Would we be better off if Ron Paul was President on 9/11?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Discussed in IRC.

Yes of course.

[Simfan34]

Absolutely not.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I support him now, but I must agree with simfan.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No (Normal)

[dead0man]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

Uh I think civilians in other countries would be safer without US bombs raining on them.

[Oakvale]

As I said in the IRC, dear God no.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As I said in the IRC, dear God no.

Well one thing you and Naso share in common then is a support for the actions of this man:

[Sbane]

Yes, I do believe the world would be better off without a Bush/other neoconservative presidency after 9/11.

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, obviously. Though I'm not sure we would be better off if Ron Paul was president on all the other days of Bush's first term.

[dead0man]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

Uh I think civilians in other countries would be safer without US bombs raining on them.

Sure, in the very few specific countries we've dropped bombs on.  But if Ron Paul is President there has been a sea change in the politics of the US.  Our military is shrinking, our....."aggresivness" internationally will cease.  How long until asshats in 2nd and 3rd world countries start giving sh**t to their neighbors (or own citizens) without the threat of American military intervention?  I certainly wouldn't want to live in Vietnam or S.Korea in such a scenerio (unless the Ron Paul lead US was selling me all their now unneeded F22s, carriers and such).

[courts]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

Uh I think civilians in other countries would be safer without US bombs raining on them.

[minionofmidas]

So, in this alternate universe, 9/11 is an inside job? Instigated by Pentagon people just trying to stop their jobs from being cut?
They'd probably be successful.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Considering that Ron Paul would've taken over earlier in the year, he would've immediately reinforced US defense and started pulling out troops from overseas.  9/11 may have never have happened if that was the case.  And if it did, he would've issued bounties and letters of marque to get Bin Laden at a fraction of the price and time.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course not.  A Paul Presidency, at any time, would be disastrous.

[k-onmmunist]

Of course not.  A Paul Presidency, at any time, would be disastrous.

He'd be brilliant on foreign and social issues. On economic... uh oh.

[ag]

God forbid!

[Mechaman]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

Uh I think civilians in other countries would be safer without US bombs raining on them.

Sure, in the very few specific countries we've dropped bombs on.  But if Ron Paul is President there has been a sea change in the politics of the US.  Our military is shrinking, our....."aggresivness" internationally will cease.  How long until asshats in 2nd and 3rd world countries start giving sh**t to their neighbors (or own citizens) without the threat of American military intervention?  I certainly wouldn't want to live in Vietnam or S.Korea in such a scenerio (unless the Ron Paul lead US was selling me all their now unneeded F22s, carriers and such).

Yeah because the US is the only country in the world with forces large enough for humane intervention.  And if the US doesn't intervene every nation on Earth will be taken over by "asshats" who will proceed to kill everyone.

.....oh wait.

[RI]

Never would we have been better off with Paul as president.

[dead0man]

Americans would likely be safer, I doubt your average fellow anywhere else in the world would be though.

Uh I think civilians in other countries would be safer without US bombs raining on them.

Sure, in the very few specific countries we've dropped bombs on.  But if Ron Paul is President there has been a sea change in the politics of the US.  Our military is shrinking, our....."aggresivness" internationally will cease.  How long until asshats in 2nd and 3rd world countries start giving sh**t to their neighbors (or own citizens) without the threat of American military intervention?  I certainly wouldn't want to live in Vietnam or S.Korea in such a scenerio (unless the Ron Paul lead US was selling me all their now unneeded F22s, carriers and such).

Yeah because the US is the only country in the world with forces large enough for humane intervention.  And if the US doesn't intervene every nation on Earth will be taken over by "asshats" who will proceed to kill everyone.

.....oh wait.

Straw0man smells something.....

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course not.  A Paul Presidency, at any time, would be disastrous.

He'd be brilliant on foreign and social issues. On economic... uh oh.

Aren't you a socialist? Ron Paul is about as far from internationalism as possible.

[Lief 🗽]

Of course not.  A Paul Presidency, at any time, would be disastrous.

He'd be brilliant on foreign and social issues. On economic... uh oh.

Aren't you a socialist? Ron Paul is about as far from internationalism as possible.

Opposition to imperialism is more important than support for neoliberal internationalism.

[Jerseyrules]

 Hells yes!  All the liberals should be checking off yes!   And if we had president body, well...

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/2010/01/page/2/

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yes and No.

Yes because Paul would likely pursue a policy which would prevent 9/11 in the first place. The policy is called Common Sense. If we minded our own business, it would not have happened. Paul would issue Letters of Marque and sent private (and much more efficient) bounty hunters after Osama, and could have gotten him alive. Security would be beefed up, even under Paul, but individual freedoms would not be raped.

No, because Paul would likely lose all popularity after the attack. He would be seen as weak, and "anti American", despite his sensible positions. It would hurt morale, and the economy would likely stagnate.

 None the less, 9/11 is over, and an attack of its magnitude would not happen under a Paul administration. Al Qaeda has long been dead, and now is totally leaderless (UBL had no control over AQ past 2007, it appears), so a Paul Presidency in 2013 would not have these problems.

[angus]

Without a doubt.  We likely would not have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq.  We wouldn't have to put up with anal probes and full-cavity searches by jackboot-wearing gestapo agents at airports.  Hell, we probably wouldn't even have the economic difficulties and 9% unemployment rate we have now.