist that opposed the Iranian religious leadership. The US put the Sa'ud family in power in exchange for cheap oil - the same deal we made with the Shah of Iran, and there are many other reason too. You want to end terrorism? Stop giving them reasons to hate us. They don't care about our government as long as our government isn't interfering with their lives. BTW - the overthrow of the Iranian democracy is declassified. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
I like Ron Paul a lot and think he'd do a great job as president. The only problem is because of his views (which just happen to be in line with the common man) he sticks out like a sore thumb. Washington is so full of 'yes men' and 'lackies'. Where the Hell is Ron Paul supposed to find enough decent men/women to fill a cabinet? He's a maverick and would find it tough to get much honest work done no matter how hard he tried.
Oh dear, the Zio-media is not happy about this situation at all. If you fight back againt them you must be: mentally ill, a terrorist, or a traitor. ------------------ CBS Labels Ron Paul a "Meaningless Fruitcake" With "No Chance" Of Winning Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Wednesday, November 7, 2007 Despite a general begrudging acceptance amongst a large swathe of the corporate media that Ron Paul is a real contender for the Republican nomination following the hugely successful November 5th "money bomb" campaign, a CBS News op-ed piece today labels the Texas Congressman a "meaningless" "fruitcake" with "no chance" of winning. The article is entitled Ron Paul, Fruitcake and its writer, Kevin Drum, attempts to make the point that anyone who even expresses an interest in the Congressman's campaign is a "political infant" who needs to "grow up". In reality, it's Drum who needs to grow up - his four paragraph whine reads like the literary equivalent of a baby throwing its toys out of a playpen. (Article continues below) "Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it," seethes Drum. "But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him," writes Drum. "They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise." "Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?" he concludes. The words of Officer Barbrady from South Park come to mind - "Nothing to see here folks. Move along..." On what foundation does Drum claim that Congressman Paul's campaign is irrelevant? His growth curve and fundraising is outstripping any other candidate from either party and bookmakers are slashing his odds of winning the Republican nomination left, right and center. Granted, the average geriatric Giuliani supporter cited in telephone surveys is going to keep Paul's poll digits low, but the fact that he routinely trounces the opposition in TV and Internet polls and has been widely lauded for shaking up the debates is hardly "meaningless" as Drum claims. What's really happening here is that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the establishment minions are terrified that their perch on the peanut gallery can be so forcefully undermined by a grass roots rebellion against the stranglehold of the elite - who carefully screen presidential candidates year after year - ensuring only establishment lackeys ever have a chance of winning. What the Ron Paul Revolution has created is bigger than whether or not Ron Paul will win the nomination in 2008. This is about setting a benchmark and getting a foothold in an otherwise stage-managed and contrived electoral process, and having a candidate of the people front and center who the corporate media cannot possibly ignore. In that sense, the Ron Paul phenomenon is far from "meaningless" and Kevin Drum is the one who needs to "grow up", for his political infancy betrays a complete ignorance of what is taking place. In addition, if Ron Paul is so "meaningless" then why is Drum, along with an army of other establishment media stooges and Neo-Con cult members, wasting his time in attacking the Congressman? In the words of William Shakespeare, Methinks this CBS hack doth protest too
Good grief. If only it were so simple. You think bin Laden and Co. hate us simply because of who is in the Oval office? That if we stop "interferring with their lives" they'll leave us alone?!? We represent everything they despise. Even if our foreign policy were to become one of isolationism, they would still hate us. Why? Well, among other things, we (gasp!) don't think our women should cover themselves in veils, have less access to education than men (or none at all), be circumsized, not allowed to work except in the most menial occupations, and treated like chattel. We also don't think girls should be stoned to death for premarital sex or even just kissing. We also don't believe that the following activities should be illegal: music, movies and television, picnics, wedding parties, New Year celebrations, any kind of mixed-sex gathering. Banning children's toys, even dolls and kites; card and board games; cameras; photographs and paintings of people and animals; cigarettes and alcohol; magazines and newspapers is not agreeable to us, is it? Oh, and speaking of banning, how about most books? That doesn't fly here in the US of A now, does it? We also do not believe that acceptable punishments for such infractions should be public hangings, amputation of limbs, and stonings. And the fact that we are not in favor of the destruction of Israel also has a bit to do with their resentment against us. What is acceptable to bin Laden and Co. is that we are all converted to Islam and live in a Caliphate. As long as our society is as it is, isolationist foreign policy or not, we will always be the Great Satan. Their vision of what they want the world to be like, including for us, was Afghanistan under the Taliban. Wake up.
Good post. America is the richest, most powerful nation on earth. As such, people all over the world "notice" us and our culture through movies, tv, news, etc. constantly. When peoples in arab countries see our culture and attempt to emulate any of it, this is the nutcases idea of us "interfering" in their lives. And they, of course, can't tolerate that.
The old jealousy theory. Yes, there are a few extremists who are committed to a world without music, movies and picnics, but there are many more who simply want to live their life and would rather be a barber than a terrorist. Terrorism is a problem that will probably continue to exist forever. Extremely powerful weapons and bombs are now available to anyone with enough determination and money to obtain them. Crazy people who want to use them to kill innocent people will always exist, so terrorism - both foreign and domestic, will never cease to exist. I think the number of people who fit your description of an anti-freedom terrorist is very small, and as a group they don't have much power - unless something happens to galvanize everyone into joining the cause, which is what I believe American foreign policy is doing. As I said before, I think most people simply want to live their lives, they have no interest in altering the world unless they feel their way of life is threatened, and this is what I see the US doing in the middle east. You talked a lot about what you believe are the causes for terrorism, but you didn't say anything about the solution. Ron Paul suggests a total withdrawl from middle-eastern politics, and securing the American borders. If avoiding another 9/11 is the goal, this seems like a good strategy to me. If you don't agree, then I would be curious as to what you think is a better plan. Everyday in the newspaper they have an article "14 Taliban killed in Iraq!", "Al-Quaeda Leader Captured!", and they never end. The numbers never go down. When you kill 14 taliban, 15 pissed off friends and relatives replace them. When you kill an al-Quaeda leader, another one rises up from the ranks to replace him. They gave the kill-em-all strategy a shot, and to me it doesn't seem to be working. Out of curiousity - are you opposed to Ron Paul simply because of his stance on terrorism, or do you disagree with his other views as well?
Baywatch was the most popular show in Iran for many years, and I don't think it was even "legally" available, you had to have a pirate antenna or something to receive it. While there may be some nutcases who were upset about it's influence, the majority of the population obviously had no problem with it. In fact they went out of their way to watch it. If they fundamentally hate us and our way of life why would they do this?
POLL to Arabs: What do you hate about America? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2002/nf20020415_0109.htm APRIL 15, 2002 WASHINGTON WATCH By Richard S. Dunham It's Not Americans That Arabs Hate A new poll suggests that their positions are more nuanced: It's U.S. policy they really despise. The Administration should take note In early March, a Gallup poll of people in 10 Islamic nations sent shock waves across the U.S. Clear majorities of Muslims in all the countries thought U.S. military action in Afghanistan was unjustified. Many denied that Arabs had carried out the September 11 attacks. Even in supposed American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan, large numbers of Muslims described the U.S. as unfriendly, untrustworthy, and easily provoked. "Why do they hate us?" the Sunday talk shows agonized. "Ingrates!" America-firsters wailed. But while the Gallup survey set off alarm bells, it also raised important questions for American policymakers who are trying to figure out how to better communicate to the Islamic world. What is it that Muslims -- and Arabs in particular -- so dislike about the U.S.? What do they like about America? And how do policymakers use the latest available technologies, from satellite TV to the Internet, to leverage the positive views of the U.S. to counter the negative? THUMBS-UP ON CAPITALISM. Some of those questions have been answered in a second poll of Arab and Muslim nations, this one conducted by Zogby International. The findings are fascinating, and if the Bush Administration is smart it will study the results closely for clues on how to improve America's image in the Middle East and beyond. Zogby surveyed residents of five Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon), three non-Arab Islamic countries (Iran, Pakistan, and Indonesia), and two others (France and Venezuela) for comparison purposes. The bottom line: While they have overwhelmingly negative reaction to U.S. policy positions, Arabs and Muslims are not opposed to all things American. Indeed, Arab and Islamic countries are more enthusiastic about old-fashioned Yankee capitalism than they are about American concepts of freedom and democracy. Most Muslims think highly of U.S.-made products, particularly American technology, scientific advances, and American films and TV. The U.S. education system also earns high grades. "In essence, they don't hate us," says pollster John Zogby, who is of Lebanese-Christian descent. "They don't hate what we're about." HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD. One example: Despite the image of Iran as a hotbed of anti-Americanism, Iranians think highly of American culture, according to the Zogby poll. While their government was described by President Bush as being part of an "axis of evil," Iranians are among the most likely to say hooray for Hollywood: 75% say they like to watch American movies. In contrast, the French are the most likely to just say non to U.S. entertainment exports. Clearly, expanded commerce is a way to improve U.S. relations in the Middle East. Building on the Jordan free-trade agreement negotiated by former President Clinton and signed into law by Bush would be a good first step. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and brother of the pollster, credits the U.S. business presence in Kuwait with nurturing a very positive view of America -- far more positive than in neighboring Saudi Arabia, which segregates U.S. citizens. It's in America's interest to figure out ways to use government programs to minimize the risks to U.S. companies willing to expand their operations in the region. The U.S. needs to be seen as more than a thirsty importer of oil and quiet exporter of military weapons. High-tech products and Hollywood production values could be part of the answer. NET-SAVVY FREINDS. Another positive sign for the Bush Administration: Younger Arabs are more favorably disposed toward the U.S. than their elders, according to Zogby. This includes 66% of those under age 30 in Lebanon (vs. 56% of those over 50) and 54% in Saudi Arabia (vs. 35%). This is particularly heartening because more than half of the Arab population is under 21 years old. The finding also goes against the conventional wisdom that large numbers of younger Arabs hate Americans because of their anti-U.S. indoctrination. The White House might want to study this finding closely and develop a policy for helping to bring more economic stability -- and eventually prosperity -- to the impoverished region. More good news: Arabs and Muslims who use the Internet are far more favorably disposed toward America than their low-tech neighbors and relatives. In Egypt, 72% of Net-savvy citizens view U.S. freedom and democracy favorably, while just 42% of non-Web users do. In Saudi Arabia, 63% of those with Net access rank the U.S. positively, while 43% of nonusers do. The message to Bush is clear: Do whatever it takes to increase Internet usage in the Middle East while spreading America's message in a factual way on the Web. FRUSTRATED. Even with these glimmers of hope, there are clear trouble spots. The rejection of America's pro-Israel tilt is nearly unanimous. Asked whether they approve of U.S. government policy toward the Palestinians, just 1% of Kuwaitis, 2% of Lebanese, 3% of Egyptians and Iranians, 5% of Saudis and Indonesians, and 9% of Pakistanis say yes. "It's not our values, it's not our democracy, it's not our freedom...it's the policy they don't like," says James Zogby. (Support for U.S. policy in Europe doesn't appear to be much greater, to be sure. The Zogby poll found it's just 12% in France.) Millions of Arabs young and old are disillusioned by the Israeli-Palestinian violence and frustrated by the inability of the U.S. to prod the parties toward a final settlement that yields an independent Palestine. Indeed, hatred of Israel runs deep. And, as the Gallup Poll so dramatically indicated, misinformation runs high in the Middle East. It will be very difficult to reeducate many Muslims who have been taught vicious, profane lies about the Jewish religion and the Israeli nation in their schools and in their state-controlled press. Improved American relations with the Arab world doesn't have to mean a diminished commitment to the survival and prosperity of Israel, however. As Bush has said, now is the time to act. And as the Zogby Poll shows, the audience may be a bit more receptive than Americans had previously thought. Dunham is a White House correspondent for BusinessWeek's Washington bureau. Follow his views every Monday in Washington Watch, only on BusinessWeek Online Edited by Douglas Harbrecht
buzzy great find with that poll. It's pretty obvious to me. I know I wouldn't want another country coming over here and trying to tell me how to live my life. Hasn't anyone ever told you at some point in your life to mind your own business. Interfering with other peoples lives never works out for the betterment of anybody.