The Problem with Ron Paul’s Thinking.

Despite his popularity with many college students and some short-sighted libertarian thinkers, Ron Paul would not have been a good choice for president. I say this in spite of the fact that I agree with his stance on several important issues. In fact, there are several areas in which his voting record is great as far as I am concerned! He has never voted to raise taxes, he has never voted to restrict firearms, and he has never voted for a pay raise for congressmen. He also does not participate in “government junkets,” he returns a portion of his office budget to the treasury every year, and he refuse to participate in the obscenely lucrative congressional pension plan. I can respect those things about him since I tend to have some “libertarian” leanings myself. However, his downfall is his apparent inability to see beyond his own point of view.

Say, for instance, you’re a dedicated conservative working in some fairly liberal environment, like a college or university campus. I’m am sure you will be very familiar with the odd, confused, or even hostile, looks you receive from coworkers who have had every contrary political view point to theirs (if, indeed, they have even heard one) filtered by their like-minded peers. They exist in a safe self-validating bubble consisting of agreeing viewpoints. There will be no room for, or tolerance of, your point of view. No room for compromise…

Being able to see the “big picture” is generally considered a desirable trait, but it can sometimes interfere with being able to recognize the truth. Communism is probably the best example of this phenomenon. Communist leaders can take any fact or event, put their Marxist colored glasses on, and proceed to screw things up. That is one of the reasons the Soviet Union failed. They simply couldn’t grow food or produce quality products because their farming and production methods had to be based on Communist philosophy, which by its very nature inspires no one to standout or excel in their assigned area of responsibility.

I do think, however, that he is an idealist in the worst sense of the word. Ron Paul replies to every question like a robot programmed with a series of patented libertarian answers. He doesn’t seem to let his life’s experiences and the realities of the world in which we live, cause him to think, and therefore help him to shape thoughtful reasonable answers. He lets his philosophy shape his reality.

Life isn’t as simple as many people want to think it is. In choosing a new president, we all, no matter where on the political spectrum we fall, certainly would want somebody with a central guiding philosophy. However, we cannot afford to have somebody in office that is so rigid in his philosophy that intelligent compromise and realistic policy making become impossible. Ron Paul simply does not seem to have the common sense to understand the world we live in.

Do you need some examples?

How about the recent GOP Spanish-language debate held in Coral Gables, FL. Ron Paul, finding himself in the heart of Cuban-American country where Fidel Castro is still hated and ostracized, was loudly booed when he called out for improved relations with Castro’s Cuba. If Castro isn’t such a “bad fellow” and Cuba is such a wonderful place, why are all these Cubans here and why do they hate Castro so? I understand that if you are one of Hollywood’s darlings and a feather-brained secular-progressive liberal like Harry Belafonte, Robert Redford, Jack Nicholson, Oliver Stone, Matt Dillon, or Chevy Chase; Castro will roll out the Red Carpet and make you feel very, very welcome. But … what about the thousands of tortured Cubans in his prisons? I think there is something very sick about the compulsion of such stars to pander to tyrants … so long as those tyrants are “progressive” and anti-American.

There is also the fact that during an extremely difficult period when we as a nation are at war with a terrorist community bent on destroying us, when increasing border security is a major concern for many Americans, and when most sensible candidates are discussing the need for some kind of tamper-proof guest worker identification card as a means to help control the borders; Ron Paul’s only answer is an automatic claim that such action can only lead to a national identification card for all Americans, which he absolutely opposes. I simply do not see how one action automatically leads to the other; especially in the light of the outrage over New York’s Governor Spitzer’s plan for issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Another fact Ron Paul, and we as Americans, must understand and come to grips with, is that isolationism has never worked. The world is getting way too small for that kind of mentality to be safe. Ron Paul’s comments in the first GOP debate that things that happen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Iraq are those countries problems, and should not concern us, belies a very scary lack of the understanding that we do, in fact, live in a world of mutually inter-dependent economies, and that, simply put, nuclear missiles launched by Iran at Israel will certainly have a direct effect on us.

Lastly, I have a very hard time viewing Ron Paul as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. After all, this is the same Ron Paul that, during the first GOP debate, basically apologized to al Qaeda for our having forced those poor misunderstood terrorists to come over and blow up the twin World Trade Center towers, killing thousands of Americans … and many people from other countries as well including Australia, Bermuda, Great Britain, Canada, China, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Israel, Japan, and Mexico. Is Ron Paul an American apologist? Is he a western apologist? Or does he not understand that some radical Islamic fundamentalists simply hate us and want to kill us because we are not also radical Islamic fundamentalists? Whichever the case maybe, a candidate with that line of reasoning simply cannot be put in charge of the security of our nation and certainly cannot become the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

20 thoughts on “The Problem with Ron Paul’s Thinking.”

  1. The communists screwed up because they were on the wrong side of the command/free market battle. The libertarians are the winners of the post Cold War world, and the decentralized politics the post modern academics love to ramble about may come about from the right, not the left wing.

  2. “Ron Paul would not have been a good choice for president”

    Ron Paul dropped out? Why the past tense?

    Well, I’m glad you are warming up now, because Ron Paul WILL win, and if you dislike him this much, he will be providing you with lots of material to complain about.

    The rest of your article is difficult to comprehend. You are slamming liberals, but then you start arguing like one.

    “Compromise” “New realities” “Flexible principles”

    Actually, you sound like a progressive, not a liberal. It is amazing to me how someone like this believes they fit in a conservative party…

    You should be voting for progressives or at least “conservative democrats” (yes, not ALL Dems are liberals and socialists.)

    I’m not attacking you, honestly. I don’t like the partisan crap either. But, seriously, you need to seriously reconsider your political affiliation. You are the minority in the Republican party even if your guys managed to sneak someone in. George bush ran on an entirely different platform than he is currently espousing. There is absolutely no way he would have been elected if he had been talking then like he talks now.

    These views are NOT popular with the Republican base, especially not the conservatives.

  3. Calling for improved relations with Cuba is not the same thing as calling Castro a good fellow. Remember the saying, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

    I also question your notion that Ron Paul has an isolationist foreign policy. The US up until the 20th century had a largely noninterventionist foreign policy akin to what Dr. Paul calls for. The United States as a result of President Bush’s foreign policy is now more isolated in the world than ever. Is it just me or does it seem the whole world hates us now and finds us arrogant? We have virtually no friends, no allies, with the exception of Britain, and even their effort to help us in Iraq is half-a$$ed.

    As far as border security is concerned, Ron Paul is now the strongest in the field after Tancredo left. Want proof of this? All the white supremacists support Paul due to his tough stand on illegal immigration. Don’t get me wrong, Paul wants and says this country probably needs immigration, but he takes a tough stand on issues of national sovereignty.

    Dr. Paul was in the military for several years as a pilot. How many other GOP candidates have military experience? I can think of McCain, is that it?

    I believe the reason we have so many problems these days is almost exclusively from our lack of respect for our own Constitution. And when I say this I mean it. I took 10th place in my entire state on a Constitution test given to high school seniors last year. I KNOW what it says, and its intent.

    Wikipedia ‘neoconservatives’ and discover how they have literally taken over the old right, the paleoconservatives. Neoconservatives are not conservatives at all, and this election I want my country back!

  4. “There is also the fact that during an extremely difficult period when we as a nation are at war with a terrorist community bent on destroying us”

    Ever wonder why those terrorist communities are hell bent on destroying us? The terrorists in middle east are the same as the terrorist in the Latin American countries, yet they seem to leave us alone. Perhaps the lack of major American military presence in Latin America could be the reason.

    Do you honestly believe that the war fought on terrorism is an ideological one? Do the terrorist care if we stand for freedom and liberty? Do you think they are attacking us for those reasons? No! They simply don’t want the U.S. in their region of the world. Bring the troops home from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the terrorists will go back to tending their flocks, It is hypocritical of us to maintain a presence there when we have an amendment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in our homes (3rd).

    “Another fact Ron Paul, and we as Americans, must understand and come to grips with, is that isolationism has never worked.”

    And intervention in the world affairs has worked for the U.S.? There is not one single U.S. ally left in the world, everywhere Americans are hated and spit upon for the actions of the governing few. Ron Paul is not an isolationist in the strictest sense. He has said numerous times that it is not up to the executive to wage wars, but for Congress to declare war. Do you know when was the last time Congress declared war? World War 2. (If you response to this is to point out that Congress has authorized military engagements many times after WW2, don’t bother).

    The problem with accepting Ron Paul’s view of the government is that it severely cuts back power of the White House and the military presence around the world. The action of the latter brings down the prestige and power that U.S. has enjoyed in the world community the past half century. Only when we are ready to accept that we can’t any longer support the cost of being a super power, is when Paul will win.

  5. Let me just start by stating that I am not a Republican. I am an independent. I am also a traditionally minded American who supports U.S. Constitution, loves baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Compromise, new realities, and flexibility are not exclusively the realm of the progressives. Conservatives, however, may be a little slower to jump on the newest fad. I am not sure that deeply held principles should be flexible or compromised. Should we compromise on freedom of speech?

    Interventionism and Isolationism are at two ends of a continuum. There is all sorts of room in between. White Supremacists prove nothing except that hatred and stupidity still exist. I think Fred Thompson is pretty strong on border security. Certainly we need immigration (most of our ancestors immigrated here), but it should be legal immigration.

    When I look around at the nations who “hate” us, several things come to mind: 1) Disagreement on certain issues does not always equate to hatred. 2) Some of those nations have always hated us and always will no matter who is president. 3) I am glad some of them hate us because it means we must be doing something right. 4) One of the most common causes of hatred is just good old fashioned jealousy. Remember another old saying, as soon as you take any position on any issue … half the world is against you.

    The terrorists in the Middle East are certainly not the same as the terrorists in Latin American. For the Fascist Islamic Fundamentalist, it certainly is an ideological war on the West … all you have to do is ask them. They are attacking us because of our decadent society; our western culture, our music, our movies, our pornography, and our tolerance of non-believers. Remember, according to their President, there are no homosexuals in Iran.

  6. What is wrong with Your thinking?

    Ron Paul’s position is not one of narrow mindedness. His position is based on Abiding By The Constitution. As far as government is concerned, the Constitution is its only authority and if that is narrow minded or does not allow any other viewpoints: then so be it!!,/I.

    The truth about Cuba is that Castro would more than likely not be in power today if we had lifted the embargo long ago. Free Trade would be the end of most Dictatorships… even if they are disguised as being a “Democratic society”.

    You may need to ponder a bit more in regards the war. First of all, the terrorists are trying to kill Americans simply because of U.S. interference in the region. So if we had not been interfering we would not have been a target in the first place. We cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun. We cannot tell other people how to live their life and any attempt to “westernize” the middle east will be met with fury. Again, TRADE is the only answer. You might want to recheck Dr. Paul’s statements about the effects of Trade and how we have achieved much more in peace through trade than with military force.

    The “national id card” is already upon you. It is called the Real ID. If you believe that “tagging” every American with some form of identification will somehow eliminate or diminish terrorist activity it would be difficult to provide proof. While the government was on HIGH ALERT for VISA VIOLATIONS the INS renewed the Visa for 2 of the dead 9/11 hijackers and mailed them to the flight school they had trained at. Remember: THEY WERE ON HIGH ALERT !! This Real ID program will be another bureaucratic mess… and will not provide one ounce of security as securing the borders would. See ,I>this article and others that may assist with your understanding of this problem.

    What “isolationism” are you speaking about? Ron Paul is not calling for “isolationism”. He is calling for “non intervention”. There is a huge difference in “isolationism” and “non-intervention”. The first would most assuredly have a negative effect on the economy. The second would not. Ron Paul wants to stop policing the world, not stop doing business with it. He wants the U.S. to stop acting belligerent and demanding to the rest of the world. “Lead by example” are his words.

    Your statements lead me to believe that you are gung ho for American interference with the sovereignty of other nations, that America should force its views on others either militarily or with bribes. It also leads me to believe that you seem to think there are no consequences the U.S. will face for its actions. Ron Paul has said that we are now facing the consequences for our actions. He was not in any way an “apologist”. He has stated exactly what the CIA has: we were attacked due to our foreign policy of intervention in the middle east. It’s called “blow back”.

    If you believe that the U.S. will not suffer any consequences for its meddling in the affairs of other nations you should experiment with that philosophy in your own life and take note of the results. Why not insert yourself into the affairs of your neighbors, affairs which are none of your business, and see what consequences you might suffer. If there are no consequences then your philosophy would hold up even on the world stage. Truth: if you start butting into the business of others you will end up getting a bloody nose.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that is telling the American People the true reality of the troubles we face and how we can effectively deal with them. No other candidate has offered anything more than more years of war and window dressing for the economic troubles we face.

    A bit more research might revise your thinking.

    The Ice Blog

  7. Thank you for you comments.

    Correct me if I am wrong … but I believe the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq came after 9/11 … which was, in fact, the second attempt on the World Trade Center … note the word “World.”

    I am sorry, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we have to sit by and let religious fanatics from the dark ages attempt to blow us off the face of the earth.

    The fact is that we live in a world with a global economy. There are U.S. business interests in many other nations. I was in London a few year ago and walked down a street lined with banks; including he National Bank of Iran and Saudi Arabia. We import product from Japan, Europe, China, and, yes, oil from the Middle East. We also export to those countries. I can order Tai food in Knoxville and you can order a Big Mac in Munich. Pardon me, but I don’t see that as interference.

    It was not the U.S. that colonized the Middle East, stripped them of their resources, set up artificial nation-states disregarding all ethnic ties, then pulled out … that was Europe … Germany, France, and Great Britain for the most part.

    Yes, we did go into to Afghanistan, to help the Afghanis fight off the Soviet troops that invaded their country … an other example of American imperialism … I suppose in your mind. The “blowback” from that should be “Thanks Guys” … not 9/11. Osama bin Laden is a wealthy man, and not one of the downtrodden victims of U.S. oppression. His second in command is a medical doctor. No … they are simply evil men!

    The fact is that the extremist radical branch of Islam is a barbaric Dark Age religion that would impose itself on the rest of the world, by the sword if necessary! It’s a religion of peace … trust me or I’ll kill you!!

    I am happy to peacefully coexist with anybody … and I have no need to intervene in another nations affairs … unless that nation is blowing up our buildings and killing our people, or other people I care about.

    Having U.S. forces stationed at strategic points around the globe gives us the ability to protect our national interests, and the interests of other countries (even France as much as they hate to admit it).

    What my neighbor does is his own business, but … if I see my neighbor trying to chop up his wife and kids with a hatchet … bloody nose or not, I will do my best to stop him, because if he gets away with it … next time it might be your kids or my kids he goes after.

    Get your head out of the sand. While we are not perfect, the U.S. is generally a force for good on this planet. Osama bin Laden does not want to trade with us … and we need to know who is crossing our borders. By stating that the “VISA” system is flawed, you are, in fact, making an argument that we need to change, or revise, or improve the system we have. Not end it altogether.

    My thinking may or may not change over time … but not in a way that will agree with your line of thought. It is because I have learned more over the years that I do not agree with you!

    John Lennon is dead because someone shot him … and all he was saying was “give peace a chance.”

  8. Yes, we invaded after we were attacked. Ron Paul suggested a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. If such a letter had been voted by Congress the world may have seen the last of Osama long ago. And do not attempt to convince that these “religious fanatics” attack us for any other reason then U.S. meddling in the Middle East. U.S. foreign policy is the cause of so much animosity (and downright hatred) of the U.S. across the globe that many would see harm come to us.

    However, I’ve leaned more towards military action against Afghanistan but to the extent of absolute destruction and then walking away. And let that be a message to any nation that would act against us or harbor those that would act against us. The war in Iraq is a totally different story.

    The very first point we must realize is that only Congress has the right to declare war. And Declare war is what we must do if we are to engage a nation like Iraq. So far we have no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and Iraq was certainly not an “imminent” threat to the U.S. at the time the U.S. attacked it.

    The commercial aspect of relations with other nations is a plus. That falls under “trade”. What makes you believe that we cannot have that if we don’t have a military presence in those nations or some form of military alliance? And wouldn’t you agree that American businesses in other nations are subject to the laws of those nations?

    And yes we live in a “global economy” with a fiat currency and a national economy in the hands of private bankers (an elite few). Mark these words: a fiat currency cannot stand and the U.S. will become prey to other nations because it is the weakest of all economies. This we need to change quickly (and I don’t mean with an “Amero” and the NAU”).

    It is absurd to even suggest that we have any right to interfere in other nations as we do. Even in Afghanistan, as you mention. The Soviet Union had its resources spread too thin (as we do now) and it collapsed.

    If you saw your neighbor chopping up his wife, would you shoot him or call the police? But let me ask a more pertinent question: Do you believe the U.S. has the right to meddle in the politics of other nations? To “install” friendly governments in other nations? This is the sort of meddling that has caused so much hatred for the U.S. around the globe. The U.S. military presence around the globe is a reminder of that meddling.

    If the U.S. had no economic problems at home, if the U.S. had been minding its own business, the U.S. would be stronger today than it is. There would be more nations attempting to emulate the U.S. and do business with the U.S. then there are at this point in time. American businesses would not require a military presence in the nations they do business with and American Tourists would be much safer if the U.S. had not been as belligerent as it has been in the last few decades.

    We don’t want to trade with Osama either. We want him Dead. But the U.S. military isn’t getting the job done while it rebuilds Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Who said anything about ending the VISA system? But answer me this: How is tagging all Americans with some form of National ID going to protect our borders? And if border security is of such great importance then why is there no action to secure it?

    Yes, there are evil men all over the world. At one time Osama was a friend to the U.S. So was Saddam. And who is the U.S. now supporting with arms that will one day become enemies? I still say a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would see the end of Osama much more quickly and that we should now turn our back on Afghanistan instead of rebuilding it. They brought the destruction upon themselves. Let Afghanistani’s rebuild their nation. Let the Iraqi’s rebuild theirs.

    Yes, John Lennon was shot and killed. But your position on gun control wouldn’t have stopped that from happening. You see, we cannot have roses and candy all the time. There will always be trouble in the world. The U.S. is not the policemen of the world. And the U.S. is bound by the Constitution. The U.S. has its limits which it has been over stepping for far too long, particularly here at home.

    It is because I know right from wrong that I disagree with you.

    “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” ring any bells?

    The Ice Blog

  9. That is really funny … the line about Roses and Candy. I liked that.

    And I certainly try to live by the “Golden Rule.” Which by the way, is also mentioned in the Koran. Maybe Osama bin Laden should have read it prior to 1994.

    While I am not a Bush “yes man,” lets at least be truthful here. Going back as far as 1994, there is evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in contact and working together, especially in the area of weapons development … evidence the “anti-Bush” media frenzy and anti-war democrats simply choose to ignore.

    The neighbor murdering his family is the crux of the question! The philosophical point. If I wait and call the police it will be to late … the family will be dead. The police can point the finger and punish the murderer, but they cannot stop it from happening. If I shoot the man attempting to murder his family, perhaps I can save their lives. Which to me is a good thing … something I would hope others would try to do for me. Of course, … many would probably stand up and call me a murderer for shooting the poor misunderstood murderer … and saving the family’s lives.

    Just as many, today, choose stick there heads in the sand and say its not our problem! So what if North Korea, Iran, or Iraq gain nuclear armaments … So what if Saddam Hussein murders hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and thousands of his own people … We should have never went into WW II … Hitler business was Hitler’s business … not ours … We have no business intervening in their problems! What’s six million Jews … more or less? Hell, at least Stalin only murdered millions of his own citizens … no problem for us there is there? I know … lets just build a big steel and concrete wall around the U.S. and let the rest of the world kill themselves off … not our problem!

    Rightly or wrongly, Congress surrendered its power to declare war in Iraq when it overwhelmingly voted to pass the resolution granting President Bush the power to use force in Iraq. Has the U.S. Supreme Court declared that resolution unconstitutional? If they do, then I guess I will agree that you have an argument … until then, that resolution stands and is, all verbiage aside, a declaration of war by proxy.

    If you consider it right to sit by and simply let Iran, Iraq, or North Korea gain nuclear weapons, to allow terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to indiscriminately blow up innocent men, women, and children around the globe simply because it is not in your backyard, or to let the Taliban or Saddam Hussein spread their stone age totalitarian regimes to other regions; then my friend … you are right … I don’t know right from wrong!

  10. And if the woman in your scenario has the right to bear arms she would be able to protect herself… right? But look at the ways in which the U.S. inserts itself into the problems of others. Do you think it proper that the U.S. interferes with other nations as it has been doing (CIA intrigue, “installing” friendly governments, etc.)?

    Consider the Middle East: Are you honestly going to stand on the position that Israel cannot deal with the problems in the ME and that the U.S. MUST stick a nose in? Be sensible. Israel has nukes and did bomb Saddams power plant to stop him from gaining such weapons. The problems of the ME should be left to the ME. Israel has proven time again that it can take care of itself. [Meanwhile, McDonalds can move their dollar menu into the area. (You see, if we are not a part of the conflict there wouldn’t be any reason for those nations to reject doing business with Americans. And we could purchase stock in McDonalds and profit. Savvy?)]

    The call to go to war is still out there. They are not giving up on military conflict with Iran. And it matters not who the next president is (other than Ron Paul) – it will happen… if the economy doesn’t collapse first.

    World War II is a different duck altogether. We were attacked by Japanese and the CONGRESS DECLARED WAR. Totally legitimate. But even now I am not convinced that we should remain in either Afghanistan or Iraq. They have suffered for their actions (or inaction: like installing better government than they had) and it is time for us to go. It is not the military’s place to rebuild those nations. Americans are a generous lot. I’m sure that donations would be forthcoming if a case could be made for such.

    If other nations want to allow Terrorists to blow up their citizens … what right do you or I have to interfere? But those terrorists are targeting Americans and do it based on U.S. Foreign Policy. Don’t poke the Skunk and he won’t Squirt ya. And you believe that the U.S. Foreign Policy is okay and that poking the Skunk is fine too?

    And our backyard is still not receiving the security it requires. The borders are still open and being crossed on a daily basis. What is to stop the religious terrorists from coming into the backyard? Oh, I forgot, our border patrol is busy guarding the borders of other nations … right?

    I’m sure that we will have much greater security when every American has a VeriChip in their hand and we can know the movements of every American. American will be safe under U.N. rule and taxation and economically safe with the NAU. While we are at it, why not just throw out the bill of rights? We only have ONE of them left anyway!

    The entire discussion should be based on the Constitution and what authority it designates to the government and what authority it retains to the States and the People. Any philosophical argument is moot. At present the very foundation of this nation has been completely undermined and electing any of the other candidates will only lead to the End of America as envisioned by its founders. The rest are all leading America into a one world government and rejecting national sovereignty.

    A video that makes the point: Don’t Let Tyranny Take Hold


  11. What is our word as a nation worth? We have a mutual defense treaty signed with the state of Israel. Israel is one small nation surrounded by many nations devoted to her destruction.

    There were folks protesting our involvement in WW II for the same reasons you give now … just as there are folks protesting the war in Iraq. I will grant you that they were not as prolific.

    U.S. citizens are being blown up in those other countries, just as citizens of many other countries were blown up in the World Trade Center. In today’s world you can not so easily separate the we and them! People are not skunks … there are people out there who will “squirt” you whether you poke them or not … to believe otherwise is simply naive.

    I agree!! We must secure and control our borders …. absolutely … no argument from me there!!!! We must end illegal immigration and we must have a way to identify legal immigrants.

    There will never ever be a verichip in my hand. The U.N. is a corrupt failure and a waste of American support money, and should be disbanded. The day the UN tells me I have to turn in my gun is the day I declare war on the U.N. I am a proud and free American … and would never relinquish my rights as an American citizen to any other organization, or world government, or corrupted unconstitutional American government. I and about 80 million other NRA members, who support the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights, work to see to that.

    All that being said, we share this globe with many other cultures and ideologies, some of whom, not only disagree with our way of life, but hate us for it. Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden are simply a few examples of the type of tyrants who despise freedom and liberty because they are concepts that endanger their claim and hold on power. Ignoring them and pretending that they will somehow hate us less if only we would just stay within our borders and not be so damn proud of who we are, is a serious mistake and one that will lead to the end of the United States of America and possibly the beginning of a global tyranny … perhaps a Caliphate.

  12. I always enjoy a stimulating discussion. And … I will accept your invitation to take a closer look.

    However, my statement about the invasion was directed at the response to 9/11 and not to other previous world events. We are all well aware of Desert Storm and other occasions when U.S. forces have been called upon. It was not in error unless it is taken out of context.

    And yes … sometimes we must simply agree to disagree. It has been time well spent!

    Your welcome!

  13. Ron Paul understands this, that America inteferring in Saudi Arabia invited the 9/11 attack, your ignorant. And only see your side.

    Isolationism is good, the term meaning, stay out of other countries. There is the UN.

    1. The UN is both corrupt and inept … and has been ignored by every rogue country it has tried to bring into line. Ron Paul has a few ideas I agree with, however isolationism helped cause WW II and Vietnam … that is if you actually look at the history leading up to these two wars and don’t just quote the typical anti-war sentiments popular among liberals and apologists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.