PDA

View Full Version : How would RP respond to this?




ArmandoP
02-04-2008, 11:26 PM
OK, I am a first time poster and not much for forums, but I got drawn into a debate on a message board concerning RP's foreign policy. A quote from this was brought up.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081907.html

This is the first time I have ever discussed RP where I dont intrinsically know how he would respond.

now, call it me being too damn tired after spending my day trying to motivate a bunch of sales guys and then spending my evening going back and forth between a berating neocon online and trying to get my Precinct Leader stuff in order, but my brain hurts. My goal is to come back tomorrow after having digested some of this and considered what I hear here and again hand this guy his ass on a politically intellectual platter.

Again, normally I dont go to another group to help me formulate my thoughts, but this week is nuts and this guy has got me angry, so some help would be appreciated.

I will be glad to distribute the link to the discussion after a couple more rounds.
A

hillertexas
02-04-2008, 11:31 PM
hmmm...maybe check this thread for ideas: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=105750

And welcome to the forum, Armando! :)

driller80545
02-04-2008, 11:41 PM
I will try to help althought there are people on these forums who are better debaters than I am.
Al Queda is a fanatical subset of Islam. Similar to the fanatical Christians that blow up abortion clinics. Al Queda interprets the Koran to suit their purposes just as fantatical Christians interpret the Bible to suit their agenda. This is common to all fanatical cults: KKK, Aryian Nation, SDS, etc.
These people are criminals that do not represent a country or a religion in the middle east any more so than the fanatical militias in US represent us.
Dr. Paul has said that these groups need to be pursued and prosecuted as criminals, not countries. Marque of reprisal or something like that.
I am sure that someone more eloquent will expound on this idea.

hawks4ronpaul
02-04-2008, 11:46 PM
I do not see the problem. The article is mostly a screed against leftists and has little to do with rock-ribbed conservative Ron Paul.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

slamhead
02-04-2008, 11:50 PM
I will try to help althought there are people on these forums who are better debaters than I am.
Al Queda is a fanatical subset of Islam. Similar to the fanatical Christians that blow up abortion clinics. Al Queda interprets the Koran to suit their purposes just as fantatical Christians interpret the Bible to suit their agenda. This is common to all fanatical cults: KKK, Aryian Nation, SDS, etc.
These people are criminals that do not represent a country or a religion in the middle east any more so than the fanatical militias in US represent us.
Dr. Paul has said that these groups need to be pursued and prosecuted as criminals, not countries. Marque of reprisal or something like that.
I am sure that someone more eloquent will expound on this idea.

Leters of Maque and Reprisal. And to add upon this. These people are dangerous and should be taken seriously. It is Dr. Paul's point that a foreign policy of intervention does not help us defeat these people as hatred towards the west grows it makes it easier for the radical ideology to take root and the recruiting of new members that much easier. Think of it as this. Two ideologies thrive in chaos. Islamofacisism and Neoconservativism.

ArmandoP
02-05-2008, 12:22 AM
ok, Ive got all of this already, I guess it would help it I put it in context....
Thanks for your help thus far, Im sure Ill get plenty more on this.



PART OF MY PREVIOUS ENTRY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN TRUE NEOCON FASHION

ap wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming perception is reality is a grave mistake that many otherwise intelligent people make.
Go read the 9/11 commission report that our own CIA put out (from which Paul was referring to in your quote) and then come back and try to argue your point with any kind of authority.
When did listening become obeying?
How do you get converting to islam from a statement that we should listen to what our enemies have to say? <end quote>

HIS RESPONSE QUOTING THIS TEXT:

Oh really? Here is Ron Paul in his own words:
"One thing you definitely will not see in the [9/11] Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe."

Why does "listening" to islamic fascism mean obeying or converting. Because Islamic Fascism does not negotiate. This is the Bin Laden's point of view as summarized by middle east scholar and library of congress researcher Raymond Ibrahim:

"So too with other Western notions such as tolerance and “dialogue,” which bin Laden correctly asserts are “built on Western conceptions, which themselves rest upon the most loathsome, secular principles.” Indeed, bin Laden has a strong case, for he appeals for evidence to the life and practices of Mohammed and his companions — along with the Koran the Muslim’s guide to every aspect of life — and asks sarcastically,“What evidence is there for Muslims for this [dialogue and shared understanding]? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover ‘shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread — in such a satanic manner as this?”

History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument,“‘radical’ Islam is Islam — without exception.” In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his “Loyalty and Enmity” that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4:“‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’” On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.

--

This is what Ron Paul wants to "listen" to. This is why many, including Rudy Giuliani, and myself, disavow Mr. Paul's foreign policy position as lunacy.

ArmandoP
02-05-2008, 12:23 AM
in the end, Ive so far only agreed with one thing this guys has said.... McCain is a liberal in conservative clothing.

Goldwater Conservative
02-05-2008, 12:43 AM
A post of mine from another thread:


Withdrawal would lead to chaos? As long as we're there, violence will remain high, since we're the target:

"Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday. (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Basra.php)"

Nation-building strengthens our national defense? Quite the contrary, it weakens us by spreading us thin, bankrupting us, and galvanizing people to take up arms against us:

"The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, a commission charged by Congress reported Thursday. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22935996/)"

Since we haven't raised taxes to fight this war and maintain this overall foreign policy of policing other countries, how do you think we get the money? That's right, we borrow from Communist China, which means they have us by our economic testicles and can tell us what to do at the threat of calling us on our debt to them. Between that and inflating our money supply, our currency collapses. As we learned from the Soviet Union (and every other empire in history), when the economy collapses, so does the military strength.

Ron Paul gets more donations from veterans and members of our military than all other Republican candidates combined, and more than any candidate of either party. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/211/q4-fec-reports-ron-paul-receives-more-military-donations-than-all-other-republicans-combined/) They understand that his foreign policy positions make the most sense (and is supported by research, read up on "blowback"). Meddling in the internal affairs of other countries was happening before 9/11.

Remember how the Republicans viciously criticized Clinton for going into Haiti, Kosovo, etc.? Remember how we supported the overthrow of the Shah, only to have? Remember how we backed bin Laden and al-Qaeda when they were fighting the Soviets? Hell, remember how we buddied up with Saddam-led Iraq for several years, even allowing him to acquire from us the WMDs we would later berate him for having?

Well, considering Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had far fewer terrorists before the invasion, was much more stable before the invasion, and was under secular rule before the invasion, this is nothing more than a continuation of those same ill-conceived Democrat-concocted policies (read up on "neoconservatives," aka leftists who slowly took over the upper echelons of the GOP and used to be laughed at as "the crazies").

Ron Paul had it right when he pondered aloud in one of the debates something along the lines of "we borrow $10 billion from the Chinese, give it to a military dictator in Pakistan who we're now working to undermine, even as we promote democracy in Iraq."

And we don't even bother to look for bin Laden anymore, despite the fact he's probably in the mountains between a country we occupy and a supposed ally of ours whose military dictatorship we fund. That's why Paul has put forth legislation to use letters of marque and reprisal to hunt down and kill or bring to justice bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda. Terrorism requires small-scale, tactical operations with an emphasis on intelligence-gathering and human resources, not the wholesale invasion and occupation of entire countries.

Even Ronald Reagan decried nation-building (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4), and learned firsthand its follies when he pulled troops out of Lebanon, saying in his memoirs that he would never have had them there in the first place if he had fully understood how irrational the region's politics are.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country." - Ronald Reagan (http://www.militaryforpaul.com/reagan.html)

Speaking of conservative icons, Barry Goldwater Jr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4), son of the equally conservative Republican who paved the way for Reagan, has endorsed his former congressional colleague Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7r27Az_Mns), as well as campaigned for him.

Also, if you want further examples of how a belligerent foreign policy can have counterproductive results, you need only read about how the president of Iran is losing favor with Iran's actual ruler:

"There are numerous possible reasons for Ahmadinejad's loss of support, but analysts here all point to one overriding factor: the U.S. National Intelligence Report last month, which said that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure. The report sharply decreased the threat of a military strike against Iran, allowing the authorities to focus on domestic issues, with important parliamentary elections looming in March. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/africa/tehran.php)"

John McCain has a 90.9% chance of winning the GOP nomination (http://www.intrade.com/) according to the election prediction markets, which have a better predictive track record than polling, at the time that I write this. Why vote for a sure winner? At least cast a protest vote. Paul will probably outlast both Huckabee and Romney to become McCain's only remaining rival.

By the way, McCain has flip-flopped on his position regarding withdrawal from the occupation of other countries. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyKpcivQYQ)

Ron Paul would put America first by securing our borders, strengthening our military, and following a foreign policy of national DEFENSE, which doesn't involve us getting mired in far-off lands while we're being bankrupt and left wide open to attack here at home. We should have the ability to quickly and forcefully respond to attacks or imminent threats, but otherwise we should leave everyone else alone. Anything else is not conservative, not American, and not wise.

I think I hit on all the major points. Anything I missed?

luvthedoc08
02-05-2008, 12:51 AM
I definitely think the key point to make which truly just takes the wind out of people's warmongering sails is the idea that although radical groups may exist, it's important to understand that all men are created equal and are driven by incentive. When an american bomb kills someone's family, they get angry and have incentive to join these radical groups, it's just that simple. If they disagree with this they're forced to make a blanket statement regarding a race/religion which exposes them as the racist/bigot they usually are, or they can avoid the question.

ArmandoP
02-05-2008, 09:27 AM
goldwater, you hit the nail on the head.

Normally people dont get to me, but this guy did. Im not going to mess with him anymore cause its a waste of time. however....

I will release the hounds.

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TEUKMBIOMSCD4M09O/p6

enjoy, and be ruthless.

acptulsa
02-05-2008, 09:59 AM
I definitely think the key point to make which truly just takes the wind out of people's warmongering sails is the idea that although radical groups may exist, it's important to understand that all men are created equal and are driven by incentive. When an american bomb kills someone's family, they get angry and have incentive to join these radical groups, it's just that simple. If they disagree with this they're forced to make a blanket statement regarding a race/religion which exposes them as the racist/bigot they usually are, or they can avoid the question.

Motivation is the key. This is the Alpha and the Omega of Paul's position. Remove the motivation and the warmongers won't have followers--and it's true.

Islam is based on the lessons of Mohammed's Teacher--Jesus of Nazareth. Are Christians infidels? We believe in Allah, though that's not what we call him in English. Who suggested moving a mountain with faith? Experience shows that just about any Islamic leader will negotiate with us if we use religious terms rather than secular terms in the talks--and where's the harm in that? As for coexistence, look over your Spanish history if you don't believe it can't happen. In fact, despite the fundamentals of our faith, it's most often the Christians who break the peace.

Imperialism motivates terrorists. It always has. If you want peace, stop making enemies. Remember that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq since before he got sworn in, but couldn't get even the reddest red state rednecks to back it until he could falsely accuse that nation of being vaguely implicated in 9/11.

gjdavis60
02-05-2008, 10:01 AM
Al Qaeda is a political movement that uses religion to justify its objectives and tactics. I believe it can be classified as a "revitalization movement" because it seeks to address institutionalized oppression of a people by foreign occupation, class hierarchy, ethnic division, etc.

It would be hard to dispute the profound role of the West in the Middle East throughout the last century and continuing through the present. Their borders have been redrawn by the West. Their governments have been toppled, imposed, and sustained by the West. Their natural resources have been appropriated by the West. They have been occupied at various times by various western military forces. They have been subjects of western empires. They have been displaced by western treaties and diplomatic agreements they did not negotiate.

I believe many violent political movements are rooted in oppression. This includes the rise of National Socialism in Germany, the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution to name just a few.

Why would someone want to dedicate themselves to a cause that called for them to give up their lives and the lives of their family members and friends? Perhaps because of a profound dissatisfaction with their situation combined with a sense of outrage directed at those who they perceive to be responsible.

The day that Middle Eastern countries run their own affairs without interference by the West is that day that Al Qaeda's momentum against the West will stall.

acptulsa
02-05-2008, 10:06 AM
The day that Middle Eastern countries run their own affairs without interference by the West is that day that Al Qaeda's momentum against the West will stall.

Stall? Try dry up and blow away! Gone with the wind, and Carlisle and Halliburton obscene profits right along with it.

ArmandoP
02-05-2008, 12:36 PM
IF anyone cares to chime in, here is the discussion

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/indianapolis-star/TEUKMBIOMSCD4M09O/p6#lastPost

Im tired of dealing with this guy by mself. he refuses to see any other point of view but his own. at first it was kind of fun beating him, now its just tiring.

ArmandoP
02-05-2008, 05:58 PM
no biters?

dannno
02-05-2008, 06:25 PM
wow, west clay is a jerk.

gjdavis60
02-05-2008, 06:55 PM
It's not a very interesting argument. You might want to ask West Clay to elaborate on the his justification for our meddling in the mid-east (cold war and all that), and whether he really thinks it is/was worth it. And our struggle against Communism simply can't explain all the plays we've made over there either, so you should ask him to justify things like arming the Saudis (which you mentioned and which he chose not to address) and so many other entanglements we have initiated which have come back to hurt us.