Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#1
The Nation -- Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when the former New York mayor and current GOP front-runner angrily refused to entertain a serious discussion about the role that actions taken by the United States prior to the September 11, 2OO1, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have played in inspiring or encouraging those attacks.

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Asked about his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Paul repeated his oft-expressed concern that instead of making the U.S. safer, U.S. interventions in the Middle East over the years have stirred up anti-American sentiment. As he did in the previous Republican debate, the Texan suggested that former President Ronald Reagan's decisions to withdraw U.S. troops from the region in the 198Os were wiser than the moves by successive Republican and Democratic presidents to increase U.S. military involvement there.

Speaking of extremists who target the U.S, Paul said, "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."

Paul argued that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "delighted that we're over there" in Iraq, pointing out that, "They have already... killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary."

Giuliani, going for an applause line with a conservative South Carolina audience that was not exactly sympathetic with his support for abortion rights and other socially liberal positions, leapt on Paul's remarks. Interrupting the flow of the debate, Giuliani declared, "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

The mayor, who is making his response to the 9-11 attacks on New York a central feature of his presidential campaign, was joined in the assault on Paul by many of the other candidates.

But congressman did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of
Israel.

The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

Fitzgerald's was not a lonely voice in the intelligence community.

Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, has objected to simplistic suggestions by President Bush and others that terrorists are motivated by an ill-defined irrational hatred of the United States. "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people," Scheuer said in a CNN interview. "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

It is true that reasonable people might disagree about the legitimacy of Muslim and Arab objections to U.S. military policies. And, certainly, the vast majority of Americans would object to any attempt to justify the attacks on this country, its citizen and its soldiers.

But that was not what Paul was doing. He was trying to make a case, based on what we know from past experience, for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

Giuliani's reaction to Paul's comments, especially the suggestion that they should be withdrawn, marked him as the candidate peddling "absurd explanations."

Viewers of the debate appear to have agreed. An unscientific survey by Fox News asked its viewers to send text messages identifying the winner. Tens of thousands were received and Paul ranked along with Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having made the best showing.

No wonder then that, when asked about his dust-up with Giuliani, Paul said he'd be "delighted" to debate the front-runner on foreign policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070516/cm_thenation/45195576
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,649
3,896
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#2
That's some pretty good spin! Hhmmmmm, the Nation huh?
What's Ron Paul's explanation for Islamic terrorism in the 100+ other countries where they have been commiting terrorist acts around the world? Are they all at fault for causing their own attacks as well?

Ron's a fruitcake. He couldn't lift Rudy's empty jock strap off the floor.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#3
That's some pretty good spin! Hhmmmmm, the Nation huh?
What's Ron Paul's explanation for Islamic terrorism in the 100+ other countries where they have been commiting terrorist acts around the world? Are they all at fault for causing their own attacks as well?

Ron's a fruitcake. He couldn't lift Rudy's empty jock strap off the floor.
Paul is basing his comments quotes in the 9/11 commission report. I don't know how you consider that spin? Is Paul supposed to be able to answer your question for Bin Laden as if he has ESP? :confused:

Giuliani states he has never heard that before. How is that Paul's fault? I'd especially think Giuliani would be very familiar with the commission report. All he did was make a little emotional comment like he had just been victimized rather than offering any objective content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,649
3,896
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#4
Paul is basing his comments quotes in the 9/11 commission report. I don't know how you consider that spin? Is Paul supposed to be able to answer your question for Bin Laden as if he has ESP? :confused:

Giuliani states he has never heard that before. How is that Paul's fault? I'd especially think Giuliani would be very familiar with the commission report. All he did was make a little emotional comment like he had just been victimized rather than offering any objective content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts
Your comments are based on an obvious assumption that all parts of the 911 Commission report are to be taken as "gospel". There are plenty of folks who disagree with many parts of that report. Just like James Baker's recommendations were extremely naive and flawed. Trying to understand the crazy thought process of Islamicists is one thing. Trying to justify it and blame ourselves is totally another. We've had a presence in hundreds of countries over history and Great Britain even more than we have. None of those countries have made a decision to fly planes into our buildings or kidnap and behead Americans. To suggest that our presence in Islamic countries is solely to blame for these responses is ridiculous. The primary reason these things happened and continue to happen is our support of Israel against the Islamic oppression they face. We are right in supporting Israel and I reject any attempt by Ron Paul, the 911 Commission or anyone else to blame "ourselves" for the fanatical responses of hateful Islamicists.

As Dana Carvey said in his Bush I impression..........Not Gonna Do It!
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,543
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#5
Your comments are based on an obvious assumption that all parts of the 911 Commission report are to be taken as "gospel". There are plenty of folks who disagree with many parts of that report. Just like James Baker's recommendations were extremely naive and flawed. Trying to understand the crazy thought process of Islamicists is one thing. Trying to justify it and blame ourselves is totally another. We've had a presence in hundreds of countries over history and Great Britain even more than we have. None of those countries have made a decision to fly planes into our buildings or kidnap and behead Americans. To suggest that our presence in Islamic countries is solely to blame for these responses is ridiculous. The primary reason these things happened and continue to happen is our support of Israel against the Islamic oppression they face. We are right in supporting Israel and I reject any attempt by Ron Paul, the 911 Commission or anyone else to blame "ourselves" for the fanatical responses of hateful Islamicists.

As Dana Carvey said in his Bush I impression..........Not Gonna Do It!

Speaking of spin. Who said "solely" to blame before you just added that word. In fact, "blame" is not even a word he used. Causation and blame are different things. One of the causes of fundamentalist Islam's hatred of us is our presence on soil they consider theirs. That does not justify them blowing up airplanes in NYC. It is not to "blame" for for terrorist actions. It is just a statement of fact from their words.

There is no reason to call anyone names. Thank God we have choices in elections. On this particular subject, if you think that the solution to this problem should remain primarily a military one, choose Rudy, McCain or most of the Republicans. If you think that the solution to the problem should be handled with less military and more diplomatic solutions, vote for a Dem or Ron Paul.

One thing that Ron Paul said that we probably all agree with is "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Nobody can know what the best solution is. So, all we can do is make our best choice and hope it is the right thing.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,618
1,432
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#6
They call the US the Great Satan. At times I'd love to show them just what that could mean. Circle Mecca with a hundred nukes and start to withdraw from the region. Then state that any further attacks on us that is proven to be part done by the Islamic kooks will result in the holy land being turned into a section of glass.

But that is just the vindictive me. I'm not saying its a good idea, just throwing out the statement.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 

Pokit N

Cashing Checks & Snapping Necks!
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
7,142
4,304
1,743
40
South Elgin, IL
#7
We cannot as a country base every descision on "What will the Terrorist Think?" Christianity causes terrorism, women wearing pants causes terrorism. Appeasement can also cause terrorism by the way.
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,468
1,127
1,743
Denver, CO
#8
They call the US the Great Satan. At times I'd love to show them just what that could mean. Circle Mecca with a hundred nukes and start to withdraw from the region. Then state that any further attacks on us that is proven to be part done by the Islamic kooks will result in the holy land being turned into a section of glass.
David, I've had that thought myself. At times when I'm angry, it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. The trouble of course is that one or two of those Islamic kooks would surely do something. Then if we carried out our threat, we would have all of the rational and peaceful Muslims of the world come to attack us, and this time for good reason.

As to the debate, I think Paul definitely has a point. Does anyone here know why the Taliban's anti-American sentiment found so many supporters in Afganistan? I'm sure there are lots of reasons, but at least one has to do with the way we used them to fight the Soviets. When that war ended, we left their country in tatters, filled with live US and Soviet land mines.

We have been using Muslim countries for decades. They are tired of our interference. Yet we continue with similar policies. I'm not suggesting that we should completely pull out of the Middle East or anything, but we need to learn from our past mistakes. I don't see us doing that.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#9
We have been using Muslim countries for decades. They are tired of our interference. Yet we continue with similar policies. I'm not suggesting that we should completely pull out of the Middle East or anything, but we need to learn from our past mistakes. I don't see us doing that.
I am unaware of how we have used Muslims and how our policies are just more of the same. Can you provide some examples for me?
 

Epperley28

Federal Marshal
Nov 11, 2005
10,672
1,783
1,743
#10
I am unaware of how we have used Muslims and how our policies are just more of the same. Can you provide some examples for me?
Did you fill your car up with gas in the last week? Does some money from that gas likely go to Middle Eastern monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, where all of the profits go to the ruling familiy and are kept out of the hands of the rest of the population? Do we support that monarchy with money and military technology/troops, thereby keeping the people of Saudi Arabia under the thumb of an outdated form of government, where the few control the many?

How is that not "using" the citizens of Saudi Arabia (mostly muslims)? We want cheap gas, the Saudi Royal Family provides it as long as we keep them in power, thereby aiding in the subjugation of the Saudi people. Same thing goes for Qatar and Jordan, and I'm sure some others I'm not aware of. Not only are we using them, we are currently helping to keep them stuck under the control of undemocratic government because we don't want to pay $6.00 per gallon of gas.

If that's not using a people for selfish reasons, then you give me a better "real-world" definition of what you would call it.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,543
31,981
1,743
oklahoma city
#11
They call the US the Great Satan. At times I'd love to show them just what that could mean. Circle Mecca with a hundred nukes and start to withdraw from the region. Then state that any further attacks on us that is proven to be part done by the Islamic kooks will result in the holy land being turned into a section of glass.

But that is just the vindictive me. I'm not saying its a good idea, just throwing out the statement.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
David,

You are aligned with some of the great thinkers of America on this one. The first time I heard that proposal it came from Howard Stern on 9/11.:D
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,468
1,127
1,743
Denver, CO
#12
Also, we have done the same thing in Iran. Many times we have used our muscle to remove Iran's democratically elected leaders because they favored policies on oil that were not as beneficial or profitable to the US.

We say we want to spread democracy, but only in places (like Iraq) where we think it will be beneficial to us, and not in places (like Iran and Saudi) where we think it won't.

Saudi Arabia is one example of where we continue to do this today.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#13
Did you fill your car up with gas in the last week? Does some money from that gas likely go to Middle Eastern monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, where all of the profits go to the ruling familiy and are kept out of the hands of the rest of the population? Do we support that monarchy with money and military technology/troops, thereby keeping the people of Saudi Arabia under the thumb of an outdated form of government, where the few control the many?

How is that not "using" the citizens of Saudi Arabia (mostly muslims)? We want cheap gas, the Saudi Royal Family provides it as long as we keep them in power, thereby aiding in the subjugation of the Saudi people. Same thing goes for Qatar and Jordan, and I'm sure some others I'm not aware of. Not only are we using them, we are currently helping to keep them stuck under the control of undemocratic government because we don't want to pay $6.00 per gallon of gas.

If that's not using a people for selfish reasons, then you give me a better "real-world" definition of what you would call it.
So this is all our fault? We're the only country in the world who uses their oil?
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
16,154
3,980
1,743
64
Edmond
#14
Also, we have done the same thing in Iran. Many times we have used our muscle to remove Iran's democratically elected leaders because they favored policies on oil that were not as beneficial or profitable to the US.

We say we want to spread democracy, but only in places (like Iraq) where we think it will be beneficial to us, and not in places (like Iran and Saudi) where we think it won't.

Saudi Arabia is one example of where we continue to do this today.
Now you're going to have to explain this one. Who is it we removed from power in Iran though our muscle?
 
Jun 20, 2005
665
27
578
#16
So it's our fault that muslim extremist wackos used airplanes to kill thousands of innocent civilians? We deserved that because we make someone mad?



Say I walk up to you on the street and punch you square in the jaw.

Are you going to:

A. defend yourself, and try to inflict more pain on me than I did you?

B. Step back & try to think about what actions you did to provoke me, then appologize for those actions.


This limp wristed liberal mentality is ruining our nation.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#17
Dr. Paul was merely citing documented reports dating back to the 1950's regarding US foreign policy. Google "blowback". Our foreign policy has evolved into nation building around the globe. The US now occupies approximately 130+ nations around the world.

How would you guys feel if all of the sudden China sent in their army into Stillwater and began telling us how to live?!? Would you not rise against? Would you stand by idle? Let's further that and say not only are they occupying our great state, but they are consistently bombing us across a 10 year timespan, destroying our beautiful landmarks, neighborhoods, killing our friends and families?

They don't hate our freedom, they don't hate our way of life, THEY HATE THE FACT THAT WE ARE OCCUPYING THEIR TERRITORY AND TELLING THEM HOW TO LIVE. If that concept is too trying to grasp, you are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly arrogant.

How many different excuses has Washington fed the American Public to justify this war? (Oh by the way, Congress never voted to go to war, but ignore that fact it makes their job much easier).

First it was 9/11, (nevermind the fact that nearly all 9/11 hijackers were from SAUDI ARABIA, but of course the American public remains obstinate which makes the jobs of people like Guiliani, Bush, McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc. INFINITELY easier)

then it was Saddam's connection to bin Laden (nevermind the Bush's connection w/ the bin Laden, it makes their job much easier),

then it was WMD's (none ever found, now known fact to have been fabricated, but ignore that fact it makes their job easier),

then it was to "free Iraq from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein (ignore the fact that we supplied him weapons and munitions in the 70's and 80's, it makes their job much easier),

and finally "We can't leave, the country will crumble" (the country is infinitely more unstable now than ever which is saying something considering it's the middle east - Saddam's regime was NO friend to Al-Qaeda and kept them at bay, now they are roaming free and recruiting like never before because of the MASSIVE anti-American sentiment)

Ron Paul is the last hope of this country to return to the prominance we once had. There is no difference between Guiliani & Obama, Romney & Clinton, or McCain & Edwards.

He is THE MOST CONSISTENT VOTER IN CONGRESS. His rationale for his stance on EVERY subject isn't "Is this a popular?" it's "IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL?"

You had Guiliani, McCain, and Romney condoning torture at Guantanamo Bay!!! That is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the CONSTITUTION which they are SWORN TO PROTECT IF ELECTED. How anyone can believe one word from these men's (and I use that term loosely) mouth?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
7,649
3,896
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#18
Causation and blame are different things.
Not really..........at least according to the definition,,,,,,,

Causation is the bringing about of a result, and in law it is an element in various tests for legal liability. Most tests for legal liability in criminal and civil law require the defendant to have ‘caused’ the result of which the plaintiff complains.

To blame is to hold another person or group responsible for perceived faults, be those faults real, imagined, or merely invented for pejorative purposes. Blame is used to place responsibility and accountability for faults on the blamed person or group.

From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of one's blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense. Except for strict liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree of culpability.

One thing that Ron Paul said that we probably all agree with is "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
I don't understand what's going through the head of a rabid dog either but I don't stick my hand out to pet it or reason with it. If it comes in my yard I shoot it. That doesn't mean I don't still like non-rabid dogs (......and no, I'm not calling anyone a dog......it's an analogy)

Nobody can know what the best solution is. So, all we can do is make our best choice and hope it is the right thing.
On that statement I agree with you to a point. It's very hard to know the right thing to do. However, I'm certain that appeasement and using reason to "negotiate" with those with the type of hatred and thought process that behead people and fly planes into buildings is not a viable solution. I won't vote for or waste my time listening to anyone who thinks it is. It's foolish and gullible to think that these types of people will stop in the middle of sawing someone's head off and say "oh, Ron Paul wants to be my friend. I don't need to do this any more". Pulling out and having nothing to do with Muslim countries as Paul proposes would only give the crazies reason to blame us for every problem they would have "because" we pulled out or abandoned them. You can trace every part of their thought process back to our support of Israel whom they hate and want to eradicate from the earth. The "only" thing that would make them accept us would be to denounce Israel, convert to Wahhabism, scrap our form of government, put our women in burkas and start bowing to Mecca. That's just the truth whether you like it or not.

The cold hard reality of this is that the only thing that will one day eliminate terrorism is when the worldwide response to it is so swift and so deadly that eventually young Muslim candidates look at it and decide they want no part of it.

It is a very difficult threat the world is facing. The terrorists count on and are strengthened when we fight and argue amongst ourselves and criticize our leaders who are fighting terrorism. When Bush, Blair or anyone else who is trying to fight terrorism in the best way they know how are constantly criticized and called liars and warmongers it is a direct success for the propaganda of the terrorists and it is confirmation to them that their cause is just and that they are winning the war of ideas. That much is easy to understand. Until not only we, but the entire world can unite and agree to condemn terrorism through our responses to it and our media coverage of it the terrorists will continue to win.

That's one of the many reasons why having a Ron Paul for President would be a poor choice.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,918
1,743
35
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#19
So it's our fault that muslim extremist wackos used airplanes to kill thousands of innocent civilians? We deserved that because we make someone mad?

Say I walk up to you on the street and punch you square in the jaw.

Are you going to:

A. defend yourself, and try to inflict more pain on me than I did you?

B. Step back & try to think about what actions you did to provoke me, then appologize for those actions.


This limp wristed liberal mentality is ruining our nation.
Using that analogy, if you come and punch me square in the jaw, then I "defend" myself by going and attacking a neighbor a few houses down from you.

Or did you ever think that it is us doing that jaw punching and the Middle Easterners defending themselves? It's easy to defend your nation's actions when it is the one with the power, but all of you are silent when someone asks you what you would do if another country was occupying or attacking the US.

How is this "limp wrist liberal mentality" ruining the nation? It's been running on a careless and stubborn idiot mentality for the past 6 years and has been doing a fine job of destroying principles and rights. When has this "limp wrist liberal mentality" that you speak of had any time to ruin anything? Hell, the liberals haven't even been in power in anything until just recently so wtf do they have to do with it? I swear some of you would lick W's ass clean if you had the opportunity.
 
Jun 20, 2005
665
27
578
#20
Really? Its W's & the Republicans fault?


So the entire attack was thought out and the highjackers learned to fly from Jan 1 2001 - Sept 11 2001?


All the planning & strategizing happened during slick willies regime. If you remember, they tried to take the WTC down once before but were unsuccessful. How was that the US & W's fault?