thetruthhurtsthefed
09-25-2011, 04:39 PM
Ron Paul is constantly put on the hot seat for his views on non-military intervention abroad. His answers are NOT accepted among the MSM or other candidates, however Dr. Paul can use some fresh rebuttal from sources (Rand Corp. analysis) that the US government routinely bases their decisions upon.
(I quote from 63 documents the government doesn't want you to read: Jesse Ventura. pgs 295-297).
"...doing policy analysis for the government on all kinds of things." "...the government is always basing policies on what the Rand people say. Well, in 2008, Rand came out with a major study titled "How terrorist groups end"..."
Here should be Dr. Paul's intial reply; "If the government follows Rand on other matters, why not give them do consideration on this (the war on terror)?
Ventura pg 297: (sourced from www.rand.org)
"But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It, continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, through engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks of New York and Washington.
Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of US strategy.
I think, if not already reviewed, this would be a great asset for response to all other candidates who view Dr. Paul's military non-intervention views as non-sense.
Thank you
(I quote from 63 documents the government doesn't want you to read: Jesse Ventura. pgs 295-297).
"...doing policy analysis for the government on all kinds of things." "...the government is always basing policies on what the Rand people say. Well, in 2008, Rand came out with a major study titled "How terrorist groups end"..."
Here should be Dr. Paul's intial reply; "If the government follows Rand on other matters, why not give them do consideration on this (the war on terror)?
Ventura pg 297: (sourced from www.rand.org)
"But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It, continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, through engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks of New York and Washington.
Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of US strategy.
I think, if not already reviewed, this would be a great asset for response to all other candidates who view Dr. Paul's military non-intervention views as non-sense.
Thank you