Ron Paul is no Pacifist ***Dont read if you get angry at Ron Paul threads**

[SnyderShrugged]

I hope the note in the title helps those who have voiced a recent complaint to an alternate thread. I would hate to anger someone whom I have no beef with.

I know that there is a common misconception that his stance on the Iraq war and on foreign policy is weak. I hope that this blog and the video help to reframe those opinions.

Ron Paul Is No Pacifist

Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 18 Jul 2007 at 10:16 am | Tagged as: Video Wednesdays, 2008 Election

Contrary to popular belief, Ron Paul is no pacifist. The fact that he opposes our currently belligerent and interventionist foreign policy, the fact the he opposes pre-emptive and unconstitutional wars, does not mean he favors hug fests as a means to peace. Ron Paul favors the use of force - and overwhelming and deadly force - when absolutely necessary.

Here are some facts and applications from history to illuminate this point:

Ron Paul supported the authorization to go after Osama Bin Laden and his minions.

Ron Paul introduced legislation to Declare War on Iraq - even though he opposed the action and the unconstitutional war we are currently embroiled in - because he reasoned if we are going to do it, let’s really get the American people behind it and do it the right way and win.

Ron Paul says he would seek Pakistan’s permission to go after al-Qaeda within their borders, and if it was revealed that they posed a very real and eminent threat from their bases in Pakistan, he believes we have the right to attack them even without Pakistan’s permission.

For an example from history, Ron Paul’s policy would be supportive of President Reagan’s decision to bomb Libya in retaliation for their terrorist attack on a civilian airliner in the 1980s.

Though we are not permitted under the Constitution to engage in an offensive and sustained war against another sovereign nation without a congressional Declaration of War, Ron Paul understands that our forces have the right to defend themselves and our nation, including the use of immediate counter-strikes, if they or we come under attack.

And here he is in his own words, answering MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson’s questions to this effect in clear and principled fashion. Republicans and other Americans who think that Ron Paul’s humble foreign policy means that he would be a pushover dove who would fail to do what it takes to protect this nation from attack need to see this short interview below. Please watch it now:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

CARLSON: There has been great a great hesitance on the part of every president I am aware of in America to deal with regimes that are genuinely bad. The idea is we are above that. We are tainted by their evil if we make common cause with them. Are you bothered by that? Is there any regime that we should not deal with because they‘re morally repugnant?

PAUL: Well, basically, you try to avoid that attitude because you really want to talk to as many people as possible and trade with people. I mean, we dealt with the Chinese and that wasn‘t a bad idea. We trade with them now. And we are very much less likely now to have a war with China. So I would say you deal with these people.

We talk to the Russians, so why can‘t we talk to the Iranians. It makes a lot of sense to me that we should talk to them if we talk to these other regimes. It‘s this attitude that we should isolate ourselves from the world and just be belligerent and threaten them and put on sanctions. Right now, the more sanctions we put on, the more harm we do to the dissidents that are in Iran.

So I would say that always backfires. Yes, in general, you want to deal with people and talk to people as much as possible. If there is hostility going on, even then you talk to people to try to end that. Depending on force and war is the wrong way to go. That should not be the American way.

That right there tells me everything I need to know about why I cannot in good conscience vote for Ron Paul. The unwillingness to look at countries like Iran, China, Russia, etc... and tell them that they are our enemies and will be treated as such makes me fear what our foreign policy would be like under this man's control. It also tells me that he's nowhere near isolationist enough for my preferences, and that while he says most of the right things on defense, I think he would hesitate to make the call on necessary military action at times and potentially cost America dearly in the process.

[SnyderShrugged]

That right there tells me everything I need to know about why I cannot in good conscience vote for Ron Paul. The unwillingness to look at countries like Iran, China, Russia, etc... and tell them that they are our enemies and will be treated as such makes me fear what our foreign policy would be like under this man's control. It also tells me that he's nowhere near isolationist enough for my preferences, and that while he says most of the right things on defense, I think he would hesitate to make the call on necessary military action at times and potentially cost America dearly in the process.

I respect your opinion Mass. I disagree, but respect you just the same.

I am glad that you recognize that he is not isolationist and that he isnt willing to spend our taxes on any more "police action" wars.

The one problem I have with your post is that I have yet to see anything that indicates that he would "hesitate" in the event of a needed retaliation for attack. All I have read on his views says otherwise. In cfact he voiced complained that we waited way too long on OBL after 09/11.

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr120401.htm

I wonder if this could still work? I love the use of understanding history in finding creative alternatives.

LET PRIVATEERS TROLL FOR BIN LADEN -- HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - December 04, 2001)

[Page: E2202] GPO's PDF

---

HON. RON PAUL

OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues read the attached article ``Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden'' by Larry Sechrest, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. Professor Sechrest documents the role privateers played in the war against pirates who plagued America in the early days of the Republic. These privateers often operated with letters of marque and reprisal granted by the United States Congress.

Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today's terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today's terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence.

Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to apprehend using traditional military means. We have seen that bombs and missiles can effectively and efficiently knock out the military capability, economy and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors terrorists. However, recent events also seem to suggest that traditional military force is not as effective in bringing lawless terrorists to justice.

When a terrorist stronghold has been destroyed by military power, terrorists simply may move to another base before military forces locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe the drafters of the Constitution would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of ``piracy'' to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest's article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.

LET PRIVATEERS TROLL FOR BIN LADEN

(by Larry J. Sechrest)

In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion--that's billion with a ``b''--to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive.

Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot's successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979.

We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bail-jumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.

Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called ``privateers,'' played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists' cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.

During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers ``letters of marque and reprisal,'' under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers' nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers' bond to the owners of the seized ship.

If the seizure was, just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer's owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative--albeit risky,

Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.

During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd's of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, ``Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.''

If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative--private ships of war.

In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and ``every terrorist group with a global reach.'' The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.

Let's bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The one problem I have with your post is that I have yet to see anything that indicates that he would "hesitate" in the event of a needed retaliation for attack. All I have read on his views says otherwise. In cfact he voiced complained that we waited way too long on OBL after 09/11.

You found my problem with his policy in one word.... retaliation. There are a large number of occassions where I believe we need to be pro-active and deal with a potential threat before it actually goes from being a threat to an attack.

As for your other comment on privateering... I'm not a big fan of pat-per-play mercenaries. I'd much rather have the SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force, etc... track these mofo's down on a rather long leash than just allowing the armed thugs to ply their trade on America's dime.

[SnyderShrugged]

You found my problem with his policy in one word.... retaliation. There are a large number of occassions where I believe we need to be pro-active and deal with a potential threat before it actually goes from being a threat to an attack.

As for your other comment on privateering... I'm not a big fan of pat-per-play mercenaries. I'd much rather have the SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force, etc... track these mofo's down on a rather long leash than just allowing the armed thugs to ply their trade on America's dime.

I wouldnt mind if we used the special forces as the agents as well. Unfortunately, they are as imited in options as the rest of the armed forced due to the mandated "PC" warcraft tactics of the day.

I wont comment on the pre-emptive war statements because to me, they bare against our constitution completely. BTW, I have journeyed long to land on this point of view. I have and always will be rather Hawkish in my views, but Hawkish includes actually killing the real enemy and quickly.

I think we can agree that the current approach to war and terrorism has not worked out the way we all know our incredible military is capable of.

We should be open minded to alternatives when the current course hasnt generated the results intended. That is simple logic, isnt it?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I wouldnt mind if we used the special forces as the agents as well. Unfortunately, they are as imited in options as the rest of the armed forced due to the mandated "PC" warcraft tactics of the day.

That's why I'd be for not telling Congress or the American people about it. Just let the boys go and do what they're trained to do best, the way that they see fit, so long as they get the job done.

I wont comment on the pre-emptive war statements because to me, they bare against our constitution completely. BTW, I have journeyed long to land on this point of view. I have and always will be rather Hawkish in my views, but Hawkish includes actually killing the real enemy and quickly.

I'm sorry but I do not believe that we need another Pearl Harbor or September 11th before we act against our enemies. Personally, part of my isolationist philosophy is to tell our neighbors that they stick their fingers into our business with the very real chance that they may pull back nothing but a stump of a wrist

I think we can agree that the current approach to war and terrorism has not worked out the way we all know our incredible military is capable of.

We should be open minded to alternatives when the current course hasnt generated the results intended. That is simple logic, isnt it?

I will agree that our current approach has not worked out. For the exact same reason that my father drilled into my head that Vietnam didn't work out... because we've allowed politicians and the public to dictate policy rather than the warriors. You cannot win a boxing match with your hands tied behind your back. You definitely cannot win a bare knuckle brawl and wrestling match that way.

I think our biggest difference of opinion on this part will be that I would prefer to take that big dog or a military off his leash whereas I get the felling you'd prefer to put him back in the crate.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's why I'd be for not telling Congress or the American people about it. Just let the boys go and do what they're trained to do best, the way that they see fit, so long as they get the job done.

I'm sorry but I do not believe that we need another Pearl Harbor or September 11th before we act against our enemies. Personally, part of my isolationist philosophy is to tell our neighbors that they stick their fingers into our business with the very real chance that they may pull back nothing but a stump of a wrist

I will agree that our current approach has not worked out. For the exact same reason that my father drilled into my head that Vietnam didn't work out... because we've allowed politicians and the public to dictate policy rather than the warriors. You cannot win a boxing match with your hands tied behind your back. You definitely cannot win a bare knuckle brawl and wrestling match that way.

I think our biggest difference of opinion on this part will be that I would prefer to take that big dog or a military off his leash whereas I get the felling you'd prefer to put him back in the crate.

Nope, we agree more than you know on one oint. Take the leash off the Military. I think we differ in that I'm for overwhelming defense of the US in an imminent threat or in retailiation to an attack. You seem to support offense more.

That is one of the largest misconceptions of Dr. paul (and I had hoped you would see it from my posts in this thread as evidence ). He would be very strong on security because he would do war the right way.

constitutionally kill the bad guys then leave. no nation building, no policing the streets, real, hard core war ala WW2.

We dont do wars like that any more because we dont declare it and the populous never really gets behind it as the proven historical result.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Nope, we agree more than you know on one oint. Take the leash off the Military. I think we differ in that I'm for overwhelming defense of the US in an imminent threat or in retailiation to an attack. You seem to support offense more is all.

I'm very much of an opinion that a good offense is the best defense. If you give me a reason to think that you're looking to do me harm, I'm going to do it to you first. I'm going to try and give you a knock-out punch right off the bat to ensure you cannot actually do me harm.

That is one of the largest misconceptions of Dr. paul (and I had hoped you would see it from my posts in this thread as evidence thereof). He would be very strong on security because he would do war the right way.

constitutionally kill the bad guys then leave. no nation building, no policing the streets, real, hard core war ala WW2.

We dont do wars like that any more because we dont declare it and the populous never really gets behind it as the proven historical result.

I believe it is General James Longstreet who once told his Commanding General, one Robert E Lee "The only potential outcome of defensive warfare is surrender." General Longstreet was absolutely correct. Strictly fighting a defensive campaign is the quickest way to lose a war.

I agree on the no nation-building concept. If they want the help afterwards they can PAY FOR IT, just like Japan and Germany should have been made to do.

We don't declare War because the who concept of war has changed. We are no longer fighting nations or regions. We are fighting small insurgent and guerilla groups instead. Declaring war against NGO's just doesn't do much good.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm very much of an opinion that a good offense is the best defense. If you give me a reason to think that you're looking to do me harm, I'm going to do it to you first. I'm going to try and give you a knock-out punch right off the bat to ensure you cannot actually do me harm.

I believe it is General James Longstreet who once told his Commanding General, one Robert E Lee "The only potential outcome of defensive warfare is surrender." General Longstreet was absolutely correct. Strictly fighting a defensive campaign is the quickest way to lose a war.

I agree on the no nation-building concept. If they want the help afterwards they can PAY FOR IT, just like Japan and Germany should have been made to do.

We don't declare War because the who concept of war has changed. We are no longer fighting nations or regions. We are fighting small insurgent and guerilla groups instead. Declaring war against NGO's just doesn't do much good.

If declaring war on groups is bad (and we agree here) and doomed, then why would the constitutional option of Letters of Marque and Reprisal not be a viable option, if even in just an attempt?

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If declaring war on groups is bad (and we agree here) and doomed, then why would the constitutional option of Letters of Marque and Reprisal not be a viable option, if even in just an attempt?

The problem with Letters of Marque and Reprisal is that they're based almost exclusively on maritime law, and OLD maritime law at that. Considering the bad blood between the USA and the International Courts added to the fact that we wouldn't likely be asking these people to commit these acts on the seas, I could see it becoming a very tough act to defend internationally. Especially when we have the SEALs, Rangers, etc... to use.

[Art]

I happen to agree with Paul that a declaration of war is required to do what we've done since WWII in the wars we've fought that weren't wars.

Where Paul has a problem is blaming the rape victim for dressing so as an excuse for the rape itself. To suggest the U.S. is to blame for radical Islam because we showed up there to expel an aggressor in the region is a weak position. It's the reason he can't win this election.

[ImmortalDragon]

I happen to agree with Paul that a declaration of war is required to do what we've done since WWII in the wars we've fought that weren't wars.

Where Paul has a problem is blaming the rape victim for dressing so as an excuse for the rape itself. To suggest the U.S. is to blame for radical Islam because we showed up there to expel an aggressor in the region is a weak position. It's the reason he can't win this election.

Once again...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul262.html

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

[Art]

Immortal,

We could curb rape in our society by dressing our women in sacks. Good idea? Or, do you think, despite being a young buck, you can figure out that it is NEVER a good idea for the world's greatest power and country with the best ideals to turtle up. We were in the Middle East to defend countries from another at their request. If you legitimately think sinking inside our borders and closing all our international military bases is good policy, I'm frightened.

[Thiebear]

But according to Pape you can not retaliate at all against Lebanon or you will incur more terrorists? Thus allowing Hamas to continue shelling you and randomly each week? Rock <> Hardplace.... How long can you sit still if the person next to you was poking you with a stick no matter what you said to them..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14370.htm

Kicking Iraq out of Kuwait was not occupying foreign lands...

Keeping Iraq from hitting Saudi Arabia was not occupying foreign lands...

We would have been out of Iraq in June of last year if there were so many "freedom fighters"..

The United States has freed more people than any country in the history of the world... I kinda like that record...

[Koolblue13]

Immortal,

We could curb rape in our society by dressing our women in sacks. Good idea? Or, do you think, despite being a young buck, you can figure out that it is NEVER a good idea for the world's greatest power and country with the best ideals to turtle up. We were in the Middle East to defend countries from another at their request. If you legitimately think sinking inside our borders and closing all our international military bases is good policy, I'm frightened.

Your saying we are in Iraq at the request of Saudi, for defense? I havn't heard that one. I thought it was for our safety. I also think your being frightened, is the reason you feel we are "turtling up".

[Art]

Your saying we are in Iraq at the request of Saudi, for defense? I havn't heard that one. I thought it was for our safety. I also think your being frightened, is the reason you feel we are "turtling up".

No. I'm understanding the data provided by Immortal which attributes Islamic terror to our post Gulf War presence in the Middle East. Muslims never really paid much mind to Iraq when it was led by a non-Muslim who killed Muslims, so, it's unlikely being in Iraq is an inspiration to them.

Put differently, if there are a people so screwed up that having a non-occupational military force designed to HELP protect a country at that country's request can set them off, is it really the thought we should do nothing about that? We should kill that.

I'm not part of the crowd that wants to quiver up in our beds together inside our borders, fearing the spread of our values may make someone mad. I believe our values are worth spreading and typically superior to those we run into elsewhere and it's ok to be proud of that.

[Koolblue13]

No. I'm understanding the data provided by Immortal which attributes Islamic terror to our post Gulf War presence in the Middle East. Muslims never really paid much mind to Iraq when it was led by a non-Muslim who killed Muslims, so, it's unlikely being in Iraq is an inspiration to them.

Put differently, if there are a people so screwed up that having a non-occupational military force designed to HELP protect a country at that country's request can set them off, is it really the thought we should do nothing about that? We should kill that.

I'm not part of the crowd that wants to quiver up in our beds together inside our borders, fearing the spread of our values may make someone mad. I believe our values are worth spreading and typically superior to those we run into elsewhere and it's ok to be proud of that.

The Islamic terror is in response to much more than our post gulf war. Between the 9/11 report or interviews with Bin Ladan himself, it's been stated. It has also been widly reported that our occupation in Iraq is fueling the inspiration of our enemies.

A non occupational force? In the other thread, you state the opposite. Also, is it the people of Iraq or the gov't we put in power who wants us to remain in Iraq. Or is it the royal Saudi family as well?

The spread of our values and the force of our military are not one in the same. Our values are not to nation build or forcably occupy a country. I will not buy Iraq as a humanitarian effort, despite it being the last justification of this war.

[ImmortalDragon]

Immortal,

We could curb rape in our society by dressing our women in sacks. Good idea? Or, do you think, despite being a young buck, you can figure out that it is NEVER a good idea for the world's greatest power and country with the best ideals to turtle up. We were in the Middle East to defend countries from another at their request. If you legitimately think sinking inside our borders and closing all our international military bases is good policy, I'm frightened.

Maybe if we would listen to them instead of claiming we're always the good people we would actually make ourselves safer.

[Art]

Maybe if we would listen to them instead of claiming we're always the good people we would actually make ourselves safer.

Very good, Immortal.

So, which of their ideals do we listen to?

Killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the planet?

Honor killings?

Beheadings?

The place of women in society?

How would you have us listen? By just listening, or should we aid them in slaughtering jews and by taking away rights of women in our country to show how wrong we've been?

[ImmortalDragon]

Very good, Immortal.

So, which of their ideals do we listen to?

Killing Jews and wiping Israel from the face of the planet?

Honor killings?

Beheadings?

The place of women in society?

How would you have us listen? By just listening, or should we aid them in slaughtering jews and by taking away rights of women in our country to show how wrong we've been?

Listen to why they attacked us.

[Art]

Listen to why they attacked us.

Sure. They've told us they find us decadent and infidels. Should we agree and kill ourselves?

[ImmortalDragon]

Sure. They've told us they find us decadent and infidels. Should we agree and kill ourselves?

But thats not why they're attacking us

The fatwa lists three "crimes and sins" committed by the Americans:

* U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.

* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.

* U.S. support of Israel.

The fatwa states that the United States:

* Plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.

* Dictates policy to the rulers of those countries.

* Supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.

* Has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.

* Intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.

* Supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the "occupation of Palestine".

Nowhere does it say they attack us because we're rich and free.

[Art]

The U.S. military has never occupied the Arabian Peninsula. We were invited by the rulers of nations to keep another country from occupying them. We have attacked Iraq, but, again, we know that's a false concern by the Muslims, since they had no problem with Saddam's secular Iraq killing Muslims and denying them religious freedom.

As for the third, again, I ask you if you recommend we help them kill the Jews, or simply watch them do it?

[ImmortalDragon]

The U.S. military has never occupied the Arabian Peninsula. We were invited by the rulers of nations to keep another country from occupying them. We have attacked Iraq, but, again, we know that's a false concern by the Muslims, since they had no problem with Saddam's secular Iraq killing Muslims and denying them religious freedom.

As for the third, again, I ask you if you recommend we help them kill the Jews, or simply watch them do it?

I'll ask the same question to you about Darfur