So, who is the best current presidential candidate in terms of stopping terrorism and terrorists? I know Rudy is often named as being supported because of his “experience” in dealing with them for some reason. I know some people who support Rudy simply because of his leadership as related to this issue. But who is really the best for you, if your issue is stopping terrorists and stopping terrorism against the United States?
Do you know what the Number 1 tool is that terrorists use to recruit more terrorists? Surprisingly enough, it’s not just religion. That only goes so far. Instead, there is one tool that terrorists use far more than any other. And there’s just one presidential candidate that actually is working to completely REMOVE that tool from the terrorists’ arsenal of recruiting tools. So what do you think? Can you support a candidate for president that will do the most possible effect thing to reduce terrorism against the US?
That number 1 tool of terrorists is foreign occupation (according to CIA analysts). And the candidate that wants to remove that tool is Ron Paul. Seriously, he will reduce terrorism more than any other candidate. Go here and read more details about this situation. And keep in mind — Ron Paul has more donations from active duty military members than any other candidate.
Ogre, this is a thoughtful post, but I disagree that the number one recruiting tool is foreign occupation and I damn sure don’t believe anything the CIA have to say about anything. I’m not even sure I’d believe the CIA if they said the sky was blue.
Having said that, I think the way to reduce terrorism is to send hit teams out after the leaders of islamofascism. You will notice that the damage (bombings etc) is mostly done by young zealots who buy the crap that the Imam’s dish out but the Imam’s are NEVER willing to put what they say into their own actions… it’s always “Wouldn’t you like to have 72 virgins young man?” Never, “I’m strapping on a bomb and will become a martyr.”
Mr. Giuliani does have a history of dealing with terrorism and is not afraid to persue them, but I’m not gonna back him – I’m leaning towards Fred Thompson, but I’m not even willing to back him yet.
I do think that the war on terror is the number one issue in this race, but there are a number of other important issues and they all involve reducing the power of government. Paul will do that I think, as would Hunter, as would Thompson. I don’t think Romney would, I don’t think Giuliani would, I know Huckabee wouldn’t and I don’t think Tancredo would. I know that ALL of the Democraps would try to increase federal power to the point that even I would support insurrection I think (wow- that’s a hell of a statement for me to make!).
Having said all of the above, I loves ya, I know that you are a true patriot and one hell of a smart fellow (even if you are so damn young).
Certainly those leaders do recruit the young men to kill others. But the reports from the CIA (and others I’ve seen) do indicate that the #1 tool is, “Hey, look at those filthy Americans over there.” If we’re not there, I am starting to believe they’d be in trouble.
As for the hit teams — it’s not going to happen, ever. There’s absolutely no way this country will do that. Our policy has never been to support assassination of anyone, and I don’t think we’re going to start doing that any time soon, no matter who gets elected president!
I admit — when I first started hearing about Paul, my thoughts were, “Hey, this guy is good. I don’t know about that whole terror position. But hey, I can disagree on one issue and support him on everything else.” The more I think about it, the more I think I’m really with him on this idea, too. If nothing else — leaving the Middle East is simply something that we have never tried. It might work — and we wont’ know unless we do try it. And no other candidate (except Kucinich) will try — every other one will continue our military all over the planet.
Thanks for stopping along and adding your comments to this one!
What experience does Rudy have with terrorism? being the Mayor of the number one targeted city doesn’t qualify IMO…hardly. The Mayor has little say when it comes to protecting his city from foreign zealots hellbent on destroying that city. I think, just because Rudy was mayor on 9-11 of NYC, doesn’t make him uniquely qualified for much of anything.
Sure, he didn’t run off and hide like most the other polcats.
He led as best he could under the circumstances- which were poor at best.
Rudy is not going to tough on terror; if anything his liberal policies regarding immigration will heighten our chances of another attack.
I’m not throwing my support to anyone yet. Not a one of them appeals to me. Nor to my sense of national protection. Each one of them could be very dangerous to America I hate to say…there is no one I can say, right now, I will vote for.
OK, I will take the “low road” here and say that in Rudy’s defense, he had a reputation when he was a prosecutor of being tough on criminals so he can get credit for that. And as you said Raven, he didn’t hide from the problems after the towers fell. Also he must have done a pretty good job appointing people to run the police department, and emergency management agencies, as I think New York did a great job of managing their recovery (with a lot of outside volunteers!). And I don’t want to leave out the fact that in the months following the attacks the NYC Police Department put together a very admirable anti-terror unit that the CIA could envy when looking at what they accomplished in their information gathering and planning.
With that being said, I still think Rudy is a Liberal poser pretending to be a Republican.
I don’t think Rudy is a bad person, I just don’t think he’d ever be good as a President of this nation. I’m not sure our presence in the Middle East is as much of a problem as our record in diplomacy and policy in the area. That is where we have become the “dirty infidels” in the eyes of those people.
I’m not sure what it will take to turn it all around, but I do know that if they had put more into Afghanistan and going after Bin Laden, we would not have seen so much violence directed at our troops elsewhere. And think about this and tell me what you think. At the time the USS Kohl was attacked, we really didn’t have any kind of presence in the ME to speak of that I can remember. The Embassy attacks in Africa??? I don’t think there was a presence there outside of the embassies themselves. I am just wondering if the argument holds up when looking at that time frame?
Of course I could be wrong as I haven’t done any research, but it would be interesting to know. I do agree, we can’t be the “USA World Police” and shouldn’t want to be.
Personally, I’d jump up and down if Peter Pace would run! I think is is such a GOOD MAN and he has a great deal of common sense which is what we need right now.
I think Rudy has experience responding to terrorism. I’m not sure I’d say he’s ever fought against it. I also worry that he will take the Democrat position and treat terrorists as “criminals” because that’s what he knows. The more I see him in the debates, the more I worry about him because he seems to imply that since he did things for New York, he would do the same things for America — not appearing to know that America is NOT New York in any way, shape, or form. I think he is seriously lacking in experience in leading a varied people.
Raven, let me invite you to explore Ron Paul. Don’t dismiss him based on what other people say about him! Instead, go to his web site and read his position on issues. The more I read him, the more I find I really do agree with his positions. I know he attracts the crazies, but his positions really are good — and very good for America!
As for the Middle East — we have had active duty military troops all over the middle east since the 1950s. There is no time frame in which we have not had troops over there in over 50 years. That’s why no one can say for sure what would happen if we actually didn’t. Some claim there would be a vacuum that terrorists would fill — but no one knows. And as the author of the article linked in the initial post points out — Israel is more than capable of defending itself against all of the middle east right now — so I’m not sure there would be a vacuum at all.
“Raven, let me invite you to explore Ron Paul. Don’t dismiss him based on what other people say about him!”
Raven, let ME invite you to explore Ron Paul. DISMISS him based on what RON PAUL says.
Sorry Ogre, couldn’t help myself. Kat made me do it… yeah, that’s my story…
Heh. Well if you disagree with what Paul says, I won’t ask you to support him! And Kat will definitely get what’s coming to her…
Well, as I said, I wasn’t sure. If pulling out of other countries served to create Peace in the world, that would be great, but what if… it only gives the Islamofascists the opportunity to move into territories and take over. From reading Michael Yon over the months, I have come to understand that extremists came into Iraq via the surrounding countries, fresh out of “terrorist schools” and began taking over communities, terrorizing and murdering innocent people who would not give up their children to be used for suicide bomb attacks, or go along with their Al Qaeda Agenda. Withdrawl before Al Qaeda is nuetralized could backfire and in a couple years, we could be facing an enemy that is greater in numbers and heavily reinforced. That is what worries me. And is Ron Paul the kind of presence who could deal with terrorists? Would they percieve him as a coward and not worthy of respecting??
I know the first time I saw him speak in a debate I thought he looked like a weenie and was a bit whiney. I am just of an opinion that “presence counts” when dealing foreign policy and diplomacy (kind of like the “Don’t Tread On Me” flag!). Our enemies have to see our leader as someone who WILL stand up to them if need be. I’ll go out and read about Ron Paul and see if I still feel this way.
That is really my deepest concern.
Well, I’m more concerned these days with actions rather than appearance. I think I’m really in the minority today, however.
Will Paul “stand up” to them? Well, if you’re looking for John Wayne who will point a gun at them and threaten them with violence if they don’t do exactly what we say, that’s not going to happen. Will he, instead, do as the founding fathers wanted and offer bounties for the heads of terrorists? Yes, he will do that — so the terrorists will stop and be dead — we just won’t be using tens of thousands of troops all over the world to do it.
Could the terrorists centralize and gain power with the US out of the middle east? Maybe — but then again, they might not be able to gather more recruits because they won’t have anything to fight against! It will be a lot harder to recruit bombers when you’re asking them to attack their fellow countrymen as opposed to asking them to attack Americans.
I’ve read a lot of Paul’s stances on the issues. The other day we got some stuff in our mail from him. I do like many of his domestic policy ideas, with the exception of health care: That’s a bit dry and totally useless when it comes to fixing what it broken…opening up alternative medications and therapies and drug purchasing deals with Canada are not going to put much of a dent into the problems we face.
For someone who is a doctor, he hasn’t come out with much better and I read many good ideas from doctors who blog. LOL
Another great idea he has is getting rid of the IRS. Sounds great and I am all for this. However it won’t happen and those of us who proclaim it can happen, who dream it, are looked upon as fools. It’s a big reason Paul isn’t respected so much.
As for his ideas regarding the Middle East? It was JFK who first placed our troops in the Mid East- he brokered a deal with the Saudi’s solely to protect their country AND our interests with, what else, OIL. Part of that whole deal was a promise from SA that it would never attack Israel…
It’s all about the OIL.
Ron Paul surely knows this. I don’t see anywhere that he wants us to pull out of the Mid East cut barrel; just Iraq. Which is fine except it will come back to byte us hard, as HAM says. I don’t see much from Paul about dealing with our dependence upon the OIL so we will not leave the Mid East totally. We need to understand this fact before we believe anything a candidate claims and promises.
Israel is totally able to defend herself; but she relies upon the US for the material supports to do so. We will always fund Israel’s defenses and that makes us the enemy to the vast majority of people in that part of the world. In one way and many others the US will always occupy that region of the world- as long as we’re in need of oil.
The other problem I have with Paul is his apparent thought that it’s ok to deal with the devils of the world; Cuba, South American nations with really bad leaders are not the kind of places we should be freely trading with. To do so will one day come back to haunt us. Like the Mid East, once we step foot into these pits, we’ll be stuck there…and the people who have lost their freedoms, who are being forced to live in extreme socialism, will become resentful of the US approval by trade agreements proxy…I don’t like it and I think it should concern a lot of people. We have to look ahead and see what our actions could do down the road.
If we had done that back in the late 1950s and early 1960’s perhaps we wouldn’t be where we are now. By allowing free trade with current rogue nations we’re repeating history. I don’t think Paul understands this.
I totally respect Paul’s stance on abortion- he would try to repeal Roe v Wade and end this horrific “right” that has killed more darn human beings than all the wars we have fought in.
And I believe Paul is the only candidate to address homeschooling rights and the problems families face when they decide to do this. I have to tip my baseball cap to him on these very important issues.
I know that a lot of what Paul wants to do simply cannot happen — because Congress won’t do it. But I view that as even better! Just imagine a Washington that’s not passing new laws every day! Imagine a Washington that can’t agree on spending — SO THEY DON’T SPEND.
I think basically it comes down to freedom and smaller government. I think the other candidates talk about it, but they don’t have any concrete ideas. I think Paul really will force government to be smaller. I think the medical system is a total mess — BECAUSE of government. I don’t believe there is any possible way for the government to fix that mess. Only capitalism and freedom can.
I don’t see anywhere that Paul thinks trading with everyone is okay. In fact, he’s opposed to NAFTA and other free trade agreements. I think he does believe in using economic sanctions and other diplomatic tools against other countries — just not military force every time, unless the US is actually in danger.
Yeah he says he would fight to recall NAFTA and CAFTA and the other deals…in the brochure I got in the mail he says he would open up trade with Cuba, for example. That the decades old barring of relations is no longer needed; that the government doesn’t have to deal with the Cubans but that US businesses should be able to if they want. Also, states should be able to buy oil from Chavez without fear of crap from feds…I get that.
But I think we’re dealing with the devil once again if we go that route.
I firmly believe that if NAFTA were killed we would see an end to so many American jobs, factories, closing shop to head for south border to set up house in Mexico. Killing that crap of a deal would create more jobs once again for so many Americans. So I like that.
I hadn’t heard about buying oil from Chavez. Then again, that would certainly be more free… but that’s an area, again, where I don’t think as president he would actually have the ability to do that. I’m not sure, though.
As for Cuba, well, I don’t think the embargo is working. I’m pretty sure they’re not about to surrender to the US and start being nice or anything.
I agree with his Cuba stance for sure. We could have done that 20 years ago and Cuba would be free now. 20 years of living under a dictatorship followed by a number of years with free trade between the US and Cuba and they would all rise up in arms when they compare how they lived then vs. now. This is especially true today after 47 years under Castro. The total failure of the Castro government has nothing to do with the embargo imho because other countries have been ignoring the embargo anyway. Yet, some trade (as opposed to wide open trade) has done nothing for Cuba. Of course, I could be wrong on that.
Another thing you have to love about Ron Paul, not only would he try to repeal NAFTA an CAFTA, but we might get to see the demise or at least removal from American soil, of the “United Nations” scam!!!! Yeeessss!!!! You have to love the way on domestic policy, he wants more freedom restored! And Ogre, once again, you make a very good point. I guess actions are more important than appearance.
You can look at how Bill Clinton came on the scene and how THAT worked out and know that is true!
Oh heck, I’d almost vote single issue on getting us out of the UN! And there’s not one other candidate that would even consider that one.