« Liberal Democrats - The New Red Menace! | Main | Citizen Phil has Changed »

October 21, 2007


Bert M.

I don't think anyone, most of all Ron Paul, believes they will just leave us alone if we leave. However, we can much more effectively fight terrorists with covert actions and limited strikes. Invading a country that posed no threat is about the stupidest way to accomplish what our foreign policy objectives are as of now. And while you get some of the reasons why they hate us, you miss a whole lot of other ones. Among other reasons, they hate us because we continue to prop up the saudi dictators, because we had troops on saudi land and because we support apostate governments in the middle east that are despised by the people. Why were 15 of 19 hijackers saudi? Why are nearly 50% of the suicide bombers saudi (according to recent CIA analysis)? Most people are overlooking these facts. Ron Paul is not. Ron Paul is not "weak" on terrorism or foreign policy. In fact, I would say he would most effectively combat terrorism.Why? Because 1. He's read so much about it, 2. He's good friends with some of the top terrorism experts at the CIA who speak regularly at his "liberty caucus" on capitol hill. The other candidates have read close to little on the subject and instead rely on agenda-bringing neoconservative policy advisers.


No, I do not miss the fact that Saudi's account for much of the lunacy. And despite the rhetoric to the contrary, there was indeed good reason to tear down the simmering powder keg that was pre-invasion Iraq.

But what we have today, and have had as a result, is a very costly (to them especially) war on soil which is not our own. We are engaging (in that war in Iraq) Saudi, Syrian, and various other evil people who find it politically advantageous to kill American men, women, and children.

You simply cannot pigeon-hole our efforts as a mis-guided war in and for Iraq. The effect of our actions has drawn the "correct" enemy to engage us there, and in so doing, they cannot effectively engage us here.

There is no reason in the universe that should explain away the terrorist actions as a properly expected response to our friendship with a Saudi royal family. If I insult your sister, you do not morally get to wipe out my hometown.



You know you could have a point. But we are not supposed to be an empire. That's what we have been doing. Going to countries setting up Defacto governments with our Military bases to overlook them like we are not there. I keep hearing people say that we give all of the land back to the people of these countries. The fact is they just think they are in control. They are not and our Military will take out anyone who we don't agree with. It is in fact an empire. I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face.


>the fact remains that we were indeed attacked by a people, on our shores.

No, we were attacked by a tiny group of deranged men. For this, we attacked the primary state supporters of those men and an unrelated third country.

>They despise us because we are here. They despise us, because we are not ever going to submit to Islamic law.

Yes, there are a very few Muslims who feel this way. They can be dealt with nearly on an individual basis. First we enforce our borders and do a much better job of screening the people and products that enter our country. As these 'islamofascists' have no navy or air force, this will stop 99% of their ability to harm our country.

This is not World War 3. This isn't even Vietnam. There will never be battles on American streets with radical Muslims, as they have no ability whatsoever to make that happen. At best, they are a nuisance.

Don't be manipulated into letting your fear rule you.


Phil, I wonder if after all these months since Ron Paul said that "They attack us here because we were over there." you must be willfull to still cling to that misconception that he was justifying their actions. He was not, He was telling you point blank the reason why we were attacked. Its a fact. Its not a blame America first assult on our country, its just pointing out something that we were doing wrong and eventually got stung for.

They were wrong when they attacked us, but we were wrong for keeping troops in Saudi Arabia. Now 2 wrongs never make a right, but continuing to make the wrong moves over and over again is pure insanity.

Just like any rational person would do in their daily lives, it is necessary to take account of what works and what does not and think about cost benefit analysis alittle bit. Our foriegn wars do nothing to protect our country, in fact they only serve to breed more terrorists while bankrupting this nation. The supposed goal of spreading democracy in the middle east is never going to work because of Islam, and the best that we could hope to do is create another Iran.

Ron Paul's plan is just common sense, and we have been doing exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do. Us going to war over there was part of their strategy. Right now we are doing what they want us to do, its a good recruiting tool for them.


A "state supporter" of such men, has every reason to be held accountable, and especially those who share a desire for our destruction.

I dare say, that a remaining 1% ability to inflict death and destruction on our friends, families, and neighbors demands action. Payback is ALWAYS too late.

There is a healthy aspect to fear, as is manifest in the construction of our own bodies. When we are awakened by something that is fearful, we are equipped to deal with the threat for self preservation. If you succeed in tamping down that natural reaction, then you lay yourself wide open to becoming a victim.

Embrace fear for your sake, as well as the sake of those around you.

Michael D Hicks

Why did we not get a declaration of war against the states if IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? That is Ron Paul's point.


Everyone who supports this war seems to forget one thing when trying to defend their position. It was NOT the Iraqi's who attacked us it was Al Qaeda. I'm all for going after them and so is Ron Paul.

F&I Guy

Losing our liberties to protect our freedoms is not a good idea because it is a contradiction.

They hate us for our freedom, so Bush has kindly taken some away to protect us. They hate us so much for our wealth that Bush has spent even more of our money to protect us.

Certainly if they did a better job of protecting us in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation. Their reasoning is completely specious. Only liberty enhances and protects freedom.

The need to kill

If we need to kill some people; wipe them out. Kill them. Lots of people. Kill them quickly and easily with bombs.

Kill scores.

If a terrorist hides among civilians, then the civilians are collateral damage. It doesn't matter how many. If their family members take up arms because they lost loved ones, kill them too! If neighboring countries complain; bomb them too!

Tancredo is a genius. If Paul were elected President, I would want Tancredo as Secretary of Defense. The two of them would fix this situation in the Middle East. No nation-building. No welfaring the World. No precision strikes. No contractors cleaning up and losing BILLIONS of our money.

Need being; let them die in fire. Let them die by scores.

I am F&I Guy, and I approve this message.

See my website at www.freedomandindependence.com

PS Preferably we could simply come home and secure the borders. Either way I'm satisfied. What we have now isn't working won't work and will give us another terrorist attack and justification for the government to grow even larger and more ineffective. No way around that but forward, which is back. Back to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Back to sanity. Our choice. We better make the right one.

PS #2: Mark my words without border security, those who desire to grow government will have their next opportunity to when, not if, when terrorists cross our borders with nuclear weapons. We're asking to get screwed and present leadership is too vacantly concerned with cheap labor to be bothered to take a stand against it.



Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of what you had to say. Warfare has become far too "sanitary", which is why they never end.

The U.S. and England bombed Berlin into dust... including Nazis, dogs, cats, women, men, children.

War sucks, and that is the uglies part of it, and the fear of that would/should be what limits the desire for war in the world. Shock & Awe should have lived up to its label.



Phil, before we started in Iraq I thought that if they were the primary threat we should bomb to rubble every bridge, dam, power plant and factory, give Baghdad 7 days notice and then burned it to a cinder. That being done I wouldn't give a sh*t who was in charge there. But Saudi Arabia would have been a better place to start. What we are doing there now and in Afghanistan is nonsense. Countries with law based on Sharia are not worth a dollar of American money or a drop of American blood. Our president blathers on about Islam being a religion of peace and continues to permit Muslims to enter the country both legally and through unsecured borders. Acts of terrorism continue to be downplayed in the absence of an actual Al-qaeda membership card in the perps wallet. The president and legislators continue to treat CAIR as if it were a legitimate civil rights organization. We are being led by a pack of clueless idiots. I don't see anyone in the race but Tancredo who seems to have a clue about what is actually going on. Sept. 11, 2001 was the start of a world war. The sooner we start fighting it like that the less it will cost in lives and money. Islam and those who truly believe and practice it are our mortal enemies. Trying to bring democracy to Islamic countries is an act of futility. The idea that we have to fight them there is nonsense. Don't let them in and we won't have to fight them here. But I don't have any issues with killing them there if we'd stop being so pc about it. I'm with F&I. Kill lots of them and too bad about the collateral damage.

Tom Martin

regarding the Prescription for Disaster editorial: IF the world began on 9-11 then I would agree with the Neo-con mindset with out hesitation; However, the world did exist before 9-11 and we have a long history of meddling directly in the internal affairs of many countries - to ignore that fact as Dr. Paul and the CIA point out is a prescription for the kind of disasters we now face...

But rather then lecture on points probably already made else where I have a question.

Dear Citizen Phil, Exactly what lesson is Usama Bin Laden supposed to learn when we retaliate for 9-11 by eliminating Usama's enemy Saddam?


Dear Tom:

To declare categorically that Saddam was Bin Laden's enemy is a bit of a stretch. A more accurate description would be nervous bedfellows.

Al-Qaeda operatives enjoyed, at the very least, a tolerated presence in Saddam's Iraq. Perhaps they were not invited guests, but then Saddam was not about to hunt them down either.

To answer your question directly... there is no lesson for Bin Laden in the picture at all. Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on the United States. Saddam was responsible for disregarding the cease-fire agreements, which caused George H.W. Bush to withdraw from Iraq without demanding an unconditional surrender.

Saddam was purposefully provocative militarily, and evasive regarding his weapons programs. And yes, he did have weapons programs at various stages of development in violation of agreements.

The fact that we did not find stockpiles of suspected biological and/or chemical weapons does not provide him cover; rather, it only tells us that our intelligence was faulty regarding his progress. In any case, the responsibility for the action taken against Saddam's regime, rests fully on Saddam.

We disassembled Bin Laden's puppet Taliban regime, and we disassembled Saddam's ever-threatening military empire.

The issues are separate and distinct, yet Al-Qaeda has chosen to engage our forces (and innocent Iraqi civilians) in the Iraqi theater. That fact is what I see as the current advantage to our operations in Iraq... that Al-Qaeda's not-unlimited resources have been and continue to be depleted there, and their tactics of inspiring the religious to become suicide weapons has become more difficult.

This is the case, despite the oft-cited claims that we are spawning new suicide-prone terrorists. Many would-be applicants have since retreated and have become disillusioned with Al-Qaeda and their maniacal leader.

Despite claims that I have the intellect of a neo-con mushroom, I want people to examine the issues as they should be examined, by not purposefully wadded them together like a sticky ball of duct tape.

Thanks for writing,



Paul is correct in his Constitutional assessment of American overseas involvement. I have never seen anything written or said that would indicate he believes in hiding our heads in the sand. By the same token, we don’t need to be the world’s nanny.

Did you realize that the US troops Bill Clinton put in Bosnia and the surrounding areas are still there? They were supposed to have been withdrawn before he left office – weren’t they?

Since WW II our nation building efforts have fallen extremely short. It is time to have a strong, capable military and to mind our own business. America should not be a nagging nanny looking over everyone else’s fences telling them what to do.


My first visit here from a link, and I am absolutely astonished at the naivety of the Pauliacs who have commented - simply astonished.
Is it POSSIBLE to be that far removed from the reality that Islamic fascists want to KILL US for the simple reason that we are not - and will never be - an Islamic nation? What part of "Infidels (I.e. anyone NOT a Muslim) should be killed"? have any of you read the Quran, or are you taking nitwit Paul at his word that if we leave them alone they will reciprocate?

You people need to get a clue. This started not because of Irag; not because of our support for Israel - but because of the Crusades. It will never end until these adherents of the so-called "religion of peace" are exterminated.

Wanda Gag

Ron Paul is reminding us all that we need to stop the people in Washington from doing something alse as stupid as what they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are people like Rudy who thinks attacking Iran would be a good thing. Never mind that the Islamo Facist "superpower" of Iran has a GDP about the size of Finland and a military budget of under 5 billiona year. The folks in Washington are spending trillions attempting to shove democracy and capitalism down the throats of people in Iraq and Afghanistan and in turn they are growing opium and training terrorists faster than we can kill them. This is the best we can do? We are a nation of 300 million and we occupy these two countries with less than 200,000 troops and an army of rent-a-cops. This sort of behavior makes men like Ron Paul sound reasonable And I'll be sending him $100 dollars on November 5th to get the message out. Enough is enough!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Special Offers

  • 120x600
  • Great Idea

Author Support

  • Subscribe
    If you choose to subscribe, you will support Phil's ability to write thoughtful and thought-provoking articles. A subscription is $1.50 per month and will continue until you cancel it. Subscriptions will be utterly appreciated!

Pregnant... and you need help.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 01/2005