• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Getting the Facts Straight on the Taliban

    The relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda was one of the hot topics of Monday night’s presidential debate. Candidate Ron Paul downplayed the dangers of the Taliban, declaring the “Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians… The al-Qaeda wants to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says we don’t want foreigners.”

    The Taliban came on the scene in Afghanistan in 1994, several years after the Soviets departed. Taliban (which translates to “students”) were made up mainly of Afghan refugees who had grown up in Pakistan during Soviet rule in Afghanistan and attended Deobandi religious schools, where they learned a strict, puritanical form of Islam. While some of the current Taliban may have previously fought on the same side of the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is inaccurate to say the Taliban as a movement was ever an ally of the United States.

    Osama bin Laden’s arrival in Afghanistan in 1996, after he was expelled from Sudan, allowed the terrorist leader to forge a relationship with the like-minded Afghan Islamist movement. The bond that developed between Taliban leader Mullah Omar and bin Laden became so powerful that the Taliban refused to break ties to al-Qaeda and hand over bin Laden shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban leadership refused to give up support for bin Laden, even though they were undoubtedly aware that their refusal to cooperate with the U.S. would lead to the invasion of Afghanistan.

    Not only did the Taliban provide physical protection to the world’s most wanted terrorist, the organization repressed Afghan women and terrorized the country’s minority communities during their rule (1996 – 2001).

    Though Paul says the Taliban’s top priority is to expel “foreigners” from Afghanistan, the real issue is whether the Taliban has severed ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorists seeking to harm the United States. Without a clear sign that the Taliban have broken their links with international terrorists and are ready to participate in a normal political process, a Taliban return  to power in Afghanistan would not only bring despair to the Afghan people, it would herald the revival of al-Qaeda.

    Let’s get our facts straight on the Taliban and their agenda. It is naïve and dangerous to discount Taliban links to international terrorism and its track record of pursuing ruthless policies of violence and intimidation against the Afghan people.

    If the Taliban regret their decision to protect bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks; wish to renounce ties to al-Qaeda and its international terrorist agenda; and are ready to participate in a normal political process that is acceptable to the international community, then by all means, let them come forward.

    But until then, let’s not forget about the 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks that were facilitated by the Taliban’s willingness to shelter bin Laden as well as the 1,700 U.S. soldiers who have fought and died courageously defending our nation from further 9/11 types of attacks.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    61 Responses to Getting the Facts Straight on the Taliban

    1. Jennifer Featherstone says:

      So, they where our Allies or not? Its hard to even comprehend this…"While some of the current Taliban may have previously fought on the same side of the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is inaccurate to say the Taliban as a movement was ever an ally of the United States." So what your saying here is that the guys old enough where there, but not the new guys? Please explain.

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        Gee, there must have been a seminar somewhere yesterday. 1st point. Jennifer- I think you mean were and not where they our allies or not.
        2nd. Point. The Taliban did not exist as an organization until a while after the Russians had left Afghanistan. The young refugess that had fled to Pakistan during the Russian invasion, attended Madrassas, or schools where a radical type of Islam was taught. The schools were probably funded by radicals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. The Taliban was formed when these refugees returned to Afghanistan after the war had ended. Maybe some older folks that were veterans of the Russian conflict joined them. The new group then violently overtook the country, oppressed the population, forced women to quit their jobs and stay home, wear burkas, drop out of school, etc. They burned libraries, museums, and killed lots and lots of people that did not agree with them. The group of you that all posted exactly 18 and 19 hours ago in locked step were obviously coached or part of some lame and semi-literate group of folks that are unaware of history.

      • Dan Shepherd says:

        They are saying that some of the older guys MAY have been fighting on the same side as us against the USSR, however we were not allied with the Taliban. In other words some Taliban guys might have at one time been allied with us but we were never allied with the Taliban (the Taliban did not exist at the time)

    2. Guest says:

      Those troops over in Afghanistan support Ron Paul much more than they do any of the neo-cons…I wonder why that is? Oh wait, it's obvious!

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        Where did you hear that? I didn't see that poll. That's a hell of a big claim to make. Do you now represent all of the troops over there? Did you get their permission to speak for them?

      • stacy says:

        NO they dont! stop the LIES!

    3. gsonic says:

      Interventionist drivel, based on the supremely arrogant and dangerous belief that we have some sort of "right" to tell other countries how they should govern themselves. And we use our army to maliciously project this belief around the world, which is the primary reason so much of the world hates us, as Dr. Paul says.

    4. USPatriot says:

      Yes, let’s not forget about the 3,000 victims of the 9/11 attacks.
      We need a new investigation into all the events that were allowed to happen that day. http://www.ae911truth.org/

    5. Dylan13 says:

      Can you post some of your sources of information? I find some of it to be contradictory to what I have discovered, most notably the claim that the Taliban has never been an ally of the United States. I'm not saying the information I found is any more credible than your information; I want yours to be.

      Rashid, Ahmed (2000), Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-08340-8 Griffiths, John C. (2001), Afghanistan: A History of Conflict, London: Carlton Books, ISBN 1 84222 597 9

    6. Dontworryaboutit says:

      Though i think it was unnecessary for Ron Paul to make this argument in front of South Carolinians (and I am one myself), this is an important thing to consider. What if, just maybe, the civilians in the Middle East don't like America due to our incessant need to police their homelands. Sure, there are radical groups in these regions that hate America simply because we are not Muslim, but there is a lot of angry sentiment simply over our ostentatious presence there. Think about it. If we exclude the Middle East, we have bases in over one hundred different nations (many in Europe) for no apparent reason beyond exerting our military prowess. Instead of spreading our prowess so thin, though, perhaps it is time that we bring it home and protect ourselves domestically. This is exactly what Dr. Paul meant by cutting "military" spending, rather than cutting "defense" spending. There is an important distinction to recognize.

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        You've made some good points BUT I would encourage you to go and read the mission statements of HAMAS, the MB, Hezbollah, etc. and check out the sources of their funding. While you're at it, also check out the origin and contents of the Protocols of Zion, that these groups accept as a valid historical document. There are several million muslims that adhere to these anti-semetic and Naziesque propaganda views as if they were the gospel truth. I agree that we have too many bases in too many places and I'd like to see some of those resources used on our own borders but Ron Paul oversimplifies these issues to a dangerous degree. If we were to leave the whole middle east in total – they will still come for us.

    7. chuck says:

      Ron has never let reality get in the way of his rants. Ironically for all his ranting about the Constitution, he's much like Obama on that subject. He wants it to say what fits his agenda not what is actually there and supportered by centuries of legal precident.

    8. Laura Bell says:

      Paul is dangerously naive on foreign policy! Especially after a complacent Administration, where the Muslim Brotherhood has expanded and is dominating Egyptian politics- We need a leader whom terrorists fear reprisals, not another American president whose generosity of spirit only encourages violence and oppression.

    9. Kim says:

      Well it is "international", let them fight amongst themselves all they want, I don't care, just keep them out of my country!

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        How do we "keep them out" of our own country? Using racial or religious profiling? That is illegal.
        Anyway, they are already here, like it or not, and using our own legal systems and freedoms to try and curtail our freedoms. See "Lawfare." Do we through them all into internments camps like FDR did the Japanese-Americans during WWII? That's not a realistic or moral approach either.
        Our energy and food supply is also "international." By not engaging them over there we risk our own economic and soveriegn well being.

    10. john says:

      You are glossing over a lot of issues, there is so much more to Afghanistan then saying "Though Paul says the Taliban’s top priority is to expel “foreigners” from Afghanistan, it is more accurate that they seek to expel those who do not share their radical brand of Islamist terrorism and hatred of America. And it remains that the real issue is whether the Taliban has severed ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorists seeking to harm the United State." There are multiple different versions of the Taliban.

      The Mission of NATO into Afghanistan was approved by the UN to go and capture/kill Osama Bin Laden and make the Taliban pay for their support. We have succeeded at this. At this point the US is largely stuck in the middle of a Indian/Pakistan/Afghanistan "cold war" that is extremely difficult to resolve. The Taliban was supported by Pakistan because it was against India and any group that is against India i.e. the Taliban is fine with Pakistan.

      Also from many of the Military members I have talked have said that the people they are fighting in Pakistan are Pashtun who are a warrior tribe who look to fight foreigners. It's 18 year old fighting 18 year olds.

      At this point the US gains very little by staying in Afghanistan, we have completed the mission and with the support of the countries in the region the Taliban will remain a page in the history books.

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        I'd like to add that the Taliban was not willing to expel the foreigner Bin Laden or his hosts of Arab fighters.
        They only want to expel (or kill) those that are not of the same mind, regardless of where they came from.

    11. pastorvon says:

      1700 AMerican soldiers would not be dead if they were not in Afghanistan to start with.

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        But Bin Laden would still be alive and training thousands to build IEDs, and kill Westerners.

    12. rusureuwant2know says:

      Gee, are you going to deny that U.S. actions had anything to do with those people forming a negative opinion of us? The U.S. has forever been trying to decide which tyrant gets to rule. He does have a valid point.

      • Poor Old Norm says:

        Are YOU going to deny that Americans negative opinion of radical Islam has nothing to do with their policies?
        Islamic pirates were kidnapping and killing Americans when John Adams was president.
        Why do you think the line "from the shores of Tripoli" is in the old Marine Corps hymn?
        America's leaders have a responsibility to look out for our national interests and security. Yes, mistakes have been made but this is still one of the the most non-imperialist nations to have ever existed.
        It's too easy to just jump on the blame America first bandwagon.

    13. Mark says:

      Ron Paul for President 2012 ;)

    14. Robin Ellis says:

      You're partly right, partly wrong. You're correct that the Taliban didn't exist during the US's proxy war with the Russians via the Mujahedin. You're wrong to suggest that only in 1996 did bin Laden "forge a relationship with the like-minded Afghan Islamist movement". bin laden was a major partner of the Afghan Islamist movement from the early 1980s on, training and funding Arab and other non-Afghan fighters for the jihad. Also, the main reason the Taliban did not hand over al Qaeda was not that they were Islamist. The Taliban are not Islamists, they are fundamentalists. Islamists look forward. They seek to be modern but not western. Fundamentalists look backward. They seek to recapture a (usually mythical) golden age. What the Taliban are at heart, and always have been, is a Pushtun nationalist movement that uses Islam to legitimise their claims, just as every Afghan government before them has, all the way back to Ahmad Shah Baba. The reason they did not give up al Qaeda has more to do with Pushtun cultural values than shared ideology. (The same values that led our neighbours in Peshawar to offer to lay down their lives for us during the first Gulf War.) And, by the way, the rhetoric about violence against women and ethnic minorities is empty. The US didn't care about the Mujahedin's violence against the same groups when they were paying them to be US allies against the Russians. Now, all of a sudden, the US cares about Afghan women and minorities? Sorry. It doesn't ring true.

    15. Mike Elliott says:

      Ron Paul is an idiot

    16. "…the Taliban … repressed Afghan women and terrorized the country’s minority communities during their rule (1996 – 2001)."
      Hm, sounds like White America in the 1800's and first half of the 1900's! Ooops – too much truth for us "exceptional" Americans. Sorry!

      • Susanne in Georgia says:

        That's right, I forgot that American women were forced to wear burkas, marry as children, and undergo clitorectomies!

        Oh, wait…

    17. Ron Paul is completely out of touch with reality. He boasts of being the most constitutionally minded yet really needs to learn about the original intentions of our founding fathers and the Constitution itself.

    18. Vieille Simpson says:

      These are challenging times — and life is so complex. Easy answers have great appeal — they provide a level of comfort and simplicity that allows us some respite from the turmoil of modern life. And therein lies the appeal of Ron Paul. If one simply accepts things at the most superficial level rather than committing to in-depth analysis of issues and real-world approaches to solutions, life can go rolling merrily along. Right up to the moment when all hell breaks loose — as it did on 9/11. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, Iran, our relationship with Israel, the US role in the world — all daunting, none the one-dimensional question that Paul sees. We need to be very careful, lest in our desire for easy answers and a way out of being the world's "policeman" (or leader of the free world, from another perspective) we opt for the kind of relief from making hard decisions that comes only with having all decisions made for us without regard for what we might think/want. Being a world power comes with responsibilities — and hiding from tough questions doesn't cut it. Yes, we must be astute about the Taliban and al-Qaeda — but refusal to look realistically at them is emblematic of an overarching wish to retreat from what is required of us in this increasingly complex world. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto — or Ron Paul.

    19. And Paul gets it wrong…no shock there

    20. Josh says:

      You posted vague information. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? I am commenting from there. Not sure what your point is besides the fact that Al Qaeda is going to gain a partnership land to train in because Afghans cannot protect themselves.

      • Josh says:

        Granted I agree the Afghan people are not able to defend themselves adequately against the Taliban, however, the TB is not their only threat; they have an infusion of threats; Pakistan, ISI, Taliban, warlords, Iranian, Russian, and Chinese. So how do you stop all that? Just send troops to fight, why don't you come over and fight? How do you stop an idea, you don't present an argument. What are we fighting against, Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISI, Iranian, Russian, Chinese supported arms dealers?

        • Josh says:

          The biggest threat is the lack of education for Afghans. Most cannot read struggle to find their next meal. The people as a whole are afraid of their neighbors so they go along to get along. There are many educated Afghans and they don't want ISAF to leave, ISAF brings some balance in threat, corruption within GIRoA, and money for development and infrastructure. At the end of the day, the end game, the safety of Americans needs to be the mission, not just the strong arm for UN, NATO, or politicians.

    21. Josh says:

      The Afghan people have to rely on fragmented leadership, warlords, and Taliban supporters. The central government does not have the ability to control its own military, police or regions. If there is one fire the ability to put out the fire is there, but if there are many, the system may have the assets, but do they want to fight the fire? When the money stops flowing because the US tax payers pay most of the Afghan government salaries then what? Corruption runs ramped within the circles, just focus your energy into the Afghan Border Patrol and follow the money trails.

      • Josh says:

        Look, I am not against going to war I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I never saw anything there besides making sure everyone comes home safe to fight against. Why don't we secure our own borders first to prevent the so called International Terrorist Organization of Al Qaeda from entering the U.S. and then go from there?

        • Josh says:

          The Taliban might renounce like Hamas, but then what are they still not conducting actions of harm? In the future how do we know? Assumption does not get anywhere, preparation, education, and reaction does. The cultural difference between American politics and the troops on the ground is vast. Military officers curtail their decisions based on being the next poster boy for politicians to denounce on the media. There are many more wrong aspects of Americans in Afghanistan than right at this point. If we have to occupy the world to stop terrorism, than I say let the world fight their own battle and we protect U.S. Soil at the borders against foreigners not Americans.

          • Josh says:

            Most NATO countries rely on the Americans to finish the job; Spanish Minister of Defense stated they are NGOs with guns. Italians are very proactive but limited in support and resources. Who has to go in and do the dirty work, Americans?

            Please provide a viable solution that does not require occupation. Using 9-11 or fallen heroes is not Patriotic, to me sitting over here reading, I feel bad for your disillusionment.

    22. gsonic says:

      I guess my previous comment was too incendiary? Perhaps using the word 'drivel' is hate speech.

      To repeat my previous (evidently disallowed) comment in a way that is more palatable to the censors, I believe it is both arrogant and dangerous to presume we have any sort of right to tell another sovereign nation how they may govern themselves, and that is the presumption that this entire opinion piece is based on. This is the primary reason we are distrusted around the world. That presumption, and fear-mongering (They hate America! They want to kill us all!), and the false patriotism of a "remember-the-victims" chant are the standard tactics of someone incapable of making a well-reasoned argument. All of us remember, miss terribly and pray for the 9/11 victims, and it is despicable for anyone to suggest or imply that if one does not agree with an insistence on military interventionism they are somehow unpatriotic or worse.

      We have had ten years of stupendously porous borders since the 9/11 attacks, and you're worried about the Taliban coming back into power in Afghanistan? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the likelihood that the next attacks are almost certainly already well planned, and the operatives are likely in country. It will almost certainly be another well-coordinated devastating attack, and then maybe the interventionists will start focusing on securing our nation and it's borders instead of spending copious amounts of blood and treasure to conquer and occupy 3rd world countries.

      • Whether or not u got many "thumbs up" on your post, I don't care, however, your comments "hit the nail" right on its head in my view…All we are doing in Afghanistan is swapping lives, one on one, and costing American Tax payer dollars by the Millions and the lives of our Brave Men.. for what? Meaningless, in my view.. Look at whats happening in Iraq right now after we left? We should have at least gotten a lot of Oil out of that deal by Contract, but "stupid" (somebody in charge)…didn't get anything for our lives lost there!

    23. Christy says:

      Ron Paul's words: "Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians"
      James Carafano's words: "While some of the current Taliban may have previously fought on the same side of the U.S. during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is inaccurate to say the Taliban as a movement was ever an ally of the United States."

      Please explain the difference. Isn't the very nature of fighting on the same side called being… "allied".

      Allied: joined by treaty, agreement, or COMMON CAUSE.

      I don't think he's ever implied, as you are seeming to attempt to suggest, that the Taliban has ever been our "friends".

    24. It's time to bring all our guys home..serving a non-purpose stay in Afghanistan in my opinion..Just swapping one of our Marines for one of their Taliban guys (killing), I mean…and that is non sense especially to the Moms and Dads of our men…Look at the cost we are paying not just in lives but dollars, for what? Yes, for what? Not making America any safer, with our being over there in Afghanistan, in my view.. What ya'll think?

    25. jweb says:

      He said this, they said that, but you can trust me because I'm saying the truth, right?. The mdeia is destroying their credibility. The media is merely a wagon pulled by sheep. Do you want war America? Do you? Are you willing to go overseas in lieu of the young people that are being sent? And if they come back, they come back with what and to what? Just how much does WAR mean to you? War you want; WAR you will get. The eyes and ears of God are open to the thunderous appluase for death. If there are other options, which there are, that needs to be done, Do not be decieved; God will not be mocked. That which you sow, that you shall also reap. Ron Paul is trying to bring attantion tto the fact that America is heading toward collapse. Do you really have a problem with exposing the reality of the situtation?
      Lastly, can we have enough of "armchair candidate" mentality? Grow up, get real, and save the Republic by turning to God and our Constituonal parameters.

    26. Daniel says:

      You're quite wrong, dude. "The Mujahideen" was the precursor to the Taliban, which was around in the late 70's to early 80's. Osama Bin Laden was a part of this group, and yes, they were radicalized and trained by the CIA to help fight the Soviets. They viewed themselves as freeom fighters. After the Soviets withdrew, the vacuum left behind left to the Mujahideen fighting with each other over the territory and disbanding. From that, came the rise of the Taliban.

      Please don't write an article about "getting the facts straight" when you clearly have not. Just because they were called by a different name does not change anything about who these people were.

    27. Hoosiergirl says:

      From this article in Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…
      The German's are brokering talks with the Taliban and the U.S.
      The Iranian leadership, which recently signed a defense pact with Kabul, also wants to play a stronger role in Afghanistan and is seeking contact with the Taliban, despite having almost gone to war against Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in 1998. Senior military leaders in Pakistan will also do what they can to keep the Taliban under control.
      What are your thoughts on that Mr. Carafano?

      • The administration had secret talks with Iran trying to cut a deal over Afghanistan that apparently went no where.

        Pakistan military is very much interested in controlling rather than dismantling the Taliban that is widely acknowledged.

    28. sandykramer says:

      Just one more example of Paul's encyclopedic understanding of international relations.

    29. Owen Miller says:

      Ron Paul may have a decisive edge in the final outcome of the Republican party's platform, but let us not forget that there is one fundamental responsibility of the President of the United States and that is to protect our interests at home and abroad. Mr. Paul would certainly fail in that specific regard.

    30. Kevin says:

      Doesn't that mean we should also invade Pakistan, since they were also sheltering bin Laden? What about China they support Iran another nation that shelters terriorists. Where do we stop determining who can and can't rule in a foreign country?

    31. Matthew5 says:

      U.S. foreign policy has helped create the problems we have with the middle east today. This is what Ron Paul is saying and has always said. The CIA agrees with him. Our foreign policy, dating back to the 1950's, and this idea that we have to "police" the world is what created these unintended consequences and as a result, we have "blowback" in the form of terrorist acts such as 9/11.

      I am not an OBL apologist or sympathizer in any way, but I think it's important for all of the facts to be understood, not just the one's that fall in line with our world view. Let me be clear about something else, too: the people who died on 9/11 were innocent. They didn't bring this upon our country. And Ron Paul doesn't believe they were to blame, either. But we have to stop kidding ourselves about the true impact of our interventionist foreign policy over the last 60 years.

      I find it interesting that there was a time when our own government supported Osama bin Laden and armed al-Qaeda's predecessor, the mujihadeen, during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. We brought Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq and armed him. The U.S. has a remarkable history of having to fight the very people we've helped bring to power in the M.E.

    32. Jeff V. says:

      Thank you! We allied with the Mujahideen, NOT the Taliban. The Mujahideen did not kick girls out of the school system, force men to wear the characteristic facial hair, make women wear the full burqa, or hold public stonings. It would truly be scary to have such an ignoramus as our president.

    33. Larry says:

      Finally, someone got it right. Having trained many members of the Mujahadeen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, I traveled to many of the camps in Pakistan where the Pakistan ISI ran the Madrassas and trained the children in radical Islamism. The Taliban was never our allies during the Soviet war. Matter of fact there was no Taliban then.


    34. West Texan says:

      Well said James. If it helps Dr. Paul to better understand the situation, consider the Taliban an accessory after the fact. The U.S. was forced to go after al Qaeda in the tragic wake of 9/11/2001. If Omar and his thugs chose to accommodate bin Laden's murderous pigs, then the Taliban is equally an enemy threat to Americans.

    35. pearl says:

      Reading all of the Foundry's links to other stories, I couldn't help remarking to myself that the topics seemed reasonable, offering objective information and analysis. Until I came to the article dealing with Ron Paul's foreign policy. As usual the Neocons have this issue by the throat and effectively condemn any position that questions the wisdom of endless unlimited war and occupation. How sad, yet predictable. Still, I know most Americans are waking up from the world domination nightmare and are willing to entertain the possibility that the U.S. might just be better off minding our own business.

    36. Spiritof76 says:

      Ron Paul is unnecessarily focusing on the allegiance of Taliban and other tyrannical groups to talk about his vision of the US foreign policy. Our policy should not be contingent on the alliancs of all suspect rulers of the world. Our foreign policy should only be contingent on protecting America and her citizens. As such, when we go after Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan after having Congress declared war, we should give full authority to our troops to root out the evil there and leave. It is not our burden to nation-build. We should withdraw from Europe, Japan and S.Korea because of the US taxpayers have been subsidizing their prosperity for 60 years or more by providing cost-free defense. It is not isolationism but it is our legacy foreign policy handed from our first president, George Washington.

    37. O2BMe says:

      Our first priority should be our own self defense. The populations of the other countries have to step up and place their own lives on the line for change. However, for own defense we need military presence in strategic places. We may in the near future have to defend ouselves from Iraq's long range missiles and and nuclear warheads. It is not our job to defend the other countries. Our responsibility to Isreal is because our leaders helped create it and place it in the midst of their enemies.

    38. Perhaps Ron Paul isn't advocating isolationism, but neutrality. The problem here lies in the fact that we cannot be truly neutral unless we also refuse to trade with other nations. We tried neutrality before both world wars but we couldn't stop selling goods and weapons to our friends. That made up a threat to Germany. Should we sell our goods and weapons to all nations? That would just make us profiteering arms dealers. Our economy cannot survive without trade, and if we trade to everyone we put ourselves at risk of arming and feeding tyrants and terrorists. Should we be the world's police force, probably not. But if we fall back to our own borders under the guise of "protect our own first", what we are really saying is that we hate those of other nations. I guess, perhaps, we aren't a Christian people after all.

    39. Scott Harpe says:

      I've heard Congressman Paul, along with his devout followers, citing among other things American bombing them as reasons (justifications) for their hatred of all things American. I'm paraphrasing Congressman Paul, something he often does for himself as well, that the reason for the 9/11 attacks was because we were bombing Muslims. In essence, if someone were bombing us, how would we feel and how would we react?
      Perhaps someone could be good enough to tell me just exactly which Muslims the U.S. was bombing as of 09/10/01? What Muslim nations were we invading?
      I'm just asking because it seems to be the basis of Congressman Paul's entire approach to the Middle East.

    40. Richard Rhodes says:

      I honestly think you probably think Castro, and Chavez are great people. And Mao was one of your idols. And I am sure you all wear Che shirts. It is really scary that most of you are allowed to vote.

    41. Why won't Heritage.org blog post what I had to say…i felt it was just as important as anyone's blog…I'm slightly disappointed!

    42. Sorry, Lester. We try and approve comments as quickly as possible. Sometimes we're a little slow!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.