Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Terrorism: Ron Paul vs. Giuliani @ SC Debate




Of course, Ron Paul tells the truth as he is the only candidate with integrity. And, of course, Rudy Giuliani lies as he has made a political career out of power and lies; deliberate grabs for power, and bold, outright lies.

Support Ron Paul for President!

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You've gotta love "Dr. No" as a counterlever to the largesse and entitlement class that is the US Congress (both Dem and GOP). Rep. Ron Paul's integrity and consistency on voting his conscience is beyond reproach. But Rep. Ron Paul as US president? While I lean libertarian on a number of issues, the US cannot afford a laissez faire approach to global affairs—nor a passive position within them; and the Patriot Act—which Paul is steadfastly against—has prevented attacks in the US, and on American interests abroad. It is fact that the “coercive interrogation” of Abu Zabedah and Khalid Sheik Mohammad, along with the domestic surveillance of Ayman Farris and Nuradin Abdi, provided for in the Patriot Act, prevented the terrorist attack on Polaris Mall three years ago. While I want government off my back and out of my wallet, I do want, and rely on, a muscular military and intelligence capability to protect my family. This is where the Libertarian platform falls flat for me.

America extricating itself from the Middle East will not appease the savages who want to destroy us, just as the Spaniards' concession of installing an anti-war, anti-expeditionary socialist as president did not dissuade the Islamacists from planning to take out the Spanish Ministry of Justice for having the audacity to prosecute the train line bombers who murdered 191 citizens and wounded 2,000--hundreds severely.

While I do not support Giuliani as US president, I witnessed his transformation of NYC as a Manhattanite, taking it from the David Dinkins Dark Ages at the height of the crack epidemic and organized crime to a low crime, high prosperity.

My preference for US president is Newt Gingrich, who is, by far, the most brilliant thinker in Washington.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul has gotten a lot of press coverage lately for publicly buying into the "conspiracy theory" of 9/11. Do you really support this candidate for the Presidency?? Say it ain't so.

Jim Fedako said...

The "conspiracy theory" claim is a red herring. Ron Paul does not buy into the theory that Bush knew beforehand, or that Bush somehow planned, 9/11.

Paul is simply making the sensible case that having troops in 100+ countries is not the way to make friends and build relationships. Troops abroad, government inflation of the money supply, and excessive taxation doomed the last two large empires, Great Britain and Rome. Will this be our fate also? Did we not learn anything from the Soviet incursion in Afghanistan?

I always find it odd that those of my generation and older live in such fear of terrorists. There have been terrorists for the past 120 years - depending on the definition.

When you traveled by air in the 1970's, you never knew whether or not your plane would be hijacked, airport bombed, etc. Some group always hates another group, especially a the group that is applying some manner of force. Terror was a way of life in the 70's and early 80's; what with the IRA lobbing mortars at #10 Downing Street, and my friend's father proudly financially supported the IRA.

Keep in mind that more Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than in the Trade Towers. And more Americans continue to die every day. For what? Democracy for the Middle East? Far East? For what?

The classic male fantasy film of my generation is Red Dawn - where a band of high school students fought as irregulars - guerrillas - in order to save the US. As Paul asks, "How would we react to foreign soldiers on our soil?" How would you react? What tactics would you adopt? Remember my friend's father, and the many fathers like him.

The Paulian stance is for the US to return to foreign policy roots - roots grounded in conservative ideology - and get out of all the international entanglements, as G. Washington warned us about over 200 years ago.

I'd like to hear your solution. More soldiers overseas? In more countries? Propping up more regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia?

I know the old saw: Whoever talks control of Iraq will not supply us with oil. Yet, the Taliban has no qualms with allowing opium to be raised and sold for money, even though opium violates their stated laws and beliefs. I would bet that whoever controls Iraq will gladly sell oil at a rock-bottom price. Money is money, regardless of whether it comes from the sale of heroin or oil to the West.

Should we continue to station our women soldiers in countries where women are considered something less that human; in countries where the right to vote is a farce, not to mention all other rights we hold to be true? Whose rights do you suppose they are protecting? Especially considering that our women soldiers lose their rights so that the citizens of these countries will not be offended by the American way.

12:23 attempts to compare the internal functions of Spain with an external operation; the US in Iraq, etc. Those are absolutely different matters indeed.

Again, your solution.

note: The Republicans have become more pro-government than the Democrats ever were doing the Reagan years. By way of example: Reagan wanted to cut the Department of Education, while Bush has extended its influence into every school in the country.