Here is some truth to the matter .....
http://www.hinzsightreport.com/kntr/ken-052007.html
"Now to his non-intervention platform. Paul in his comments at the debate stated that the attack on September 11 was due to interventionist policies of The United States and added to this ten years of , "bombing Iraq, " after the first Gulf War. He believes that we should keep our troops within our borders and stop intervening in the affairs of countries around the world.
His contention that 9/11 was a result of anger that Islamic fanatics have toward The United States due to our intervention in Middle East affairs is also based in part on the Fatwa manifesto that was given by Usama Bin Laden in 1998. He also bases his theory on CIA evaluation that US policy in the Middle East and other areas of the world has a, "blow back, "effect, which means that out intervention in certain areas could have an adverse effect on the US by in sighting anger.
Paul's theory on the , "blow back, " effect concerning 9/11 finds one major flaw in its premise setting aside the contention that we not Al Qaeda are at fault for the attacks. His theory does not take into account the fanaticism of radical Islam.
Radicals like bin Laden and other leaders in this Jihad against The United States are much smarter that they are given credit. They know the American mind set much more than we know and understand theirs. They realize that by claiming that US interventionist policy is the cause for their anger and attacks against us will strike a note in America and especially those who see this country as the worlds, "big bully."
This is the cord that has stricken Paul and those who agree with him. What they and many do not understand or accept is the religious fanaticism that actually and factually drives Islamic radicals and especially their hatred for the US and our people. This hatred is not for our policies it is because we do not embrace their form of Islam therefore we are Infidels who deserve death and it is their holy duty to see to it that we die and our way of life no longer exists.
The United States is also the major obstacle both in our power and influence to preventing Islamic radicals from converting and controlling the world as they do many areas in the Middle East. Our presence in that region is a constant reminder of the power of the Infidel and of our disobedience to Allah and their form of Islam. This religious fanaticism from radical Islam drives their Jihad and promotes their fighting and attacks which includes 9/11.
Paul's contention that 9/11 was a result of US interventionist policy fails the historical test also. If one believes that 9/11 was a result of US intervention and brought on by The United States then in the same context one must conclude that Pearl Harbor was a result of our own intervention.
Prior to the attack of December 1941, United States policy had us intervening in Far East countries like the Philippines and China as a stop gap for Japanese expansion. We also had a major oil embargo against Japan which hampered the country who was totally dependent on imported oil. Other sanctions were also in effect against Japan.
The Japanese claimed that our policies are the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbor and Japans declaration of war against The United States. It is historically accepted that US policies were not the blame for the attack and tat it was then and still now accepted as an unprovoked attack.
9/11 likewise was an unprovoked attack against The United States. We in 1941 and today have the eternal right to defend our self as a Nation when attacked and that is why we went to war and why we fight the Islamic radicals today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Additionally looking at the , "interventionist," policy of The United States, the question must be asked in light of Ron Paul's non-intervention ideas "how much different would the world be today if we had not intervened?"
Pre-WWII Europe for example survived greatly because of US intervention assistance to Great Britain with supplies and money to fight Hitler. We then intervened in the war not because we were attacked but because it was the right thing to do and victory was the result. A victory that would not have been possible were it not for US intervention.
Countless countries throughout the world are saved from starvation and genocide under brutal dictators by US intervention. In a very real sense The United States intervention feeds most of the third world countries. Our intervention has prevented ecological and genocide disasters.
As the worlds lone superpower we have a great responsibility to the world and we take that responsibility seriously. Does it have its draw backs ? Sure our intervention does anger some but the positive far our weighs the negative and the good exceeds the bad tremendously.
Isolationism and non-intervention does not make Ron Paul a conservative as many suggest but a naive politician who would take The United States backwards and more vulnerable to attack in a world that has grown and become exceedingly more dangerous in the years before our superpower status. Paul's ideas are dangerous especially in a post 9/11 world and in light of the many countries who depend on our support and our strength for their defense."
