Also, I don’t think that he ignores the other elements of the hatred of Western culture in the Middle East, but he makes the point that we exacerbate the situation by getting ourselves involved. Their cultural ideology is completely different from our own - fair enough, but so is Pakistan’s, India’s, and China’s. There are various fringe groups all over the world that hate the West enough to blow themselves up, but they lack the resources to stand a serious chance.

But when we march into a country, and spend blood and money to force our values on the citizens at gunpoint, when we exert so much effort to make sure that ours is the face and name of Western culture, we surely have an effect. We make it easier to recruit , we make it easier to fund raise, and we make ourselves easier to target.

Paul has said that he would not pull out the troops from Iraq overnight - that’s not feasible even according to him. But he would take action to start getting us out of there ASAP. And he would definitely pull us out of all our other aggressive military positions, except where Congress wants to declare war. What he has said many times, is that this is not about this individual engagement. This is about a change of policy, to stop digging ourselves deeper into a hole. A non-interventionist, trading partner policy would not solve the hatred of America overnight. But it would stop the rampant growth of that hatred that quickly. And over a longer period of time, the hatred would defuse, with no recruits, no money, and no visible target.

You say “IF we can do it diplomatically, without open warfare, we must do it.” Ron Paul (and I) believe that it can be done that way, and much more effectively than at the point of a gun. Radical religious thought of any type cannot be fought with guns without making martyrs, and thereby strengthening the enemy. Fighting it by ideals and benign trade undermines their position, and is much more effective.

Thank you for your article, I enjoyed reading it. I’m happy to see that serious, thinking discussion of foreign policy still exists in America, despite what we’ve seen in the Repub and Dem party debates.

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

1) We were attacked on 911 for a reason. I am not saying that what they did was OK or completely rational, but there is a reason we are the focus of their anger and we should at least inspect and acknowledge that.

That is what Ron Paul’s point was. We prop up non democratic, despotic governments like the Saudis or the shaw of iran and when the opprest people of these countries respond in Anger toward us, we act ignorant.

To simply respond with non nonsensical platitudes such as “they hate us for our freedom” isn’t helping us.

2) It is important for us to understand why are are in Iraq. When you go to war against another countries based on lies, its will always end badly. We do really need to get out, apologize to the word for what we did when we invaded Iraq and just leave.

Radical Islam’s cultural loathing of the U.S. is nothing new, from the writings of Sayyid Qutb in the 50s to Ayatollah Khomeini’s rants. What mobilizes them however isn’t cultural revulsion but a preponderant sense of political injustice and of being threatened. Jahangir Amuzegar writes: “The Islamic Republic, for its part, originally demanded that the United States accept the legitimacy of the 1979 revolution, not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, and deal with the Iranian regime on the basis of “respect and equality”.”

Bush’s saber-rattling Axis-of-Evil speech inflamed hostilities in Iran and was seen as another example of America’s global arrogance. It resulted in a united front of anti-Americanism. This kind of brutish posturing does nothing but damage relations with the Muslim world.

We need to go hard after those who strike us with violence, while at the same time making every effort to disperse the storm clouds that have been gathering within the Islamic community abroad. Ron Paul doesn’t shrink from the former task (following 9-11 he voted to authorize the use of force with the belief that it would be used to knock out al Qaeda and punish Bin Laden), but he also recognizes the necessity of the latter. His opponents will derisively label it “appeasement”, but unless we begin to pursue a policy of disengagement that respects the regional right of self-determination in the Middle East and elsewhere, our problems will multiply. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that truly understands this and isn’t afraid to articulate it.

http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com

You need to do some research on the bills being passed that give bushwacko the power to declare martial law for anything he wants and a bill to make it so a person can be President for more than 2 terms……………you think you have until 2008 to
do something………………….dream on.

“that I still have nearly 18 months to pick my own brand of poison.”

“simply because we cannot coexist with people who feel that they have an edict from their God to destroy everyone who does not worship as they do”

“Personally, I believe that, for our own safety and survival, the radical Islamist movement must be destroyed”

“In the very unlikely event that Ron Paul became president in 2009″

“but he is wrong to completely ignore the social, political and religious aspects of that hatred.”

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GLn0tMdXd_Q

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews in chronological
order. Worth a look!

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

Ron Paul all the way to the white house!

(As a minor point, I have not seen evidence that Ron Paul ignores the “social, political and religious aspects of that hatred,” but I’ll watch for it.)

If the effect of poison is evenly ballanced among choices worldwide and with Ron Paul, things are better at home, then Ron Paul is the choice. Even discounting things at home, I think Ron Paul would be the choice if practical things seem even, because he would tend to choose the right choices.

Given your scenarios (and they might not be too far off), I think it is worth exploring the Ron Paul approach.

Ron Paul said the first thing he would do is talk with leaders around the world and let them know what is happening. So, base withdrawal might take some time. However, other types of intervention would stop immediately. This has the adventage in that the US is less likely to get into a concurrent mess. Also, it might be handy to have friends worldwide.

Ron Paul is big on direct and immediate defense. World opinion is good on this kind of action.

Ron Paul encourages world trade, giving, and communication. He would remove trade barriers (except munitions) and keep the Internet free. Increased trade among small businesses, increased collaboration among folks with similar goals, would tend to erode extremist positons. Those who are not extremists would discourage extremists who are targetting their trading partners. Extremist Islam for this and other reasons will be addressed from within Islam.

Under Ron Paul the US would be defended and extremist Islam would be “allowed” to diminish. I realize that is weaker than what you would hope for, but I think it is best, the best of any poison we are likely to see.