PDA

View Full Version : Fighting them "over there" vs. here




wsc321
09-08-2007, 08:58 AM
Greetings All,

Can someone help me understand (or point me to resources that explain) where a Ron Paul administration would stand on the issue of engaging in military action outside of our own borders?

Questions that come to mind are:

- When, if ever, should we send our military into another country to fight (specifically) terrorists?
- What about the notion of a "gathering threat". Do we just wait, talk and then, if all else fails, start bombing? (Don't mean to sound inflammatory.)
- Is Ron Paul in favor of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? (Debate aside over how real or soon the threat is for now.)

I'll probably think of other questions after I post this... But while Iraq is the hot issue right now, it's the larger issue of a Ron Paul administration's position on when military action WOULD be necessary that I'm trying to get to.

TurtleBurger
09-08-2007, 09:05 AM
The short answer is, the Paul administration would not make these decisions. The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. If a majority of Congress believes there is a military threat to our country, they would declare war on the enemy. At that point, Paul would take whatever military actions were necessary.

quickmike
09-08-2007, 09:36 AM
That whole "fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them over here" thing makes NO sense whatsoever.

Look at it this way. If your next door neighbor hated you and called your house threatening to come over to your house and harm you in some way, would you leave your kids home alone while you went to his house to take care of the problem? Of course not. What if your neighbor leaves out his back door and sneaks over to your house while youre walking to his?

The whole logic is screwed up.

rp08rp
09-08-2007, 09:43 AM
That whole "fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them over here" thing makes NO sense whatsoever.

Look at it this way. If your next door neighbor hated you and called your house threatening to come over to your house and harm you in some way, would you leave your kids home alone while you went to his house to take care of the problem? Of course not. What if your neighbor leaves out his back door and sneaks over to your house while youre walking to his?

The whole logic is screwed up.

EXACTLY

No one uses LOGIC anymore
Iraq could become a safe have they say, well, who the F did that?
Also, they are "SAFE" in Pakistan, lol
Why move over to Iraq, when us being there is helping recruit?

manuel
09-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Greetings All,

Can someone help me understand (or point me to resources that explain) where a Ron Paul administration would stand on the issue of engaging in military action outside of our own borders?

Questions that come to mind are:

- When, if ever, should we send our military into another country to fight (specifically) terrorists?
- What about the notion of a "gathering threat". Do we just wait, talk and then, if all else fails, start bombing? (Don't mean to sound inflammatory.)
- Is Ron Paul in favor of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? (Debate aside over how real or soon the threat is for now.)

I'll probably think of other questions after I post this... But while Iraq is the hot issue right now, it's the larger issue of a Ron Paul administration's position on when military action WOULD be necessary that I'm trying to get to.
This is, in my opinion, a good topic for discussion. I see that this is your first post, are you playing devil's advocate or are you starting to like Ron Paul's message and you're concerned about how we would "deal" with the terrorist threat or countries that "don't play nice"?

And I ask that question with no ill intention. I'm just honestly wondering.

1) To your first question, I think that once a country poses an imminent threat we could dispatch our military. That of course is subjective, so that is why the best thing is to have a majority in Congress declare war.

2) The second question relates to the first one. In my opinion, if the threat is "imminent" and Congress declares war we could defend and protect our country.

3) "Is Ron Paul in favor of allowing..."? I don't know about "allowing". It's not about allowing or not. Why are some countries "allowed" and others not? Is it up to us to decide what other countries can use as energy sources and as weapons if necessary? Are we going to go to war with Iran because they can bomb Israel? Can't Israel defend itself?

Tuck
09-08-2007, 10:49 AM
Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy is that we should mind our business and not get involved in the affairs of other countries and only use military force when our freedom or safety is at risk. He voted and supported the war in Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden but he did not approve of the Iraq war because it was a preemptive war which goes against the advice of the founding fathers.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the only one that makes sense, the problem we face with terrorism really started back in 1950 when we overthrew Mossadegh because he nationalized Iran's oil. We put in his place our on dictator the Shah. Then in 1979 the soviets invaded Afghanistan, the us was afraid that soviet influence might spread to the middle east so they started giving weapons and money to Bin Laden/Afghan mujaheddin to fight off the Soviets. At that time Osama was considered our friend and ally.

Back in Iran Ayatollah lead a revolution in Iran and created the islamic republic of Iran. In 1980 Iran and Iraq couldn't agree about their borders so they started the Iran-Iraq war, the United States wasn't too happy with Ayatollah's lead in the revolution so they teamed up and became an ally of Saddam. They gave him billions in weapons and financing to attack and invade Iran. Iran managed to hold off Saddam's army and Iraq later retreated and the war was over in 1988.

But now that Saddam had received so much weapons and financing from the United States he was powerful enough to attack his neighbor to the south, Kuwait. We had oil interests there too so now we had to join up with Kuwait to fight Saddam. Our friends in Saudi Arabia were worried that they may be attacked too so President George Bush Sr. decided to help them out by creating "operation desert shield" which would put 500,000 armed soldiers in Saudi Arabia. With Kuwait armed forces we managed to fight off Saddam's army but decided we probably shouldn't actually invade Iraq, our current vice president did a good job of explaining why in 1994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk

But now we had an even bigger problem because Osama was outraged that we put armed troops in Saudi Arabia and this is when he went from being our friend and ally to vowing to bankrupt our country. And as you know, he has managed to attack us on more than 1 occasion and plans to do so again in the future.

Those 5 decades of history are pretty crazy but i'm more worried about the next 5 decades. We have been trying to maintain and control the middle east for too long now and the only thing our foreign policy has managed to accomplished to do is create more hate towards America and more enemies. Even to this day we are sending $20 billion dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and increasing our aid to $30 billion dollars for Israel. Of course Hamas won't be too happy about that, which isn't good for us because they keep sneaking across the southern border with the help of Venezuela. And its not as if we can put up a giant wall or anything seeing as how we have to borrow $3 billion dollars a day just to pay off the interests on all the money we owe to foreign investors.

The weapons deal for Saudi Arabia isn't exactly the best choice either seeing as how Saudi Arabian sunni's are the ones who are responsible for 50% of the attacks on our soldiers in Iraq and the Iranian shiites keep fighting the sunni's just like they have for thousands of years meanwhile our soldiers are stuck in the middle of their conflict and used as target practice for al queda.

As for Iran, that has been another big failure of our foreign policy because we actually helped them start their nuclear program. In 1997 the people of Iran elected Khatami in to power who promised to ease social restrictions and improve Iran's relations with the West. He was elected again in 2001 but then in 2002 when Bush labeled the axis of evil as Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea Khatami started getting pressured by Iranian conservatives. n 2004 Colin Powell calls for international sanctions against Iran, then in 2005 Ahmadinejad is elected which marks the death of Khatami's attempts at building stronger relations with the west for Iran.

Obviously the Iranian people are afraid that the US will do what it has done in the past, either by overthrowing their elected leaders, funding wars of invasion against them or maybe even invading Iran ourselves. Yet here we are to this day drawing up plans to attack them and making threats instead of trying to sit down with them in the same way we did with N. Korea who is now giving up its nuclear program.

Brandybuck
09-08-2007, 12:59 PM
- When, if ever, should we send our military into another country to fight (specifically) terrorists?
When it's for self defense. Ron Paul favored intervention in Afghanistan, because that country knowingly harbored and trained the terrorists that attacked us. It was an accessory to the attack. But we've removed that government and another is in its place. We should leave now.

Iraq was not a threat to us. Even if they still had their WMDs, they still weren't a threat to us. Claims that Saddam also harbored and trained terrorists is based on the most tenuous and circumstantial of evidence. Gulf War I was justified (in my opinion) because Iraq attacked our trading partner Kuwait. But act of aggression did Iraq commit to either us or our friends to justify Gulf War II?

Ironically, Iraq was a check on Iran. With Iraq out of the way, Iran is once again rattling sabers in the face of the world. Smooth move, Ex-Lax!


What about the notion of a "gathering threat". Do we just wait, talk and then, if all else fails, start bombing? (Don't mean to sound inflammatory.)
If you know an attack is imminent, you strike first. Bush tried to make the case that Iraq as an "imminent threat", but he was completely wrong. Iraq was never an imminent threat. Hell, it wasn't even a gathering threat, it just had a dictator with a puffed chest.

I know of no nation state today that is a "gathering threat" to us. But there is a gathering threat of terrorist individuals and organizations. We need to work with other nations to stop terrorism. We need to treat that problem as a crime, and not an act of war.


- Is Ron Paul in favor of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? (Debate aside over how real or soon the threat is for now.)
We shouldn't attack to stop it. Israel has nukes, and is not a threat to us. India has nukes and is not a threat to us. Many nations have nukes and we are fine with it. Iran should be no different. To take an analogy, we don't go shoot our neighbor just because he's thinking about buying a handgun for self defense.

When is it legitimate to use military force? That's easy. For self defense. In a few rare corner cases that self defense can be proactive. But such is not the case in the Middle East. The neo-cons are using the military for nation building and reshaping. Soldiers are very good at killing people and breaking things, but they are very bad at exporting democracy and good will.

wsc321
09-08-2007, 01:37 PM
Wow - what a great thread of replies! Especially the last two from Tuck and Brandybuck... I feel like I owe you a cup of coffee or something. :)

FWIW, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Just signed up to a newly formed local Meetup recently, and going to our first meeting tomorrow night. My wife and mom are onboard, too.

What led to this question was an exchange with another family member who is inspired by Paul, and like 90% ready to support him, but still very concerned about what he thinks would be sort of... well, as I've heard detractors try to argue, an "Ostrich" policy toward Islamic terrorism.

We're in an environment of extreme spin (I'm sure you know), where arguments can take place based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. (I think the gist of this topic may be an example.) So - very much appreciate the thoughtful responses. Thanks again!

BTW: Don't you think this general topic will be the focus of the O'Reilly show with Ron Paul on Monday? Any predictions?

Razmear
09-08-2007, 02:31 PM
Smacking a hornets nest in your neighbors yard does nothing to protect you from the wasps in your yard. Best not to make the bees angry in the first place.

Scribbler de Stebbing
09-08-2007, 02:59 PM
We ARE bringing them here, 25,000 Iraqi refugees at Bush's invitation. The UN would have us take 75,000. This is obviously very dangerous as Iraq was responsible for 9/11, as we now know.

Cowlesy
09-08-2007, 03:03 PM
Wow - what a great thread of replies! Especially the last two from Tuck and Brandybuck... I feel like I owe you a cup of coffee or something. :)

FWIW, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Just signed up to a newly formed local Meetup recently, and going to our first meeting tomorrow night. My wife and mom are onboard, too.

What led to this question was an exchange with another family member who is inspired by Paul, and like 90% ready to support him, but still very concerned about what he thinks would be sort of... well, as I've heard detractors try to argue, an "Ostrich" policy toward Islamic terrorism.

We're in an environment of extreme spin (I'm sure you know), where arguments can take place based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. (I think the gist of this topic may be an example.) So - very much appreciate the thoughtful responses. Thanks again!

BTW: Don't you think this general topic will be the focus of the O'Reilly show with Ron Paul on Monday? Any predictions?



That's great! Keep asking questions---it's the only way to further develop intellectually. I know I have after really taking an objective view at everything going on in the world. I hope you have a great time at your first Meetup meeting!

JosephTheLibertarian
09-08-2007, 03:08 PM
Greetings All,

Can someone help me understand (or point me to resources that explain) where a Ron Paul administration would stand on the issue of engaging in military action outside of our own borders?

Questions that come to mind are:

- When, if ever, should we send our military into another country to fight (specifically) terrorists?

When Congress declares war.


What about the notion of a "gathering threat". Do we just wait, talk and then, if all else fails, start bombing? (Don't mean to sound inflammatory.)

Again, we go through Congress. This is the constitutional way. The president does not have the authority to go to war, only in rare instances would he be allowed to.


- Is Ron Paul in favor of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? (Debate aside over how real or soon the threat is for now.)

No, he is in favor of following the constitution.


I'll probably think of other questions after I post this... But while Iraq is the hot issue right now, it's the larger issue of a Ron Paul administration's position on when military action WOULD be necessary that I'm trying to get to.

He isn't a pacifist, he believes in following the constitution. Bush has violated the constitution, only congress can declare war. Ron Paul has proposed a vote on war, yet the congress didn't want to vote on it, they illegally passed authority to Bush... that's a violation of the constitution

michaelwise
09-08-2007, 04:18 PM
I'm only going to say this once.
#1 I have a better chance of hitting the mega powerball lottery, or getting struck by lighting, than getting killed by AL-Kieda in this country.

#2 I don't feel any safer now than I did before 9/11, because our southern border is still wide open, and anybody can waltz across the border any time they want.

#3 Why do we need to fight them over there when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on homeland security here. Just 1 more attack here, and all that money spent will appear to be a waste of money.

#4 If Israel is attacked with a nuc by Iran, Israel can turn Iran into a sheet of glass within a matter of hours, with their nuclear subs, and 300 nuclear missiles. Israel can use the one sided assured destruction cold war defense against Iran, to keep Iran in their place. Yes It's that simple.

#5 Use the money we are spending in Iraq, on weeding out the illegals here, and heavily screen the bad guys from getting into this country in the first place.

speciallyblend
09-08-2007, 04:21 PM
Answer When We Declare ;)