Posted 10/17/09 10:56 AM Mike of mv Mission Viejo, CA
It is just so frustrating that Ron Paul's very well-thought-out arguments and questions are dismissed so easily by this panel and by those being questioned. The "gentleman" who gave his response basically said we know everything already - it's all been written about - and we don't have to ask those questions. That's the problem with our foreign policy, nobody but Dr. Paul has the guts to ask the hard questions and certainly no one else wants to challenge the status quo. They might lose their cushey, well-paying (by us), bureaucratic jobs. Meanwhile, children (both American and Afghani/Iraqi) are losing their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, etc. over a needless "war".
Posted 10/17/09 11:36 AM Isomies Mechanicsville, VA
Agree 100%
Posted 10/17/09 1:26 PM NickLaw21 West Springfield, MA
Well said, Mike. When it comes down to it, how many in Congress do at the Campaign for Librty feel are not completely bought and sold by lobbyists at this point? Is there anywhere on the internet that has compiled some sort of list on the matter?
My guess would be that nearly every senator and at least 3/4 of the house are in somebody's pocket. The sooner we can compile an organized list, call people out and spread the information, the sooner we can take Congress back.
With regards to the video, Dr. Paul knocked it out of the park. Unfortunately, these people and THE MEDIA seem to have perfected the art of willful ignorance and misdirection in order to promote their agendas.
"Well, Congressmen, we have been paying a great deal of attention to their motivations."
Yes, I see, buddy. You might wanna take another look. Though, I'll be fair and point out that part of the reason he gave such a crappy answer was that he only had 20 seconds to respond. Though I'm sure a full answer wouldn't have been much worse.
Actually, I think what the guy at the end had to say was pretty legitimate.
I think the reason most people dont buy into Ron Pauls foreign policy is because what this man had to say is the consensus. But if you disagree, then just watch and listen to videos of terrorist and what they have to say, I think its pretty clear what their objective is.
With that said, I still agree with Ron Paul.
Posted 10/17/09 5:28 PM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA
That was a pretty stupid response as to why we're there. When a politician doesn't know what to say, all they can come up with is "It's sophisticated", or "It's complicated". Absolute nonsense.
"Actually, I think what the guy at the end had to say was pretty legitimate. "
simply implicating that there are many books on the subject of why they attack us is not a legitimate response. While I would agree that the issues of understanding how aspects of globalism influence sectarian elements of Islam are very 'complex' -as Mr Kagan put it- but what he said is just a cop out. I'm sure there are many available books that discuss the topic...Im pretty sure one of the authors would be Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz....
"It seems like we've had now a war going for eight years, into the ninth year; and from the discussion, it looks like we're searching for a justification for it. What is the reason we are there? I think we've got the cart before the horse." -Ron Paul
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu
When discussing this topic, many politicians and pundits will say that if we leave now, it will be seen as a defeat. The answer to that criticism is that we already lost. We lost from the very beginning. All we're doing now is looking for victory.
America did not lose because we're up against a more powerful enemy. We lost because we didn't win first. We didn't win first because winning is impossible, and winning is impossible because of the inherent nature of the situation. Sun Tzu also said "A skilled commander seeks victory from the situation and does not demand it of his subordinates."
This is how to conduct a war. You only fight when you've already won, when the victory is assured; and a quick victory at that. If you cannot win, you don't fight. "What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations."
Of course, we're not really in Afghanistan to win. Winning has never been the point. I know that, but I'm just sayin' is all.
However, with the 20 SECONDS the man had, I think he made a good point that many people cant escape - that they hate us (whether we are there or not) and that their intentions are clear.
With that said again:
1. America brought it on themselves over the past decades
2. We dont need to antagonize anyone by being there
3. Too expensive
How do you know they hate whether America is there or not?
Did they hate before America began interfering with the middle east covertly or overtly over decades and decades?
Maybe a few did, maybe not. People have always hated others since the beginning of time for reasons real or imagined, and are entitled to that freedom. Hating isn't a crime unless it's acted on. Surely the average Afghan is entitled to be disgusted with the way Americans live because it jives with their beliefs and values (and vice versa) - it doesn't mean they're going to murder Americans (and vice versa), it just means they don't think much of Americans (and vice versa) and the less they have to do with them the better. Fair enough, I say.
Everybody hates someone or something, and with the idea of pre-emptively preventing any flare ups of violence in the future by killing everyone with any kind of hatred or disagreement in them, that means we're all fair game to be taken out by our loving caring government for something. Whether you are a Red Sox fan who hates the Yankees or you work for Microsoft and hate Google - the SWAT TEAM might be needed to blow your head off, just in case you one day develop any funny ideas... "Watch yourself Bill, you're likely to cop one through the goggle like Moe Green unless you set your homepage to Google."
And let's be honest, the American troops have killed countless more civilians than the 9/11 attacks did. How can the leadership claim any moral high ground now? And the numbers of American troops are likely to eventually go over that number too - then it's backwards sense of "We don't mind definitely losing thousands more Americans in order to POSSIBLY save a much fewer number of Americans from POSSIBLE future attacks."
Plus with the cartoon plotline of the official 9/11 story getting ever stranger, and with around half of the so-called hijackers still walking around alive and well (despite still being on the list as those who crashed on the planes), I think it's safe to say beyond any doubt the only people who certainly had a hand in carrying out the 9/11 attacks were the Bush administration.
But that's so taboo to the average dumbed down American or hardcore Republican that it's almost like asking them to consider an incestuous liason with their sibling.
After all, nobody hates Americans like the American leadership - and nobody is more capable of hurting America than those same people.
Dr. Kagan's remark about the raison de etre for the U.S. in Afghanistan as being too sophisticated to understand.
Yeah...heard that silly argument during the Viet Nam occupation.
"On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.
The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diệm and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the U.S. ambassador."
But this time Karzi the puppet will be let go by the puppet master; just so the puppet master can save face over the mess its made in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Duong Van Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Duong Van Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.
The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diem and his younger brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters. Diem was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the U.S. ambassador.
One man who has the courage to speak the TRUTH and ask the RIGHT question is undoubtedly Dr. Paul.
The response from Kagan was the most pathetic response I have ever heard.Al Qaeda hates America's wealth !!! And he (Kagan) supposedly knows all other reasons(too complicated to explain) ???
Now we know why US is in such trouble. If ignorants like Kagan advises administration, what can one expect ? His next suggestion would be to launch war against Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon ...............list goes on.
Al Qaeda is DEAD. Taliban is NO threat to US. It's a local resistance movement.
There is NO reason for US to be in Iraq & Afghanistan any more. Early we END the WAR, better it is for all.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
