<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I'm amazed that the topic of "blowback" is so off-limits as well. I
can understand to a degree, without knowing more about it you might get
the idea that he's being disrespectful of those who lost their lives on
9/11. <br>
<br>
For those who don't know, "blowback" basically refers to unintended
consequences of our actions in other areas that come back to haunt us.
I understand that it's a CIA term. Wikipedia says it comes from the
occasional shrapnel that is flung your way when you are using an
automatic weapon.<br>
<br>
So, we go into other sovereign governments (covertly or overtly), mess
with their systems, and now we can't talk about the possible
repercussions of such actions. I think we were arrogant enough to
think we would never be hurt by it, or too short-sided about how people
would react, or both.<br>
<br>
Ron Paul's view, as I understand it, is that we'll have less people
willing to blow themselves up to take us out if we stop poking sticks
into hornet's nests. It's a pretty common-sense view, in my opinion.<br>
<br>
I think the main reaction of the other candidates came from the "blame
game". You want to blame the individual terrorists that performed the
actions and not our government for stirring up trouble where it
shouldn't have been. And rightly so, but blame is not an on/off
switch, there's enough to spread around amongst many different areas.<br>
<br>
I'm not an isolationist, but I do think that we should respect the
sovereignty of other countries. We should work to establish equitable
trade deals and treaties, not installing new governments or making
deals with the wrong people because it pleases our CEO overlords.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
<blockquote cite="midBAY111-F17FBE111DBB2ACC4A94694BD120@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Paul,
I think the reaction to Paul when he tried to discuss blowback is worth
looking at. The other candidates leaped down his throat. It's an idea
that's off-limits, it seems.
Sunil
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Paul Rumelhart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a>
To: Vision2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a>
Subject: [Vision2020] Ron Paul
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:58 -0700
In an effort to switch topics, I'd like to pose the following question:
What are people's thoughts on Ron Paul (Republican candidate for
President)?
I'll start it off by saying that I'm on the lookout for candidates that
might be somewhat palatable to both sides who don't care to establish
more Presidential power or remove any more of my civil liberties, or
force us to go to war with any other countries unjustifiably. I fear
that Hilary Clinton will prove to be a rallying point for Republicans to
react against. I'd be willing to switch my vote from my usual vote for
Democrats or Independents if it means stopping the kind of trouble we're
in the midst of now.
As for Ron Paul himself, I really like his stance on civil liberties. I
also like many of his Libertarian positions, but not all of them. I
like that he voted against the Patriot Act, and that he voted against
the war in Iraq. I don't like his isolationist tendencies, or his
willingness to fence off Mexico. I like that he wants to place more
decisions in the hands of the individual states, even though I'm in the
minority in Idaho. He seems to be very principled, and doesn't seem to
be in any corporations pocket. I especially like that he sponsored a
bill to have Congress declare an actual war in Iraq, although he stated
he wouldn't vote for it. He wanted a real declaration of war if we were
going to war, not some Presidential power play.
As for his most famous recent stance, I think he is right that our
actions in the past have caused a situation where we have made ourselves
a target. The concept of "blowback" is very real. Our removal of a
democratically-elected leader in Iran to be replaced by the Shah and the
Iran-Contra affair haven't helped. Training Osama Bin-Laden how to
fight was probably not such a bright idea, either. I'm not saying that
we're to blame for 9/11, just that we may share in the blame in a small
way through bad diplomatic or political decisions - and that we should
take that into account when making more such decisions.
Anyway, enough of my opinions. What does everyone else think? Is this
a candidate that can be reached out to by both sides? If not, then who?
Paul
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>