This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"This Is Exactly What Bin Laden Wanted" Ron Paul Concludes
Having expressed his dismay at President Obama's decision to embark upon Iraq War 3.0, Ron Paul explains "it's a little bit late to salvage all the mistakes that we've made for the past 24 years," adding that he is worried "it will end up with a lot more violence because they are putting more troops in there right now." Simply out, Paul concludes, "the sooner we get out of there the better," as it "jeopardizes our national security and is bankrupting our country... this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted."
Even if the US abandons its efforts, Paul added, assistance provided to other groups throughout the region may end up sabotaging attempts to dismantle the Islamic State if weaponry trickles downs into the hands of militants. Firepower already provided by the Pentagon in and around Iraq has found itself in the wrong hands, Paul said, and the only solution to prevent further unintended consequences is to keep America out of international conflicts altogether.
“I would stick to the basic principle that we have a strong national defense, we defend our national security, we don’t get involved in fights around the world, we don’t get involved in civil strife and civil wars and especially what was going on in the middle east,” he said, “so no, I think the argument stands on its own merits that we shouldn’t be involved in doing this.”
“I think the sooner we get out of there the better,” Paul told David. “We don’t have a moral responsibility; we don’t have a constitutional responsibility. It has nothing to do with our national security. It in jeopardizes our national security and is bankrupting our country.”
What’s more, Paul added, is that the US government’s ongoing meddling in the Iraqi affair and other incidents is falling exactly in line with Al-Qaeda. According to Paul, terrorists have long intended to take the US down by wasting its resources on campaigns, the likes of which have been called fodder for some by further fanning the flames of anti-American sentiments through military action carried out in far apart countries.
“This is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted,” Paul said. “He wanted to engage us over there because he said, ‘I’ll bring you down like I brought the Soviets down.’ We are doing the same thing because we flat out can’t afford it. It’s a failed policy. I think after so many years and so many decades we ought to admit the truth.”
- 16885 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


If the "others" had been known to have previously killed your spouse or children (past event), would that matter?
Sure. I'd kill them without a second thought if I could, and take everything they had. Seriously, killing my friends constitutes quite a massive provocation!
For that matter, if anyone had stolen from me in the past, they'd be fair game too (to take back as much value as they took from me, plus some reasonable excess to compensate me for my trouble, effort and the risks involved in doing so).
It is indeed quite possible survival might come down to water and food. Which is why I have my own water supply and gardens. Anyone who doesn't have AT LEAST a good collection of heirloom seeds is asking for trouble when the SHTF.
I agree in principle but I have three small children so I have a large "perimeter" I maintain for self denfense but it sure as heck doesn't extend anywhere near the middle east.....
I have various animals that assist in the protection of my property. They act as an alarm relay system. Easier to sleep: waking up to someone breaking in one isn't necessarily as ready to respond as one believes one might be; having early warning systems in place allows you more time to shake off cobwebs.
I don't care if you weigh only 80 lbs., a 0.38 S&W with hollow points will make you as formidable as the meanest NFL lineman. However, I would bet that you already know that.
All fine as long as you're packing and you're clearly awake (and properly oriented). If one is like me, human, one has to sleep. Or, perhaps you're occupied with a bath/shower (really, you're NOT going to be packing there!). You're NOT going to dictate what someone else is going to do, what timing, what approach (other than make some things less attractive).
I recall someone I knew waking up to a robber right in his bedroom. Wouldn’t have mattered a bit even if he'd been sleeping with a gun in his hand. For me that scenario is less probable given my early warning system (animals - no electronics to break, don't "jam," and generally can not be used against you).
Also keep in mind that there might be others in your home/camp/whatever, and that they too might armed and that YOU might startle them. Again, getting a second or two to shake out any cobwebs is a good thing.
Anyone who is realistic has to understand that life includes risks. Anyone who is a bit thoughtful understands that life today, as problematic as it can be, is vastly safer than what humans faced for 99.999% of their history on earth.
So the bottom line for anyone who is realistic is this. The more preparation we make, the better our odds (the lower the risks). But the risks are NEVER zero, and never even close to zero. Not even for me, living 125km from the nearest human being in my self-sufficient setup that cannot be reached by land vehicle (with my airplane to escape with if necessary).
No matter how many precautions we take, life involves significant risk. We can only better our odds.
And the way Murphy's Law works, if we focus all our efforts to reduce risk, we'll probably die from falling down the stairs, or of some fatal disease, or a natural disaster, or something else beyond our control.
Until we become immortal (with backups). Working on it.
Garden Gnome claymores wired to the doorknob.
well to the anti Ron posters I would ask Who else says these words? Who else wants our military brought home? who else wants to shrink the monster on the patomac? waiting waiting none of you are able to answer, you are maggots eating at dead flesh of your idiology.
"Who else says these words?"
There are LOTS of people. While I too stand up for attacks against Ron Paul I believe that the "solutions/words" needn't have to come from politicians, no matter how sincere or stately they might be.
Ron Paul aka "controlled opposition", I've got to admit, has a great schtick. But then McCain had a great schtick as an honest politician, his own man, a maverick, etc back in the days. A shoe shine and a smile goes a long way in America.
Don't confuse fundamental character with playing a character. Ron Paul has been consistent, he's been fundamentally consistent. McCain? Well, yeah, the ones that get the real airings are ALL make-believes: GW Bush was made out to be a cowboy from Texas when he was really from an elite east-coast family; the Clintons were made out to be, as with Obama, "regular" folks who struggled up the ladder when in fact they had their paths paved for them (like all the rest of the "chosen").
Rumor has it that Winthrop's penis worked in Arkansas. Love child.
Ron Paul is the only decent, honest politician in America.
And you've managed to survey/judge every single politician? Lots of free time!
Listen, Ron's a good guy, but let's keep to the high road and utilize facts. Point to Ron as an "example," not a "god."
His own party held his delegates hostage at the convention, he should have made it a federal case, but instead stayed very civilized and accepted it as a controlled opposition figure. It is too late now no matter what. You have only phoney Democraps and phoney Replicraps.
Please Ron, go away.
"Go Away", but I'll bet you read his remarks twice.
Please Ron, go away.
Americans have come to view Snowden as more of a whistle-blower rather then as a traitor as the White House tried to paint him. Interestingly a gender gap emerges on how people see the government’s anti-terrorism programs with men being more inclined to think the government has gone to far, it also seems that younger voters, those in their twenties are appalled by the intrusions into our privacy.
Will terrorists kill innocent civilians in the years to come? Of course. They did so more than 100 years ago, when they were called anarchists—and a responsible nation-state must take reasonable measures to protect its citizens. But there is no way to completely eliminate terrorism.The challenge that confronts us is how we will live with that threat. We have created an economy of fear, an industry of fear, a national psychology of fear. Al Qaeda could never have achieved that on its own. We have inflicted it on ourselves. More on this subject in the article below.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-terrorist-under-every-bed.html
"We have inflicted it on ourselves."
In a way yes. However, and Radical Marijuana can speak to this far better than I could ever hope to, it's really how the System has been organized (and goes back a LONG way).
read it the other way: that is exactly the state Osama had been built up for
Fact: bin Laden was a CIA operative.
Paul concludes, "the sooner we get out of there the better," as it "jeopardizes our national security and is bankrupting our country... this is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted."
Ron as always appreciate your last ditch efforts, but it would have gone a very long way if you could have just told us about Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim and "Buzzy" Krongard being the ones who wanted to jeopardizes our national security and bankrupt our Country and NOT Osama bin Laden!
9/11 Truth lives!!!
Hobson choice
Tyler stop these guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o6VKD1Eg-8
Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9Huy-JP1xo
pop culture version of Aquinas or Augustine information cast light on shadows.
"strange time in my life" indeed!
Almost comical.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/iraq-policy-washingtons-puzzle-pal...
Iraq Policy: Washington’s Puzzle Palace Keeps Getting Curiouser by David Stockman • August 13, 2014Let’s count the ways. It goes without saying that Obama is now busily bombing American military equipment. Some of that equipment is pretty high tech gear and especially lethal—not the kind that jihadists ordinarily train with in their desert lairs or mountain redoubts.
But then again, ISIS got provisioned by none other than the Iraqi Army. The latter not only dropped its uniforms for civvies during the battle for Mosul, but also left behind armored Humvees, heavy artillery, night vision systems, state of the art firearms and much else of like and similar nature. Nor was this the first time that the Iraqi Army disarmed itself unilaterally. A while back they also surrendered their uniforms and guns when another American President—George W. Bush—-bombed them.
That was called “shock and awe”. Afterwards, the remnants of the Iraqi army must have found it indeed shocking and awesome that Washington immediately pivoted— after hanging the country’s leader—and spent $25 billion re-equipping and training them in brand new uniforms and with far better weapons.
Fast-forward to 2014. The hasty hand-off of these American weapons to ISIS during its June blitzkrieg was easy enough to explain. On their way out of Baghdad, the Washington “nation builders” had equipped and trained a native army so that it could defend a “nation” which did not exist. What passed for “Iraq” was some very long, straight lines drawn on a map exactly 98 years ago by the British and French foreign offices as they carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire. What passed for governance within these so-called Sykes-Picot boundaries was a series of kings, generals and dictators—- culminating in Saddam Hussein—-who ruled from the barrel of whatever gun had been supplied by the highest bidder among the Great Powers.
Thus, Brezhnev gave the Iraqi generals weapons in the 1970s. In the 1980s, President Reagan joined in, green lighting exports of the components and precursors for chemical weapons and providing Saddam with the satellite-based intelligence to practice using them on his “enemies” ( i.e. teenage boys in the Iranian Army) before he used them on his own people (i.e. the Kurds and the Shiite).
Not surprisingly, after the US had “liberated” Iraq from 90 years of dictatorship—democracy took hold with lightening speed subsequent to the 2011 departure of American GIs. The “rule of the majority”—that is, the Shiite majority—-soon ripped through most governmental institutions, but especially the military. In short order the “Iraqi” army became a Shiite army. Hence the precipitous surrender and flight from the battles of Mosul and other northern cities. That was Sunni and Kurd territory—–not a place where Shiite soldiers wanted to be shot dead or caught alive.
The more interesting mystery is how the ISIS fighters learned how to use Uncle Sam’s advanced weaponry so quickly. Perhaps the CIA knows. It did train several thousand anti-Assad fighters in its secret camps in Jordan in preparation for Washington’s “regime change” campaign in Syria. Undoubtedly, in the fog of war—-especially the sectarian wars in the Islamic heartland that have been raging for 13 centuries—it is difficult to have friend and foe vetted effectively.
But effective vetting or no, the purpose of training Sunni fighters in Syria was to achieve a key Washington strategic objective. Namely, to breakup and disable the fearsome “Shiite Crescent”, ranging from Hezbollah in Lebanon through Assad’s Alawite-Shiite regime in Syria to the seat of the Axis-Of-Evil itself—-the purportedly nuke seeking Shiite theocracy of Iran.
To be sure, the CIA had re-certified as recently as 2008 that the Iranians had disbanded a few incipient nuclear weapons experiments years earlier. Likewise, the medieval mullahs who rule Iran had issued fatwas against a nuclear weapons program in any form. But so great was the Shiite threat deemed to be by Washington that both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the peace president himself announced the Assad “must go” peacefully or Washington would wage war against him. And this was all part of the grand scheme of disabling the fearsome Shiite Crescent.
Needless to say, Washington’s war on the Shiite Crescent caused a certain awkwardness in the newly “democratic” nation of Iraq. The political forces that had done the democratizing—al Maliki’s Shiite coalition—-hailed from the southern regions of the Sykes-Picot map located at the headwaters of the Persian Gulf’s hydrocarbon infused sediments. Not only did this Shiite homeland have most of Iraq’s oil reserves and host all the crucial Shiite shrines of the 7th century battles which gave rise to the great Islamic schism, but it was also geographically the crucial land-bridge between the Iranian power to the east and the balance of the Shiite Crescent to the west.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the rise of ISIS earlier this year did not result in a plea to Washington from the al-Maliki government for help. Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani not only opposed American re-entry, but issued the first fatwa since the 1920s calling upon the Shiite militias to repel the ISIS invader—just as they had been called to arms against the British 90-years back. Likewise, the al-Maliki government’s Iranian allies loudly announced “no thanks” to Washington’s offers of help, as did leaders of the Shiite street like the firebrand preacher, Motqua al-Sadr.
So the tangle thickened. Making war on the Shiite Crescent, Washington was poorly positioned to repel the ISIS hordes through local proxies because most of the candidates were aligned with the wrong side or entangled in the fictional state of Iraq. Obviously, Assad of Syria and the mullahs of Iran—-the natural state enemies of the emerging Sunni Caliphate—were not going to help because they knew full well that they were on Washington’s enemies list.
But the internal Iraqi entities were no more available. Yes, the Kurds have an army called the Peshmerga, which is comprised of motivated, seasoned fighters who’s battlefield exploits reach all the way back to the time of Saddam’s genocidal campaign against the Kurds led by his cousin, “Chemical Ali”.
However, the Kurd army is, unfortunately, illegal under the Iraqi constitution. So now the Obama Administration’s belated attempt to bolster the peshmerga will require a convoluted maneuver. To not offend the Iraqi government in Baghdad and its constitution, the Kurdish fighters will not be supplied with advanced American weapons like those being used by its ISIS enemy. Instead, they will be “unofficially” supplied with Russian weapons through a CIA back-channel!
But it probably doesn’t matter. While the ISIS was busy taking Mosul and the Iraqi army weapons from the central government, the Peshmerga was busy doing the same thing a little further south. After years of failing to annex the oil capital of the north—Kirkuk—through legislative action in the Iraqi parliament, they were able to accomplish this in recent weeks on the battlefield. At Kirkuk, the Iraqi Army also shed its uniforms and left its American supplied weapons behind. So the Peshmerga has American weapons after all!
And now the Kurds are ready for the obvious. Namely, to hold a referendum on independence which will be as decisive as that in Crimea. So “Kurdistan” will soon occupy the northeast portion of the Sykes-Picot map that used to be called Iraq.
The virtually certainty of an independent Kurdistan leaves a striking awkwardness with respect to the struggle over control and the constitution currently raging in Baghdad. Al-Maliki has been dismissed by the Iraq’s president and has been urged to go quickly into the night by Washington’s leaders and strategists including the President and John Kerry. But the President of Iraq is a Kurd who claims to be upholding the nation’s constitution—-at the very moment that his countrymen are fixing to secede from the union, so to speak.
That leaves al-Maliki to defend himself against a constitution upholder who represents a multi-million person enclave of people who despise the Iraqi constitution, its government organs in Baghdad and its historic appropriation of the region’s considerable oil revenues. So the Iraqi “constitutional crisis” is everything the phrase implies, and much more.
Nevertheless, al-Maliki may be able to defend himself. His militia and special forces are equipped with the latest and greatest American weapons! If need be, they can be turned against his designated successor. And, oh, he’s a militant Shiite too—–who spent most of his adult life in London, presumably on the Iranian payroll. Either way, therefore, the nascent Shiite state in the southern regions of the Sykes-Picot map will remain an integral part of the Shiite Crescent.
So there are no proxies and there is no functioning Iraqi state. If the Washington war party decides to keep bombing just exactly what purpose will be served—other then defending a map which is now heading for the dustbin of history?