Ron Paul: Disgraceful and Dishonest – America Occupies 130 Countries

At the CNN/Tea Party Debate last night, Congressman Ron Paul, said America is in trouble because of the countries we “occupy.” That shook me to my toes. While I agree with many things Paul is for, I would never support a candidate who believes we “occupy” any other land. Paul has to know this is dishonest. We are nowhere, where the government of the country doesn’t want us to be. Maybe ALL the people don’t want us there, but MANY of the people do want us there. We are taking no land or riches anywhere. We are there “defending.” When Iraq asked us to leave in part, that’s what we did. Read the full statement below, and see the video.

Ron Paul

Friends, that’s a disgrace and it’s dishonest!

Here’s the bottom line. Islamic men (Islamists) have little to do that excites. If not married, they can’t even been seen with a woman. They have no jobs, they live under oppression and often poverty, they have no power – even in their personal lives unless they have a wife or daughter to beat, and they are angrier than hell. They believe to their core that Islam must dominate the world. They follow the Koran. They have nothing to give-up by dying for martyrdom. That’s why they attacked us. They hate everything, EVERYTHING we stand for. They hate everything all Western countries stand for, but they chose America because we are the beacon of freedom and liberty across the globe.

I don’t know the answer to how we get out of Iraq or Afghanistan, but I do know that we don’t get it done because we are “occupying”

Ron Paul:

I’m tired of all the militarism we are involved in, and we are wasting this money and getting us involved. I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes from a lack of wisdom about how we run our country, so I would say there is a lot room to cut on the military, but not on the defense…

We are under great threat because we OCCUPY so many countries. We are in 130 countries. We have over 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us. Invite us over there to attack us…We are there, occupying their land…What would we do if China did to us, what we are doing over there.

We’re in 130 countries around the world.

Thanks to Breitbart TV

Linked by sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue – Thank You!

Linked by Coffee and Cigarettes, thanks!
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

  • You know- I’m sick of hearing him… he’s an embarrassment to the party

    He says some great things others fear to -and need to be said- but the guy is simply not leadership material. Meanwhile, he’s doing more damage than good to the GOP debate at this point- he too closely resembles the Left’s caricature of a TEA Party conservative…the sooner he moves on along the better

  • Whatever Paul has to say about domestic policies is negated by his asinine foreign policy ideas where he’s to the left of Barack Obama. To say that we “occupy” other countries is an insult. He doesn’t believe nuclear Iran is a threat, he wouldn’t condemn Hizballah.
    Somebody please tell Ron Paul that isolationism leads to wars, like WWII, for instance.
    We now have a President who’d like to be an isolationist, except that he can’t, given that we are a world power and all. So now we are involved in Libya with no particular plan.

    • edge of the sandbox, I think he only wants to isolate us from the free world, and exceptionalism.

  • One thing you may be missing Maggie is the economic “occupation” of the large banks that “occupy” America. The governments that “want” us there as you say are under duress from these banks. Please see John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” for information of how this works via the World Bank and IMF. If you truly want answers as to what is going on in this world, follow the money. You really can’t understand these issues unless you understand the billions of dollars made by contractors. Any alert serviceman can tell you this, that is why Ron Paul gets more campaign money from active duty servicemen than all the other candidates combined.

    So Ron Paul doesn’t support liberal progressive foreign policy -that’s what makes him so refreshing. What? You didn’t know that what we’re doing is straight out of the Woodrow Wilson playbook? What is tragically humorous is that we’re spending billions in Afghanistan on a local army force who join up for a month to get the money and then run back and give it back to the Taliban. But if you point this kind of stuff out and the examples are legion, you’re some kind of anti-American kook.

    It’s interesting that the countries that our bankster-funded foreign policy says are “evil” are the ones without a central bank.

    • republicmother, I don’t think Paul was talking about banking last night. He clearly said we were occupying 130 countries militarily. If we are there, and they are accepting us there, because the world IMF told them to accept us there, then perhaps he should just say so.

      I do understand that the contracting services of every free county stinks to the heavens, and that there is enough dirt dredged up by freedom and liberty to spread around abundantly.

      I didn’t see Paul railing at liberal progressive foreign policy, even if what we are doing was earlier done by Woodrow Wilson. Our Liberal Progressives ducked out the minute there were no WMD. I did not find him refreshing last night.

      I completely understand that the whole Afghanistan mess is beyond terrible and insane. I don’t like anything we are doing over there. I respect much that Paul says, including his urging to take care of the Federal Reserve. I’ve seen the charts and know that Paul raised more money from military than other candidates have in 2008, and 2012. Soldiers are free to support whom they want. Nevertheless, we have an Executive and Legislative Branch that must run the country.

      • It may not be what we want to hear, but our foreign policy is controlled by the BIS system. We can see this in George Bush running on a platform of nonintervention and doing the opposite. We can see it in Obama running on an anti-war record and platform and then doing the opposite. The sad truth is, our elected leaders are not in charge.

      • The liberal foreign policy I mentioned doesn’t stem from “liberals” but from a philosophy of using America’s resources liberally abroad. So I’m actually accusing George W as a liberal foreign policy user just like Wilson and
        LBJ. For the last 100 years, conservatives got elected to get us out of wars. The biggest key to unlocking the messes we find ourselves in is to realize that the Elite use the Hegelian Dialectic to play us off against each other. To see that the larger objectives march forward regardless of who is in charge, please see my latest post on The Grand Chessboard:
        http://therepublicanmother.blogspot.com/2011/09/grand-chessboard-first-take.html

        Up until WW1, the United States had a position of neutrality like Switzerland. This all changed as special interests wanted to expand their markets. Smedley Butler wrote all about this in War is a Racket – how the US military was used for the express purpose of clearing the way for big US corporations.

        The BIG thing that I think most conservative miss is that the banking issue and the foreign policy issue are actually the SAME issue. The money for the military bases are printed by the federal reserve. Don’t people realize that the same banking cartel that “occupies” America also occupies lesser countries. Please check out this video that explains this in about 2 minutes:
        http://youtu.be/n7Fzm1hEiDQ

        Also in regard to contractors, that door was opened up by some policy changes under Bush Sr and Dick Cheney’s Dept of Defense and it has been in the works for some time to gradually shift us over to a more privatized military, which should scare the bejeezus out of patriotic Americans. The point of bringing out the military support of Paul is to show us that the “boots on the ground” know the score and want an executive branch that will consider their needs as well. Like not being deployed for years on end with no victory objectives or end in sight.

        I’ve really been convicted that while I thought I supported the troops, I realize now that I really didn’t. I didn’t care what was going on with them really, just trusting TPTB -gosh, I feel stupid.

  • “Maggie, we also find this kind of repetitive statement by Ron Paul not only “dishonest and disgraceful but dangerous for the Republican Party and other Republicans running for “Commander in Chief”.

    We posted a warning about it in a mini-Post in our “Conservative Exchange” Section with due credit to you as the inspirational source.

    • John Galt, thanks for linking and quoting at your place. I appreciate it! In my opinion Paul did claim that we are to blame for 9/11/01 and he gave the reasons for it. How dishonest is it to say that we are “occupying 130 countries?”

  • Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are quite extreme. Like the left, he believes that all hostility toward us is our own fault, that everyone would “just get along” if we brought all our troops home, stop defending Israel, South Korea and others. His is wishful thinking, again, very similar to what we see on the left. I have never been a fan of Ron Paul.

    • Hi Stogie, thanks much for coming by. I agree and I am sick of it – from him and anyone else. So far, no one has had a good reason to explain why they believe America is to blame. I haven’t heard a single valid reason.

  • Ron Paul is the Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican Party. He needs to be ignored by the public and media alike.

  • Pingback: Good Job Newt! « sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue()

  • anonoped

    Here’s a link to an ABC News interview with Osama Bin Laden from 1998.

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/osama-bin-laden-interview-1998-13506629

    The American news correspondent John Miller (Now an FBI Agent) interviews Bin Laden and gets him on tape.

    It’s pretty straight forward. Bin Laden repeats over and over again that the USA is invading Muslim countries and must be punished. He cites many examples. Like it punished USSR when it invaded Afghanistan.

    If the link is removed, just Google ABC news Osama Bin Laden 1998 interview.

    • anonoped, thanks for the link. I don’t doubt this was bin Laden’s opinion, but when applied to the U.S., it is his claim, but not totally valid. He says “America is the biggest terrorist in the World.” What is it that makes this murderer right? We don’t “take” from other countries. We do go in to secure a position – positions some say is wrong, and others say is right. We do protect the free flow of oil when one Muslim country threatens another Muslim country. Any one of the Muslim countries can refuse to sell to us, but it is glaring that they never do so. We don’t occupy, however. Also the USSR was a very different thing thing.

      Thanks for coming by and adding to the conversation. That’s a good link. Very interesting.

  • What you say of all the governments wanting us is for the most part true. However we need to be honest about the fact that most of those governments were set up or are being propt up by us.

    • Trestin, it’s been that way for a long time. It needs to be fixed. Maybe someone will figure out how to do so. I have no sympathy for Muslim countries, who enslave, torture and kill their own.

  • anonoped

    Maggie,

    Actually, Iran does not sell oil to us.

    Our CIA overthrew their democratically elected president in the 1950’s. He had threatened to nationalize their oil fields like the way Hugo Chavez has nationalized his.

    The USA installed a US friendly dictator. The populace of Iran was so upset the rose up and installed a fundamentalist theocracy to ward off US and British influence.

    Our policy has been openly hostile to them ever since. As one example, the US installed dictator of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) was militarily funded to wage war against Iran in the 1980’s. The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years. One of the biggest outcomes of that war was that fully half of the entire Iranian population living today is under 35 years old. (Possibly more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran)

    If we would lay off of them and sell them Levi’s and Coca-Cola instead of trying to wage war with them, I bet they would have a democratically elected government inside of one generation.

    This just an example of what I’ve seen in my life. We can’t protect ourselves from the ‘lone wolf’ foreign or domestic by occupying other countries. We’re out of money anyway, borrowing money from China to wage war in the dessert is a sure way to wind up looking like the USSR after the Cold War.

    Let me know what you think.

    Thanks, Anonoped

  • rick

    Your HATE theory doesn’t stand up, if they simply hate freedom, how come they haven’t bombed other, equally free nations? Or those with even more freedom?

    Oh, and regarding occupation, the US invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam & Hawaii can all be described as text book occupations, the USA may use local puppet leaders, but there is never any doubt who is in charge!

    Clearly, your hatred for islamic men clouds you judgement!

    • rick, you didn’t read closely. I said they hate liberty and freedom and the US is the beacon for both. I could have added that we are the most powerful, and Islamic men hate any power that isn’t in their own hands. I do not have a ‘hatred’ for Islamic men, but neither do I have much admiration. I don’t like men them, I’ll admit that much. I don’t find anything admirable in men who choose to worship a book that allows women and girls to be treated as slaves, whether they choose to treat their women or slaves as such, or not.

      No my ‘hatred’ for Islamic men has not clouded my judgement, but my ‘knowledge’ of Islamic men has give me insight.

      ‘Invasions’ and ‘Occupations’ are not the same thing

  • andy

    well, if he means countries we have troops in, then he’s technically right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

    • andy, technically, having bases in countries is not the same as ‘occupying’ countries

  • Pingback: Devoid Rhetoric | 052 Coffee & Cigarettes | Orange Coffee Cup()

  • Ron Paul’s use of the word “occupy” wasn’t done naively to imply that we’ve conquered and occupied 130 countries against their will. Although, he did make the point that some factions within some of those countries (namely, militant Islamic ones) do consider us occupiers in that sense. His point was that we are overextended militarily, and economically, and that military involvement has blow back. Those are all valid points, as are some of the comments in and on this article. Truth usually lies in the middle.

  • Pingback: Devoid Rhetoric | 052 Coffee & Cigarettes | Coffee & Cigarettes()

  • Sarah

    Hasn’t anyone read the letter that bin Laden wrote in response to Americans questioning why he attacked us on 9/11? Our liberty/freedom is only a small part of it. The big reason terrorists hate us is because he go into their countries, waging wars with them, telling them how to run their countries, etc. Bin Laden clearly stated this in his own letter back in 2002.

    This was referenced in an article in the Wall Street Journal and printed in the UK. See the link below.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver