What Would Ron Paul Have Done With 9/11?
December 21, 2011
I received another response from my family member that I thought I would post for everyone’s benefit. Naturally I’ll continue to protect / respect this individual’s privacy. This time, we were talking foreign policy.
____Family Member’s Response_________________
While our foreign policy probably has had negative unintended consequences doing nothing would have also had negative unintended consequences. As doing nothing is also foreign policy. I believe the real motivations of the Islamic jihadists is based in their religion and world view. Read http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4292, and http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3821 .
Our policies are sometimes go too far, total isolation and doing nothing will probably encourage our enemies. Bin Laden stated that our lack of response indicated that we were weak and could be attacked. Also, Islamic terrorism in not limited to the US. There are attacks all over the world in countries with no people in the middle east. There have been attacks in Thailand, the Philippines, Bali, Sudan, Ethiopia, India, Russia, China, Pakistan, Nigeria to name a few.
I am curious, what has Ron Paul said his response to 9-11 would have been?
___My Response Below_______________
I don’t believe they attack us because we are free. After all, they don’t attack Sweden or Switzerland. The question is what would we do? This video does a good job contextualizing. http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY
If Ron Paul was president, there wound not have been a 9/11. Watch him predict that our foreign policy in the 90’s would lead to attacks on our homeland. He would not have conducted the attacks that aggravated them in the first place. http://youtu.be/_6hxE3mPgtM
If we listen to Bin Laden’s reaction to 9/11, we should also listen to his reasons for the attack. He told us outright why he did it, and he didn’t say “because they are free.” He said, because we’d been bombing the middle east, and we had bases on their holy land.
http://youtu.be/DJLMtRt88ZU – http://youtu.be/-qQYDn5wqeg
NOW let’s say Ron Paul was not the president back then (which obviously he was not) and that 9/11 did happen (which obviously it did). President Paul would have voted for the authority to go after those who harmed us, which he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Terrorism
He also introduced the introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 which would allow us to go after the terrorists, not just after the countries that harbor them.
The problem is that the USA didn’t go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather we went after Saddam who had no link to Bin Laden according to the 9/11 commission report.
In fact, Ron Paul would have killed Bin Laden in 2001 when he was cornered in Tora Bora
- 9/11 would not have happened under President Paul (or constitution lover like him)
- In the event of a 9/11 like attack happening, he would go after those who actually did the dirty deed, not some random dictator.
- Under President Paul, Bin Laden would have been killed 10 years earlier than under Bush/Obama
Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate with military experience, and has raised more money than all other GOP candidates combined (and also more money than Obama) from military and their families. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1 He is much more trustworthy on foreign policy than someone like Gingrich who dodged his draft orders. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html
Thanks again for another quality debate! See you soon,
P.S. Just for fun, here is Ron Paul predicting the economic collapse – http://youtu.be/9S3lXDOQ7ec