ron pauls' come-back to Rudy

@briansol,

Yea, it really is too bad that facts trump emotional responses. What's really sad is people actually think that that comment is false.

Holy ****, I have more post than Brian on a forum!?!?! o.0

0 Replies

@briansol,

Didn't Ron Paul say something a bit more specific. And why should we worship the 9-11 commission report, it was hardly like the Repubkicans represented most of the party (Sandra Day O'Connor), while the Democrats were left leaning enough.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;16326 wrote:

Didn't Ron Paul say something a bit more specific.

No, he didn't.

Quote:

And why should we worship the 9-11 commission report, it was hardly like the Repubkicans represented most of the party (Sandra Day O'Connor), while the Democrats were left leaning enough.

No one is "worshipping" it, but considering it is a bi-partisan, factual investigation into the first foreign attack on American soil in almost 60 years, and happened to take place in the town the nominee was in charge of, he should make it a point to know it inside out. If not, than he can hardly take a stand on national security.

0 Replies

@briansol,

Well, the report said that bin Laden was angry with the U.S. presence in the Middle East and that was why they said 9-11 was because of U.S. presence in the, but IMO, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened without it. bin Laden is a religious fighter and objects to infidels as a whole, being angry, of course, if they are in the Middle East.

And Giuliani was angry that Ron Paul supposedly said something about Iraq, if Ron Paul didn't, why would you attack Giuliani for misunderstanding him?

0 Replies

@briansol,

Ron Paul said that the attacks were brought on by Americas actions in the middle east, to include the bombings that have been going on in Iraq prior. Guiliani responded, saying that was absurd. Rons rebuttal was a investigation into the very events that led up to it.

In response to your opinion about whether or not they would have happened, has Bin Laden ever attacked Australia? Sweden? Norway? Finland? and on, and on, and on....

1 Reply

@briansol,

But none of those is quite like the U.S. First of all, the US is the symbol of western civilization, they even say that Israel is the smaller devil and we are the larger, I assume Europe and Australia are somewhere inbetween. Secondly, many of those nations have succumbed in part to Islam already with laws that make criticism of Islam hate speech.

And it seems to me that Rudy was only criticizing including Iraq, then. Why would UBL care about U.S. bombings in Iraq???

0 Replies

@briansol,

Keep reaching dude.

0 Replies

@briansol,

Rons rebuttal put Guiliani in his place. Theres no getting around that one.

2 Replies

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;16343 wrote:

In response to your opinion about whether or not they would have happened, has Bin Laden ever attacked Australia? Sweden? Norway? Finland? and on, and on, and on....

give it time, give it time.

0 Replies

@I Understand,

I Understand;16355 wrote:

Rons rebuttal put Guiliani in his place. Theres no getting around that one.

oh for the love of God..............:banghead:

0 Replies

@I Understand,

I Understand;16355 wrote:

Rons rebuttal put Guiliani in his place. Theres no getting around that one.

There is no way to equate the military maintenance of the no fly zone from 91-01 to the action of 911

and if you could you prove there WAS an ideological connection between Iraq and Bin Laden before 911

1 Reply

@briansol,

Which is the exact thing liberals love to deny all the time even though just about all conservatives also now say there wasn't.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;16400 wrote:

There is no way to equate the military maintenance of the no fly zone from 91-01 to the action of 911

and if you could you prove there WAS an ideological connection between Iraq and Bin Laden before 911

Sure you can. They aren't obligated to respect our no fly zones in thier country, do you think the US would care if another country said that NY was a no fly zone? And how do you think that America would react if That country bombed it for violating a no fly zone that they didn't recognize? People seem to think that because we are America that what we say goes, other countries don't see it that way.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;16405 wrote:

Sure you can. They aren't obligated to respect our no fly zones in their country

no that's where you're wrong. They singed a document ceasing hostilities provided they observed that and a few other things they never made good on. They were heavily obligated by both their honor and international treaty law

0 Replies

@briansol,

Well, obviously islamic militants care about treaties.

2 Replies

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;16459 wrote:

Well, obviously islamic militants care about treaties.

Then you wonder why were kickin ther ass?

0 Replies

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;16459 wrote:

Well, obviously Islamic militants care about treaties.

stop spinning, Islamic militants didn't sign it, Saddam did and he was the president of his country and military commander at that time. And last time I checked just because you call yourself an Islamic Extremist doesn't mean your excused from keeping your word.

Are you now blaming America for the dishonesty of the Islamic extreme? Give me a break.

This is exactly why Ron Paul's argument DOES NOT work. To use it then you can't start with US military air policy over Saddam's Iraq, you have to start with the invasion of Kuwait. Once you do that the debate about "who started it" is obvious. None of this would have happened had Iraq not invaded Kuwait. So even if Paul's history is right, his stance on why 911 happened is wrong...

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;16480 wrote:

stop spinning, Islamic militants didn't sign it, Saddam did and he was the president of his country and military commander at that time. And last time I checked just because you call yourself an Islamic Extremist doesn't mean your excused from keeping your word.

Are you now blaming America for the dishonesty of the Islamic extreme? Give me a break.

This is exactly why Ron Paul's argument DOES NOT work. To use it then you can't start with US military air policy over Saddam's Iraq, you have to start with the invasion of Kuwait. Once you do that the debate about "who started it" is obvious. None of this would have happened had Iraq not invaded Kuwait. So even if Paul's history is right, his stance on why 911 happened is wrong...

Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11, Iraq didn't either, it wasn't a military attack. And yes, America being the world police, and selectively sticking it's nose in others peoples business is what made us a target. And no, you do not have to start in 91, you can move your timeline all the way back to the 50's. We HARDLY have an honest history in the middle east. The first step to becoming a true patriot is to recognize what is wrong, and then work to fix it.

2 Replies

@briansol,

Paul is what conservative used to mean...when I still had some respect for the words conservative and republican
His ideas might not perfect or even applicable to the mess this admin has created in Iraq but it is a breath of fresh air
He may not have a chance at winning the nomination but I hope his message reaches some of the republican and democratic faithful

0 Replies

ron pauls' come-back to Rudy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know