i hope russia doesn't fall like us americans have. ron paul for president!

Why should I even bother spending myself bankrupt when my nanny-government is going to do it for me?

Thank you , Russia Today, for always giving Ron Paul fair and respectful interviews!

Ron Paul is accorded "fair and respectful interviews" in America as well. The problem for Ron is that the American opinion makers have marginalized Ron to the point where people look at him as someone outside the mainstream of American politicians. American people have been inculcated not support folks who have been thus marginalized - sure, they can win local election, but they are not viable candidates for presidency. The mainstream media is very adroit at "assassinating" anyone's political career who is deemed falling outside their spectrum of influence - for example, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, neither of which gives a damn what the powerful in America think, nor do they follow the dictates of mainstream media pundits.

While the American model of democracy is sound and noble, the US has, for some reason, turned away from this model and has instead, embraced a model of Fascism, which can only end in failure, bringing about the crumbling demise of a nation founded on sound and noble principals. Corporate special interests now control the government that controls the people. These special interests (especially given the upcoming supreme court decision regarding the removal of corporate limits and restrictions on political campaigns), amount to a shadow government. They not only decide who will be our choices for elected office, they actually have been permitted to write actual legislation (see the new bankruptcy laws), padding their positions and limiting the options of the population. The current administration is, sadly, just like all of the previous, deep in the pockets of these corporate special interests. The people of the US are doomed indeed.

From what i've read, no one is advocating an US invasion of Yemen who would plausibly have the power to order one in the foreseeable future. Now on the other hand, you will likely see more air strikes by our planes. Failing at that, many planes we built, but gave to Yemen and Saudi Arabia, are actively involved in the military suppression of secessionist militants. However, this conflict will not be of the same high caliber of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, for us anyways. Subsequent to 9/11, targets around the world were attacked by our military, but most of these operations were too small to become well-known. Yemen was and is of the same size, but the difference is people know about it because of the underwear bomber. Also, for the same reason, the commitment might be a little bit larger now, but far less than a billion per annum (Afghanistan is over $160 billion per annum now). To sum it all up: straw man.

We're transitioning to a new set of rules due to condition, which sucks. At the moment, we're managed by business people and corporations that move us in the wrong ways, so they are creating more and more fallouts. Balance is essential and impossible thanks to human nature and vanity. Collect then scatter. Collect then scatter. Looking through the generations, things weren't always this bad. There were different constants on our lives back then. It's a transition to something new that's the problem, I think. I don't know about Russia exactly, as I have never been, but I think they are falling to similar sins in a different way and that's annoying because what goes around will come back around on that level. A person with questionable merit could become well off over there, especially during the 90s, then that person can trap and use all that he catches. What directions does the trapped herd need to go? They're not stupid. They're limited.

William, I am uncomfortable with the thought that it is the price tag that determines if we have any national interest or not in Yemen, or for that matter, anywhere else. Even if it is one dollar, if it is going to harm a lots of innocent people and destroy their already meagre possessions --- we need to think hard if this is justified. Every military action harms civilians. Every bomb thrown from high above, and navigated by someone thousands of miles away, is not having a chance of being accurate. If you add to this, the intelligence is abysmal. Miliary's own recent assessment of the value of intelligence in Afghanistan is devastating. It pretty much states that after all these years, intelligence is useless, because they have no clue who is influential, where are the population loyalties, and even the basics of how people live. Only the haziest of notions are available, and these are the people who routinely define the targets for the drones. And Yemen? I would bet anything that people from the State Department onwards are clueless. Secessionism is NOT our problem. Yemen never had any business controlling the southern Hardramouth, that was for millenia independent. And the tribes north had the same structure in the sixties as todays' United Arab Emirates. Why not try to force a "central" government on Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Bahrain or Dubai? Sheer nonsense. Same is true in Yemen. We should not help the isolated president control all regions, and in the name of battling terrorism doing his dirty work. He may have invented the Al-Qaeda, as he is the only one in Yemen who needs it to get American planes and American dummies fight for his son to inherit the "presidency". God help us.

Buy more firearms and ammo, train, stay alert and stay silent and bide your time ...

If American Airlines was responsible for the damage their planes caused to the WTC and the Pentagon you'd see better security from the airlines. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT instead is entirely responsible for airline security, and they are SOLELY responsible for it and that is why there are no world trade centers today, and why the Pentagon was hit - because they didn't do their job and the airlines weren't responsible for the destruction or deaths. It might be true that airlines would have excessively restrictive security, but if that's a problem for you, you can always fly on the airline that doesn't have the same level of security, but does have an armed guard on board, that will blow the brains out of anybody that threatens the safety of the passengers.

Bianca, I basically agree with you. Nevertheless, to claim that Yemen would be the next Iraq or Afghanistan implies that its scale of cost and violence would be equivalent to what it has been for those wars. Just because everybody is talking about Yemen now doesn't mean anyone important is advocating an occupation. To speak more broadly, populism is to blame here as much as anything else. Politically, our leaders forced to be seen as proactively trying to mitigate the terrorist threat even if their means of doing so aren't worth the cost because 300 domestic lives lost to terrorists are more important to American public perception than 100,000 lives lost to disease. In terms of material and human destruction, the terrorist threat is puny, and there are much more cost-efficient ways of saving US lives than fighting massive wars that ravage foreign peoples, kill our soldiers, and may or may not even improve, rather than threaten, domestic safety. The only way the terrorists could become worthy of the resources presently being thrown at them is if they were likely to procure WMDs, and there aren't any in Yemen. Though who knows what a small group of chemists or biologists might some day do...Most, or all, people see the world see the world as simpler than it is.

I find the remarks of Ron Paul quite interesting. He is quite right when he says it is the airlines responsiblity as to who gets on their airplanes. It is also the responsibility of the American government to give adequate information to law agencies regarding persons deemed as possibly deranged and a danger to the airlines. Apparently the person who attempted to destroy an airline and its passengers was well known to American authorities, since his father had given them the information. Which begs a question, why was no notification given to international airports, where he could be strip searched? As for Haiti, well it was under the Clinton administration that their rice farmers were driven out of business by the extravagant export of American rice to Haiti. Destroy a countries economic produce and you create poverty for its people. As for Yemen, this is an internal conflict which has religious undertones. The government in power are Sunni, with a part of the population, the Houti's who are Shia. The Shia population feel their rights are being trodden underfoot. The Saudi's, an American puppet, are involving themselves in Yemen's internal affairs. The Saudi's are Sunni. I believe Bin Laden was a Saudi and a Sunni. There are reports of US involvement coming through. America's policy seems well in line with a continuation of the policies of George Bush jnr.

Ron Paul is right on the money on this point. Imagine if everyone could bring a hand gun on a plane, we wouldn't need security guards on the planes, there might be 20-30 people with a gun on a commercial flight. Good luck trying anything. You'll be dead. The problem now is that nobody is responsible when security fails. If the airline was responsible for it, they would have fixed the problem years ago.