So Who Is Ron Paul, Part 1

Who IS Ron Paul?
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews in chronological
order.

www.ronpaulaudio.com

I'd say that basing your thoughts on Ron Paul's views by his 30 second answers that he is allowed in the debates is the ultimate in journalistic laziness. That isn't really "finding out" about him, is it? As simple google search would have yielded literally dozens of articles he has written expounding his views.

"Furthermore, Ron Paul dated this issue of Iraq back to 10 years ago. That takes use back the days to the Clinton administration. Clinton and Iraq is not as easy to target as Bush and Iraq."

Ron Paul is a Republican. He's not a fan of Clinton's nation building foreign policy either.

"Going back even further, by Paul's "non-interventionist" logic, the first war in Iraq also probably could have been classified as a mistake. After all, it was the first Gulf War and the American presence in the Middle East, especially the troops hosted by Saudi Arabia, that really angered bin Laden, much more than Clinton bombing Iraq did."

Yes you're getting it. Gulf War Part 1 was also a bad idea. It further inflamed the extremist muslim's (I realize Iraq was secular but the muslim jihad doesn't care, they just don't want our military anywhere in the middle east) and put a lot of American soldiers in harms way so we could prevent Saddam from annexing an oil supply. This is the same Saddam we gave money and weapons to in the 80's to wage war against Iran. Our "liberation" of Kuwait combined with our financial support for Israel inspired the first WTC bombing in 93, and obviously got us entrenched in the region for the next decade costing well over a trillion dollars and penalizing the American people with this "blowback" you may have read about that culminated in the worst possible way on 9/11.

"So instead, I propose that to avoid provoking bin Laden, we should have ignored the fact that we had the backing of the United Nations (including France) and also the support of countries in the Middle East, instead opting to do nothing and let Saddam take over Kuwait with his arsenal of WMDs. Just appease him and let him have the country like Europe let Hitler have Czechoslavakia."

This is a really poor analogy. First of all why should we appease the rest of the Middle Eastern governments. You're confusing the people of the Middle East who hate us with the governments that dictate to them and we often pay for. Hitler was a threat who created a socialist war machine hellbent on demolishing the slavic states and russia. His aspirations were much greater than one wacko invading Kuwait. Furthermore why should American troops defend Kuwait? Is that what they signed up for? To defend a small country in the middle east just because they have a rich oil supply? How is that defending the United States or the interests of the people? All we were doing there is defending Chevron's interests, not those of America as a whole.

Ron Paul was against the first gulf war, against clinton's bombing runs and against the second gulf war from the beginning. Before you accuse him of being some kind of freak peacenik he has supported waging war against the taliban and tracking down bin laden, which this president or the previous one didn't manage to do.

Ron Paul doesn't care what the United Nations says. He cares what American interests are, not those of the Globalists. He claims we cannot lead the world by force, but rather we must set a positive example. I don't see the problem here.

I hope your not an example of what passes for education at Cornell these days, I know the Ivy League aint what it used to be but my God man, try to rub just a few neurons together. First of all you keep using the word "appease" please use a dictionary and use words correctly since appeasement and non-intervention are NOT the same foreign policy. In fact if you had listened to more of Paul than just one speech you would realize that he does not want to bomb or subsidize foreign powers. In other words NON-intervention, appeasement would mean something different more akin to pleasing and helping or enabling foreign governments in their activities, which we have also done of course.

The fundamental premise of your article is absurd. Ron Paul did not say negotiate with the terrorists. He said listen to what they say. If you did that, you will know the reasons they attack us. This is exactly what he said. If you dont do that, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and shout 'they hate us' a thousand times. So are you trying to say that America is an embodiment of perfection even when they overthrew Iran's Mossadegh, when they supported and armed Saddam during the war with Iran, when they supported the Mujahideen in the Afghan war, imposed sanctions on Iraq which killed half a million babies, supported Israel blindly and vetoed resolutions against it in the UN a 100 times ? So the average man on the Arab street is expected to love the US when you all these things and after knowing this, he comes and bombs you because an American sophomore is sunbathing in a bikini ? What stupidity !!!

Interventionism did not start with the Iraq War, or Gulf War #1, it started over 95 years ago and with each precious little step, has led us to where we are now. If you pick any arbitrary point along the way, you STILL have 'blowback' coming in from previous years and this blowback accumulates. What was the blowback from the Treaty of Versailles? Hitler and WW2. And the blowback from WW2 and instituting Israel as a new nation? Multiple engagements and wars in which each participation of the US escalated and built up resentment and hatred. If one thinks of blowback as the release of 'potential energy', in the same way that the action of rolling a ball uphill provides potential energy to it which accumulates with each step, then it becomes meaningful to attempt to release some of this energy before the ball starts rolling back downhill. I would say that given the current circumstances, the majority of blowback which is currently built up, yet not fully released, could be dissipated by: (1) Evacuation of all military personnel in all ME countries, (2) Ending all government foreign aid to the entire region, including the support of the House of Saud and Israel, (3) Increasing the US border security.
This won't totally dissipate the blowback potential, BUT, it will decrease it dramatically, hopefully to the point where the cost to release blowback exceeds the gains/benefits to those who would do harm.
Look at any persons life, their focus is 90% on what is in front of them, day in day out - muslims have families to feed, businesses to build, and many other worries which will greatly overshadow some background resentment against a country or government 10,000 miles away minding it's own business - hard to be a scapegoat for problems if you aren't even on the same continent!

This follows Ron Pauls meaning when he talks about being 'non-interventionist' and I believe it is a simplified presentation of what he desires to effect with his Middle East foreign policy. When Ron Paul says 'listen to those that attacked us', he is NOT saying anything like 'negotiate' as you seem to think - he is saying 'understand' where and why their hatred is focused on us so we can actually be effective in alleviating the threat and stay away from creating even greater risks to our citizens at home and abroad.

That was a long entry? And did you say anything of substance? You select pieces of the 9/11 Report and make the assumption that he was calling for literal obedience to what Bin Laden has said. Ron Paul has been quoted as indicating we should go after Osama Bin Laden, which has nothing to do with Iraq. You have not advocated an opinion, but only resort to shallow hyperbole. Ron Paul would agree that we should have not been involved in the Gulf War 1. Instead of treating it in an off-hand manner, suppose you compose a comprehensive reason why the US should have conducted a war with Iraq to save Kuwait.

Thanks for readdressing the debate. Here's some points I'd like to raise with you.

Listening to what your enemy says does not equate to to negotiating, consider your enemy to a source of intel.

As for the reasons Ron Paul cited, it is true in the time alloted during the debate he was unable to list every contributing factor, but the decade of having troops stationed on Saudi soil while we bombed Iraq was a rather big one.

Ron Paul supported the military action in Afghanistan and the hunt for the architects of the September 11th attacks. In fact he reminds us that we still have yet to find the guilty and points out that invading Iraq did nothing to advance that goal.

And, it's true, interventionist policy in the Middle East goes back 60 years and nothing occurs in a vacuum. You brought up Hitler's Germany, I would ask you this: if the Versailles Treaty hadn't been so punishing or humiliating for the German, would the situation have been as conducive for the rise of nationalism and the desire to place "blame'? Hitler rose to power cresting on the wave of restoring nationalist pride and flouting the Treaty that had angered so many Germans.

History matters, our actions have consequences. People hold grudges and often seek revenge for real or perceived wrongs. Power hungry leaders take note of these motivations and use them for full effect. Unscrupulous leaders are masters of harnessing the passions and fears of their constituents.

How many terrorists are being born in Iraq as I type this?

Wow, propaganda at it's finest right here. Do some research just as this man has suggested to Giuliani.

Blowback is not a term invented by Ron Paul, it's a term used by our CIA to describe the after effects of a military operation in a foreign nation. Most of these operations are kept out of the mainstream media, so, when there is a retaliation, our government will tell us, "oh, it's because we have money and freedom.' and as usual and just like this article, i'm sure people will eat it up. Yes, we have been over 'there' for years and have killed hundreds of thousands of their people, their children, mother, fathers, etc, etc. Our giant corporations are building plants, polluting their countries. Our governments are so corrupt with money and oil is almost beyond comprehension.

You people in the media portray all these terrorist acts as if this stuff has been happening since the gulf war. If you haven't noticed, it's been happening since man could write words on paper!!!

Hopefully you're aware that there are a lot of people that hate us just because we're american. But when you say, it's america attacked islam, america attacked muslims. When you say that, you put it in the context that ALL Americans are responsible for that. No, we're not. It's our corrupt foregin policy that is responsible for the acts.

You really never think our country never sponsored terrorism? Human rights violations, we continue the saga, El Salvador and the contras in Nicaragua.

Plus, Osama used to be a CIA asset. We sold chemical weapons to Saddam! We're polluting their country with depleted uranium from all of our weapons! OF COURSE THEY HATE US!!!!

I'm done educating you.

well to listen we don't have to negotiate. But this government insisted on negotiating with them for years. Blowback is a real thing. What would this have to do with converting Americans to Islam? If you actually looked up something about him hes stated that its our whole entire presence in the middle east. We gave Sadam weapons. This is garbage.

You are either a partisan hack or maybe, just maybe, you are about as bright as northern Alaska in December.

Ron Paul never said we should negotiate with terrorists. Never. I'd like to see you find someplace where he said we should. He went so far along the Constitutional route after 9-11 that he submitted a bill to declare war on al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden--an individual person and a non-state entity!--but the vast majority of his party would not obey the Constitution they all solemnly swore to support and defend; they would not declare war.

His stance has always been to hunt down UBL and al Qaeda and make them pay for their crimes, but never to do it with military forces, as they would be seen as invaders and occupiers, like our armed forces are seen now by most Iraqis. Listening does not equate negotiating.

Your attempt to prove Dr Paul wrong is laughable in itself due to the fact that three former members of the CIA who worked in counter-terrorism say that Dr Paul is correct. I guess your prefered news sources didn't report that fact, did they?

Here's some interesting documents for you to read:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

In those two documents, you will find Iraq mentioned several times while freedom and liberty are not mentioned once.

Seems you need to be educated as badly as Rudy does.

Nice try on your Ron Paul hit job. Since when did listening to the enemy equal negotiating with terrorists? Also, Ron Paul is claiming that foreign policy is at fault - not one particular party. I predict we are going to see more and more articles like yours in the future. All you are doing is fanning the flames for support of Dr. Ron Paul.

I really think your missing the point here, and badly. When someone is tried for murder, we ALWAYS search for motive. Understanding WHY (by listening to your enemy) is paramount for success. Is understanding the motive of a killer bad practice?

I think Sun Tzu said it best:
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Paul has no desire to "negotiate" with Bin Laden. One of his primary complaints about invading Iraq was that it would distract us from hunting down Bin Laden and those truly responsible for the attacks.

If you want a deeper understanding of Paul's philosophy (beyond 30 sec debate clips) check out www.ronpaullibrary.com - it's got over 600 essays and speeches by the congressman.

So you don't like Ron Paul's explanation, what was the reason for the attacks then? Was the lame excuse that they are "enemies of freedom"? Our foreign policy has caused more problems then it has helped. It is time we face up to the fact that we act as bullies around the world and people don't like that much.

I don't think that Ron Paul is necessarily interested, as you imply, in negotiating with the terrorists. His goal is to try to understand why the terrorists have such hatred for the U.S. I don't see anything naive or simplistic about this. If you have an enemy, isn't it important to try to understand how your enemy thinks?

As far as your analysis of blowback, the U.S. has been stirring things up in the Middle East for a long time. It's hard to see why there wouldn't be some deeply held animosity against the U.S. (and others), given the actions of our government over the last couple generations.

From where I sit, the establish media, as well as the establishment political parties (Republicans and Democrats) are having a hissy fit when someone like Ron Paul gets a chance to point out the obvious.

One of the reasons that Paul's campaign is beginning to gain traction is that people have finally found a political leader who has deeply held beliefs, does not pander to the press, and whose answers make a lot of sense. All of the other candidates (in both parties, with the possible exception of Obama) are just plastic creations of professional PR machines. Voters can tell the difference.

While true that serious policy debate cannot be done with 60 second canned, poll tested answers, you at least began to turn back the clock and consider US policy in the Middle East (with bizarre repetitive mentions of the United Nations.) But you forgot the best parts about the US of A funding through proxies Osama's predecessors to fight the Soviet in Afghanistan, and the Clinton Adminstration informal alliance with AQ/Osama in Kosovo.

Paul's point is not "negotiating" with Osama, but removing his ability to recruit and fund his jihad. Coupled with Paul's support for a well-armed citizenry, trade (rather than sanctions) as a means of building a Middle Class in Islamic nations, and his commitment to denying amnesty to real, actual invaders, and Paul presents a coherent conservative national defense policy.

Wow. This is the first time I've seen someone twist a 30 second sound byte into an entire foreign policy. Next time do some research (On Dr. Paul, the Constitution and it's framers) before posting and making a fool of yourself. Dr. Paul's positions & the reasoning behind them will become clear. Whether you agree with them or not is another story.

I think that Ron Paul makes sense. I think Gooliany is way out of line with his bull. Am I supposed to belive that Osama bombed the world trade center because he hates freedom? Come on man. We´re not a nation of six year olds.

Respectfully,
You are wrong. The CIA initiated terror attacks in Tehran in 1953 to blame on the democratically elected leader Mosadeg's opponents. CIA made him look weak and effectively deposed him. In his place we installed the brutal Shah. Why? Because British Petroleum's oil fields were partially nationalized and the British would rather the American military protect British interests than do the dirty work itself. In the 1970's and 1980's CIA supported Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. We gave terrorists money, arms, and training. Today we are giving more terrorists money and support to overthrow the current Iranian regime. Hopefully, when all is said and done these terrorists will be friendly with us, but don't count on it. Yes its also true we subsidize corrupt regimes like Pakistan, military dictatorships essentially who threaten peaceful countries like India.

Our naval presence and armies the world over are protecting really bad regimes because they trade with us and finance our empire with the slavery of their people. Obviously we are resented for it. What's that you say? Slavery is too extreme a word. Think about it like this. We borrowed nearly a trillion dollars last year to fund our consumption. We do that every year. That money comes from poor people the world over. Poor people who could be using that money to invest in their own country. Yet it does not happen. The regimes that we protect with our military ensure that the money comes back to us.

You call Ron Paul a simpleton for saying they hate us because we are over there. I think you are the simpleton. Your explanation is that we are good and they are evil. Well increasing numbers of Americans are starting to realize that is pure foolishness. Thank God.

While you certainly succeed in your mission to make Ron Paul look like a kook in your article (along with most of mainstream media) you added your own take on every statement he made. Here is a good example; "“listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” a try and negotiate with the terrorists."

He is not saying to negotiate with the terrorists, but to try and understand their motive. If we have done something that is making the recruiting of young suicide bombers easier then we should attempt to fix it if we can.

"Furthermore, Ron Paul dated this issue of Iraq back to 10 years ago. That takes use back the days to the Clinton administration. Clinton and Iraq is not as easy to target as Bush and Iraq."

During the time of Clinton the UN had sanctions on them which many Iraqi's believed caused the deaths of over 500,000 children. We get targetted for the UN's actions whether or not we like it.

"So instead, I propose that to avoid provoking bin Laden, we should have ignored the fact that we had the backing of the United Nations (including France) and also the support of countries in the Middle East, instead opting to do nothing and let Saddam take over Kuwait with his arsenal of WMDs."

How about we go back before that and not support Hussein or Bin Laden? Don't forget that we helped to create these two terrible people that we are now so worried about.

The UN violates the sanctity of sovereign nations first off. Second, Ron Paul hasn't said that we shouldn't have done it, though he probably would. He's saying that when we go do these kind of social missions for the good of the world we need to realize that there are probably going to be some unintended consequences.

And by the way, Hussein is not Hitler. I know you neocons looking for a war love to compare the two, but a two bit dictator in a country we could blow up with the push of a button is not the threat Hitler was.

I realize you are very very smart and that the US is completely innocent on all matters, but Ron Paul does have the backing of 4 retired CIA officers so far. Maybe they know something you don't?

The problem is, you don't listen. Ron Paul never said we should negotiate. It is a matter of understanding your enemy, not negotiating with them. If we are satisfied with the "they hate us for our freedoms" excuse, we are missing the reality of the situation, which leads to mistakes. Also, we have an in-your-face foreign policy that goes back many decades (he mentioned our installing the Shah of Iran but it goes back much farther than that). Consider Ron's example: how would you feel if China invaded some country in our hemisphere, installed a government modelled on their own, and established a permanent military presence there? And finally, Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He just wants the Congress to stand up and take responsibility by actually following the Constitution, declaring war when it is justified, and not illegally passing the responsibility off to the new monarch, George.

Yes, you and Rudy need to listen more closely.

Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia... where do you suggest drawing the line, Mike? Surely you are aware of the human rights abuses and terrorist activity that takes place in those countries.

How has either Iraq war helped our national security? We didn't secure the oil. Islam is more radicalized than it was before. Our resources that were meant to defend the country are now spread out across the globe. We are further in debt, a lot of it to some countries mentioned above.

We have a larger target on our backs now than ever before. That is due entirely to a 'world police' foreign policy, which you seem to be all for. Gee, thanks Mike.

In my studying these same critical issues, I have never heard Ron Paul suggest that we negotiate with terrorists such as Bin Laden. Instead, he rationally proposes that we evaluate the current situation much a homicide investigator studies a gruesome crime: Recognize that a terrible crime has occurred, identify and prosecute the perpetrator, and as part of prosecuting the perpetrator, look for a *motive*.

Looking for a motive is fundamental to any prosecution, and is *not* equivalent to "blaming the victim". The motive does not justify nor excuse the crime, but may be helpful in preventing future acts of violence.

I'd caution you not to take Ron Paul's suggestion to read the 9/11 report out of context. He's not suggesting that we submit to the irrational demands of the perpetrator. He is suggesting that we evaluate the consequences of our interventionist foreign policy that inflames internal conflicts and creates cycles of arming and training those who subsequently turn against us.

As you note, the 9/11 report places us in the crossfire of world opinion with respect to numerous global conflicts. How can we advance democracy, tolerance, and individual freedom when we are widely (correctly or not) blamed for these wars and atrocities?

Non-interventionism is not pacifism, and it is not isolationism. Rather, it is respecting countries' sovreignity and engaging in constructive dialogue and consensual trade. Our nation can only be a beacon for liberty and freedom when individual citizens of foreign countries -- not just the moneyed elite, or despotic rulers installed by our foreign policies -- view the United States as a valued trading partner that treats them as we ourselves wish to be treated.

Ron Paul recognizes that our attempts to coerce through sanctions and military action harm those average citizens, and pushes them intellectually closer to extremists such as Bin Laden. As a nation, we shouldn't fear the wrath of a single psychopath. But if our policies make that psychopath a hero instead of a pariah, we owe it to ourselves to seriously question those policies.

Jeese, I can't believe I let Mr. Wacker get me this emotional. Usually I take the time to dissect stupid arguments in order to show a dullard the error of his ways.

Well, I gave it my best, but was only able to read a little over half way through Mr. Wacker's rant before barfing.

Mr. Wacker talks about bin Ladin doing this, Saddam doing that, and we need to listen to the U.N. and even France, and then how dumb Dr. Paul is, and how smart Mr. Wacker is. Enough already.

If Mr. Wacker is so smart, and Dr. Paul is so dumb, then I suggest Mr. Wacker challenge Dr. Paul to a debate. I'm sure Cornell would be just fine with Dr. Paul. Go for it Mr. Wacker.

Oh, I see Mr. Wacker will have "more to say" about Dr. Paul once he catches his breath. I can't wait. But in the meantime, I suggest he read the Constitution whilst catching his breath. If he does so, chances are he won't have quite as much left to say when he readdresses Dr. Paul.

Bill Stegmeier

Ron Paul is right. Our Middle East policies have gotten us where we are today. As a Vietnam era vet, I firmly believed the U.S. was always on the side of right and justice. I got out of the military and went to work in the Middle East as a contractor. I lived 50 miles from Mecca for seven years. One of the first things I asked the Muslims when I arrived was "why do you hate Isreal?". In my ignorance, which I recognise in your blog because I thought exactly the same way as you, I had NO IDEA what actually has taken place in the Middle East due to our meddling. Because of my ultra republican upbringing and unwavering support of all things republican, it took me a year just to start understanding the way they think and why. I was so convinced that U.S. policies were always right and just, that I refused to accept the chaos and hatred our meddling causes. The thing that finally removed the blinders I had been wearing my whole life, was watching Isreali soldiers corner and beat Palestinian women and children with their gun butts until I was sick. It has been over 20 years since I saw that and I still can not get it out of my mind. This type of blind support of our Middle East policies has earned us the haterd of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world. We don't show that on our television. We only show what will feed guys like you, (and the old me) to support everything our politicians do with unwavering faithfullness. I know this will not make a difference to you and I would not have believed it either until I saw it with my own eyes for so many years. But our policies are wrong and Ron Paul is the only one that sees through the smoke and mirrors that our government has put in place to fool the American people. I guess the reason I like Ron Paul is because, maybe, he can get us to the point where you think we already are.

you said "instead opting to do nothing and let Saddam take over Kuwait with his arsenal of WMDs. Just appease him and let him have the country like Europe let Hitler have Czechoslavakia."

USA let hitler took France, Pologne, Czechoslavakia and some other countries... without doing anything, the president was elected with a promess to not get involved in WW2

USA join WW2 only when japan attacked pearl harbour

the sanction imposed on irak between 1991 and 1998 killed around 500 000 iraki.... and you still think that it did not angered muslims !??

imagine if someone did to us what we did to them....

"However, I have decided to give Ron Paul's strategy, “listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” a try and negotiate with the terrorists."

Figuring out the motive of an attack is not "negotiating". It is part of a sound policy. How are we to eliminate a terror threat without noting its causes? Answer: we can't, and ignoring terror's causes leads to counter-productve policies, such as what we see today.

Numerous former CIA experts, the CIA itself, the 9/11 Commission, an even Paul Wolfowitz all agree that U.S. foreign policy is a main factor in fomenting the sentiment behind terror. All Ron Paul did was echo those sources. Does Rudy Giuliani have sources to back up his claim that we were attacked "because we are free"?

Ron Paul's policy of non-intervention simply requires that the U.S. government refrain from acts that don't protect our lives and rights, but only put us in more danger. Our Middle East interventionism has done just that.

In my studying these same critical issues, I have never heard Ron Paul suggest that we negotiate with terrorists such as Bin Laden. Instead, he rationally proposes that we evaluate the current situation much a homicide investigator studies a gruesome crime: Recognize that a crime has occurred, identify and prosecute the perpetrator, and as part of prosecuting the perpetrator, look for a *motive*.

Looking for a motive is fundamental to any prosecution, and is *not* equivalent to "blaming the victim". The motive does not justify nor excuse the crime, but may be helpful in preventing future acts of violence.

I'd caution you not to take Ron Paul's suggestion to read the 9/11 report out of context. He's not suggesting that we submit to the irrational demands of the perpetrator. He is suggesting that we evaluate the consequences of our interventionist foreign policy that inflames internal conflicts and creates cycles of arming and training those who subsequently turn against us.

As you note, the 9/11 report places us in the crossfire of world opinion with respect to numerous global conflicts. How can we advance democracy, tolerance, and individual freedom when we are widely (correctly or not) blamed for these wars and atrocities?

Non-interventionism is not pacifism, and it is not isolationism. Rather, it is respecting countries' sovreignity and engaging in constructive dialogue and consensual trade. Our nation can only be a beacon for liberty and freedom when individual citizens of foreign countries -- not just the moneyed elite, or despotic rulers installed by our foreign policies -- view the United States as a valued trading partner that treats them as we ourselves wish to be treated.

Ron Paul recognizes that our attempts to coerce through sanctions and military action harm those average citizens, and pushes them intellectually closer to extremists such as Bin Laden. As a nation, we shouldn't fear the wrath of a single psychopath. But if our policies make that psychopath a hero instead of a pariah, we owe it to ourselves to seriously question those policies.

Mr. Wacker, I'm going to start with the end of your blog and work backwards.

Your Hitler/Czech comparison doesn't fly for two reasons. Czechoslavakia did nothing to provoke Germany. Kuwait was drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their most precious natural resource. What would we do if Mexico was mining gold in California and denying it? Secondly, I don't recall Saddam Hussein signing an international non-aggression treaty.

As far as invoking the UN,two points. The UN itself stated our sanctions against Iraq were killing hundreds of thousands of children. I hope you realize UN inspections were going on all over Iraq even into January and February of 2003. The inspectors were making great progress, and were delving into new sites, looking for WMD daily. Of course they were forced to leave by the U.S. decision to pulverize the country. All you have to do is research it on the UN website.

America has indeed bombed Iraq for 10 years. Apparently you have some trouble with mathematics. Ten years ago would be at the most 1996. The first gulf war was 5 years prior to that. If you do your homework, you will see that the United States has bombed Iraq every year since 1995.

When Dr. Paul said "they attacked us because we're over there", he meant the Middle East in general, not just Iraq. You imply he meant just Iraq.

Listening to someone does not mean capitulating to their demands. There are only two ways to end a conflict, Mr. Wacker: total destruction or negotiation. Well, unless you're prepared to kill several billion people, at some point you have to be willing to concede a few things to Muslims. We are fighting against ideas, and because we cannot defeat what they are fighting for, this anger and animosity towards America will continue as long as we insist on trying to run the Middle East by peppering it with bases and propping up Israel.

I want to make sure you understand Bin Laden did list Iraq as one of the places where America's policies and enraged him, even right after 9/11 occurred.

How would you feel if there was a Chinese base right outside your neighborhood, and every morning you were searched by men with machine guns, and your friends or family had been accidentally killed by the occupying forces? Would you be angry at the Chinese?

Most Americans do not realize we have 700+ military installations outside of our country. We have 370,000+ soldiers stationed outside of our states, territories, and possessions. We are trying to police the world, and we are going broke. Our national debt is 9 TRILLION dollars. Last year, we paid over 400 Billion dollars just in interest on the loans we have accepted from foreign banks.

Dr. Paul is the only one addressing these problems, and the only one willing to fix them. You would do well to study a little more and pontificate a little less.

A sad day for the Cornell Daily Sun. Mike Wacker's piece up above is one of the reasons folk are turning away from bought and paid for media and researching their own news on the internet. Mr Paul never claimed we negotiate with terrorists as Wacker is implying. This article borders on slander and the Cornell Daily Sun would be well advised to publish a retraction or clarification based on facts - if it knows what that means anymore. I am not a Ron Paul supporter; however, articles like these are getting me to investigate why this little known congressman from southern Texan is creating such a panic in the media.

Anyone who feels as though an end of the occupation in Iraq would have us wearing burkas and reciting the queran is just playing their role and doing their part in the fear mongering machine.

Bin Laden called for Jihad against the USA after the USA launched missles from sacred ground against iraq 15 years ago. He did this for two reasons. The first and obvious being the murder of muslims by interventionist forces that have no respect or knowledge of the Islamic way of life. The second and much less publicised reason is because he knew if US forces were allowed to act on Iraq unmolested, they would never leave and colonize the entire Middle East, bringing the slave system of debt based economy of the western world and end the way of life the people of the middle east have chosen to live.

Anyone familiar with American history knows that this is exactly the goal of coalition forces in Iraq. Al- Qaida is doing exactly what American citizens would do if Taliban forces came to Philadelphia with the permission of mildly retarded mayor John Street, bunked their soldiers in Idependance Hall,and started firing missles at New York from the top of St Peter and Pauls Cathedral.

The greatest asset Radical Jihadist Islam has is American foreign policy. And by the way, again and again, steel structures can not fall from fire.

I didn't know Sean Hannity wrote for the Daily Sun.

What is your position here Mr. Hannity? Is it that middle eastern hatred of America and Americans is self-evident? Was it handed down by Yahweh that Americans can do no wrong in the world and was it handed down by Allah that Muslims are born hating Americans? Clearly that is the reason we are in this little pickle. There is no reason for any of it - it is destiny. There is absolutely nothing we can do to change our role in the world - we just have to keep killing and getting killed. We are just supposed to keep playing our part, right?

If the above author's digressions are any indication of the type of quality we can expect from quintessential Republican apologists in the future, Paul has won already.

Let me simplify for you: They bombed us because we have permanent military bases on a land that Muslims call MECCA - so says our CIA intel reports.

We've been there since the 1960s in the name of "protecting our oil interests". They've wanted us out for years and we ignored their plea. Terrorism is the last resort of a people that is through talking because we won't listen.

The American people are not idiots. We are now understanding that US foreign policy is being carried out by a bunch of greedy corporate CEOs and lobbyists that want the oil money and government contracts.

When nothing makes sense, follow the money!

You may be tired of Paul supporters flooding your email, but aren't you sick of the ignorance (arrogance?) of the other candidates for not even recognizing "blowback" as a potential factor in why we were attacked?
The 9/11 report talks of the hopelessness of the young men growing up in the middle east who have no real future to look to. Some of these, I'm sure, are just brainwashed by the al qaeda leaders and perform suicide acts because we are immoral people. But, for most people, what would it take to drive them to suicide? Maybe fiery rhetoric from Al Qaeda leaders preaching that America is out to take over your lands .... they point to Iraq and other areas of the middle east where we have troops stationed as proof. Is it that hard to believe that we are inciting more rage by having 100k+ troops in their lands? There will always be people who are anti-american no matter what we do, but I don't believe fresh recruits would be sprinting to the front of the line to blow themselves up if we did not have the majority of our military in Iraq. The thing that really kills me is that this is all in vain, we cannot "win" going down the path we are. We are trying to force a democracy on people who are not ready and willing and at the same time fight a guerilla war with a massive standing army. It's bad tactics and strategy. Read about these types of conflicts, they cannot be resolved with a conventional military force. Even one as mighty as ours.
I hate to use the phrase, but I believe there is a "global war on terror" that needs to be fought, but all great leaders know sometimes you have to lost a battle to win a war.
Ron Paul does not want to negotiate with Bin Laden. He does seem to be the only cadidate who understands the importance of, and is actively trying to fully understand our enemy. It is very easy to say "they hate us because we are free and not Islam", but it's much harder to look at our policies and see what can be changed so that we still achieve our national objectives, but do not polarize ourselves towards the world.
If America is ever to fall it is not going to be from foreigners flying planes into our buildings. It is going to be an implosion of our economy and we are definitely not helping ourselves in that regard right now.

I have questions about Ron Paul and how he would handle certain matters (that I hope to find out more in the coming months), but so far he is the only who doesn't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I don't need Giuliana and McCain to paint me pretty pictures. The world is a complex mess, give it to me straight. The current administration is corrupt. I want someone who will stand up to the status quo, not just more shuffling of the chairs on the titanic.

The intellectual responses here have ripped poor Mr. Wacker to shreads. Therefore I could not add anything useful but to say oohRah!

If you read through his latest book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, you will come to understand that he is right and has been trying to prevent the messes we are currently in for a long time (The book is a collection of speeches he has made in Congress mostly regarding foreign policy)

The Main reason that Dr. Paul doesn't have power and influence is that he's the only guy in Washington who doesn't cave in on his morals.

* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.

* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

If you are still in journalism school, it might be a good time for you to research the logical fallacy of the "Straw Man" argument, as:

1) you've predicated your argument on one

2) they're rhetorical cheapshots

3) the employment of them, particularly in journalism, is a key reason that the national discourse has descended into babble and blather

Straw Man

There are a great many well-reasoned, better-informed retorts to your article above. Consider why this might be the case. There's no shame in admitting you're wrong.

This article requires more research. You have assumed Ron Paul to be far shallower than he is. While I don't agree with everything he says, he has an extremely strong position that is worth the research. I think if you dig deeper, you'll be impressed with who Ron Paul is.

but the responses above deconstructing your pathetic straw man have already done the job.

Besides, I can't believe that a Cornell educated person would actually believe what you wrote, so I'll just go with the assumption that you don't believe it. So, then, that only leaves one option for a motive. You're a neocon partisan hack.

Your blog post is simply ridiculous and shows your ignorance. There are many videos of Ron Paul, including many of his speaking before Congress, and many links to interviews etc. Go out and learn about him and his views before writing more of this incorrect nonsense.

"Negotiate with terrorists"???!!! Give me a break...PLEASE!

If the democratically elected gov't of Iran wasn't overthrown , there would be freedom in the Middle East. Iran was the toe-hold. Now there are none.

Unfortuantely the oil gluttons of the Uk and US don't care about freedom except as a buzz word.

Its nice to see you don't actually do any research on the things you write in your blog. Keep tuning in to Fox News for those 30 second sound clips and writing about those.

The whole thrust of your article indicates that you either don't understand Dr. Ron Paul's message or you are deliberately misconstruing it so as to bash him.

You are correct insofar as nothing we do will appease Bin Laden. The goal of the policy of removing our troops from Saudia Arabia, etc. is not to appease Bin Laden; it is to diffuse and deflate your typical Muslim teenager's seething anger which can be a motivator for him joining Bin Laden.

Look, Bin Laden and his brand of Wahabbism is no match for the material world. Absent some extreme motivating factor, most Islamic teenagers are going to do what teenagers world-wide do - seek sex. It is the driving psychological force behind wanting fast cars, engaging in stupid human tricks, and the mindless accumulation of material goods.

Bin Laden and his gang would not be sucessful in recruiting an army of suicide bombers if those kids didn't see some huge injustice in the world.

Removing our troops from Saudia Arabia (and Iraq) is simply a way to starve Bin Laden's group of recruits. Also, the Saudis are a bunch of jerks, and we should not be spending dime one of our national treasure proping them up.

Removing our troops from Saudi Arabia is in our national interest in the first place.

I'm with Rich Ziga, you guys are great! The media will do whatever they can to marginalize him, so stick it right down their throats by going grass roots. Come on everybody, show the arrogant know-it-alls who's boss: WE THE PEOPLE!

Now get out there and campaign for Ron Paul in your free time!

I look forward to part 2 of your article on Ron Paul. Hopefully it will include an apology to Ron and all the regular Sun readers who have to read such baseless anti Paul propaganda and GOP Neocon cheer leading.

J. Simmons

First off, I would like to say that you are lazy, ignorant, and biased. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You say that Paul dates our involvement in the Mid East back to Clinton. He does not. He dates it back to the ouster of the Shah in Iran over 50 years ago. You claim that Paul would not have approved of military intervention in the first Gulf War. Likely, he would have said then what he says today, that you cannot fight an undeclared war without the proper firepower. He actually put up a bill in the House to declare war on Iraq. It obviously failed. Paul believes in non-interventionism because that is what succeeded for 150 years of our existance. Interventionism has consistantly failed. You, on the other hand, are arguing for a form of interventionism that is Unconstitution and will always fail. Either you have no knowledge of history or are an eternal optimist. Either way you are wrong. Al-Qaeda doesn't come after us simply for who we are, they come after us for what we have done to them. Even in the Mid East, Iran hates Iraq and vice-versa, because of their history and what they have done to each other. The religion provides a nice excuse, but is not the major contributing factor. It would be impossible for Al-Qaeda to initiate such attacks as 9/11, Madrid, and London without the imperialist policies of the United States.

Grab a history book and learn the truth. Your bullshit isn't fooling anyone.

Yeah, except for your theory to make sense, they'd have to be ASKING us to convert and they are not. They just want us out. Have you ever had Muslims knock on your door and hand you a tract? I haven't.

They don't just kill us because they are evil.
We don't just kill them because we are good.

It's more complicated than that, and you and all Americans know deep down inside that it is...