Ronald Reagan told the Communists to “tear down” the Berlin Wall. Ron Paul’s vision is, “oh that’s O.K., you can leave it up.” This is the fundamental difference between Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul, and when a reporter finally asks Paul the “Berlin Wall” question, his nascent campaign for the Republican nomination for President will appropriately crumble.
Yesterday, August 13, Congressman Ron Paul, a former Republican defector who ran for President on the Libertarian Party platform in 1988 and won less than half of 1% of the vote in 46 states nationwide, came in a strong second place in the Iowa straw poll. According to John Gizzi of Human Events, who was on the ground, and as evidenced by the earlier nationally televised debate of Republican candidates, Paul did so by repeatedly urging what the main stream media is calling “non-intervention” in foreign affairs. “Bring the troops home” he yelled in Ames, Iowa, complaining about what some deeper-thinking Republicans refer to as the “cost of freedom” in Afghanistan and Iraq. Paul screamed that the cost was just too much for the United States budget and economy to bear. Even Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is a socialist, not a Republican straw poll voter, agreed with Paul’s views.
There is no question that Paul just bubbles with crank viewpoints. After losing a race for U.S. Senate in Texas to Phil Gramm in 1984, he bolted the GOP and ran for president in 1988 on a platform that called for abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, according to published accounts. Those abolitional topics have not been as evident in Paul’s more current campaign speeches this election year, which are more focused on abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. (I personally admit I have thought about abolishing the Bank of America when the teller lines get too long. though not all of the FBI, CIA, IMF, and so on.) But ubiquitous of his viewpoints since his early days in the 1970s as a Congressman, has been his view that U.S. troops should not be stationed overseas no matter what. And in the case of the Cold War and Berlin, those views simply do not square with a “freedom philosophy.”
While voters in Iowa were casting their ballots in the straw poll, thousands of miles away in Central Europe, freedom loving people in Germany were observing a minute of silence in memory of 125 dead people. Why? Well, that same day was coincidentally the 50th anniversary of that sad time in 1961 when troops of a communist dictatorship, the former German Democratic Republic, began construction of a massive reinforced concrete and barbed wire structure that divided the city of Berlin and defined the Cold War. The 125 who were mourned were East Germans who were killed by machine gun fire by their own government trying to cross over that Wall and flee tyranny in the East for freedom in the West.
Ronald Reagan had a philosophy about Communism. He opposed it. And in June of 1987 he stood below the Brandenburg Gate on the free, west side of Berlin and declared to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, “tear down this wall.” Reagan’s statement was the expression of a life long commitment to the cause of individual liberty. It was a salvo in the “war of ideas” against the Communist dictatorships who opposed individual liberties and inspired hope in countless millions in the East, in Poland and other countries just brimming for freedom. But it was a statement also backed up by a strong foreign and defense policy that committed, according to the Heritage Foundation, over 250,000 U.S. troops every year in Germany and Berlin, and important spending on a ballistic missile and nuclear defense strategy that Communism could not compete with. With Reagan’s statement at the Berlin Wall, backed by his policies as President, the Cold War was essentially won. By November of 1989, East German residents started tearing down the Wall undeterred by their own broken-down government. And now pieces of the Wall can be found not only in Berlin, but in places like the Monaco train station, at Reagan’s former ranch in Santa Barbara county, and at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley; all symbolic remembrances of how freedom was threatened by tyranny; and that freedom won out in the end.
So the question is, what was Ron Paul’s view of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy regarding the Berlin Wall?
Ron Paul may never get asked that question on a national T.V. network, because the liberals who dominate the media are beginning to define him as the “Republican with new ideas” who is “exciting young people”.
They know what they are doing by propping him up: they are trivializing the debate about who the Republican party’s next standard bearer should be, and after the Ames straw poll, things are getting dangerous!
If a reporter ever really does ask Paul the question, Paul’s likely response will be to avoid the question and to trot out a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan praising him, and a bill he introduced in Congress in 2001 to “give every veteran of the Cold War a medal.” But these wily responses are without substance. Paul’s Reagan quote is little more than press release verbiage Reagan generously handed-out to just about every incumbent Republican member of Congress facing a tough re-election. Paul didn’t deserve it. There is little question that Ron Paul was a vociferous opponent of Reagan’s foreign and defense policies during the 1980s, a policy which literally demolished Communism in Europe and brought millions and millions of people into freedom; freedom that would never have been achieved under Ron Paul’s naive “non-interventionist” views. If Ron Paul was President instead of Ronald Reagan, have no doubt that America would have lost the Cold War, and countless more would live in tyranny to this day than in freedom. And the Berlin Wall would still be there.
Ron Paul’s Berlin Wall problem exemplifies the difference not only between Ronald Reagan and himself, but the essential difference between radical libertarianism and true conservatism. I cannot account for what those 4,000 people were really thinking in Ames when they cast their straw vote ballots. But I know that the threat of Islamic militants as epitomized by the events of September 11 remain a terrible threat to our way of life in America, and that these threats are in some ways even more directly pointed at U.S. citizens, than in the Cold War. The response to these threats is not to bring troops home from Afghanistan. The fix for our economy is not to stop spending money on steps that protect our nation from terrorist attacks. And surely, the answer to such important questions is not in electing Ron Paul our next president.
We won the Cold War in 1989/1990- over 20 years ago.
Germany’s economy is booming.
Japan’s economy is doing better than CA. There is NO illegal immigration problem in Japan
Why should we be spending a penny to defend these sovereign nations?
We owe China billions and there is NO USSR. Who is it that we are “defending” these wealthy countries from?
Why are our troops not on OUR border with Mexico?
The border with Mexico is intended to keep people who are illegal out of the United States. The Berlin Wall was intended to keep residents of that country (German Democratic Republic) from leaving. Big difference! Japan does have some immigration problems. Basically, people trying to flee communism in North Korea, China and Vietnam. Places that Ron Paul thinks are doing just fine and we should not intervene. I do feel sorry for those one million Cambodians that died under Communism and the Paul Doctrine, though. Don’t you???
Unfortunately, Jim, you have your history wrong. Reagan may have advocated that the Berlin Wall come down, so what? Did he send U.S. troops into Germany to tear it down? Of course not. Jim, you’re so all wet you could be Jacques Cousteau.
Hi, Andrew, you sure live in a beautiful part of our state, Monterey County, where my wife and I were married almost 24 years ago this month.
I think the Berlin Wall would not have come down on it’s own by 1989 without the Reagan era defense spending, 250,000 U.S. troops in Germany, and Reagan’s famous shout-out to Gorbachev.
The troop deployment in Germany today, by the way, is less than 40,000 and is going down.
The Soviet Empire collapsed primarily because of its own imperial overstretch, excessive investment in the military ( sound familiar?), and command economy. Reagan shouting at the Berlin Wall had nothing to do with it, although the Gipper gets credit in bringing economic and military pressure on the Soviet Union ( i.e., persuading the Saudis to increase oil production so as to crash oil prices in the mid-1980s,
an action which helped bankrupt Gorby ). However, Reagan never sent troops to start wars all over the globe as you and your fellow neocons advocate. Reagan and Weinberger were very cautious in using military force and quick to pull back when they saw it was futile ( i.e., Lebanon in 1983 ).
Whether you and your fellow warmongering neocons like it or not, America is moving in Ron Paul’s direction!
Really Andrew what gives you the right to say Lebanon was futile , we lost alot of damn good men but far from futile if given the go ahead we could have easily pushed the PLO of that time right out of there and into Syria any time we wanted. Do,nt talk about something you do,nt understand when it comes to Lebanon. Hell we could have ended alot of the moderan day problems then if we had acted upon that attack if we had pushed those rags back to syria we would have sebt a hard line message to mess with us was gonna cost them and i beleive we would not have had any attacks on UN or world trade centers later on.
Andrew, if you go to Berlin and speak to Germans who lived thru the period of the Wall (1961-1989), as I have done twice, you will learn they uniformly credit the Berlin airlift (Kennedy’s “interventionist” policy) and Reagan’s policies, including the so-called “Star Wars” missile defense program, stationing of 250,000 U.S. troops in West Germany and Berlin, and Reagan’s tough rhetoric, as essential to the fall of the Communist German Democratic Republic and the Soviet Union, thus creating freedom for millions. Go to the “Mauermuseum” (Wall Museum) at former Checkpoint Charlie and see the four floors of personal remembrances of escapees from persecution by the dreaded “Stasi” East German secret police. At the Mauermuseum you will see replicas of the means the East Germans used to seek freedom and get past the Wall; crude homemade helicopters, submersives to escape via the Spree River; primative hot air balloons; hiding places in the smallest of compact automobiles.
I am hardly a “neocon”. But I do know Reagan indeed sent U.S. troops to Grenada to battle Cuban Communist troops to remove a dictator there (recall Clint Eastwood, from your area, starred in a movie telling that story?) and Reagan also sent F-14s to Libya to drop bombs on Khadafi after his state sponsored terrorism killed American troops at a disco in Europe. Khadafi cut it out after that (until the recent rebellion) and Grenada has been a free, peaceful country since then as well.
So you are not correct. Reagan didn’t just “shout” at the Russians, and the East Germans, Poles, Rumanians, Chechs, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and the Russians themselves for that matter, know it was his interventionist foreign and defense policy actions that made the difference in creating their new freedoms, to the extent they have them.
You are surely entitled to support your candidate for President. My point remains, that if he were President instead of Reagan, the Berlin Wall would still be there.
I extensively studied, along with a group of economists and accountants, Eastern European Economics in Poland, Czech Republic, and Germany. We asked people from all three of these countries this same question, and none of them ever mentioned Reagan. In fact, they claimed that it was due to the soviets spending entirely too much money and eventually running out of it. It was simply not efficient.
I think it is interesting that you are so upset over this non-issue, when Reagan fully endorsed Ron Paul himself. How about praising the candidate you support instead of assuming and mud slinging?
Reagan “fully endorsed” him against his Democratic opponent in one Congressional district in Texas. If his endorsement had really been “full”, then Paul would have been the nominee and possibly the president in 1988.
As recently as the 1976 GOP-Democrat debates VP candidate Bob Dole was able to refer to the democrats as “The War Party”
Republicans traditionally opposed Wilsonian “nation building”
Assuming that conditions in Islamic countries are in any way similar to Virginia or Boston at our founding is muddled thinking at best.
Cold War politics may have demanded US bases around the globe but we are closing emergency rooms because of the Mexican invasion of California.
Our national anthem was booed by Mexicans who enjoy free education ( actually daycare) for their anchor babies,free healthcare ( been to any emergency room in LA County) and thanks to Gov Brown a DREAM Act.
Do you not agree that the conservative position is to protect our own state from invasion than the squabbles of Pago Pago or Burundi?
Thank you, Elvis.
Pago Pago or Burundi do not have an atom bomb. Nor do they use their governments to fund terrorists acts aimed at killing American citizens. I do not believe they harbor terrorists. So nonintervention in those areas, and as a general rule, is of course the proper course, and a consistent conservative course.
Last winter my wife and I were attending the national CPAC conference and we had a chance to visit the Pentagon Memorial to those who perished on September 11. The Memorial trails in directly to the part of the building that was struck by Flight 77, guided by the five hijacker terrorists and which killed 124 innocent Americans on the plane and 54 workers inside the Pentagon. There is a remembrance for every person killed on the site. The American flag flies proudly over a broad the area of devastation. It is a touching scene that brings a tear to the eye and a passion that “never again” should this happen to our fellow citizens.
Winston Churchill, the Conservative Party’s Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, earlier warned members of his party in the Parliament again and again of the dangers to UK citizens posed by Adolf Hitler. Those warnings fell on the deaf ears of “noninterventionists” in the Conservative Party who were just fine with giving concessions, selling out treaty obligations, and letting Hitler and Mussolini run amok in Europe and in Africa. One of Churchill’s warnings was that Hitler was building up an air force and other aviation weapons aimed at mass destruction, not simply defense. He urged early intervention against Hitler and lost his argument to the noninterventionists until it was too late and they were forced into war. It was only then that Churchill became the Conservative Party’s Prime Minister; but as a result of the muddled thinking of Chamberlain and the other noninterventionists, Hitler’s Luftwaffe was able to rain terror and kill over 40,000 English civilians during the Blitz (bombing) on 76 consecutive nights between Sept. 1940 and May 1941. V-1 rockets shot by Hitler against England killed another 23,000 people there, mostly civilians. If England had intervened earlier, those 60,000 people would have lived. And if England had never intervened to engage Hitler, what would be the status of liberty in Europe today?
In just three weeks we will be observing the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The point is that there are serious threats to liberty in this dangerous world and conservatism believes that a fundamental role of government is to defend liberty, and to defend it’s citizens, when life and liberty are truly in jeopardy. Islamic terrorists and states that sponsor Islamic terrorists hate our system of government and they have demonstrated that indiscriminate killing of American citizens is their goal. There can be no better justification for conservatives to support policies aimed at stamping out this threat.
You are so wrongheaded on this that I don’t even know where to start. This is another part of history, like the official version of the Lincoln myth, where the accepted version of events is completely inaccurate. Churchill was a warmonger. What created Adolf Hitler? World War I and the Versailles Treaty. What resulted in the Versailles treaty, which imposed devastating reparations upon Germany and which, I might add, were only just finally paid off? Oh yeah, it was the United States intervening in World War I. Just as intervention in Cuba at the turn of the century created the circumstances which eventually led to Castro’s revolution, which of course was more failed U.S. interventionism. Whereas Europe would have been motivated toward a more reasonable resolution to the Great War, the entry of the U.S. on behalf of Britain when we should have remained neutral resulted in untold death and destruction, the humiliation and decimation of Germany, created conditions that made the Bolshevik Revolution possible, and began Middle East policies that would eventually blossom into our current quagmire in the region. Without the U.S. interventionist “Make the world safe for democracy” there would have been no Hitler in charge of Germany, no Lenin or Stalin or Kruschev to keep us up at night, no Holocaust, no millions dead from Communist policies, probably no Chairman Mao either since he based much of his programs on the Soviets. The whole world would be better off. Yet to you, who looks at the short term, and wrongly even there, none of these things matter. Ron Paul’s policies, had they been followed throughout the 20th century, would have saved countless millions of lives from death and tyranny. Acting like it’s too late now to start doing the right things to prevent future devastation is like saying, “We’re wrong. We’ve been wrong. But now that we’ve been wrong so often, we can’t just stop. We need to continue the policies of wrongness, because we can’t go back to being right.” You, sir, are wrong. Ron Paul is historically and morally right.
Thank you, Garrett.
You have a strong opinion that I respect but I do not think Churchill was a warmonger. He was the Conservative Party prime minister. As Jameson Campaign says below, a declared war is different from intervening in other affairs. Hitler wanted war. If you have NetFlix, take a look at “Triumph of the Will,” the 1934 party propaganda film of Hitler. It is all about war.
I don’t think it is correct to blame US intervention in WWI for the rise of Hitler. The Germans had the decision there, and he could have become dictator regardless.
The Cold War was indeed a “war.” It was one that Ron Paul did not want to engage in, he would probably just as soon let the Berlin Wall stay there. He has a real life political vulnerability there among mainstream voters, if he ever gets asked the question by MSM reporters. That is a fact. But the Cold War was also still a war, and Reagan’s response at the Berlin Wall was not only focused on winning the war by destabilizing the Communist enemy with rhetoric, it was also backed by troops and missiles and focused on helping people in captive nations to become free, a great and noble cause. Regardless of what caused the first war, at the point in time that Churchill had to make his decisions, he made the right ones. It would be wrong to not intervene because of some debatable historical etymology on what started the War when it is in process of being waged against you. The state does have an obligation to protect its citizens when war is being made against it, even libertarians generally agree with that.
The difference between a Conservative and a Neo-Conservative is displayed in this article. A true conservative is against war, as wars are incredibly wasteful. What could be more wasteful than building things which will be destroyed, or whose only purpose is to destroy? A Neo-conservative has bought into the idea that America should in fact be the policeman of the world, a tool of the U.N., and the Wilsonian idea of “making the world safe for democracy”. So the author is a neo-conservative, NOT a real Conservative
Would that mean Ronald Reagan (by his policies directed at the Soviet Union and at the Berlin Wall, which are the policies I am associating myself with) was in your opinion a “neoconservative” and not in your opinion a “real conservative”?
Let me also point out that Young Americans for Freedom’s famous Sharon Statement (I am a former national chairman of YAF) with reference to the menace of Communism to the free world, states “we as young conservatives” believe in “victory over, rather than coexistence with” communism. Is that not real conservatism? Or in your opinion is that something else?
Sounds like Jim is losing the “mandate of heaven” as well as this debate.
It is downright ridiculous to argue that you know the Berlin Wall would still be up if Ron Paul were President. Are you now working with crystal balls and ouija boards, Jim?
If 250,000 troops in Germany caused the Wall to come down, why didn’t the presence of those troops
prevent it from going up in 1961? America had overwhelming nuclear superiority in 1961, yet the Wall
went up because JFK didn’t think it was worth starting WWIII.
It is true that the Trotskyite neocons began infiltrating the GOP under Reagan and were prominent in
his Adminstration ( Perle, Kirkpatrick, etc. ). I don’t believe Reagan was a neo-con himself, but those
influences surrounded him. His own more classic conservative instincts prevented him from engaging in reckless military conduct around the globe ( interesting you can only cite Libya and Grenada in eight years of his presidency ).
Jim, you are a NEO-CON. Stop trying to deny it.
This point I raise is Ron Paul’s position. Did Ron Paul ever call for the Wall to come down? Did Ron Paul ever take any steps to support the aspirations for liberty of the repressed citizens of the former captive nations of the Soviet Union? Conservative Party Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did. Reagan did. Surely the Polish Pope did. Is Ron Paul in that category?
James – your version of military history is so skewed and I would argue that it’s revisionist. Our interventionist foreign policy is what brought down the USSR? Not at all. As Andrew already explained, it was internal conflicts and an overstretched military that destroyed the Soviets. Interesting thing… those are the same policies, of course, that are now bankrupting the U.S.
You talk about radical Islamists; but the truth is, one of al-Qaeda’s biggest intentions (self-professed) was to lead the United States into a bunch of endless conflicts so they could run us even further into debt and bankrupt us.
Reagan’s diplomacy with Gorbachev was certainly what brought down the Berlin Wall; it wasn’t contingent on an interventionist foreign policy. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist (you correctly call him a non-interventionist) because he clearly believes in free trade and open communication, even with sometimes less-than-favorable countries.
Just an aside… I’m so shocked that you don’t see our own borders, for example, as a FAR more pressing issue than the borders of third-world nations. How much longer do you think our country can handle the spending? Do you think we’ll be able to adequately defend ourselves if something ever hits home, what with such an overextended presence around the world?
Is it not self evident that Ronald Reagan,the greatest President of my lifetime,Won the Cold War but LOST the Culture War?
California is now Mexifornia.
US Culture is full of antiChristian hatred. “Christmas” is now a verboten word.
Homosexuality is actually PROMOTED in K-12 education in CA Schools.
CA has an OFFICIAL “Harvey Milk Day”
We are an actively ATHEISTIC nation – in the Cold War we fought against an enemy- “Godless Communism”
We won against the USSR and became more like them
Would you agree that ENGLISH must be spoken in all government activities? That America be seen as a worthwhile nation by our children? That our President prevent those with contagious diseases (AIDS/HIV) from entering our borders and taking advantage of our healthcare?
From Jameson Campaign by email:
Jim —
We were fighting a war (as losing it, as Morton correctly notes) against a declared — “We will bury you” — enemy of the United States, one with intercontinental missiles aimed at us.
Reagan used rhetoric, economic policy (convincing the Saudis to drop the price of oil to $12 a barrel, which completely busted the Soviet economy; denying all technology transfers to the Soviets while pushing anti-missile development the Soviets feared would utterly nullify this strategic asset, and more), and quiet aid to captive nations nationals, especially with the active assistance of the Pope and his Church. Not a shot war fired.
Read also the Dick Allen piece on Mitterand and Reagan in The American Spectator a week or two ago. Searchable under his name, probably “Richard Allen”.
Yes, he did use “democracy” rhetoric, but only as a weapon to destabilize an enemy in countries capable of self government, not as an international policy for the tribal and illiterate nations of the world. What should have been merely punitive expeditions to Iraq and Afghanistan — kill those who killed Americans (in Saddam’s case, working with terrorists who attacked our embassies in Africa and possibly the two TC attacks; in the case of Osama, for 9/11) and then leave … no nation-building, no “democracy promotion” and no American money to rebuild from the wreckage. That was Rumsfeld’s original strategy, but he was overruled by State, CIA, all the neocons at NSC who convinced clueless “43” to ignore Rummy, who then resigned.
He followed The Sharon Statement, looking out for the “just interests of the United States”
— and only a fool (or a neocon, or George Bush 43) would say that promulgating “democracy around the world” was remotely in the interests of the USA.
Your libertarians need to read some history, in addition to theory. Peter Schweizer’s excellent book on Reagan’s conduct of the Cold War (note, it was called a “war”) is instructive and easily accessible.
You can share this with your list under my name if you wish, or just steal it and post it under your own name.
I’ve often thought Reagan must have read my father’s book (1958), American Might & Soviet Myth, since he followed Dad’s advice precisely
Ron Paul is partly correct about our over-involvement in the rest of the world, however. Most of what we are doing — militarily, or with things like government-to-government foreign aid — achieve the exact opposite of the results desired.
I am not sure why you did not answer the following questions. I must tell you that I agree 100% about Reagan winning the Cold War and the serious threat of communism. We agree. My point is that while we won that war we LOST at home.
I ask you again:
“Is it not self evident that Ronald Reagan,the greatest President of my lifetime,Won the Cold War but LOST the Culture War?
California is now Mexifornia.
US Culture is full of antiChristian hatred. “Christmas” is now a verboten word.
Homosexuality is actually PROMOTED in K-12 education in CA Schools.
CA has an OFFICIAL “Harvey Milk Day”
We are an actively ATHEISTIC nation – in the Cold War we fought against an enemy- “Godless Communism”
We won against the USSR and became more like them
Would you agree that ENGLISH must be spoken in all government activities? That America be seen as a worthwhile nation by our children? That our President prevent those with contagious diseases (AIDS/HIV) from entering our borders and taking advantage of our healthcare?”
My post here is about the Berlin Wall, Reagan’s position on it, and contrasting Ron Paul’s position on it. You raise good points here and we are pleased to publish your comments, but they are different themes than the point of the post; but if you stay tuned to California Political Review in future; CPR will surely give focus to them!
We agree that national defense is vital.
There’s 192 Countries in the World and We Give Aid to Over 150 of Them.
It is unclear to me how that helps Americans who are seeing their own culture turned into violent sewage and our state into a Third World hellhole.
“Friends” do not require payment for their friendship. Prostitutes and gangsters do.
Dear Sir!
We people here in Germany can only laugh when we stumble upon such misinformed written articles like yours, Mr. Lacey. You know, the old predjudice of a simple-minded American comes automatically to mind, but it must be said that I cannot support that predjudice anymore since there are so many great people in your country who show the world that they have learned a lot (and the hard way, in many cases, too) in the past ten years, have made their history homework and support a candidate who is not selling out and defines what was called common sense in the old days. Obviously, you, Mr. Lacey did not do that homework but choose to steer ahead in the wrong direction. And don’t get me started ranting about my fellow ignorant Germans, of course we are not much better as a whole… Only the best wishes from Berlin,
Peter Pepper
Im 32 years old. My generation has been coined the “NINJA” in a movie called “wall street”. NINJA standing for No Income, No Job, no Assets…we have been completely screwed by the establishment parties Democrat and Republicans! Our generation is wide awake!! And my wife and I are registering Republican so we can nominate Ron Paul in California!
LIES!! Ron Paul DOES inspire the youth, millitary, and the intellectual!! He is for power to the people NOT government, You big government, pro-war NEOCON’s are ruining the republican party!! The “Liberal Media” IS NOT PROPING HIM UP YOU IDIOT!! They are censoring him!! Ignorance is blind, this is one of the worst blogs i’ve seen!!
Stop drinking the US govt/Pentagon kool-aid! Even in college, you learn that the US did little to actually ‘win’ the Cold War. It’s just pro-military industrial complex propaganda that we’ve all learned to take at face value.
That’s why Ron Paul supporters are so fervent- he doesn’t bow to the establsihment’s narrative and talking points. Even you, Mr. Lacy, could learn a thing or two about ideological honesty from people like Ron Paul. In case you haven’t learned, history is written by the winners, and the winners don’t necessarily take kindly to the truth!
My point is that Congressman Paul would not intervene to oppose the Berlin Wall, as Ronald Reagan did, both figuratively and literally, and that is a political liability for Paul. But I will add that conservatives supported the successful Cold War. The people who opposed it, or delayed the victory for freedom in defeating Communism, were communists, socialists, liberal Democrats in the later years, some establishment liberal Republicans, and Ron Paul. Ron Paul opposed giving a medal to Ronald Reagan. He is entitled to his political thinking but it does not realy merit serious majority consideration and he will never bust above 10% support because voters are smarter than the MSM reporters now promoting Paul. His campaign is sadly a waste of time for young people entering political action who have not intellectually challenged the anti-liberty logic of Paul just accepting Berlin Walls.
The Cold War didnt end because of America, America tried to do stuff to manipulate the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union collapsed because they fought what is now today Al-Quaida (sp) and became bankrupt due to their unstustainable war and overstretching their ideals in other countries.. Osama bin Laden became a hero, not because he attacked America, but because he joined forces to fight the Soviet Union in the invasion of Afganistan at 22, even though he was rich (since his father owned a muli billion dollar company). Osama bin Laden fought because he had honor in protecting Islamic lands, which makes him a patriot to the Islamic people. Just like when we were attacked on 9/11 we had a millionaire (Pat Tillman) join the military out of honor and patriotism. The attacks from Osama bin Laden came as America went in after Somalia, another Islamic nation. That is when the war started between Islam and America, and what the government likes to tell you is a “war on your freedoms”. That is propaganda so you support the war, and its completly false. It is also why so many countries think Americans are stupid and naiive, they are in a way, but its not entirely their faults because the media isnt doing what they are supposed to be doing. If you read or listen to a speech by Bin Laden, NOT once does he EVER say attacks on America are Because he hates freedom. He always goes back to Somalia, and talks about how his plan on America will be the same result of the Soviet Union with time if America dont leave Islamic countries. So Stop beleiving what the media tells you people, wake up and read the other side of the story for once, and youll be shocked at what you read.